Fragile subjectivity, or the controversy grounded on the Lévinasian and Ricœurian philosophies of man, and some of its implications for understanding mental health

Robert Grzywacz

doi:10.15633/lie.3770

Abstract

The study aims to confront two concepts of fragile subjectivity: one by Emmanuel Lé vinas and the other by Paul Ricœur. However, this is not the purpose in itself. Actually, the first step consists on the pointing out the similarities and divergences that exist between both approaches in dealing with the open and labile trait of human identity. This step further serves to highlight the discussion points which, due to the tension generated by the underlined incompatibilities, stimulate thinking and the search for mediation. To illustrate the fertility of this controversy, it is transferred to the area of philosophy of psychiatry, where an attempt is made to apply both anthropological positions to a philosophical interpretation of the essence of the phenomenon of schizophrenia. This interpretation of the pathogenesis of the chosen phenomenon allows, in turn, for a cautious conclusion to be drawn as to the described controversy between Lé vinas and Ricœur.

Highlights

The following question arises: “if interiority were determined solely by the desire for retreat and closure, how could it ever hear a word addressed to it, which would seem so foreign to it that this word would be as nothing for an isolated existence?”35 the necessity to credit the reflective subjectivity with the capacity to receive, and distinguish and recognise, so that it can, for instance, discriminate between the Other as a master or teacher and as an offender or tormentor, as well as accept the injunction as its own conviction.36. This capacity to acknowledge the call or injunction coming from the Other is, in Ricœur’s opinion, specially connected with his evocation of self-esteem in the recipient of the call or injunction, and by extension with a positive affective emotion, and with a possibility of prolonging the exchange of giving and receiving
This capacity to acknowledge the call or injunction coming from the Other is, in Ricœur’s opinion, specially connected with his evocation of self-esteem in the recipient of the call or injunction, and by extension with a positive affective emotion, and with a possibility of prolonging the exchange of giving and receiving.37. These remarks might be supplemented with yet another question: is the disinterestedness of self-sacrifice in substitution not de facto another name of freedom in Lévinas?38 It seems that while the author of Totality and Infinity accurately localises the point of divergence with Ricœur in the presence or lack of reciprocity in the described attitude to another man, the question posed by the French hermeneutical philosopher remains to be answered: whether pure disinterestedness not presupposes such summoning of the subjectivity for responsibility that the summoning would have something in common with the perspective of self-esteem
The inquiries pursued here are helpful in appreciating the diagnostic significance of the selected anthropological views for metaclinical reflection in psychiatry

Summary

Two approaches to fragile subjectivity

Both the thinkers, whose views are the subject of this discussion, are treated here as representatives of philosophy of man. Their juxtaposition can in large measure be justified with the real dialogue which they pursued in the spirit of profound mutual respect, while maintaining a polemical twist. In their works, they both developed concepts of subjectivity marked by existential fragility. The narrowing of the cognitive perspective is overcome thanks to speech and significance; in the practical area, the individuality of character, i.e. the limited practical and motivational opening of the subject to the world gets infinitely widened along with the pursuit of happiness; and as for the affective sphere, isolated vital feelings open up to the comprehensive, happiness-genic horizon of spiritual feelings This existential dialectic lays the foundations for the so-called ontology of disproportion, which can be encapsulated in man’s inherent incommensurateness given as a lived experience, which makes him a being fragile with respect to his feeling, and in consequence fallible and imperfect..

Similarities and differences between the juxtaposed concepts of subjectivity

Conclusion