论文部分内容阅读
列维纳斯认为胡塞尔和海德格尔的“意向性”和“存在”等观念暗含了一种将他者“同一化”的暴力,德里达则认为这些观念恰恰是承认他者的条件,它们本身是中性的,不含暴力。同时,德里达还借用了黑格尔的辩证法来质疑列维纳斯的绝对他者。德里达最激烈的批判则是指出列维纳斯使用存在论的语言来超越存在论是注定要失败的。本文认为列维纳斯“后于”他者到来的主体性本身可以有力回应德里达有关“意向性”和“存在”等的批判,而“踪迹”这一概念则可以弥合两位哲学家的诸多分歧。对于德里达语言论层面的批判,列维纳斯本人则直接作出了回应,他认为存在论的语言本身是不可完全超越的,哲学亦是一种必败的实践,但这种必败恰恰为其超越自身带来了希望,在这一点上,他也指出了他和德里达与怀疑主义的关联。
Levinas believes that Husserl’s and Heidegger’s “intentionality” and “existence” imply a kind of violence that “divorces” others from one another, and Derrida believes that these conceptions It is a condition of recognition of others, which themselves are neutral and do not contain violence. At the same time, Derrida also borrowed Hegel’s dialectics to question Levinas’s absolute other. Derrida’s most fierce critique pointed out that Levinas’s use of ontological language to transcend the ontology is doomed to failure. This paper argues that the subjectivity of the arrival of Levinas “afterthought ” itself can respond strongly to Derrida’s critique of “intentionality ” and “existence ” and so on. The concept of “trace” You can bridge the many differences between the two philosophers. For the critique of Derrida’s linguistic level, Levinas himself responded directly. He considered that the language of ontology can not be surpassed completely, and philosophy is also a defeated practice, but this defeat is precisely It brings hope beyond itself, and at this point he also points out his connection with Derrida and skepticism.