Looking at responsibility within a Lévinasian sense, human beings are firstly seen not in the philosophically traditional sense, of being egocentric, but rather seen as ethical subjects based on “the other” (Lévinas & Hand, 1989). The purpose of this paper is to examine the notion of responsibility as Lévinas conceptualized in the idea that human beings are responsible for not only themselves but for others. Lévinas within “Ethics as First Philosophy” (Lévinas & Hand, 1989) states that before all other forms (...) of being in the world there must be responsibility to the Other (Lévinas & Hand, 1989). Lévinas defines this to mean that before freedom of the subject, and their subjectivity, before self-consciousness, before the consciousness of consciousness, before being, and before relativity there is “responsibility for the Other pre-exists any self-consciousness” (Lévinas & Hand, 1989, p.75). Perhaps, Lévinas is saying that a human beings obligation comes before all of what follows from our being in this world, our obligation to the Other beginning with the “face to face” (Lévinas & Hand, 1989, p.75), interaction, which is our first and foremost responsibility, the responsibility to the Other. And to be ethical beings who begin with responsibility we rely on the fundamental relationship of others. This notion of responsibility appears when we encounter, in the face-to-face interaction, the unknowable other. However, does this responsibility extend to more than two individuals and to those outside our immediate proximity? For example, Lévinas states that it is the “face to face” notion of seeing one in distress, yet what if it is a group of people, and what if they are not in close proximity but on the other side of the world? What if they are on the other side of a screen that can also be artificial intelligence in our modern era. Are we still responsible? And if we are responsible, how does Lévinas’s concept of responsibility fit into that situation or is it limited? I want to examine responsibility in terms of proximity through a Lévinasian ethical lens and plurality, defined as more than two individuals, by questioning responsibility in terms of relationality, and vulnerability. I will be looking mainly at five authors Emmanuel Lévinas, Ernst Van Alphen, Judith Butler, Kevin Quashi, and Lisa Guenther, to answer the question of whether Lévinas’s definition of responsibility includes proximity, and plurality. (shrink)

Purpose:The research aims to see the effect of using digital books based on the RANDAI learning model on students' problem-solving skills and information literacy in biology learning. -/- Theoritical Framework: The integration of local wisdom will make the material more contextual so that learning becomes more meaningful. Digital books that are integrated with local wisdom can be concretized through digital books based on the RANDAI learning model. -/- Methodology:The study was conducted at a secondary school in the province of West (...) Sumatra, Indonesia. The learning applied in this study uses the theoretical framework of the RANDAI model (Reciting, Analyzing the problem, Narrating the solution, Doing the solution, Assessing the solution, and Implementing the solution) which is problem-based learning integrated with local wisdom. Data collection was carried out through a test referring to Polya's problem-solving skills while for information literacy using a questionnaire referring to the Association of College and Research Library indicators. Data were analyzed using a parametric t-test and n-gain analysis. -/- Result and discussion: This study found that problem-solving skills and information literacy through learning with the RANDAI learning model assisted by digital books can promote students' problem-solving skills in science learning. -/- Conclusion: the RANDAI learning model with the help of digital books has an effect on the problem-solving abilities and information literacy of high school students. (shrink)