Abstract
Mahatma Gandhi and Emmanuel Levinas have much in common. They interpret religion in a radical ethical way and develop an ethical hermeneutics of religious sources. Levinasâs thoughts on a holy history, not to be confused with history, are comparable with Gandhiâs swaraj as the spiritual independence and self-transformation of India. Escaping war logics, they maintain a âbeyond the stateâ in the state and insert ethics in politics. Yet, Gandhiâs ethico-politics works with radical interrelatedness, whereas Levinas differentiates more between the self and the other. Gandhi trusted that, in the end, the good would vanquish evil. Levinas, in turn, did not venture into the future: the present was under âeschatological judgment.â Gandhiâs love of the enemy and his attempt to soften the opponentâs heart are absent in Levinasâs metaphysics. In addition, Levinas does not radically deconstruct the term self-defense, although Gandhi notoriously made also exceptions to his ahimsa. A dialogue can be established between Levinasâs ethical metaphysics and Gandhiâs ahimsa and satyagraha. Both thinkers make a radical critique of a peace based on rational contracts and equate peace with universal brother- and sisterhood. Without underestimating the many similarities between Levinas and Gandhi, I also highlight their dissimilarities. I argue that precisely the differences between both thinkers allow for a âtrans-differentâ dialogue, which respects specificities and promotes communication, in a movement of hospitality and mutual learning.
Highlights
âbeyond the stateâ in the state and insert ethics in politics
Gandhiâs ethico-politics works with radical interrelatedness, whereas Levinas differentiates more between the self and the other
A dialogue can be established between Levinasâs ethical metaphysics and Gandhiâs ahimsa and satyagraha. Both thinkers make a radical critique of a peace based on rational contracts and equate peace with universal brother- and sisterhood
Summary
In his Introduction to Dialogue as a Trans-disciplinary Concept, Paul Mendes-Flohr strikingly notes that what characterizes Martin Buberâs work in manifold fields is âthe principle of dialogue, which he employed as a comprehensive hermeneutic methodâ. Paul aptly describes Buberâs dialogue as an agenda-less listening, a readiness to hear other voices without prejudice. Such a deep listening could eventually lead the partner in dialogue to change her mind. Gandhi and Levinas have much in common when it comes to the relation between ethics and politics. Notwithstanding their many affinities, there are significant differences. Butler refers to Gandhi and radically deconstructs the term self-defense (Butler 2020) She makes the reader public aware that much violence hides in the current use of the word self-defense.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have