Over the past
few years I have been exposed to the thought of Emmanuel Levinas. He uniquely brings the Western intellectual
tradition face to face with the Jewish tradition. Through this encounter the Western tradition
is called to task for its preoccupation with Being and is called to
responsibility for the Other (I realize that these terms are not yet clear). I am still muddling my way through Levinas’
work. However, I believe that there is
much that can be gained by sharing. I
hope that by calling my friends into a dialogue about his works I will benefit
them (by exposing them to something of great value) and that this will help me
work through my thoughts and come to a deeper understanding of Levinas. The best place to start is with Levinas’
descriptions of the Greek and Jewish (which he refers to as the tradition of
Revelation).
In the Greek tradition,
reason
is solid and positive; it begins with all meaning to which all meaning must
return in order to be assimilated to the Same, in spite of the whole appearance
it may give of having come from outside.
Nothing in this reason can cause the fission in the nuclear solidity of
a thought which thinks in correlation with the world’s positivity, which thinks
from its starting point of the vast repose of the cosmos; a thought which
freezes its object in the theme, which always thinks to its measure, which
thinks knowingly. (Levinas, 2007, p. 144)
The tradition
of Revelation, according to Levinas is,
a
relation with exteriority which, unlike the exteriority with which man
surrounds himself whenever he seeks knowledge, does not become simply the
content of interiority, but remains ‘uncontainable’, infinite and yet still
maintaining a relation. (Levinas, 2007, p. 144)
Next time I will try to provide some commentary to explain what Levinas is talking about. For the meantime
I would love to hear your thoughts, impressions, questions.
References
Levinas, E. (2007). Beyond the verse: Talmudic
readings and lectures. (G. D. Mole, Trans.) New York: Continuum.
Comments
It should be said that Levinas is not necessarily denigrating the Greek tradition--only opening us up to its limitation. The d'varim of Torah Sh'baal Peh lead to "thinking knowingly" about mitzvot, but, this is not the ultimate end...it is a necessity of a normative system. Perhaps the Rambam's poetic mottos for each Sefer point to this uncontainable telos of halakha.
Every descriptive poetic reading about the relation of a perceived element in our world, leads to a defined davar in which this described element is redeemed from a personal description and seen in the intelligible order.
This in turn leads to a new descriptive reading and seeking a superior defined davar which more closer shows the place of the part in the intelligible order.
This view, not only in dvarim ketanim, but also in dvarim gedolim, seems to be a cyclical one.
One perceives an event, an interaction within the limited sense of its relation to my personal experience. One feels this and clarifies it through describing it poetically, or in a narrative or a case study.
This leads to greater clarity and ultimately a davar, a concept, which connects to a larger theory and ultimately to the notion of Chochmaso pointing to Him as the Matzui rishon mamtzi kol hanimtza.
This davar is limited and in turn leads to another personal experience and so on.
In the citizens action, the person must act on a plan of action first tested in tefilla. The tfilla requires universal concepts of redemption as this citizen can act upon it. This personal plan must be put before Hashem which is the end of an intellectual shift from poetic notions to davar, not mere personal dibbur. Yaakov's action in relations with Esav emerged from a core breakthrough in notions, forged from struggle to transcend his limiting narrative of sibling rivalry, in favor of a new sense of his place in the redemptive journey of civilization. This tfilla of course led to many more clarifications of divrei tfilla and action as time went on.
In the case of dvarim gedolim this is also the case. prior to ahava, there must be a formulation of davar which causes focus on seeking the Shem hagadol. Of course, the davar is inadequate as no man can see Him and live. This leads to a next stage of reserch into superior davar.
In