Thank you so much, my question is why Levinas refers to "the face of the Other" by capital letter while other times, he write it with uncapital letter: "the face of the other"
@@Architecture-LosAngeles thanks for the question. So normally the capitalization in English is reflecting a switch between two French terms that both translate as “other”: “L’Autre” and “L’Autrui” the former is usually not capitalized and the latter is, in order to distinguish them. But Levinas actually sometimes capitalizes both of the French terms and so although typically helpful for indicating the French term, some of his nuance gets lost.
thanks so much. I hope that the other videos on the channel are similarly helpful! If you have ideas of things you would like me to cover, let me know!
This was really exciting Aaron. I don't think I understood the first third of God and the Other until watching this. Looking forward to the "Objections" segment!
Thanks for watching! So interlocutor in philosophy more broadly is just one's partner in argumentative engagement. For Levinas, it means the one to whom I owe a justification for my choices, my beliefs, and my way of living. It is a moral conception, not simply an epistemic one. As for arbitrariness, I am not entirely sure what you have in mind, but Levinas deeply affirms the contingency of the world such that we have work to do to change it. He will talk about the ambiguities involved in moral life such that risk is always in play. Maybe that is of some help?
Hey Rafael, I have written an enormous amount about his work so let me see if I can find something that I can make available to you pretty easily. It might take me a few days. In the meantime, thanks so much for thinking with me.
wow,
Thank you so much, my question is why Levinas refers to "the face of the Other" by capital letter while other times, he write it with uncapital letter: "the face of the other"
@@Architecture-LosAngeles thanks for the question. So normally the capitalization in English is reflecting a switch between two French terms that both translate as “other”: “L’Autre” and “L’Autrui” the former is usually not capitalized and the latter is, in order to distinguish them. But Levinas actually sometimes capitalizes both of the French terms and so although typically helpful for indicating the French term, some of his nuance gets lost.
@@philosophyforwherewefindou919 thank you so much
this is great, thanks for explaining so well
thanks so much. I hope that the other videos on the channel are similarly helpful! If you have ideas of things you would like me to cover, let me know!
This was really exciting Aaron. I don't think I understood the first third of God and the Other until watching this. Looking forward to the "Objections" segment!
Ha!! Makes sense. This distinction is crucial to my argument in that book.
Please, I'm here on an assignment I was giving. May I briefly know about Levinas?
Thank you for the brief. kindly I wanted to ask you about the notions of Interlocutor and Arbitrariness in Levinas's thought. Please.
Thanks for watching! So interlocutor in philosophy more broadly is just one's partner in argumentative engagement. For Levinas, it means the one to whom I owe a justification for my choices, my beliefs, and my way of living. It is a moral conception, not simply an epistemic one. As for arbitrariness, I am not entirely sure what you have in mind, but Levinas deeply affirms the contingency of the world such that we have work to do to change it. He will talk about the ambiguities involved in moral life such that risk is always in play. Maybe that is of some help?
Do you have some outline about the ethics and politics of levinas ??
Hey Rafael, I have written an enormous amount about his work so let me see if I can find something that I can make available to you pretty easily. It might take me a few days. In the meantime, thanks so much for thinking with me.