by Alex Fong
11 December 2012
Discussed Text: Levinas, "Love and Filiation," Ethics and Infinity
I will begin by saying I see nothing wrong in the philosophers use of “femininity” for his definition of the other. I mean, at face it might seem sexist, especially delving in to the whole: “passive,” and “weak,” characteristics he assigned to the other but understandably, as a man, it is only instinctive for him to think of an other, a female, because only naturally, will every man want to believe there is another out there for him.
In the beginning of our talks of the philosophy of the human being, we gave a great deal of importance to realizing the other. Part of being is also being for others, being among others, and being conscious of the presence of others. This made me have this assumption that individually, we are selfish in nature, selfish and unconscious, and therefore inconsiderate. This new idea of the other as feminine, or as a female, changes my thinking a little bit though.
A realization that man is in fact always going to be conscious of perhaps not the other, but at the very least, an other, is in order. Every man will seek out his “loved one,” or not wish to carry on his life without companionship, so I do believe from the perception of a male philosopher, that using “feminine” as an icon of otherness, could be spot on. The whole idea of knowing that there is an other and we are all together, could root from this beginning. Although we only started talking about the other in this way, I think, this could catch on to something. This could lead to further discussion, and allow young philosophers to draw further insights. And when it does, ..leave them below in the comments section.
A relationship is "union in separation". You love a separate Being. People usually assume that a couple can represent one person, however, by doing so you lose an Other. You can never grasp the whole of the Other, but learn to accept and trust in one another.
ReplyDeletePhilo class has taught me that we have to be separate Beings, a "duality of two complementary terms," so there is a pre-existing whole.
Hokulea Cabrera
PH102-A
As a female, I disagree with you. It does seem sexist when the definition of the other is seen as feminine, weak, and passive. Ever since the start of Ph 101, Doc Garcia has been teaching us to see the term "human" in a different light, that it is the same as male and/ or female. If so, why couldn't have the "I" been the one that was the feminine, weak, and passive; while the other was the masculine, strong and active one? Could it have been because Levinas was male and saw through the perspective of "I" while he was thinking about this? Also, if we are being taught of being open-mindedness, isn't it narrow minded of Levinas to think that what completes a man is a woman? Nowadays, it's not just the opposite gender; it can be a woman-woman or man-man (although i'm leaning more towards the traditional man-woman, it can be a point of discussion).
ReplyDeleteFor me, "Love and Filiation" talks about love for the other not in a romantic relationship manner, but in the way that we should give love to others in general - love for our friends, the less fortunate, etc. It doesn't mean that this other is weaker or feminine; it just means that we are living in a world where the other exists and that it is our ethical responsibility to take care of the other.
-M. Cua, Ph102 A
I have been called a feminist or a man-hater before but surprisingly, Levinas' words only partially offended me. I'm not in rage or anything about this. The fact that he sees the feminine as the other is understandable for me. The Other is the ungraspable. And for any man, to see the woman as the ungraspable is quite natural.
ReplyDeleteBut what did bother me was the need to emphasize on the characteristics that he did. Why must the male be "strong" and the female "weak"? What is the point of emphasizing these? In all honesty, I do not see how these characteristics that he assigned are significant in his insight on the Other. Does he mean to imply that the "I" is strong and that the "Other" is weak? Yes, by putting it this way, it invokes in the "I" the responsibility to care for the "Other". But then again, the responsibility for the Other is not reserved to those who are weaker than the self. That responsibility exists for all "Other" that the self encounters.
Lica Lee
PH102 A