*Contents* 00:33 The Psychism / Interiority 11:22 Atheism 17:06 Birth 19:08 Death 21:06 Time 23:06 Enjoyment or happiness 28:38 Truth / Discourse 28:59 Truth 33:27 Discourse 35:00 Truth as manifestation 42:10 Husserl and Heidegger missing the face-to-face 42:57 Reason 44:57 Rhetoric 47:43 Nakedness 51:34 Beauty 53:12 The Divine Relation 56:19 Summary
I think that there is a relationship between Levinas' 'arising' and Bergson. I can't quite put it into words. I know what Jung calls it - individuation. I wonder if truth could be replaced with time. If I am in myself without an other then what is the measure of time? Jung would say that other people in terms of the 'collective unconscious' are God. This is contrasted with Nietzsche's view of the idea of Dionysus: that God comes up through me.
You talked about how Levinas characterizes the psychism as enjoyment. I’m confused as to where he makes/how he substantiates this claim. Why is the psychism, the process by which existing entities are conscious, enjoyable? I’m confused if that is really what you mean.
Oh, nice question. There is more about enjoyment to come later, in Section 2, but basically, as you suggested at the end of your comment, Levinas _isn’t_ saying that the psychism, as an experienceable process, is enjoyable, nor is enjoyment a pleasurable feeling. I think I talk about psychism as a “process,” but this doesn’t mean a single event that happens once and is then over. That is how we talk about events within an already existing life. A better definition, I think, is ‘existence as separation.’ In other words, one doesn’t become an existing individual and then move on to something else - one continues to exist. The psychism, being an ontological 'process,' never ends. Further, enjoyment, in this context, is an ontological, or structural, characteristic of that existence as separation (i.e. the psychism). It isn’t a happy ‘feeling;’ rather, it captures the idea that the existing being is totally self-contained in its separation, its sameness, its interiority, undisturbed by any Other perspectives or demands.
Interesting-so it enjoys in itself by virtue of being wholly contained within itself. Psychism is in a sense the ultimate indulgence (???) in that it refuses to interact with the other. Is Levinas maybe saying that the atheism of the psychism contrasts the divine nature of facing the other (interaction as revelation)? Is enjoyment (isolation maybe) a negative thing for Levinas?
Ultimate indulgence - I could go along with this, metaphorically-speaking. Refusing to interact - not so much. The psychism is prior to refusal or assent. You’re not thinking ontologically. The atheism of the psychism is definitely a contrast with the divine nature of the face to face. I think it is actually Levinas’ parallel of the Garden of Eden, although that realisation comes much later in the series. Is enjoyment negative? I think that’s going too far, although I see how the last section of my comment carried you here. Enjoyment is not the goal for Levinas, to be sure (there are some problems with it, but these will come up later), but don’t forget that without it, there is no goal because there is no individual. Also, while it isn’t a ‘feeling’ like other emotions, because it makes those emotions possible (this is what it means for something to be ontological), enjoyment is genuine happiness and contentment. Our original, primordial existential condition is happiness. I found this a nice alternative to the usual focus of existentialists on existence being ‘anguish’ or ‘dread.’ Anyway, this all gets discussed in much more detail in the chapters to come. Enjoy!
@@absurdbeing2219 thanks so much this is very helpful, but on that last point you made about enjoyment as happiness and contentment-that’s where I’m getting lost. Why is enjoyment of the psychism inherently happiness and contentment? Isn’t it just complete self containment, not inherently carrying an emotion with it (as you said earlier)? I assume you/Levinas get more into this later so I won’t press too much further in this comment section. Thank you so much for the clarification though!
@@davidtapper6941 No worries. Glad it helped. Yes, great idea not too caught up on this one point just yet. There's lots more on this to come, and the more you get into and understand the big picture, the more these finer points will slot into place.
*Contents*
00:33 The Psychism / Interiority
11:22 Atheism
17:06 Birth
19:08 Death
21:06 Time
23:06 Enjoyment or happiness
28:38 Truth / Discourse
28:59 Truth
33:27 Discourse
35:00 Truth as manifestation
42:10 Husserl and Heidegger missing the face-to-face
42:57 Reason
44:57 Rhetoric
47:43 Nakedness
51:34 Beauty
53:12 The Divine Relation
56:19 Summary
Best philosophy channel because closest reading of original texts.
Thanks Brian. I like that for my motto! "Closest reading of original philosophy texts."
14:11 -> 14:33 .. 'essentially salvation' .. you found the exact phrase there. So much spiritual dimension is in there
I think that there is a relationship between Levinas' 'arising' and Bergson. I can't quite put it into words.
I know what Jung calls it - individuation.
I wonder if truth could be replaced with time. If I am in myself without an other then what is the measure of time?
Jung would say that other people in terms of the 'collective unconscious' are God. This is contrasted with Nietzsche's view of the idea of Dionysus: that God comes up through me.
You talked about how Levinas characterizes the psychism as enjoyment. I’m confused as to where he makes/how he substantiates this claim. Why is the psychism, the process by which existing entities are conscious, enjoyable? I’m confused if that is really what you mean.
Oh, nice question.
There is more about enjoyment to come later, in Section 2, but basically, as you suggested at the end of your comment, Levinas _isn’t_ saying that the psychism, as an experienceable process, is enjoyable, nor is enjoyment a pleasurable feeling.
I think I talk about psychism as a “process,” but this doesn’t mean a single event that happens once and is then over. That is how we talk about events within an already existing life. A better definition, I think, is ‘existence as separation.’ In other words, one doesn’t become an existing individual and then move on to something else - one continues to exist. The psychism, being an ontological 'process,' never ends.
Further, enjoyment, in this context, is an ontological, or structural, characteristic of that existence as separation (i.e. the psychism). It isn’t a happy ‘feeling;’ rather, it captures the idea that the existing being is totally self-contained in its separation, its sameness, its interiority, undisturbed by any Other perspectives or demands.
Interesting-so it enjoys in itself by virtue of being wholly contained within itself. Psychism is in a sense the ultimate indulgence (???) in that it refuses to interact with the other. Is Levinas maybe saying that the atheism of the psychism contrasts the divine nature of facing the other (interaction as revelation)? Is enjoyment (isolation maybe) a negative thing for Levinas?
Ultimate indulgence - I could go along with this, metaphorically-speaking. Refusing to interact - not so much. The psychism is prior to refusal or assent. You’re not thinking ontologically.
The atheism of the psychism is definitely a contrast with the divine nature of the face to face. I think it is actually Levinas’ parallel of the Garden of Eden, although that realisation comes much later in the series.
Is enjoyment negative? I think that’s going too far, although I see how the last section of my comment carried you here. Enjoyment is not the goal for Levinas, to be sure (there are some problems with it, but these will come up later), but don’t forget that without it, there is no goal because there is no individual. Also, while it isn’t a ‘feeling’ like other emotions, because it makes those emotions possible (this is what it means for something to be ontological), enjoyment is genuine happiness and contentment. Our original, primordial existential condition is happiness. I found this a nice alternative to the usual focus of existentialists on existence being ‘anguish’ or ‘dread.’
Anyway, this all gets discussed in much more detail in the chapters to come. Enjoy!
@@absurdbeing2219 thanks so much this is very helpful, but on that last point you made about enjoyment as happiness and contentment-that’s where I’m getting lost. Why is enjoyment of the psychism inherently happiness and contentment? Isn’t it just complete self containment, not inherently carrying an emotion with it (as you said earlier)?
I assume you/Levinas get more into this later so I won’t press too much further in this comment section. Thank you so much for the clarification though!
@@davidtapper6941 No worries. Glad it helped.
Yes, great idea not too caught up on this one point just yet. There's lots more on this to come, and the more you get into and understand the big picture, the more these finer points will slot into place.