Imagine that all of Western philosophy, from Parmenides to Heidegger, had committed the same fundamental gesture: reducing what is different to what is identical, absorbing the strange into the familiar, converting the Other into an object of my knowledge. This is the charge that runs through the work of Emmanuel Lévinas (1906–1995). Against a tradition that made the question of being its supreme concern, Lévinas asserts something apparently simple and radically subversive: prior to ontology there is ethics. Before I understand the world, I am already bound by a face that looks at me and says “thou shalt not kill.”

The force of this philosophy cannot be grasped apart from its biography. Lévinas thought from the ruins of the twentieth century, and the experience of extermination is not the backdrop of his thought — it is its nerve.

1. Historical and biographical context

1.1 Origins and education

Emmanuel Lévinas was born on 12 January 1906 in Kaunas (Kovno), Lithuania, then part of the Russian Empire, into a Jewish family of litvak culture — heir to the rationalist and Talmudic tradition of Lithuanian Judaism. He grew up reading the Hebrew Bible and the great Russian novelists, Pushkin and Dostoevsky among them. In 1923 he moved to France to study at the University of Strasbourg, where he took his degree in philosophy.

It was in Strasbourg, and then during a decisive stay in Freiburg (1928–1929), that Lévinas encountered phenomenology. He studied directly with Edmund Husserl and attended Martin Heidegger’s seminars. His doctoral thesis, The Theory of Intuition in Husserl’s Phenomenology (1930), was one of the texts that introduced phenomenology to the French public — Sartre, by his own account, discovered Husserl through Lévinas. He was naturalized as a French citizen in 1939.

1.2 The war, captivity, and the Shoah

His admiration for Heidegger was shaken when the philosopher joined the Nazi party in 1933. The Second World War transformed Lévinas’s life and thought for good. Mobilized as an interpreter in the French army, he was captured in 1940 and spent the rest of the war in a prisoner-of-war camp (Stalag) in Germany, at Fallingbostel. His status as a prisoner of war, paradoxically, shielded him from the extermination camps.

His family was not so fortunate. His father and brothers were murdered by the SS in Lithuania; his mother-in-law was deported and never returned. His wife and daughter survived in hiding in a monastery, with the help of the writer Maurice Blanchot. The Shoah became, for Lévinas, the event that renders obscene any philosophy that begins with being and ends in indifference to the suffering of others. The dedication of his second major work — “to the memory of those who were closest among the six million assassinated by the National Socialists” — says everything about what is at stake.

1.3 Judaism and the Talmudic readings

After the war, Lévinas directed the École Normale Israélite Orientale in Paris and studied the Talmud with the enigmatic master known as Monsieur Chouchani (who also taught Elie Wiesel). From this grew, alongside his philosophical work, a body of Talmudic readings — rabbinic commentaries such as those collected in Four Talmudic Readings (1968) and From the Sacred to the Holy (1977).

Lévinas always rigorously distinguished his philosophical writings (phenomenological in method, addressed to everyone) from his confessional, Jewish writings. Yet the relationship between the two is one of the most debated tensions in his work — we shall return to it. The principal philosophical works are: Existence and Existents (1947), Time and the Other (lectures of 1946–47, published in 1948), Totality and Infinity (1961), and Otherwise than Being, or Beyond Essence (1974).

2. The critique of ontology

2.1 Against the primacy of being

Lévinas’s declared target is the tradition that culminates in Heidegger. In Being and Time, Heidegger made the question of the meaning of being the fundamental question, and subordinated every concrete relation — including the relation with others — to a prior understanding of being.

For Lévinas this is a fatal error. To place ontology first is to make understanding the most originary relation — and to understand is always, to some degree, to possess, to frame, to neutralize. Ontology, Lévinas says, is a “philosophy of power,” a philosophy of injustice, because it reduces the singular entity to the impersonal horizon of being, much as the State can reduce the person to a general case.

2.2 Totalization: the reduction of the Other to the Same

Lévinas calls totality the recurrent gesture of Western thought: to assimilate difference, dissolve the particular into the universal, make the Other a moment of my knowledge. Knowledge, by its very structure, draws the exterior into consciousness, converting what is strange into represented content — into the Same (le Même). Hegel is the supreme exponent of this logic: everything, even negativity, is ultimately reconciled in Absolute Knowing.

Against totality, Lévinas invokes the idea of infinity, borrowed from Descartes (the Third Meditation): the idea of something whose ideatum infinitely exceeds the idea itself. The Other is precisely this — a presence that overflows every representation I might form of it.

2.3 Ethics as first philosophy

Hence the central thesis: ethics is first philosophy (la philosophie première). Not metaphysics, not logic, not ontology, but the relation with the Other is the most originary event — that from which everything else becomes intelligible. Subjectivity is not first constituted as an I that subsequently encounters others; it is constituted already addressed, already obligated, already responsible.

3. The Other and infinite alterity

3.1 Autrui: the irreducible Other

The key word is autrui — the human Other, the neighbor. Lévinas insists that autrui is not an alter ego, another like me, a copy of myself reconstructed by analogy (as in certain readings of Husserl). The Other is absolutely other: separate, exterior, transcendent. Its alterity is not relative (the difference between two objects of the same kind) but absolute — a difference that no common concept covers.

For this reason the Other escapes my grasp in principle. I may describe it, classify it, know its attributes — but all of this slides off an exteriority that remains. The Other always exceeds me. It is in this irreducibility that Lévinas locates ethical transcendence: the Other transcends me not as a beyond of the world, but as the one whom, right here, I cannot reduce to myself.

3.2 The il y a and the solitude of being

In Existence and Existents and Time and the Other, Lévinas describes a limit-experience he calls the il y a — the impersonal “there is.” It is being without beings, the anonymous murmur that remains when we imagine the suppression of all things: not a tranquil nothingness, but a suffocating, subjectless presence, like the rumor of insomnia or of the night. The il y a is the reverse of Heideggerian being: not something luminous to be unveiled, but something oppressive from which one must escape. And the exit from this anonymity, Lévinas shows, comes neither through possession of the world nor through death — it comes through the relation with the Other.

4. The face

4.1 The epiphany of the face

Lévinas’s most famous concept is the face (le visage). Beware of a frequent misunderstanding: the face is not the set of physical traits of a countenance — not the color of the eyes, the shape of the nose, what a portrait captures. The face is the way the Other presents itself by exceeding every image I form of it. It is epiphany: the manner in which autrui breaks in upon me without letting itself be contained in any form.

The face is not a phenomenon among phenomena, one more object in the field of my perception. It is, on the contrary, that which shatters the regime of phenomena — naked exposure, vulnerability, destitution. In the face, the Other shows itself at once infinitely fragile (exposed, defenseless, mortal) and infinitely high (an authority that summons me from on high, that judges me).

4.2 “Thou shalt not kill”

The face speaks before any word is uttered. Its first “expression” is an ethical resistance: the fragility of the face forbids me violence. Lévinas formulates this appeal by taking up the biblical commandment: the face says “thou shalt not kill” (Tu ne tueras point). This is not a rule I deduce but an appeal that precedes all deliberation. The face, precisely because it is exposed and mortal, is the first temptation to murder — and, at the same time, its absolute prohibition. To encounter the face is already to be commanded not to destroy it, and more: to sustain it.

5. Infinite and asymmetrical responsibility

5.1 The priority of the Other

The relation with the face institutes responsibility — not as the consequence of a choice but as its condition. Here Lévinas inverts the whole tradition of modern morality, from Kant to Sartre: ethics does not begin in my autonomous freedom. I am responsible before I have chosen to be. Responsibility is heteronomous at its root: it comes from the Other, not from me. I am responsible for the Other before any commitment, before any contract, before I even know who he is.

5.2 Asymmetry without reciprocity

This responsibility is asymmetrical. The famous line from Dostoevsky that Lévinas cites insistently — “each of us is guilty before everyone, for everyone and for everything, and I more than the others” — expresses the essential point: my responsibility for the Other does not depend on the responsibility he bears for me. Whether the Other is responsible for me is his affair; my duty requires no reciprocity. The ethical relation is uneven, and this disproportion is constitutive. There is no accountant’s balance between what I owe and what is owed to me.

5.3 Substitution and the hostage

In Otherwise than Being, Lévinas radicalizes this intuition to its limit. Ethical subjectivity is described as substitution: to be a subject is to be one-for-the-other, to answer for the Other to the point of taking his place, of bearing his burden. The subject is described as hostage (otage) of the Other — a provocative term that marks the unconditional and involuntary character of the obligation. Responsibility reaches the point where I answer even for the persecution the Other inflicts on me. This is, of course, a deliberate philosophical hyperbole: Lévinas wants to think ethics beyond every economy of exchange.

5.4 The third party and justice

But the face-to-face is not the last word. If there were only the Other and me, responsibility would be infinite and without measure. As it happens, there is always a third party (le tiers): beyond the face that summons me there are other faces, other neighbors, each also irreducible. The third party introduces the necessity of comparing the incomparable, of weighing, measuring, doing justice. It is here that justice, law, institutions, politics, and philosophy itself as knowledge are born. The passage from the face-to-face to the third party is the passage from unlimited goodness to calculable justice — an indispensable moment, yet one that must never make us forget its origin in responsibility for the singular face.

6. The Said and the Saying

The 1974 work, Otherwise than Being, operates in a more difficult register, in part as a response to Derrida’s objections (see below). Lévinas acknowledges that his own language, in speaking of the Other, risks betraying it — turning it into a theme, a content, a totality. To confront this, he distinguishes two planes of language.

The Said (le Dit) is propositional content, the fixed statement, what can be thematized and judged true or false. The Saying (le Dire) is the very act of addressing oneself to the Other, the exposure of oneself in speech prior to any message — openness, sincerity, approach. Ethics dwells in the Saying, which the Said inevitably betrays by converting it into a proposition. The philosopher’s task is to make the Saying resonate through the Said, and then to unsay (Lévinas’s dédire) the Said so as to lead it back to its ethical source.

Critical analysis

The strength of Levinasian thought

The originality of Lévinas is hard to overstate. In a century when philosophy was divided between Heideggerian ontology, structuralism, and analytic philosophy, he placed ethics back at the center — not as one discipline among others, but as the foundation of all signification. He gave a new and powerful vocabulary to moral experience: face, alterity, responsibility, hostage, proximity. And he offered a serious philosophical response to the question left open by the Shoah — how to think after an event that seemed to have refuted all reason. His influence on the thought of vulnerability, recognition, and care is incalculable.

The objections

Lévinas’s philosophy has nonetheless been, and continues to be, intensely debated.

Asymmetry without reciprocity. Critics ask whether a purely unilateral ethics — in which I am infinitely responsible while the Other owes me nothing — does not end up dissolving the moral subject itself, or rendering morality unworkable. If I can never do enough, how am I to act? Lévinas replies that it is precisely this “impossibility” that keeps ethics alive; but the objection persists.

The relation to politics. The passage from the face-to-face to the third party (to justice) remains, for many, the most fragile point. How is a concrete politics derived from infinite responsibility? Late statements by Lévinas on contemporary political conflicts were read by some as difficulties in applying his own ethics of alterity — a sign that the articulation between the ethical and the political in his work remains tense and unfinished.

The philosophical and the confessional. Lévinas insisted on the separation between his phenomenological writings and his Talmudic readings. But readers ask to what extent the ethics of the face and of the commandment is, at bottom, a secularized translation of biblical and rabbinic sources — which would call into question its claim to universal, philosophical validity.

The feminist critique. In Totality and Infinity, the figure of the “feminine” appears associated with welcome, the intimacy of the home, and Eros — a role that Simone de Beauvoir, already in The Second Sex, and later Luce Irigaray denounced as a reduction of woman to the Other of man, to a pole of pure receptivity. The debate over the place (and ambiguity) of the feminine in Lévinas remains open.

The debate with Derrida. In 1964, in the essay “Violence and Metaphysics” (collected in Writing and Difference, 1967), Jacques Derrida addressed to Lévinas an objection as admiring as it was incisive: in wanting to think the Other as absolutely other, outside every category of the Same, Lévinas would be condemned to use the very language of the tradition (of being, of Greek phenomenology) that he claims to surpass. For Derrida, to escape ontology entirely would be a “violence” equal and opposite — there is no pure discourse of alterity. Lévinas took the critique seriously: many read Otherwise than Being, with its distinction between Saying and Said, as a sophisticated response to precisely this objection.

Legacy

Lévinas’s legacy is among the most fertile in contemporary philosophy. Jacques Derrida, despite (or because of) his criticisms, sustained a decades-long dialogue with his work and drew from it the theme of unconditional hospitality. Paul Ricoeur, in Oneself as Another, critically discussed Levinasian asymmetry, seeking to reintroduce reciprocity and self-esteem into the ethical relation.

Beyond French philosophy, Lévinas nourished the ethics of care and reflections on vulnerability (with resonances in Judith Butler’s work on precariousness and responsibility), bioethics (the relation with the patient as a face that summons), contemporary Jewish and Christian theology, and studies of hospitality, migration, and the welcoming of the stranger. In an age marked by refugee crises and by debate over the place of the foreigner, the Levinasian question — what do I owe to the face of the Other? — rings more urgent than ever.

Works by Lévinas

  • Existence and Existents (1947)
  • Time and the Other (lectures of 1946–47, published in 1948)
  • Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority (1961)
  • Otherwise than Being, or Beyond Essence (1974)
  • Four Talmudic Readings (1968)
  • Ethics and Infinity (1982) — interviews with Philippe Nemo, an excellent point of entry

Studies

  • Jacques Derrida, “Violence and Metaphysics,” in Writing and Difference (1967)
  • Paul Ricoeur, Oneself as Another (1990)
  • Colin Davis, Levinas: An Introduction

← Articles