Page 96 [96]
OCR
94 ] THE Puttosopny or Eco-Pouirics perhaps art does just this: it gives things a face.? László Tengelyi believed Lévinas’ attempt to absolutise the responsibility principle to be premature, because ,,it can hardly be taken as self-evident that the silent challenge which every experience of reality poses us could in every case be interpreted as a claim for a response, which gives us something to answer”. In his opinion, in the majority of cases, we would seek in vain for the manifestation to us of an alien meaning that awaits a response behind the raw facts of experience. Lévinas appeals to Martin Buber. “Although Buber accords a privileged status to the purely intersubjective aspects of the I — Thou relation the reciprocity of which may be expressed in language, the meaning is also construed as a relation with God as well as with things. For we can behave towards God, too, as if we were called, and the tree, too, instead of being of use to me or dissolving into a series of phenomenal appearances, can confront me in person, speak to me and elicit an answer.”®’ As an example for such a personal answer, he again gives the work of art, which is brought to life by the non-ethical commitment to the object. “Man’s response is a formative vision,” he writes and calls it, with Buber’s words, ,,a formative fidelity dedicated to what is unknown and which collaborates with the latter; fidelity is not devoted to the phenomenon but to the inaccessible being with whom we are in communication.” (...) According to Buber, this communication is perception itself, which is more real than the perceiving subject or the perceived object themselves. “My perceptions are acts in the natural order” .*° In this work, Lévinas develops the foundation of his own ethical worldview point by point with reference to the thoughts of Buber. He finds acceptable the explanation that the “Thou-radiation” is imposed on the personal relations between man and the non-human as well, i.e., “...the relation between humans — as soon as the Thou has a human face — has a privileged status and even conditions all other relations...“ Is not the result of all this that for a being who is the creation of a 8 „Can things take on a face? Is not art and activity that lends face to things? Does not the facade of a house regard us? The analysis thus far does not suffice for an answer.” Emmanuel Lévinas: Is Ontology Fundamental? In Adrian T. Peperzak et al eds: Emmanuel Lévinas: Basic Philosophical Writings, p. 10. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1996. 8 Läszlé Tengelyi Idid. p. 168. 87 Emmanuel Lévinas: Martin Buber and the Theory of Knowledge. The Levinas Reader, p.170. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1989. 88 Jhid. p.70-71. 89 Ibid. p.71.
