It’s election time once again for many, if not all, organizations. Elections wouldn’t be complete without any competition. This, I guess, where respect for the other, in this case, the opponent, would be tested. Of course, every candidate would want to win and be elected for the desired position right? But I guess this is where Levinas comes in. Where exactly is that limit for competition? For me, putting Levinas into context, I think it is when you start to objectify the other through judgements, for instance. Here, respect should be greatly manifested.
By judging the opponent, one starts to objectify the other especially when the basis of such judgment is solely based on a candidacy document posted for public viewing, where it contains the plans and platform of the candidate. The mere description, or so this so called, knowledge, towards the other limits the alterity of the other – the otherness of the other. Shouldn’t we give chance to others to explain themselves? Shouldn’t we give that space wherein the other would be allowed to show his/her true self?
Upon hearing this instance of a candidate judging the other, what suddenly came to me was this concept of Levinas, the alerity of the other. How can one be himself/herself if we have this preconception of what the other is? How will we see the otherness of the other, since the interaction of the other is always an event? By this description of the other, he/she is confined to your idea of the him/herself. As a result, this prevents the other to be an event, someone of surprises. Similar to what we do to objects, we describe it based on its appearance, and because we know the characteristics of objects are finite – there is no event occurring.
I guess the point I’m trying to say here is that we may have our differences. We may have our unique wants and interests compared to the other, but we have to take a step back and see a clearer and wider picture of the whole; that we have commonalities; that we boil down to the same being. Thus we must learn to respect and understand others for their uniqueness. After all, we will never be exactly the same from one another. There will always be that set of differences that will set us apart no matter how much one tries to mimic the other.
I agree that beyond each one's uniqueness, "we have commonalities", and I think this is where "All being is in Being" connects in that, despite the fact that the other is "completely Other", that we cannot grasp and know a person fully, there is still something that connects us all and in this case, what drove these candidates to run in the first place? The desire to serve (most probably, but again, we cannot be so sure). -Nicole Nuguid, Ph 102 C
ReplyDeleteTruly, everyone has their own uniqueness that must equally be respected. I find the topic on the Face to be very much applicable here wherein we cannot label people nor have our preconceived notions rule over as others cannot simply be reduced and grasp. That is why experience is important as this is how people are revealed to you more and this is only possible by being open to possibilities and doing away with any presuppositions in any circumstances including elections.
ReplyDeleteJohann Pe
Ph 102 Section A
When you say, "There will always be that set of differences that will set us apart no matter how much one tries to mimic the other." It makes me wonder why we discriminate in the first place, when we know there's nothing we can do to make everyone look and act the same. I believe that God made us different from each other because it is our differences that help us reach for the true meaning of being human. God didn't think there was anything wrong with people being born different from the rest so why should we think any different?
ReplyDeleteJan Weslee Lim
PH 102 C