Agape and Hesed-Ahava. David L. Goicoechea

With a Wisdom of Love at the Service of Love

      On page 157 of Otherwise Than Being Levinas writes;

       The responsibility for the other

      is an immediacy antecedent to questions.

      It is troubled and becomes a problem

      when a third party enters.

      When the third party looks at the other and me we become

      self-conscious and questions begin to arise about justice and

      thus philosophy is born so that even responsibility is questioned.

      On page 161 Levinas writes:

      Philosophy is this measure brought to

      the infinity of being-for-the-other

      and is like the wisdom of love.

      And then on page 162 he writes:

      Philosophy is the wisdom of love

      at the service of love.

      This is the central thesis of Beal’s book and by explaining

      this wisdom of love and its serving of love he wants to

      explain the central core of all of Levinas’ writing.

      Chapter 3 of Beal’s book on Levinasian Love pages 43-64

      deals with the relation between altruistic love and self-love.

      He gives the criticism of many against Levinas for his exclusion

      of self-love and some like Paul Ricoeur see Levinas’

      description of altruism as excessive and Ricoeur argues

      that especially being a hostage for the other is excessive.

      It is Beal’s task against Derrida, Caputo, Kearney,

      Ricoeur, Irigaray, and others to show that according to Levinas

      altruism and self-love are compatible and it is with the

      appearance of the third that the extreme asymmetry is

      overcome by the wisdom of altruism than can serve even self.

      As a result of Derrida’s deconstruction of Totality and Infinity

      Levinas works out this new theory of love in Otherwise than Being.

      II,3.4 Which Goes from Loving Widows, Orphans and Aliens

      Derrida would see Levinas as an advocate of pure giving which

      is impossible because there is always a return for any gift I give.

      The asymmetrical relation between me and widows, orphans and

      aliens is such that for Levinas I expect nothing in return but

      Derrida argues that there will be all kinds of unexpected returns.

      As a Jew I might feel happy and proud that I take care of

      the poor and do not participate in a caste system helping the rich.

      Levinas took such criticism to heart and in Otherwise Than Being

      he made the asymmetry even greater with his suffering servant.

      When I offer my cheek to the smitter I suffer so much in my

      giving it is hard to say that I receive some gift in return.

      Levinas gets around Derrida’s problem of pure giving with his

      notion of the third that lets responsibility become first philosophy.

      The third who can always be there looking at us when I take

      responsibility for others brings about an interpersonal personhood.

      Max Scheler already developed a philosophy of persons in relation

      and Buber and Marcel were influenced by him so Levinas’ notion

      of the third had precedents and this is why he is postmodern.

      With the third he is explicitly going beyond rugged individualism

      and the modern approach that makes of every man an island.

      The notion of a trinity prevents an egoism for two even though

      with the best intentions one may seek to be a most pure giver.

      It is at this point on page 162 of Otherwise Than Being that

      we get to “Philosophy is the wisdom of Love at the service of Love.”

      Once the third opens us to philosophical questions about

      justice we can begin to work out the relation between altruism

      and self-love which is the main issue between Derrida and Levinas.

      Kierkegaard had to work out the relation between self-love

      and the love of God and neighbor so how does Levinas do it?

      Is he able to make altruism and self-love compatible?

      Does he deal with loving God as well as self and neighbor?

      II,3.5 To being the Suffering Servant

      In Second Isaiah there are four Suffering Servant poetic pieces

      that Mark in the first Synoptic Gospel applies to Jesus.

      Levinas’ philosophy has the same structure as Mark’s Gospel.

      First in Galilee Jesus goes about caring for widows, orphans, and aliens.

      Then he goes up to Jerusalem and Mark shows him as the Suffering

      Servant of Isaiah who offers himself even for those killing him.

      The early Levinas takes responsibility for widows, orphans, and aliens.

      The later Levinas portrays the hostage being persecuted for others.

      As Derrida and others point out there can be a self-love even

      in the two kinds of altruistic love so as Levinas seeks to be

      consistent he develops his notion of the third and a philosophy

      of justice that takes him beyond the collision of altruism and egoism.

      As Beals (p. 57) points out, Peperzak thinks that compatibilism is

      only an option after the arrival of the third and he explains

      this further on page 55 when he quotes Peperzak:

      the asymmetry of this relation does not seem

      to exclude a double asymmetry in which

      I am as “high” for the Other as the Other is for me.

      Beals (p. 55) invokes Peperzak’s quotation of Levinas:

      I myself can feel myself

      to be the other for the other.

      Also on page 55 Beals goes on to write about Merald Westphal:

      As both Levinas and Kierkegaard emphasize,

      neighbor love runs counter to our natural self-love.

      and as such, taken seriously,

      “the command to practice it is truly traumatic.

      How at all, is it possible, even imperfectly?”

      For Kierkegaard the natural loves of affection, friendship, and eros

      have a built in self-love and he does explain how to overcome this.

      So it can help if we see how Levinas and Kierkegaard compare.

      II,3.6 Who Loves the Enemy in a Proximity

      As Beals writes on page 83, Levinas says quite clearly: