The Exigency of Ethics: Interpolating Lévinasian Proximity into Kant’s Approximation

IF 0.3 Q3 Arts and Humanities
Simeon Theojaya
{"title":"The Exigency of Ethics: Interpolating Lévinasian Proximity into Kant’s Approximation","authors":"Simeon Theojaya","doi":"10.5325/jjewiethi.8.2.0207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Kant perceives moral theology as the real, foundational theology (1788, 1817), and Lévinas nominates ethics as the first philosophy (1961, 1982)—or the first foundational theology (Purcell 2006). They emphasize the primacy of ethics over theoretical-speculative theology and ontological reasoning for different reasons. After Lévinas’s critical appraisal of Kant’s revolutionary proposal (1971), scholars have considered some resolutions to the remaining discrepancies related to their disposition toward ontology and reasoning method (Atterton 1999; Steinbock 2009; Truwant 2014). On a larger scale, Llewelyn (2000), Chalier (2002), and Basterra (2015) develop constructive approaches to overlapping themes. This study focuses on Lévinas’s less-discussed idea, i.e., proximity as the signification of infinite responsibility. The author argues that Lévinas’s notion of proximity amounts to Kant’s constant moral approximation—which provides the basis for the exigency of ethics. However, Levinasian proximity promotes radical passivity and does not borrow the premises of Kantian nomistic coherence. Lévinas construes moral approximation as a passive synthesis because infinite responsibility does not stem from the egological free being. Instead, proximity signifies that infinite responsibility arises from the Infinite that encompasses a subject, irrespective of their rationality and experience.","PeriodicalId":40209,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Jewish Ethics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Jewish Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jjewiethi.8.2.0207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Kant perceives moral theology as the real, foundational theology (1788, 1817), and Lévinas nominates ethics as the first philosophy (1961, 1982)—or the first foundational theology (Purcell 2006). They emphasize the primacy of ethics over theoretical-speculative theology and ontological reasoning for different reasons. After Lévinas’s critical appraisal of Kant’s revolutionary proposal (1971), scholars have considered some resolutions to the remaining discrepancies related to their disposition toward ontology and reasoning method (Atterton 1999; Steinbock 2009; Truwant 2014). On a larger scale, Llewelyn (2000), Chalier (2002), and Basterra (2015) develop constructive approaches to overlapping themes. This study focuses on Lévinas’s less-discussed idea, i.e., proximity as the signification of infinite responsibility. The author argues that Lévinas’s notion of proximity amounts to Kant’s constant moral approximation—which provides the basis for the exigency of ethics. However, Levinasian proximity promotes radical passivity and does not borrow the premises of Kantian nomistic coherence. Lévinas construes moral approximation as a passive synthesis because infinite responsibility does not stem from the egological free being. Instead, proximity signifies that infinite responsibility arises from the Infinite that encompasses a subject, irrespective of their rationality and experience.
伦理学的迫切性:将lsamvinasian的接近性插入康德的近似
康德认为道德神学是真正的、基础的神学(1788年、1817年),而l vinas认为伦理学是第一哲学(1961年、1982年)——或者是第一基础神学(Purcell 2006年)。出于不同的原因,他们强调伦理学高于理论思辨神学和本体论推理。在lsamvinas对康德的革命建议进行批判性评价(1971)之后,学者们考虑了一些解决方案,以解决与他们对本体论和推理方法的倾向有关的剩余差异(Atterton 1999;小羚羊2009;Truwant 2014)。在更大的范围内,Llewelyn(2000)、Chalier(2002)和Basterra(2015)提出了解决重叠主题的建设性方法。本研究的重点是l vinas较少讨论的观点,即接近是无限责任的意义。作者认为,lsamvinas的接近概念相当于康德永恒的道德接近,这为伦理学的紧迫性提供了基础。然而,列文式的接近促进了激进的被动,并没有借用康德的唯名论连贯的前提。lsamvinas将道德近似解释为一种被动的综合,因为无限的责任并非源于自我的自由存在。相反,接近意味着无限的责任产生于包含一个主体的无限,而不管他们的理性和经验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信