Levinas

[Anonymous No.18102731]

the way he uses the concept of ‘height’ confuses me a bit, does he simply mean it in the sense of hierarchical importance/influence of the ‘other’ towards the ‘i’?

additionally, why did he feel the need to write so intentionally obtuse a manner? is it the Heidegger influence? Heidegger’s use of language is still far less flashy than Levinas’ is, and at least serves a purpose beyond waxing poetic.

[Anonymous No.18102761]

Kinda. The self is basically a slave of the Other — when not a slave of totality.

[Anonymous No.18102819]

>>18102761
i assume he uses height then to describe the moral nature of the obligation to the other? iirc he wrote along the lines of “the other challenges the self from its deepest depths and highest height”, where the self’s power over the other is exactly what constitutes the challenge of the other towards the self.

im not quite sure what he means when he talks about ‘infinity’, which im assuming is linked to what you mean by ‘totality’?

[Anonymous No.18103990]

>>18102819
The way I understood it, infinity is the "religious" relation to the other, which is radically outside, outside totality. Totality is the realm of being, of all beings grasped in an ontological relation. While man/self always remains "here below", the (high) other does break into totality (as a "marvel") in calling out to man in the infinitely removed, ethical (prior to ontological) relation.