19. Explain how Levinass version of postmodernity is unlike previous ones?

20. How does the fae !reah totality?

Levinas believes that the entire history of philosophy has been an attempt towards
totality. Western philosophy has viewed the idea of truth as having two faces. On the one hand,
truth is something which the thinker seeks after but does not yet know. To find truth is to have
an experience, that is, to be surprised by an encounter which is unexpected. On the other hand,
truth gives itself to someone who appropriates it and integrates it, who becomes one with it.
Most of Western philosophy has followed the latter direction, of integration and freedom, while
the formerthe contact with the most realhas been seen as something which surpasses both
being and truth. Levinas wants to promote the former, where truth implies more than exterior or
alterior to experience, but transendene through the !artesian idea of the infinite in the face of
the Other.
Most of postmodernity has still attempted to systemati"e and totali"e, in particular it has
espoused the view of knowledge as a relation of the #ame with the Other, in which the Other is
reduced to the #ame and where thinking relates the Other as something that is already its own.
$nowledge is immanence, the %pro&ect of an incarnate practice of sei"ure, appropriation, and
satisfaction.'
(ut Levinas) phenomenology differs from others in that it is promotes a thinking %which
does not bring all transcendence back to immanence' * a philosophy unconcerned with detached
ob&ectivity +like the self,proclaimed autonomous %maturity' of $ant-, but rather with an eros for
the transcendent and the other "ua other. While .usserl)s phenomenology is a philosophy of
presence, returning to the things themselves, Levinas) is a philosophy of absence, refusing the
ego)s powers of themati"ation and totali"ation. Likewise, .eidegger)s #asein retains the
structure of the #ame. (eing continues to exalt the will to power and neglect the Other. .e
attempts to move away from ob&ectivity, not through sub&ectivity, like /orty, but through the
Other. /orty wants to maximi"e freedom while Levinas wants to minimi"e freedom. %0reedom
is put into 1uestion by the Other.' The face of the other is the epiphany of what can thus present
itself directly and exteriorly to the 2.
The way to the other is to see in them the !artesian idea of the infinite, which does not
allow itself to be reduced, without remainder, to pure intentionality. 2n the face of the other we
lose power, unable to themati"e and dominate the other. Thus the relation with the other
becomes possible when the other is allowed to be other. We see our finitude in the idea of the
infinite in the other. We see our imperfection when we think of the idea of perfection of the
infinite. Thus, the face breaches totality because it cannot be systemati"ed or dominated. 2t is
pure experience, conceptless experience outside of freedom, a reality that does not fit into any a
priori idea.
21. $hat makes %&ivenness' and the %saturated phenomenon' %postmodern?'
3ivenness is postmodern in that Marion makes givenness prior to intuition while modern
phenomenology places the self and intuition as primary. The saturated phenomenon is
postmodern in that Marion shows how certain phenomena may saturate the hori"on which
constricts possible phenomena by enabling intuition of presence to exceed its intentionality.
The %breakthrough' of .usserl was the un1ualified return to intuition. 2ntuition makes
the whole world present and is expanded to include every concept of the human mind,
categorical and universal. 2deal ob&ects now veritably exist and a new level of ob&ectivity is
granted to ideal acts of consciousness. !onse1uently, intuition is broadened to an all,inclusive
totality where nothing constitutes an exception to intuition. 3ivenness is everywhere. The
principle of all principles claims %that every ori&inary presentive intuition is a le&itimi(in&
soure of o&nition.'
Marion asks in his text, )edution and *ivenness+ %!an the conditions of presence be
extended to the point that all beings reach it, beyond the limits fixed by previous states of
metaphysics, or even by any metaphysics at all4 !an the givenness in presence of each thing be
reali"ed without any condition or restriction4' +5-. .e shows how the limits of presence can be
freed from metaphysical conditions and yet preserved in givenness.
.e believes the most significant breakthrough of the 2nvestigations is the correlation
between the appearin& and that,whih,appears,as,suh. 3ivenness is absolute, free, and
without condition, precisely because it gives. 2t precedes intuition and intuition &oins givenness
only after the signification,intention. The return to the things themselves goes to intuition, and
beyondto givenness.
#imilarly, Marion claims there are phenomenon which do not lend themselves to this
leading,back to intuition. 6henomenology operates on the presupposition of a hori(on. 7ll
possible phenomena must submit to the dimensions and restrictions of (eing and the world of
manifestations. (ut Marion asks whether or not certain phenomena could exceed every hori"on,
free from the delimiting anteriority of the hori"on
7s long as phenomenology acknowledges this hori"on, all possible phenomena succumb
to its restrictions. Marion shows how certain phenomena +such as revelation- can appropriate the
hori"on and saturate it in its entirety. /evelation, as the %saturated phenomenon,' thus extends
to and fulfills the dimensions and possibilities of the hori"on such that it becomes no longer a
1uestion of de,limiting possibilities, but of taking phenomena to the limits of possibility,
confusing the hori"on in the process. 7 saturated phenomenon is one which what is given to
intuition exceeds the intentionality which becomes aware of it. 2t enables intuition to fully intuit
ob&ects &ust as they are fully intended, and to even surpass the intentional aim, that is, offer
infinitely more than intention +58-.
22. -ordin& to .arion+ what happens when revelation %!reaks into' my experiene?'
7ccording to Marion in /he 0isi!le and the )evealed, %the revealed imposes itself
precisely because it cannot be experienced' +9-. 7ny possible phenomenon must be able to be
traced back to one or several lived experiences of consciousness in the 1 or #asein. (ut because
revelation is only truly revelation when it surprises any anticipation of perception, it seems that it
cannot be reduced to experiential phenomenon. /ather it surpasses our abilities to perceive and
understand and transgresses the limits of the 1.
#econdly, phenomenology operates on the presupposition of a hori(on. 7nything which
reveals must submit to the dimensions and restrictions of (eing and the world of manifestations.
.ence, 3od cannot reveal anything without either disruptin& the hori"on, whereupon revelation
ceases to be any recogni"able manifestation, or onedin& to the hori"on, whereupon revelation
ceases to be authentic revelation, but ordinary experience instead.
7s long as phenomenology acknowledges this hori"on, revelation succumbs to its
restrictionsthe hori"ion will delimit the possibilities of phenomena, hence limiting revelation.
Marion does not claim somehow to extract revelation from the hori"on, but rather he shows how
revelation appropriates the hori"on and saturates it in its entirety. /evelation, as the %saturated
phenomenon,' thus extends to and fulfills the dimensions and possibilities of the hori"on such
that it becomes no longer a 1uestion of de,limiting possibilities, but of taking phenomena to the
limits of possibility, confusing the hori"on in the process. 7 saturated phenomenon is one which
what is given to intuition exceeds the intentionality which becomes aware of it. /evelation
enables intuition to fully intuit ob&ects &ust as they are fully intended, and to even surpass the
intentional aim, that is, offer infinitely more than intention +58-.
22. Explain the lo&i of the all and response in 3hr4tien?
2n the 6latonic tradition, beauty has been thought of as a calling out to what is being
named. 7nd to name things is to call them to come forth. This is not superadded or contingent to
beauty, but is what calls out by manifesting itself. The call of beauty both beckons our ga"e and
beckons our voice. We speak because we have heard. The call is thus an awakening and a recall
a calling back to the origin. 2n 6latonic terms, to see beauty is a reminiscence of beauty.
(eauty that is seen re1uires that we speak in order to respond to it and that we answer for it with
beauty. The call forces us to rediscover ourselves, i.e., that %there is a respondent to beauty more
intimate to ourselves than what we take ourselves to be' +!hr:tien 5;-. Therefore, the response
of our soul to this provocation %brings into play the totality of our being and becoming' +5<-. (ut
we are unable to master the call. The visible speaks and charges our sight to speak. We are
always listening and to see is to respond. The call of the sensible is the logos that provokes in us
a response.
Other than the call to beauty is 3od)s call to being. 3od)s call is to bestow being and
beauty to non,being. .is call creates the respondent. #pringing into being, we respond. The call
creates us into being and calls us to become truly ourselves, and this %invitation to =come forth) is
not addressed to a being who, already facing it, could then answer =here am 2)' +59-. The first
vocation, then, is to be> all we do %perpetuates an immemorial yes' +59-. We begin in
nothingness and end in nothingness.
0urthermore, the call that !hretien outlines is %a call from the infinite, sent into infinity
itself.' We can never know things as they are in themselves. Otherwise, sight would be
substituted for ward. 7s !hr:tien describes, %?othing that comes from things or from us must
ever suffice' +<@-. The beauty which calls us falls short of supplying us with the answer to our
1uestion. The visible does not satisfy our interrogation but delivers us through its mere
inade1uacy to what is beyond itself and to what gives things their voice. Thus, we must look and
listen beyond ourselves and things to the invisible. We cannot have the confidence of $ant that
the world is transparent and pure enough for us to fully grasp it as it is. %What beauty says in
unmistakable words for all eyes to see is that it fails to show' +<A-.
#ight and hearing are interlaced, two modes of foreknowledge beyond our faculties. Our
voice is audible, 3od)s is truly visible. %The meaning that is grasped through visionary and
audible insight of the imagination surpasses what we are able to grasp naturally' +<9-. #uch
meaning cannot be grasped through reason alone, but by an eye which listens and through a
voice which %acts ahead of thoughts and alone bears them to the light of day' +B5-.
25. How has this ourse hallen&ed and6or han&ed the oneption of postmodernity that you
had on the first ni&ht of the ourse? How would you now desri!e postmodernity?
27. -ll in all+ is postmodernity an epoh or a spae that welomes 3hristianity?