On Levinas’Philosophical Language〔*〕

Zhang Weiwei

(School of Politics and Administration South China Normal University，Guangzhou Guangdong 510631)

Jewish French philosopher(Emmanual Levinas，1906-1995)is a very important and special philosopher in the 20th century.His attention to philosophical language is mainly embodied in Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essenceissued in 1974，which develops the theme of his early work Totality and Infinityand meanwhile is known as“Levinas’turn of linguistics and deconstruction”.〔1〕He tries to comprehend ethics from the perspective of language，shifts the focus on the relation from between the“face”and ethics to the language and ethics，helps break people’s inherent thinking set and the dominance of traditional Ontology and proves“otherwise than being”with the help of poetic language.

Ⅰ.The language trying to escape from Ontology

Levinas once talked about the shortcomings of Totality and Infinity，“I talked about the Being，in an ontological term，since then I tried to escape from that language.”〔2〕Clearly，he admits his constant behavior of resorting to ontological language to object to Ontology and indirectly acquiesced in Derrida’s critique in Violence and Metaphysics.

Levinas’biggest mistake lies in his borrowings from traditional ontological language in his critique of tradition，which is exactly the point Derrida criticizes Levinas.He once pinpointed“according to Levinas，nonviolent language is a language without the verb‘to be’，i.e.a language without predication;predication is the first violence.Since the verb‘to be’and predication are contained in all other verbs and all common nouns，nonviolent language should be a pure language for prayer and worship.… Is a language completely out of rhetoric possible?The Greek who teach us logos perhaps will never accept it.”〔3〕Here，the statement only starts with the cycle of Being under the control of Ontology，which is bound to go against Levinas’original intention to explore the alterity of the Other.And“it is impossible to achieve the openness tending to transcend philosophical language through the philosophical language within the language.”〔4〕

The headline of the last part ofOtherwise Than Being，In Other Words，shows his effort to look for another way of Saying.This book not only further develops Levinas’philosophy，but also deepens Totality and Infinity.However，he deals with the Ontological language with more caution and tries to establish a new concept through the renewal of diction.Although the ever-changing terms usually come from the daily life，they merely repeat similar or same words without strict definition.In his opinion，any immobilization is suspected of materialization and falls into the trap of Ontology，which he exactly objects to，so to avoid strict definition can avoid this dilemma.

Ⅱ.The language as an ethical relation

Language view of traditional epistemology thinks language comes from the thought and perception that starts from intentional activities.Language comes from consciousness and Being in the final analysis;thus it is subordinate to Ontology.But Levinas believes language is not from the consciousness and not subordinate to Ontology but Ethics.Without language，a representative of an ethical relation，the ethical metaphysics cannot be constructed.

In Levinas’opinion，language presents the world and Being not through a proposition and it will not be the substance of self-presentation.Language is brought by others and stays in the status of“being coming”.The mission of language is to enter the relation with others，so we can discover that words we speak aim at others and words we hear come from others even in our daily life experience.Language，discourse and dialogue construct an alterity relation，where the other is an essential part besides the subject.

The“face”is the most expressive over a body of the other，so it can be even substituted by“discourse”directly.From this point，the“face”is consistent with lan-guage.The“face”is essentially an interlocutor and the origin of the meaning besides the subject，thus it is required to be the origin of discourse responsible for the Other.Levinas believes that language is essentially an interpellation where the other and I interpellate each other.〔5〕Language expresses the meaning beyond experience that cannot be discovered in the subject and provides a opportunity for the Other and I to exchange.“Face to face”constructs the relation between the subject and the externality and makes it possible for language to create.The visible“face”in phenomenological experience makes it possible to encounter the other and turn into“face to face”.Discourse means“response”and I make a“response”to the other in the expression of the“face”of the other(Levinas often takes“response”the same as“responsibility”in his works).“The reaction of your face is not only a response，but also a responsibility.The two words are closely related.”〔6〕So language doesn’t belong to the Other and comes from the other who stares at me.The other questions and orders me and I take the“responsibility”unconsciously when facing the“face”，thus language constructs the ethical relation between the Other and“me”and marks“the world of Being”by ethics.

The“face”，playing an important role in comprehending Levinas’thought in Totality and Infinity，embodies the ethical relation and responsibility by language and leaves infinite trace when approaching the others’face.Because Levinas places the encounter between the subject and the others’face outside the subject，the“face”represents the alterity of the Other.The externality and alterity prove that Being is not ultimate or unique and there is still ethics or even God outside Being.Derrida’s comment on Levinas’“face”is，“because it opens and transcends the totality，it marks the boundary of all power and violence and the origin of the ethics.”〔7〕

Ⅲ.The saying and the said

The basic point of Levinas’late thought is the division of the Saying and the Said.Derrida criticizes Levinas for failing to realize the identity between Being and the“verbalism”.That gets himself into a dilemma that he studies on the Other，but his language reflects his thought of taking the Other as a being or a part of the“totality”，which Levinas himself also admits.He thinks that the language is the reason for failing to get rid of the bondage of Ontology and any description of“transcendence”will pull us back to the Ontological language，since only the being can be described.Traditional instruction，argumentation and description have the premise of Ontology，and the meaning of language is based on the stable and knowable being.〔8〕It is Ontology that Levinas should avoid.In his late work Otherwise Than Being，the main target of the study is“otherwise than being”，not“other being”or“another being”，so it is imperative to find a language form to escape from the premise of traditional Ontology.The mission of this book is look for a clear language that do not belong to all Ontological meanings in order to resolve the contradiction his philosophy faces.And this mission should be accomplished by the division of the Saying and the Said.

Levinas thinks traditional philosophy only emphasizes the content of the Said because the term can act as a sign and represent a variety of the beings in daily life by the Said.The world，Being and the like are the contents of the Said.The Said is a language propositional system where the subjects can communicate successfully.“Ontology was born in the Said.”〔9〕“To entering Being and truth is to enter the Said.”〔10〕Because of the leading position of the Said(mainly the content)in daily life and traditional philosophy，“transcendence”will be thematized and re-placed in Being and be always bounded by it.Thus transcendence and escape from Being can be achieved by the return to the Saying within the Said.

The Saying totally stays outside the system of the Said.“Escaping from comprehension and interrupting Ontology really reflect the movement of the Same to the Other”.〔11〕Traditional Ontology always studies language from the perspective of characteristics of the Saying，but Levinas thinks that the Saying discovers what cannot be found within linguistic Ontology.Although it must rely on the Said，it points at the pre-original and unthematized ethical relation.The Said is always unthematized and coherent，grammatical and logical，while the Saying is prior to the grammar that restricts the Said and the language we speak.It comes from the proximity between one and the other.The reason why the Saying is prior to the Said is all communications are based on facing the others.Traditional philosophers only concern the content of the Said，but neglect the“exposure”to the other in the Saying，ie，“proximity”.“It quite differs from any other relation and must be comprehended as an ability to respond to the other.It can be called humanity，or subjectivity，or self.”〔12〕“The Saying is primarily a communication，or rather，as a ‘exposure’，is the condition for all communications.”〔13〕The value of the Saying is that it provides the Same and the Other with a place for encountering.And in the“proximity”to the Other，the Other shows itself to“me”，raises“my”doubts about the self-entirety and shows a trend of“for the Other”，which is not self-interest but the“responsibility”for the Other.(In Otherwise than Being，that Levinas changed“response”into“disinterestedness”，shows that the“disinterestedness”here comes from not the concern of self-interest by the Saying but the concern for the Other.)If traditional philosophy thinks the Said represents the essence of Being，the Saying is the interruption of the essence of Being.Since the Saying is the climax of the communication，the Saying brings in the infinity and incoherence of the Other，thereby interrupting the essence of Being and representing the“transcendence”and“responsibility for the other”.

However，the relation between the Saying and the Said is not an easy adversarial relation or a dialectical relation that can be summarized.The Saying must submit to the Said and cannot get out of the content of the Said，but the Saying is not one part of the Said.Levinas says that“any translation is a kind of betrayal”，〔14〕that is betrayal of the Said by the Saying.Something of the Saying is missed in the Said and that is“otherwise than being”beyond Being.

Even so，“otherwise than being”is not a name of mysticism or a supernatural reality.Here it comes to the issue of the“diachrony”and“synchrony”of the Saying and the Said.In the betrayal of the Said，the philosophy still makes efforts to express the missing“unsayable”and it has to do this.Because we cannot have so-called comprehension without thematized Saying，but once the Saying is thematized，the meaning of the Saying is limited.Levinas also acknowledges this contradiction，but he points out that the relation between the Saying and the Said is actually not“synchronic”.The Saying essentially is before the Said，but we place them in the same time and at the same level when comparing them.“Transcendence”is not synchronic but diachronic and successive.Although the Saying and the Said happen simultaneously on the action without conflict，the two belong to different time and“otherwise than Being”— transcendence must happen within the non-synchrony.“The Saying，in the form of responsibility for the other，must be...in the diachrony.”〔15〕Philosophy is always surviving in this contraction.Levinas admits that philosophy belongs to the Said but the Saying is essentially prior to the Said.Only on the premise of the Saying can the Said express the truth.

Ⅳ.The poetic language

Which language can exactly show the reduction from the Said to the Saying and express the“unsayable”in the Saying?Levinas attempts to expand the meaning of new terms in the interaction and interrelation and get rid of the bondage of Ontology to prove the“unsayablity”of“transcendence”and“otherwise than being”in his work Otherwise Than Being.In this case，the language form of poem arouses Levinas’new knowledge of the mission of philosophy.In spite of his critique of the art，he admits his use of the poetic form in his late works.The poem is“a form of otherwise than being”.Levinas finds that the language of the poem is diachronic but expresses a synchronic meaning through the diachrony that cannot be congregated in his study on the poems in the 1960s.He discovers the meaning of the“unsayable”in the Said of the poem and the“unsayable”in the poem is“closer to us than any beings.What is absent reappears in the poem，which is the poetry of the poem?The poetry indicates the revival of what maintains it in the poem，not in the words，but in the process of expressing the words.〔16〕

However，Levinas fails to realize the function of the art and criticizes it in his early period.In Reality and Shadow (1948)，he points out that the art doesn’t subject to the ethics and the aesthetic indifference is an unethical standstill，and the ethics isn’t an act based on the sense and sensing mechanism.The art can’t show more truthful things than Being.In Totality and Infinityand other early works，Levinas considers fascinating the most important function of poem and other art forms.He always mistrusts the poem’s force of fascinating.

Till Totality and Infinity，Levinas begins to understand the function and status of the art，especially the poem，and gradually realizes the language of the poem is important to express the“transcendence”as a form of“unsayable”Said.In Otherwise than Being，he even proves the possibility of the return from the Said to the Saying through the poetic language.In his opinion，poets are able to describe an ineffable thing beyond human’s perception，and somehow，the poem can express more than what transcend the concept and the essence of common language.On this point，Levinas mentions Kant and romantic aesthetic tradition.Reflective judgment，which Kant discovers as a special psychological function in Critique of Judgment，unifies the aesthetic judgment and teleological judgment.Reflective judgment becomes the media of communication between the nature and freedom because of its unity with rationality，and the aesthetics invokes human to transcend the concept and find out the truth that is missed when approaching the practice and experience.From this point，Levinas thinks the art closer to the truth than philosophy.

Influenced by Husserl’s phenomenological approach in the early period，Levinas’doctoral dissertation Intuitive Theory in Husserl’s Phenomenologyis characteristics of Husserl’s simplicity，directness and systematization in his early works.But after the mid of 1940s，Levinas enters a writing thought that he calls“awakening and praying”.〔17〕Moreover，a number of metaphors start to appear in his text，for example，the art is described as“the real shadow”.In order to stress the description of the differences between the Saying and the Said，Levinas’language in Otherwise than Beingis further poetic，new grammars are needed for transcendence and escape from Ontology and the clearness of the theory is no more the key point.Therefore，Levinas prefers reusing participial phrases to using linking verbs，such as predicatival or declarative assertion，for this style more strengthens the poetry of the words literally.Those frequent participial phrases，such as“the subjectivity of the subject”，“individual for the other”and the like，make his text more similar to a poem or a praying chant.That is to say，with the help of poetic words，Levinas changes what is said by the Said and works out what they are going to say.The poetic“unsayable”of the Said，to some degree，realizes the return from the Said to the Saying and the“transcendence”out of Ontology.

The“unsayable”is the mission of philosophy.〔18〕Levinas’job is to focus on the unsayablity of the Said，break the essential conceptual structure and extract“otherwise than being”.The equivocal statement makes it quite difficult to comprehend his“Otherwise than Being”，but some scholars think the ambiguous writing is the only method for Levinas to express clearly，because this kind of statement is not only a reproduction of the meaning，but also a representation of a new meaning or an order or requirement.For this reason，Levinas’language is an ethical language.Levinas wishes to step on the path to the Other with the help of the poetic ethical language.“Ethical language is an interruption by phenomenology in memory of self，not from an ethical intervention with much description.”〔19〕The poetic language is exactly the entrance of the“transcendence”Levinas looks for and shows.

(This paper is written by Zhang Weiwei and translated by Dai Jiabao)

〔1〕Simon，Critchley，The Ethics of Deconstruction:Derrida and Levinas，Oxford，Blackwell，1992，p.8.

〔2〕〔6〕 The Provocation of Levinas，Rethinking the Other，edited by R.Bernasconi and D.Wood，London and New York，Routledge ＆ Kegan Paul，1988，p171，169

〔3〕〔4〕〔7〕Jacques Derridas，Writing and Difference，translated by AlanBass，Routledge ＆ Kegan Paul，1981，p.147，110，104;

〔5〕Emmanuel Levinas，Totality and Infinity，translated by Alphonso Lingis，Pittsburgh，Duquesne University Press，1969，p.66，194，86，87，69;

〔8〕孫向晨:《面對(duì)他者:萊維納斯哲學(xué)思想研究》，上海:三聯(lián)書店，2008年，第202頁(yè)。

〔9〕〔10〕〔12〕〔13〕〔14〕〔15〕〔18〕〔19〕 Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence，translated by Alphonso Lingis，The Hague，Martinus Nijhoff，1981，p.42，45，46，48，6，47，7，193

〔11〕Simon，Critchley ＆ Robert Bernascon，The Cambridge Companion to Levinas，Cambridge:CUP，2002)，p.18.

〔16〕Emmanuel Levinas，Proper Names，translated by Michael B.Smith，Stanford:Stanford University Press，1996，p.12

〔17〕 The Enigma Of Good And Evil;The Moral Sentiment In Literature，Edited by Anna Teresa Tymieniecka，The World Phenomenology Institute，Hanover，NH，USA，p.54.