Levinas and Buber: Dialogue and Difference

8. Buber’s and Levinas’s Attitudes toward Judaism

Buber’s and Levinas’s Attitudes Toward Judaism 133 133 EIGHT Buber’s and Levinas’s Attitudes Toward Judaism EphraimMeir Levinas and Buber have in common a reverence for human life as well as a philosophy of human relationship. They made an enormous contribution to the ethical thought and the religious consciousness of the twentieth century. The differences as well as the common ground between the two creative thinkers are seen in their different views of Judaism. In this article, I first characterize some main differences between them in order better to understand their respective attitudes toward Judaism. Buber developed a Hebrew humanism, and considered Judaism principally as a pioneering way of life in ethical openness. Levinas went beyond humanism, and pointed to concrete elements as the condition for the “ethical life.” SIMILARITY AND DISSIMILARITY As is well known, Buber presented his dialogical ideas in a nonsystematic way. He refused to be called a philosopher because he thought that philosophical language did not adequately render the idea of dialogical life; he wanted to conduct a conversation. Levinas, too, was aware of the inadequacy of philosophy. However, rather than abandon it, he sought to surprise philosophy by the introduction of several new categories. This and other differences between the two dialogic thinkers permit us to grasp their different approaches to Judaism.1 134 Ephraim Meir Idealism and the Rupture of Ontology: Metaphysics of Presence and Metaphysics of Absence Buber’s religious philosophy is based on dialogue and communication . In his I and You, he develops the idea that the I is related. The I is more an I in-relation than a separated Cartesian thinking entity. If there is a positive, nonfragmentary attitude to what surrounds it, the I is I-You.2 It becomes I-It when there is a dichotomy between the subject and the object and a partial approach to things when persons and ideas are situated in time and space.3 The relating I, with its holistic view, is opposed to an isolated I, who isolates itself from the non-I through its fragmentary view. In the authentic relationship there is presence, mutuality and directness. Buber’s account of the relationship is basically an idealistic one, starting from the I and its standpoint . The main time for him is the present, lived in the presence of another person.4 In Levinas’s work, the same is challenged by the Other in order to leave the same’s solipsism and become the one-for-the-other in humble service. The asymmetric relation characterizes humanity in the human being, who leaves his autism and narcissism and opens himself up in responsibility to a transcendent call. The rupture of the totality of the ego, his awakening from the autistic dream by the Other in favor of an I that is “subjected” to the Other is the result of an ana-chronic call. Levinas’s metaphysics is not a metaphysics of the present, but of a past that cannot be reconstructed and of a future that cannot be foreseen. The call of the Other is before all time, from eternity, from a timeless time. It metamorphoses the I, prior to choice, projecting it into an unseen future. The Role of Distance Whereas in Buber’s thinking, the I orients itself toward You, Levinas’s Other orients the I. Fundamental in Buber is the orientation of the I with respect to a You. In Levinas’s thinking, the orientation of the I is the result of the urgent call of the Other, and of the welcoming of his face. Buber writes on dialogue, unity and mutuality between the I and the You in relation (Beziehung) and encounter (Begegnung). Buber’s and Levinas’s Attitudes Toward Judaism 135 Levinas discusses relation in terms of separateness. The “for the Other” comes before any dialogue. I am held hostage by responsibility before freedom, asked to account for things before I am even able to choose. Of course, Buber’s Begegnung is not a mere attitude; it is an event that happens rather than an idealistic Beziehung. As such, it is closer to Levinas’s same-Other relationship. Proximity for Levinas is the result of distance, whereas for Buber, distance is the result of a dichotomous , inauthentic attitude. Buber develops a kind of idealist approach to reality in which the intentionality of the I is important. Levinas gives more weight to the totalizing I...