The Problem with Levinas by Critchley Simon Dianda Alexis & Alexis Dianda

Author:Critchley, Simon, Dianda, Alexis & Alexis Dianda
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780198738763
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Published: 2015-04-14T16:00:00+00:00

The Weak Syntax of Scepticism

For Levinas, ethics is articulated ambiguously in terms of the circulation of the Saying and the Said. But what do these terms mean, the Saying and the Said? Though you won’t find it in Levinas, this is my gloss. The Said is what we’re doing now. It’s the discourse we use; it’s the propositional discourse of totality, ontology, and comprehension. The Saying is that pre-propositional experience of language that takes place in relation to the Other. As soon as the Saying is expressed philosophically, it becomes the Said. It is betrayed in being translated, “Traduire, c’est trahir,” as Levinas repeatedly says. In other words, there is no pure Saying. The Saying has to be expressed, and when it’s expressed, it’s expressed as a Said. Does that mean there’s a straightforward contradiction in Levinas’ approach? That’s the central argument in Derrida’s “Violence and Metaphysics.” Derrida’s claim is that Levinas wants to proclaim the primacy of ethics (the good beyond being, responsibility to the other), but he is obliged to do so philosophically, with propositions. Therefore, Levinas’ attempt to leave ontology requires ontology. In other words, he’s a nice guy, his heart is in the right place, but he’s confused. He wants the Saying but he has to do it within the Said, and so he contradicts his purpose. So there is, as they used to say ad nauseam in Frankfurt in the 1980s, a “performative self-contradiction” in Levinas’ thought.

Now, Levinas was not that dumb. Levinas’ response to Derrida’s critique was to introduce a model for thinking about the problem of ethical language through the distinction between scepticism and the refutation of scepticism. You can find this towards the end of Otherwise than Being, in those few pages called “Skepticism and Reason.” Very crudely, Levinas’ argument is the following: the moment the sceptic begins to speak, they’ve been refuted. We know this because we’ve all read Plato’s Protagoras or the other Socratic dialogues where the sceptic/the sophist says “all truth is subjective.” Socrates replies, “Well, in order to say all truth is subjective, you’re appealing to the objective conditions of possibility that make communication possible! These conditions aren’t subjective so you’ve contradicted yourself. So, shut up!” Scepticism is, by definition, self-contradictory and self-refuting. It cannot withstand philosophical refutation. Levinas thinks that’s right. Incidentally, I’m very interested in ancient scepticism. It’s an area of the history of philosophy that isn’t properly appreciated. Of course, we have to remember that Plato’s Academy itself fell under the influence of scepticism through the teaching of Arcesilaus and Carneades. Now, to argue for the primacy of the ethical Saying is, in a sense, to try and defend a sceptical position, yet scepticism is refuted. But Levinas’ deeper point is that in being refuted, scepticism still returns. In refuting scepticism, scepticism comes back. Levinas describes scepticism as le revenant (the revenant, ghost, or spectre). Scepticism is what philosophy exorcizes and yet it still returns, like a ghost. This is why Levinas will say, and this is another phrase Blanchot was fascinated with, “Language is already skepticism.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.