All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Carnal Hermeneutics and Political Theory
Unformatted Document Text:  18 humans which signifies humanity’s posture of moral rectitude as much as its physiological characteristic. 54 The face incorporates, for example, the ethical injunctions of seeing no evil, hearing no evil, speaking no evil, and killing nobody. Heteronomic ethics is compelled to take the side of civility, peace, or nonviolence that preserves the dignity and nobility of the other as human being for the very reason that the ultimate end of violence armed with epistemological infallibility and moral inculpability is the extermination of the other from the face of the earth. Arendt, as we have above discussed, faults Eichmann’s banality of evil as the consequence of his “authentic inability to think,” that is, his inability to think from the standpoint of the other which contributed to the mass murder of Jews. By defending heteronomy, Levinas continues Ludwig Feuerbach’s radical and revisionary pursuit of ethical and social thought based on the primacy of Thou. What (Ptolemaic) geocentrism is to self-centeredness, (Copernican) heliocentrism is to other- centeredness. The heteronomic ethics of responsibility may thus be called a Copernican revolution in ethical thinking. As a matter of fact, there is no ethics involving self-regarding acts, enlightened or otherwise; only other-regarding acts entail ethics. This is the good reason why the commonplace term self-responsibility is a contradiction in terms. As the “you” or “we” is not a plural of the “I,” the self alone fails to make ethics possible; indeed, the self without the other defaces or effaces the ethical. It is only the presence of the other that makes the ethical possible. Levinas thus holds that human plurality is not a multiplicity of numbers, but is predicated upon the radical alterity of the other or what Arendt calls “distinction” in defining human plurality. In this sense, as other-centeredness is the elevated platform of the ethical, alterity should be spelled and replaced by Mark C. Taylor’s neologism altarity 55 grounded in the idea of “altar” (or the Latin altare) that signifies “a high place.” Here the idea of “altarity”

Authors: Jung, Hwa.
first   previous   Page 19 of 46   next   last



background image
18
humans which signifies humanity’s posture of moral rectitude as much as its physiological
characteristic.
54
The face incorporates, for example, the ethical injunctions of seeing no evil,
hearing no evil, speaking no evil, and killing nobody. Heteronomic ethics is compelled to take
the side of civility, peace, or nonviolence that preserves the dignity and nobility of the other as
human being for the very reason that the ultimate end of violence armed with epistemological
infallibility and moral inculpability is the extermination of the other from the face of the earth.
Arendt, as we have above discussed, faults Eichmann’s banality of evil as the consequence of his
“authentic inability to think,” that is, his inability to think from the standpoint of the other which
contributed to the mass murder of Jews.
By defending heteronomy, Levinas continues Ludwig Feuerbach’s radical and
revisionary pursuit of ethical and social thought based on the primacy of Thou. What
(Ptolemaic) geocentrism is to self-centeredness, (Copernican) heliocentrism is to other-
centeredness. The heteronomic ethics of responsibility may thus be called a Copernican
revolution in ethical thinking. As a matter of fact, there is no ethics involving self-regarding
acts, enlightened or otherwise; only other-regarding acts entail ethics. This is the good reason
why the commonplace term self-responsibility is a contradiction in terms. As the “you” or “we”
is not a plural of the “I,” the self alone fails to make ethics possible; indeed, the self without the
other defaces or effaces the ethical. It is only the presence of the other that makes the ethical
possible. Levinas thus holds that human plurality is not a multiplicity of numbers, but is
predicated upon the radical alterity of the other or what Arendt calls “distinction” in defining
human plurality. In this sense, as other-centeredness is the elevated platform of the ethical,
alterity should be spelled and replaced by Mark C. Taylor’s neologism altarity
55
grounded in the
idea of “altar” (or the Latin altare) that signifies “a high place.” Here the idea of “altarity”


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 19 of 46   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.