THE FACE-TO-FACE ENCOUNTER: EMBODIMENT AND ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY IN
LEVINASAo PHENOMENOLOGY Department of Philosophy.
Loyola College.
Chennai.
India E-mail: patrickarokiaraj@gmail.
Abstract: This article shows how Emmanuel LevinasAos ethical philosophy departs from traditional Western metaphysics by rooting moral responsibility in the embodied encounter between corporeal subjects.
Embodiment is key for both the ethical subject and the Other, with ethical consciousness arising from shared corporeal vulnerability.
For Levinas, ethical obligation emerges in concrete, physical encounters with the Other, rather than abstract principles.
Ethical responsibility arises in the face-to-face encounter with the embodied Other, where vulnerability and need are revealed.
Ethical response involves embodied acts of goodness and substitution, where the subject takes on the suffering and needs of the Other.
By orienting itself toward the Other, the being can break free from self-centeredness and the dangers of the Aothere isAo, establishing its identity outside itself and experiencing liberation.
Ultimately.
LevinasAos ethics demands a shift from abstract moral reasoning to an embodied, practical response to the OtherAos call, unfolding in the immediacy of human encounters and grounded in the corporeal reality of our existence.
Keywords: embodiment, ethical responsibility.
Emmanuel Levinas, the Other, face-to-face encounter, substitution Abstrak: Artikel ini hendak menunjukkan bagaimana etika Emmanuel Levinas yang menjangkarkan tanggung jawab moral pada perjumpaan antar subjek yang bertubuh melepaskan diri dari metaysika tradisional Barat.
Kebertubuhan menjadi kunci dalam perjumpaan antara seorang subjek moral dengan Yang Lain, di mana kesadaran moral tumbuh dari kerentanan ysik mereka.
Alih-alih dari prinsip-prinsip abstrak, kewajiban moral muncul dari perjumpaan ysik yang konkret.
Dalam perjumpaan antar wajah tersebut, kerapuhan dan kebutuhan ma22 DISKURSUS.
Volume 21.
Nomor 1.
April 2025: 22-41 sing-masing tersingkap.
Tanggung jawab moral terwujud dalam respons baik yang menubuh dan dalam substitusi, melalui mana subjek merengkuh penderitaan dan kebutuhan Yang Lain sebagai miliknya.
Lewat keterarahan pada Yang Lain.
AoadaAo membebaskan diri dari Aoadadi-sanaAo .
l y .
dan dari keterpusatan diri seraya menegaskan identitasnya di luar diri sendiri.
Etika Levinas menuntut pergeseran dari penalaran moral yang abstrak menuju kepekaan praktis pada panggilan Yang Lain, yang hadir dalam perjumpaan langsung dan melibatkan realitas kebertubuhan manusia.
Kata-kata Kunci: kebertubuhan, tanggung jawab moral.
Emmanuel Levinas.
Yang Lain, perjumpaan tatap muka, substitusi.
INTRODUCTION
The ethical philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas presents a radical departure from traditional Western metaphysics by grounding moral responsibility in the embodied encounter between corporeal subjects.
What distinguishes LevinasAos ethics is its profound recognition of embodiment as essential to both the ethical subject and the Other who commands responsibility.
The body is not merely an instrument through which ethical action occurs, but the very condition that makes ethical encounters possible.
The novelty of LevinasAos approach lies in his assertion that ethical consciousness emerges through our shared corporeal vulnerability we are called to responsibility precisely because we are embodied beings encountering other embodied beings in their fragility and need.
Levinas locates ethical obligation not in anything like either Kantian categorical imperatives or utilitarian calculations but in the concrete, physical encounter with the Other in speciyc moments of space and time.
This article demonstrates that genuine ethical engagement cannot be reduced to abstract rules or principles but must be understood through the mutual embodiment of both subject and Other.
It is in the face-toface meeting of vulnerable bodies that true ethical responsibility is born and sustained.
The face of the Other, in its corporeal presence, serves as a The Face-To-Face Ecounter (Arokiaraj Joseph Patric.
profound reminder of the subjectAos self-centered existence and offers a path to salvation through ethical response to the OtherAos call.
The article develops this argument through three main sections.
First.
AuThe Phenomenology of Embodied Ethical SubjectAy examines how the subject emerges as an embodied being from the anonymous Aothere isAo .
l y .
, establishes itself through AohypostasisAo and Aoeconomic existence,Ao and ynds nourishment in everyday life.
The second section.
AoThe Ethical Demand: Arising from the Face-to-Face Encounter with the Embodied Other,Ay explores how the face-to-face encounter with the OtherAos corporeal vulnerability transforms mere Aueconomic existenceAy into ethical subjectivity.
The third section.
AuThe Embodied Response: Substitution and Small Goodness,Ay delves into how ethical responsibility, born from the face-to-face encounter, manifests in concrete actions of substitution and in the pursuit of Ausmall goodnessAy, demonstrating the embodied nature of ethical response and the subjectAos willingness to prioritize the OtherAos well-being over his or her own.
Through this progression, we demonstrate how LevinasAos understanding of embodied ethical subjectivity offers a profound reimagining of moral philosophy.
The central thesis of our investigation is that moral responsibility emerges precisely at the intersection of our vulnerable bodies where the embodied subject encounters the embodied Other in that OtherAos suffering and need, making an absolute ethical demand which can only be understood only through our shared corporeal existence, and which offers the possibility of transcendence through embodied ethical THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF EMBODIED ETHICAL SUBJECT The foundation of LevinasAos ethical responsibility for the Other begins with the analysis of human existence.
Emmanuel Levinas was born in Lithuania.
In 1923 he went to Strasbourg University, where his studies included the philosophy of Henri Bergson.
From 1928 to 1929 Levinas was at Freiburg university, where he studied yrst with Husserl and then with Heidegger.
This led in 1930, to his publishing his yrst book.
The DISKURSUS.
Volume 21.
Nomor 1.
April 2025: 22-41 Theory of Intuition in HusserlAos Phenomenology.
This book was a reading of Husserl that was informed by HeideggerAos criticisms of HusserlAos intellectualism.
Since that time almost all of LevinasAos philosophical works have taken their point of departure from either Husserl or Heidegger.
Through the method of phenomenology Levinas examined human existence.
yrst presented his own thoughts in his essay on On Escape, 1935,1 and in two short studies published immediately after the Second World War.
Existence and Existents2 and Time and the Other.
3 These works offer analysis of human embodied existence through the experience of nausea, fatigue, pain, aging and insomnia.
In his analysis.
Levinas came to the conclusion that our human existence emerges on the background of an evil and anonymous existence.
Levinas calls this original and ever-returning, and threatening situation of evil as Auil y aAy or Authere is.
Ay This Aothere isAo has the tendency to reduce everything in its way into a non-being.
The being has to make an effort to stand above this Authere isAy and to assert its existence.
Levinas also calls this process a liberation from the Authere is.
Ay In fact.
LevinasAos ethical thought can be read as a path towards liberation or, rather, as a movement towards redemption and liberation.
This development towards liberation is seen in LevinasAos thought as a liberation from the situation of Authere isAy or AuIl y a,Ay and a movement to the level of AuhypostasisAy and Aueconomic existenceAy and, lastly, towards the face-to-face embodied encounter with the Other.
FACING THE VOID: EMBODIED ENCOUNTERS WITH LEVINASAoS IL Y A Developed in Existence and Existents and Time and Other, the Auil y aAy or Authere isAy represents one of LevinasAos most unsettling philosophical While appearing less frequently in his later works, this concept of an impersonal, anonymous existence continues to haunt his ethical Emmanuel Levinas.
On Escape: De lAoyvasion, trans.
Bettina Bergo (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2.
Emmanuel Levinas.
Existence and Existents, trans.
Alphonso Lingis, 1978th ed.
(The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1.
Emmanuel Lyvinas.
Time and the Other and Additional Essays (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1.
The Face-To-Face Ecounter (Arokiaraj Joseph Patric.
The Auil y aAy manifests itself as a crushing presence that precedes consciousness itself a primordial horror that cannot be directly described but can be approached only through metaphor and negative description.
As Philip Lawton notes, it represents Authe Aoelemental,Ao the Aoindeterminate,Ao the background of being in which the self yrst discovers itself as a self, and from which it thereby detaches itself to become a separate.
being who can meet others.
Ay4 This anonymous presence lies beyond direct experience or conceptualization, as we are always already constituted beings in relation to Yet the Auil y aAy persists as a threatening absence-presence, an insomniac vigilance that allows no rest.
The Auil y aAy represents a constant threat to the subjectAos identity and stability, an impersonal force that could at any moment reclaim the being that has temporarily escaped its grasp.
The subjectAos very emergence as a conscious being represents a desperate attempt to yee from this oppressive weight of anonymous Through phenomenological investigation.
Levinas reveals how this horror of Authere isAy or anonymous existence manifests itself in various experiential situations in the darkness of night, in states of insomnia, in moments when the familiar world dissolves into an uncanny foreignness.
Certainly.
Authere isAy is a kind of a background for the emergence of being which cannot be named and objectiyed.
Such a being remains absolutely anonymous.
This anonymous being cannot be conyrmed or negated, as it appears against an indeynite background before every afyrmation or negation.
Therefore, we can say that the Auil y aAy is not a thing, not an object of perception or of thought.
it is not approached, or intentionally nor is it grasped by a mind or a concept.
It is not a thing.
rather, it is the background of being from which things emerge and detach themselves.
In Ethics and Inynity Levinas, in an interview with Philip Nemo mentions about his reyection on the impersonal being, which he had during his childhood days, as follows:
Philip Lawton.
AuLevinasAo Notion of the AoThere IsAo,Ay Tijdschrift Voor Filosoye vol.
37, no.
: p.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 21.
Nomor 1.
April 2025: 22-41 My reyection on this subject starts with childhood memories.
One sleeps alone, the adult continues life.
the child feels the silence of his bedroom as Aorumbling.
AoAIt is something resembling what one hears when one puts an empty shell close to the ear, as if the emptiness were full, as if the silence were a noise.
It is something one can also feel when one thinks that, even if there were nothing, the fact that Aothere isAo is undeniable.
Not that there is this or that.
but the very scene of being is open: there is.
In the absolute emptiness that one can imagine before creationAethere is.
Levinas even uses a vocal image for this image of Ausilence.
Ay He says that this silence was as if full of noise, such as when one takes an empty shell and, keeping it close oneAos ears, one can hear the rumbling sound of the emptiness.
This experience of the darkness of the night threatens to overpower the subjectivity of the AuIAy.
The AuIAy has nowhere to run against the radical depersonalization of Authere is.
Ay The subject can no longer it has no refuge anymore.
Ciocan and Semon describe this experience as follows:
Being does not show itself in a positive light, as in HeideggerAias the source of all intelligibility, as light and meaningAibut negatively: as a heaviness, as weight, as something one wants to escape.
Moreover.
Being does not show itself, as in Heidegger, in .
understanding, but in sensibility: more precisely in the suffering of this sensibility, in the Aoimpossibility of getting out of the game,Ao in this Aoirremovability itself of our presenceAo (OE 52, translation modiye.
For Levinas, horror is somehow a movement which will strip consciousness of its very Ausubjectivity.
Ay7 AuThe rustling of the there is A is Ay8 In contrast to nausea, which expresses the bodily feeling of the Emmanuel Levinas.
Ethics and Inynity: Emmanuel Levinas, trans.
Richard Cohen (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1.
, p.
Cristian Ciocan and Kascha Semon.
AuThe Problem of Embodiment in the Early Writings of Emmanuel Levinas,Ay Levinas Studies vol.
: p.
7, https://doi.
org/10.
Levinas.
Existence and Existents, p.
Levinas, p.
The Face-To-Face Ecounter (Arokiaraj Joseph Patric.
impossibility of escaping from oneAos own being-subjectAy9.
AuHorror expresses the feeling that one is stripped of oneAos own being-subject.
Ay 10 The signiycance of this threatening presence becomes clear in understanding how subjectivity itself emerges as a response to this horror.
The subjectAos initial movements toward separation, toward economic existence and enjoyment, can be understood as desperate attempts to establish distance from the crushing weight of the Auil y a.
Ay Yet this threat never fully disappears it remains as a perpetual possibility, haunting the edges of consciousness and reminding the subject of the precariousness of its existence.
ESCAPING THE BURDEN: LEVINAS ON HYPOSTASIS AND
ECONOMIC EXISTENCE AS EVASION OF ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY
Only through the emergence of a self-aware being, capable of appropriating its own existence and of disrupting the terror it inspires, can the all-encompassing Authere isAy be overcome.
Levinas calls this contraction into particularity, whereby separate and distinct being comes into being, the event of hypostasis.
11 Levinas says in Existence and Existents says that the Auhypostasis is not a destruction of being but an attempt a hard yght, a struggle for life in order to rid being of its poisonous sting by means of particularising it into a being that exists here and now and thereby accords being a new signiycance.
Ay12 The new calamity situation of the human being is in a paradoxical manner linked to the positive event of becoming-subject.
Subjectivity is, on the one hand, the mastery of the AuIAy over the anonymous and depersonalising Authere isAy and is thus liberation, but on the other hand, it likewise again is calamity, namely the return of the self to the AuIAy, the hindrance of the AuIAy by itself.
In this new situation of evil, the dark clouds of the Authere isAy begin to appear against the background of fatigue and laziness.
Through the concept of Auil y aAy or Authere Levinas.
On Escape, pp.
66Ae68.
10 Levinas.
Existence and Existents, p.
11 Levinas.
Existence and Existents, pp.
82Ae83.
12 Levinas.
Existence and Existents, p.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 21.
Nomor 1.
April 2025: 22-41 is,Ay Levinas reminds us that we are fundamentally incarnate subjects, bound to our bodies in both suffering and senescence.
Levinas portrays vulnerability as an inescapable aspect of embodied existence, revealed through pain and aging.
The self, trapped in its own yesh, experiences a profound connection to its corporeal form that cannot be severed without losing the selfAos identity.
According to Jacob Meskin.
Auin the pain and senescence .
I ynd myself inescapably connected to myself in a way I wish I could terminate.
The vulnerability of incarnate sensibility reveals that my perduring self-identity comes from outside me, for as much as I might want to dispense with it.
I cannot without ceasing to be the integrated, self-identical ego that I am.
Pain and ageing disclose that I am forced or compelled into remaining the one I am despite myself.
Ay 13 The embodied subject, seeking respite from fatigue and loneliness, often engages in Aueconomic existence,Ay a process that encompasses both the acquisition of knowledge and the enjoyment derived from nourishing oneself with the elementals.
This pursuit of relief, experienced through the body, reveals a fundamental connection between our material and intellectual endeavors and our corporeal being.
The subject attempts to mitigate the weight of its existence by engaging in a cycle of knowledge acquisition and elemental enjoyment, each mediated and experienced through their physical form.
This highlights how both knowing and nourishing, as components of Aueconomic existence,Ay are fundamentally embodied activities, shaping and being shaped by our corporeal reality.
By the term Aueconomic existenceAy Levinas means that a being makes the world outside itself part of its ego.
Through the process of labor and knowledge, a being comprehends the world and makes it part of its ego or self.
This process helps the being to set out of itself for the Other and, hence, to avoid falling back into the evil of Authere is.
Ay The pursuit of AuknowledgeAy and AuunderstandingAy serves as another escape route.
The pursuit of knowledge represents an attempt by the self to transcend its physical limitations and existential burdens, offering a cognitive escape 13 Jacob Meskin.
AuIn the Flesh: Embodiment and Jewish Existence in the Thought of Emmanual Levinas,Ay Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal vol.
76, no.
, p.
The Face-To-Face Ecounter (Arokiaraj Joseph Patric.
from the immediate concerns of corporeal life.
Through understanding, individuals seek mastery over their environment, creating a sense of control of and distance from their embodied vulnerabilities.
However.
Levinas is critical of the tendency in Western philosophy to prioritize knowledge as a means of grasping and totalizing reality.
He argues that this approach can lead to the objectiycation of the world and others, reducing them to mere objects of comprehension rather than recognizing their irreducible alterity.
Through the processes of Aueconomic existence,Ay the being attempts to escape its own insufyciency, yet paradoxically discovers both dependence and independence in its relationship with the world.
Unable to ynd fulyllment in itself, the being moves toward otherness, seeking identity through its engagement with the world.
This relationship reveals a fundamental paradox: while the being depends on the world to escape its self-enclosure, this very dependence enables its separation from the oppressive anonymity of the Authere is.
Ay LevinasAos phenomenological analysis illuminates how this movement unfolds through embodied experiences of nourishment, labor, and possession.
The being ynds pleasure and happiness in its engagement with the world, experiencing what Levinas terms Auenjoyment.
Ay This emphasis on enjoyment highlights the crucial role of embodiment in LevinasAos phenomenology the body is not merely an instrument but is the very condition through which the being relates to and ynds satisfaction in the world.
Through these acts of nourishment and possession the embodied subject establishes itself as separate and independent, yet simultaneously it remains in need of what is other than This complex dialectic of dependence and independence, mediated through bodily engagement with the world, forms a crucial stage in the beingAos journey from self-absorption toward ethical relationship with the Other.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 21.
Nomor 1.
April 2025: 22-41
EMBODIED EXISTENCE AS NOURISHMENT AND EVERYDAY LIFE
The embodied being or ego tries to establish its identity through In the act of nourishment, the elementals, such as air, water, and food, etc.
become part of the embodied being.
The Other, which is out there in the world, is transformed into the same through nourishment.
In this act of nourishment, the being feels a great sense of joy.
Levinas mentions in Totality and Inynity that Aunourishment is the transmutation of the other into the same.
This is the essence of enjoyment.
In enjoyment, the energy that is recognized as other becomes my own energy, my Ay14 The embodied ego attempts to overcome its fear of the Authere isAy by converting everything it encounters into something familiar and controllableAisomething that belongs to itself.
Through its corporeal existence, when the ego encounters the world or Others, its yrst bodily instinct is to strip away their foreignness or difference .
heir alterit.
and to make them part of its own understanding and possession.
This process of turning the Other into the same through embodied engagement is how the ego builds and strengthens its identity.
By physically possessing things, understanding them through bodily experience, and using them for its own corporeal needs, the ego creates a sphere of sameness around itself a domain where everything is reduced to what the embodied ego can grasp and control.
This bodily transformation of otherness into sameness is the concrete manifestation of egoism the embodied egoAos fundamental drive to make everything its own.
When the ego encounters food, it doesnAot just eat it but physically incorporates it into itself.
When it encounters knowledge, it doesnAot just learn but embodies that knowledge through lived experience.
When it encounters objects, it doesnAot just use them but claims them as physical possessions that extend its bodily domain.
Through these acts of corporeal possession and transformation, the ego establishes itself as 14 Levinas.
Totality and Inynity, pp.
110Ae111.
The Face-To-Face Ecounter (Arokiaraj Joseph Patric.
an embodied being separate from and independent of the threatening void of the Authere is.
Ay According to Levinas.
AuWe live from Aogood soup,Ao air, light, spectacles, work, ideas, sleep, etc.
These are not objects of representations.
We live from them, and through them.
Nor is what we live from a Aomeans of life,Ao as the pen is a means with respect to the letter it permits us to write nor a goal of life, as communication is the goal of the Ay15 The more the embodied ego can convert the foreign into the familiar through its physical engagement with the world, the stronger its sense of corporeal self becomes and the more it feels protected from the anonymous existence it fears.
To the extent that the world of dwelling, eating, and drinking satisyes the needs of the ego and conyrms its position as ruler and owner, it can be called the world of Aueconomy.
Ay 16 Just as history objectiyes and engulfs the lives it synthesizes, so too the interiority of the AuIAy and its relations to need, labor, and habitation reduces alterity.
17 According to Jolanta Saldukaityt.
AuEnjoyment is nayve and innocent, as Levinas suggests in Totality and Inynity.
It is Aohappy,Ao in the sense of Aocarefree.
Ao Nevertheless, despite the positive side of enjoyment, this kind of material existence appears to a more complex and differentiated account as indifference and exploitation of the other.
Ay 18 Levinas does not condemn this initial self-absorption of ego but sees it as a prerequisite for ethical engagement.
The separation achieved through enjoyment, labor, and possession creates a subject capable of encountering the Other.
However, itAos important to note that, while Levinas legitimizes this initial egocentrism, he does not see it as the ultimate Rather, it is a stage that prepares the subject for the ethical encounter with the Other, which encounter transcends mere economic existence and opens the possibility for true ethical responsibility.
15 Levinas.
Totality and Inynity, p.
16 Adriaan Peperzak.
To the Other: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas (Purdue University Press, 1.
, p.
17 Edith.
Wyschogrod.
AuDerrida.
Levinas and Violence,Ay in Continental Philosophy II: Derrida and Deconstruction, ed.
Hugh.
J Silverman (London: Routledge, 1.
, p.
18 Jolanta Saldukaityt.
AuEmmanuel Levinas and Ethical Materialism,Ay Religions vol.
: p.
3, https://doi.
org/10.
3390/rel12100870.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 21.
Nomor 1.
April 2025: 22-41
THE ETHICAL DEMAND: ARISING FROM THE FACE-TOFACE ENCOUNTER WITH THE EMBODIED OTHER
Levinas discovers in his phenomenological investigation that the ego is never alone.
Even before it attains consciousness it is already face to face with the embodied Other.
The Other shares the same vulnerability of embodiment as the self.
This appearance of the face is sudden and disturbing.
The epiphany of the face also brings about restlessness in the being because it distracts the self from its totalizing attitude and questions it regarding whether the self is living according to its vocation for the other.
Saldukaityt argues as follows:
For Levinas the face is given empirically, it is a Aubody expressionAy (Levinas .
2007, p.
, but at the same time, it breaks from its context: it is not a surface but an expression.
The face is abstract, not in the sense of empty, intellectualized, but without context, deeper, more demanding than any context, and as such it Auenters into our world from an absolutely foreign sphere, that is, precisely from an absolute, that which in fact is the very name for ultimate strangeness.
(Levinas 1987, p.
The word face has a Hebrew origin.
It comes .
rom the word AupaninA.
, from which the word compassion derives.
Levinas uses face and the Other to refer to the alterity or the divinity of the Other.
He uses this term to refer to the face of the Other, to the Other person and for him face is a remarkable presentation of the alterity of the other.
According to Levinas, the encounter with the Other is affected only through the face.
The alterity of the face is intrinsic, metaphysical, and absolute because the other is totally beyond the AuIAy and its possessive powers and it is totally unencompassable and transcendent.
20 Hence, face becomes the alterity which the ego is trying to seek so that it can lead itself beyond itself.
Hence, the face represents the Other.
19 Saldukaityt.
AuEmmanuel Levinas and Ethical Materialism,Ay p.
20 Robert Bernasconi and David Wood.
The Provocation of Levinas: Rethinking the Other (London: Routledge, 1.
, p.
The Face-To-Face Ecounter (Arokiaraj Joseph Patric.
When we hear the word face, we spontaneously associate it with Aucountenance,Ay that is to say, with the physiognomy, facial expression, and, by extension, character, social status and situation, past and AucontextAy from which the other person becomes visible and describable for But what Levinas really means by the face of the Other is not his or her physical countenance or appearance, but precisely the noteworthy fact that the Other not only in fact, but in principle does not coincide with his or her appearance, image, photograph, representation or evocation.
Levinas would say that Authe face is present in its refusal to be contained.
Ay21 When the ego encounters the face of another, it becomes aware that there is something beyond itself, ungraspable by its comprehension, in the Other.
The face manifests as the presence of the Other that resists totalization.
The face breaks away from the egoAos totalizing attitude of claiming everything as its own.
Face refuses to be contained by the egoAos drive to possess and comprehend.
What is the look of the face? AuIt is an event.
Ay22 It is not necessarily a phenomenon, but it is the frailty and the need of the Other of which the ego becomes aware of.
It is not something for which the ego asks, but something that breaks through to it.
The encounter with the face is fundamentally an embodied encounter, where two vulnerable corporeal beings meet in their shared fragility.
The face appears not merely as a physical countenance but as an embodied presence that both reveals the vulnerability of the Other and reminds the ego of its own susceptibility to suffering and death.
This mutual recognition of corporeal vulnerability is central to the ethical moment the face of the Other, in its material need and exposure to harm, awakens the ego to its pre-existing responsibility.
The OtherAos embodied presence, manifest in hunger, cold, or pain, speaks without words of a primordial duty to respond.
The face thus appears as both command and reminder it commands ethical response while simultaneously reminding the ego that this responsibility precedes its very 21 Levinas.
Totality and Inynity, p.
22 Tamara Wright.
Peter Hughes, and Alison Ainley.
AuThe Paradox of Morality: An Interview with Levinas,Ay in The Provocation of Levinas: Rethinking the Other, ed.
Robert Bernasconi and David Wood (New York: Routledge, 1.
, p.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 21.
Nomor 1.
April 2025: 22-41 emergence as a conscious being.
Saldukaityt suggests.
AuIf .
body is the chains, the prison, we want to overcome it, but if we see that human life is embodiment and the body, unavoidably, is vulnerable, we have to deal with it.
For Levinas that is the possibility for ethics, for social relations between humans.
Ay23 Through this corporeal encounter, the ego discovers that its own embodied existence has always already been pledged in responsibility to the Other.
The vulnerable body of the Other awakens the ego to its own embodied nature, not as a source of power or self-sufyciency, but as the very condition that makes ethical responsibility possible and necessary.
In the faceAos exposure, the self-absorbing ego recognizes both its capacity to harm and its calling to protect a recognition that emerges precisely because both self and Other share in the fundamental vulnerability of embodied existence.
This shared corporeality becomes the foundation for ethical responsibility, as the ego realizes that its very existence as an embodied being carries with it an inescapable obligation to respond to the OtherAos need.
The encounter with the face leads a being to become aware of its responsibility for the Other.
This is the basis of ethics.
For Levinas ethics is yrst philosophy.
It begins even before we are aware of our existence.
AuTo aid the Other is no lack in the self, but to rise to oneAos proper height, oneAos responsibilities.
Not for oneAos own sake, to be sure, but in the course of helping the other: such is inynite obligation, to always do more.
The vulnerability, the suffering of another human being, puts the subject into question, and being put-into-question is the very height of our humanity.
Ay24
THE EMBODIED RESPONSE: SUBSTITUTION AND SMALL
GOODNESS
Ethics for Levinas is a response to this appeal of the face.
So, the beginning of philosophy is not the knowing subject which dominates the 23 Saldukaityt.
AuEmmanuel Levinas and Ethical Materialism,Ay p.
24 Saldukaityt.
AuEmmanuel Levinas and Ethical Materialism,Ay p.
The Face-To-Face Ecounter (Arokiaraj Joseph Patric.
world but the responsible subject which is placed in and awakened to responsibility by the face of the Other.
Hence, we can say, in DostoyevskyAos words.
AuWe are all responsible for all for all men before all, and I more than all the other.
Ay Authentic existence of the self is seen as AuI am for the Other.
Ay Levinas states that.
AuThe radical responsibility for the other or the inter human reality is the very structure of the subject itself.
Ay25 The responsibility for the Other has its origin not in the individualAos initiative.
rather, responsibility precedes the individualAos freedom.
Without being asked, one becomes responsible because of the OtherAos This responsibility is attributed to the subject before it is in a condition to make a decision.
The individual is essentially Aurelated to the OtherAy through their embodied existence, and this occurs before any examination, consent, or dialogue from either side.
Since such a responsibility precedes conscious subjective freedom, it must be construed as Aupre-originalAy and Auan-archic.
Ay In other words, before individuals give their existence meaning and a deynitive direction by afyrming responsibility as their vocation, they have been called into being and to responsibility.
Responsibility is to be completely open to the Other.
The ethical response demanded by this embodied encounter cannot be satisyed through abstract ideas or theoretical understanding.
Ethical responsibility implies that the responsibility should lead one towards acts of mercy for the Other.
This responsibility needs to be tangible, seen, felt, and experienced by the other.
The face calls for concrete acts of goodness for giving oneAos bread to the hungry, offering shelter to the homeless, caring for the sick.
This concept of responsibility is beautifully narrated in the Parable of the Good Samaritan in the New Testament (Mt.
Respect for and acknowledgement of the Other must be concretized in tangible forms of caring for the Other and its well-being.
Hence, responsibility must become yesh - in and through our body.
It would be hypocritical to meet the Other with empty hands.
The test of this responsibility consists in not abandoning the Other to its suffering and dying even when the Oth25 Emmanuel Lyvinas.
Otherwise than Being, or.
Beyond Essence, trans.
Alphonso Lingis (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1.
, p.
DISKURSUS.
Volume 21.
Nomor 1.
April 2025: 22-41 er cannot recompense or repay.
I must not let the Other die alone because the Other is vulnerable.
We have the example of Mother Teresa who attracted the entire humanity not so much by her life of prayer but through her acts of mercy, by caring for the least, the lost, and the abandoned of Her act surpassed all holiness and religion.
The egoAos responsibility manifests itself in physical acts of substitution, where it puts its own bodily comfort and security at risk for the sake of the Other.
This substitution is not a choice made by a free subject but emerges from the very condition of embodied existence: the ego ynds itself already responsible, already commanded to respond through tangible acts of care and sacriyce.
In one of his interviews Levinas speaks about substitution as follows:
For me the notion of substitution is tied to the notion of responsibility.
To substitute oneself does not amount to putting oneself in the place of the other man in order to feel what he feels.
it does not involve becoming the other nor, if he be destitute and desperate, the courage of .
such a trial.
Rather, substitution entails bringing comfort by associating ourselves with the essential weakness and ynitude of the other.
it is to bear his weight while sacriycing oneAos interestedness and complacency in being, which then turns into responsibility for the Substitution represents the ultimate expression of ethical responsibility, where the ego takes upon itself the suffering and needs of the Other.
This is not a metaphorical substitution but a concrete, bodily one: feeling hunger in place of the OtherAos hunger, experiencing cold so the other might be warm, sacriycing rest to tend to the OtherAos pain.
Through substitution, the egoAos very corporeal existence becomes a gift offered to the This offering is not heroic or grandiose but manifests in what Levinas calls Ausmall goodnessAy, the modest, everyday acts of care and concern that respond to the immediate needs of the other in their vulnerability.
26 Emmanuel Levinas.
Is It Righteous to Be?: Interviews with Emmanuel Levinas, ed.
Jill Robbins (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2.
, p.
The Face-To-Face Ecounter (Arokiaraj Joseph Patric.
These small acts of goodness sharing food, offering shelter, tending wounds, providing comfort constitute the concrete manifestation of ethical responsibility.
They represent not abstract moral principles but embodied responses to the OtherAos corporeal needs.
In these modest gestures, the ego ynds its authentic meaning beyond mere economic existence.
The vulnerability revealed in the face-to-face encounter demands this immediate and tangible embodied response.
Through these material acts of care, the ego fulylls its pre-original responsibility to the Other, discovering that true ethical life consists not in grand theories or universal principles, but in the humble, bodily acts of substitution that answer the OtherAos This is how the ego transcends its selysh existence: not through philosophical contemplation but through concrete acts of goodness that put the OtherAos needs before its own comfort and security.
When the ego responds to this call of responsibility it is drawn beyond itself towards the Other.
Therefore, it is able to break away from the bondage of itself and establish its identity as a being oriented towards the Other.
For Levinas ethics and responsibility for the Other will lead the being away from the danger of Authere is.
Ay.
The being is able to establish its identity only is responding to the call of the Other that reminds the ego of is responsibility as vulnerable corporeal being that shares the same death and suffering as the Other.
The being experiences liberation and purpose through process of living its responsibility for the Other.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this exploration of LevinasAos embodied ethics presents a radical departure from traditional Western metaphysics, ultimately grounding moral responsibility in the corporeal encounter between subjects.
Levinas redirects philosophical inquiry towards the ethical demand of the Other.
This shift necessitates a reimagining of subjectivity, one that recognizes the limitations of self-knowledge and the inescapable responsibility that arises from our shared corporeal vulnerability.
By examining the emergence of the ethical subject from the anonymous Authere isAy through AuhypostasisAy and Aueconomic existence,Ay and DISKURSUS.
Volume 21.
Nomor 1.
April 2025: 22-41 then tracing the transformative potential of the face-to-face encounter with the embodied Other in their shared vulnerable corporeality, this analysis demonstrates the centrality of embodiment in LevinasAos ethical vision.
Unlike approaches that prioritize abstract principles or rational calculation, the approach of Levinas locates ethical obligation in the concrete, physical realm of vulnerable bodies encountering one another in speciyc moments of space and time.
Through his phenomenological examination of experiences such as nausea, fatigue, pain, and aging.
Levinas exposes the ever-present threat of the Auil y a,Ay a force that seeks to reduce everything to non-being, and highlights the ethical imperative to resist this depersonalization by embracing our responsibility for the Other.
Ultimately.
LevinasAos embodied ethics offers a compelling vision of moral responsibility that emerges precisely at the intersection of vulnerable bodies.
It is in the encounter with the embodied Other in itAos suffering and need that an absolute ethical demand is made, one that transcends abstract principles and rational calculations.
This demand, born from our shared corporeal suffering of death and pain, offers the possibility of transcendence through ethical response, a salvation found not in self-preservation but in the selyess dedication to the well-being of the Other.
Thus.
LevinasAos work provides a powerful framework for understanding the ethical dimensions of embodiment and the profound responsibility we bear for one another as vulnerable, interconnected beings.
While LevinasAos ethics profoundly emphasizes the face-to-face encounter and reciprocal vulnerability, its anthropocentric focus presents challenges when extending ethical responsibility beyond human beings.
Critics question how LevinasAos principles can be applied to animals or the natural world, which lack the capacity for conscious, reciprocal engagement.
The face, central to LevinasAos ethical demand, becomes problematic in these contexts, as it is difycult to discern a comparable face in non-human entities.
Extending ethical consideration to animals and nature would require either a redeynition of the face or a development of alternative ethical frameworks that still uphold LevinasAos emphasis on responsibility and the priority of the Other, but are not solely reliant on The Face-To-Face Ecounter (Arokiaraj Joseph Patric.
the encounter between human consciousnesses.
This remains a signiycant challenge for Levinasian ethics in addressing contemporary concerns about animal rights and environmental ethics.
REFERENCES