Unsaying the said: Emmanuel Levinas and the Zhuangzi on linguistic scepticism

IF 0.3 0 PHILOSOPHY
M. Berenpas
{"title":"Unsaying the said: Emmanuel Levinas and the Zhuangzi on linguistic scepticism","authors":"M. Berenpas","doi":"10.1386/EJPC.10.1.87_1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article I compare the linguistic skepticism of Levinas to that of the early Daoist skepticism of the Zhuangzi. I will argue that both Levinas as the Zhuangzi use skepticism as a therapeutic tool to question the rigid use of language and to create an openness in the self in which the self is inspired by something more than itself. For Levinas, language is primarily a response-ability; language ultimately refers to the absolute responsibility to the Other. For the Zhuangzi, words are simply too rigid to attune to the subtle differences and changes in the world. Through care- free wandering, the self becomes more receptive to the unfolding of the way (Dao). Both the Zhuangzi as Levinas see language not only as a system of references that is able to convey the world, but also see language as communication; as a response to the outside world. For Levinas, this response-ability is aimed at the Other and is primarily an ethical demand. For the Zhuangzi, genuine language is more a spon- taneous receptivity; a wandering with words in which words are open to different interpretations and perspectives. In the end of this article I will argue that Levinas and the Zhuangzi see language as a communicative praxis that mirrors receptivity and passivity.","PeriodicalId":40280,"journal":{"name":"Empedocles-European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Empedocles-European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1386/EJPC.10.1.87_1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article I compare the linguistic skepticism of Levinas to that of the early Daoist skepticism of the Zhuangzi. I will argue that both Levinas as the Zhuangzi use skepticism as a therapeutic tool to question the rigid use of language and to create an openness in the self in which the self is inspired by something more than itself. For Levinas, language is primarily a response-ability; language ultimately refers to the absolute responsibility to the Other. For the Zhuangzi, words are simply too rigid to attune to the subtle differences and changes in the world. Through care- free wandering, the self becomes more receptive to the unfolding of the way (Dao). Both the Zhuangzi as Levinas see language not only as a system of references that is able to convey the world, but also see language as communication; as a response to the outside world. For Levinas, this response-ability is aimed at the Other and is primarily an ethical demand. For the Zhuangzi, genuine language is more a spon- taneous receptivity; a wandering with words in which words are open to different interpretations and perspectives. In the end of this article I will argue that Levinas and the Zhuangzi see language as a communicative praxis that mirrors receptivity and passivity.
言说:列维纳斯与庄子的语言怀疑论
在本文中,我将列维纳斯的语言怀疑主义与庄子早期道家的怀疑主义进行比较。我认为列维纳斯和庄子都将怀疑主义作为一种治疗工具,来质疑语言的僵化使用,并在自我中创造一种开放,在这种开放中,自我受到比自身更多的东西的启发。对列维纳斯来说,语言主要是一种反应能力;语言最终指的是对他者的绝对责任。对于庄子来说,文字太死板了,无法适应世界上细微的差异和变化。通过无牵挂的漫游,自我变得更容易接受道的展开。庄子和列维纳斯都认为语言不仅是一种能够传达世界的参考系统,而且还认为语言是一种交流;作为对外界的回应。对列维纳斯来说,这种反应能力是针对他者的,主要是一种伦理要求。对庄子来说,真正的语言更多的是一种自发的接受;一种与文字的漫游,在这种漫游中,文字可以有不同的解释和视角。在本文的最后,我将论证列维纳斯和庄子将语言视为一种反映接受性和被动性的交际实践。
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
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信