Objects, Elements, and Affirmation of the Ethical

Matthew Z. Donnelly

Boston College, Chestnut Hill, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/ojpp.2013.32045                

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the theory of material objects often referred to as mereological nihilism supports a fine-grained and analytically coherent reading of Emmanuel Levinas’s concept of “elements” as articulated by Levinas primarily in Totality and Infinity. This reading, in turn, allows for a second conclusion, namely the affirmation of the ethical as the possible ground of all other philosophy.

Keywords

Levinas; Mereology; Ethical Phenomenology; Objectivity

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Calarco, M. (2010). Faced by animals. In P. Atterton, & M. Calarco (Eds.), Radicalizing Levinas (pp. 113-135). Albany: State University of New York Press.
[2]	Drabinski, J. E. (2001). Sense and Singularity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
[3]	Eubanks, C. L., & Gauthier, D. J. (2011). The politics of the homeless spirit: Heidegger and Levinas on Dwelling and Hospitality. History of Political Thought, 32, 125-146.
[4]	Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Translated by John and Robinson, Edward Macquarrie. New York: Harper Collins,.
[5]	Hirst, A. (2007). Levinas separates the (hu)man from the nonhuman, using hunger, enjoyment and anxiety to illuminate their relationship. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 3, 159.
[6]	Koslicki, K. (2008). The structure of objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199539895.001.0001
[7]	Levinas, E. (1996). Is ontology fundamental? In E. Levinas (Ed.), Basic philosophical writings (pp. 1-10). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
[8]	Levinas, E. (1996). Meaning and sense. In E. Levinas (Ed.), Basic philosophical writings (pp. 33-64). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
[9]	Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
[10]	Levinas, E. (1996). Transcendence and Height. In E. Levinas (Ed.), Basic philosophical writings (pp. 11-32). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
[11]	Lingis, A. (2010). The environment: A critical appreciation of Levinas’s analysis in existence and existens. Levinas Studies, 5, 65-82.
[12]	Locke, J. (1690). Second treatise of government. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing.
[13]	Martin, R. M. (1992). Logical semiotics and mereology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[14]	Martin, R. M. (1988). Metaphysical foundations: Mereology and metalogic. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.
[15]	Nuyen, A. T. (2001). The “ethical anthropic principle” and the religious ethics of Levinas. Journal of Religious Ethics, 40, 427-442. doi:10.1163/156916410X524457
[16]	Quine, W. V. (1970). Philosophy of logic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,.
[17]	Richardson, W. J. (1995). The irresponsible subject. In A. T. Peperzak, Ed., Ethics as first philosophy (pp. 123-136). New York: Routledge.
[18]	Sallis, J. (2010). Levinas and the elemental. In P. Atterton, & M. Calarco (Eds.), Radicalizing Levinas (pp. 87-94). Albany: State University of New York Press.
[19]	Sealey, K. (2010). The primacy of disruption in Levinas’s account of transcendence. Research in Phenomenology, 40, 363-377. doi:10.1163/156916410X524457
[20]	Tallion, A. (1995). Nonintentional affectivity. In A. T. Peperzak (Ed.), Ethics as first philosophy (pp. 107-122). New York: Routledge.
[21]	Thomasson, A. (2007). Ordinary objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195319910.001.0001
[22]	van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
[23]	Westphal, M. (1995). Levinas’s teleological suspension of the religious. In A. T. Peperzak (Ed.), Ethics as first philosophy (pp. 151-160). New York: Routledge.
[24]	Wyschogrod, E. (2000). Emmanuel Levinas: The problem of ethical metaphysics. New York: Fordham University Press.