Podcasts about levinasian

LAC member Michelle McGowan interviews Francisco Guevara, a visual artist and curator. Guevara specializes in Levinasian ethics applied to the design of cross-cultural artistic projects as well as the analysis of performativity in contemporary art practices. He has over 20 years of experience designing, curating, managing arts projects, and promoting social change. Guevara is co-founder and Co-Executive Director of Arquetopia, a non-profit foundation and transnational artist residency program promoting development and social transformation through educational, artistic, and cultural programming.

Show introduction.An interrupted summary of this special spooky episode's topics, along with discussion between Teh Dŭk!tər and FrEd-rEkw' on Friedrich Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols, or How to Philosophize with a Hammer, in honor of which a new addition to the show's segments is entitled: Phenomenologizing with a New Hammer.Being there.Guilt and anxiety.The writings of Irving Yalom and Rollo May are integrated into discussion and practical advice on guilt and anxiety, as these experiences are typically understood by existential-phenomenological psychologists.Music for our Non-Corporeal DescendantsThe Lesson of AnxietySung by Sim-own. Inspired by Jean Piaget’s theory on accommodation, and incorporating existential perspectives on anxiety. But, see also Klaus Fiedler’s discussion on the emotional correlates of accommodation and assimilation in his Affective Influences on Social Information Processing, a chapter in the Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition by Joseph P. Forgas. On the psychopathology of everyday life specifically, see the work of the same name by Sigmund Freud, and William Barrett’s book entitled Irrational Man. Being here.Results from a A U.S. nationwide survey on nightmares and worries. A nationwide online survey of Amazon Mechanical Turk workers was conducted October 15th-19th, 2019. We asked participants their age, gender, and state of residence, and then asked them to tell us about their most recent nightmare, in their own words over the course of 2-3 sentences. We then asked them to explain—again, over 2-3 sentences of their own words—what most worries them in everyday life. For both of these questions, in turn, we asked them to rate the impact of their nightmare and worries on their everyday lives. Phenomenologizing with a New Hammer.On nightmares, worries, and Emmanuel Levinas.Dr. David R. Harrington returns to discuss the application of Levinasian concepts to the most popular themes revealed in our nationwide survey on nightmares and worries.

Here is the latest of our recordings from The British Society for Phenomenology’s 2018 Annual Conference ‘The Theory and Practice of Phenomenology’. Julio Andrade is from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, and the paper is titled ‘Normative provisionality as a means to navigate Levinasian infinite responsibility’.   Abstract: “The core of Emmanuel Levinas’s (1969) argument in Totality and Infinity is that because the other cannot be faithfully represented without reducing his/her alterity, I cannot discharge my responsibilities to him/her. As such, my responsibility to the other is infinite. Infinite responsibility is at the centre of Levinasian ethics, however, it is also the most problematic. If I am infinitely responsible for the other, what of my, and all the other others, needs and desires? Levinas responds by positing a third party to the face-to face encounter with the other. Levinas argues that justice (or the political) is “an incessant correction of the asymmetry of proximity” (1998; 158 emphasis added), i.e. justice or politics must constantly efface the alterity of the other in order to render the other representable, and thus comparable with the third.   However, what such a politics entails in practice is not something that Levinas develops in any depth. He remarks that “[m]y task does not consist in constructing ethics; I only try to find its meaning” (1985; 90). However, his follow-up to this remark hints at an endorsement of just such an enterprise: “one can without doubt construct an ethics in function of what I have just said, but this is not my own theme” (ibid).   It is by expanding on the above ‘incessant correction’ of justice that I hope to offer a way to ‘operationalise’ Levinasian ethics. In order to achieve this, I enlist Woermann and Cilliers’ (2012) ‘provisional imperative’. Pared to its essence, the provisional imperative reads as follows: “When acting, always remain cognisant of other ways of acting” (ibid; 451).I reinscribe this into Levinasian terms – ‘when representing the other, always be cognisant of other ways of representing the other.’ Then, by understanding responsibility as an ability to respond to the demands of the other, a response-ability, I argue that the other as infinity (Levinas takes the idea of infinity as the model for the other), should be understood as the other representing itself in an infinite number of ways, rather than a representation of itself as infinity.   The provisional imperative, I conclude, drives this incessant, and infinite revision of the representation of the other, and concomitantly my responsibility to the other. The provisional imperative operationalises Levinasian ethics such that infinite responsibility to the other is not rendered quixotic even as it is confirmed as the limit of our responsibility.”   The British Society for Phenomenology’s Annual Conference took place at the University of Kent, in Canterbury, UK during July, 2018. It gathered together philosophers, literary scholars, phenomenologists, and practitioners exploring phenomenological theory and its practical application. It covered a broad range of areas and issues including the arts, ethics, medical humanities, mental health, education, technology, feminism, politics and political governance, with contributions throwing a new light on both traditional phenomenological thinkers and the themes associated with classical phenomenology. More information about the conference can be found at: https://www.britishphenomenology.org.uk/conference-2018/   The British Society for Phenomenology is a not-for-profit organisation set up with the intention of promoting research and awareness in the field of Phenomenology and other cognate arms of philosophical thought. Currently, the society accomplishes these aims through its journal, conferences and other events, and its podcast. You can support the society by becoming a member, for which you will receive a subscription to our journal: https://www.britishphenomenology.org.uk/about/

This is one of the papers from our 2017 Annual Conference, the Future of Phenomenology. Information and the full conference booklet can be found at www.britishphenomenology.org.uk In a 1988 interview Levinas describes deformalisation of the notion of time as the essential theme of his research. Commentators have usually interpreted this central Levinasian idea as a provision of a concrete experience in which the formal structure of time is realised. Although correct, this accepted definition is too general. As I will demonstrate in my paper, for Levinas, different concrete experiences not only realise time differently, but, more importantly, are able to impact on the formal structure of time-consciousness itself. In order to defend this thesis, I will argue that Levinas understands the form of time-consciousness as governed by a three-aspect internal tendency or ‘conatus’: a striving for the present; a horizontal synchronisation of the past, present, and future experiences; and a self-projection into the infinite future.  I will then examine the deformalisation of time in the phenomena of responsibility, fecundity, and death, in order to show the three distinct ways in which these phenomena modify, or put into question, the conatus characteristic of the form of time-consciousness. I will claim that a) responsibility for another human being interrupts the striving for the present, b) fecundity, and the time of the child it promises, refuses horizontal synchronisation, and c) death renders impossible the futural self-projection. I will conclude by suggesting that it is responsibility which occupies a privileged position with regards to the other concrete experiences which allow for the deformalisation of the notion of time.   

SynTalk thinks about the provocative questions of spectres, spirits, & ghosts, as themselves and as signifiers, while constantly wondering if they are an unnecessary residue. Can we think of the repressed voices in places of violence and ruin, using ideas of ghosts and haunting? What is the thing that haunts? What is the big deal about the ghosts? The concepts are derived off / from Plutarch, Ludwig Lavater, Thomas Lodge, Shakespeare, Nicholas Rowe, Heidegger, Freud, Weber, Adorno, Levinas, Tagore, Amos Tutuola, Derrida, Kurosawa, Arjun Appadurai, Stephen Greenblatt, Jean-Michel Rabaté, & Avery F. Gordon, among others. How the juxtaposition of the familiar with the unfamiliar creates the uncanny? Would something entirely unfamiliar be uncanny or just plain strange? Can the spectral be defined at all? How hauntology potentially challenges ontology? Do ghosts represent a world order where things are not arbitrary, and where actions have repercussions? How Shakespeare added a sense of wonder and mystery to the figure of the ghost, & made it substantial. Is Shakespeare’s Hamlet a Protestant with a Roman Catholic father? Should Hamlet have followed what the Ghost said? Are ghosts almost always ethically haunting figures? How the Derridean ghost is a bodyless body, and not a spirit without a body? Is every sense of our Being always haunted (with Nothingness)? How time is ‘out of joint’ with the ghostly. Does the uncertainty of the future always unsettle the past? Does modernity render the unexplainable superfluous, & what then are the ghosts of modernity? Is the cinematic consciousness ultimately a very spectral consciousness? What has been the life of ghosts in (say) Indian, Japanese, & South East Asian cinema? Why do Shakespeare’s tragic protagonists always see more than the others? Can a hyper rational mind experience the spectral? The links between Ur-Hamlet, 49, temporal twist, Macbeth, trauma, Hiroshima, turning table, purgatory, Madhumati, goblin, witches, The Babadook, spectral housing in Mumbai, magic, white noise, & Bhooter Bhobishyot. How the ghost expresses the yearning to grasp the mystery of history. Can we get hold of the Levinasian ‘trace’? Are there cultures without ghosts? Would our (otherwise sterile) lives need the pollution or infection of other worldliness in the future? Is it almost impossible to live without ghosts? ‘Can we speak of ghosts, without transforming the whole world and ourselves, too, into phantoms’? ‘Even if they are no longer, even if they are not yet…’. The SynTalkrs are: Prof. Shormishtha Panja (Shakespeare studies, literature, University of Delhi, New Delhi), & Dr. Suvadip Sinha (philosophy, cultural studies, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities).

The University of Denver’s Center for Judaic Studies is creating a Holocaust Memorial Social Action Site which honors memory through the active cultivation of social justice activities on campus. In this spirit, the site’s boundary is marked with the Hebrew “Hineni,” “Here I am,” a Levinasian call to enacting memory through ethical engagement and response. In this paper, I explore the Levinasian conception of memory and ethics that frames this project, as I also explore the theoretical limits of any counter-memorial that operates within the parameters of the “art world.” Our project is a counter-memorial that privileges ethics; we have used relatively few dollars for the material space and have moved away from a search for an artist; instead we have earmarked the majority of funds for programs and for an eventual Endowed Chair of Holocaust Studies and Social Justice. In the spirit of James Young’s reminder that the history of the memorial itself functions as an integral part of the memorial, I also talk, in the paper, about the journey in this particular project from aesthetics to ethics (in the recounting of our process of hiring a well-known artist and then finding our way instead to a series of interfaith and social justice projects on the campus). Sarah Pessin is Associate Professor of Philosophy, the Emil and Eva Hecht Chair in Judaic Studies, and the Director of the Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Denver. Sarah works on topics in Jewish and Islamic philosophy, Neoplatonisms, medieval philosophies, comparative philosophies of religion, modern Jewish philosophy, and post-Holocaust theology. She is very active in interfaith and cross-cultural bridge-building, and is interested in the nature of the sacred and its relation to inter-human engagement and response. Sarah has published and presented widely, and has recently published the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Solomon Ibn Gabirol; she is currently working on a manuscript on that medieval Neoplatonist’s “Theology of Desire”, and she has forthcoming essays on Muslim philosophical conceptions of matter; Jewish, Muslim and Christian Platonisms; Hans Jonas’s “Theology of Risk,” and an essay exploring the Levinasian elements of DU’s new Holocaust Memorial Social Action Site (forthcoming in the Memory issue of the University of Toronto’s Journal of Jewish Studies).

This is the first real class of the semester.  We think a little bit about what allegory would mean, for Spenser and for Milton, by starting out with a reading of Milton's Sonnet 23 ("Methought I saw my late espouséd saint") -- the allegorical appearance of love, sweetness, goodness in her person.  In Spenserian and Miltonic allegory, it's not that figures who are present represent abstractions: it's that abstraction becomes present as and in the other person.  Sort of Levinasian, though I don't say so in the Podcast.