A questão da dissimetria ética em Emmanuel Levinas e Paul Ricoeur

Abstract

Emmanuel Levinas uses the term "dissymmetry" in the debate about the foundation of ethics to affirm the priority of alterity over subjectivity. Ethical dissymmetry refers to the radical difference between the self and the other and that the ethical relationship between both occurs at the initiative of the other that disorders the self without needing context or permission. In this irruption of the other, the self becomes hostage to the relationship and cannot refuse the response. The self can respond to this call, be passive of its freedom, and be active of its responsibility for another. In this case, his responsibility means his messianic humanity in which he substitutes for another, being one-to-another, that is to say, being by the other infinitely free from the recurrence of the return to himself in each experience that threatens his identity presence to oneself. The ego is broken for the birth of the human subject. The denial of responsibility for the other is closure in the self, which means absence of freedom of the self. Paul Ricoeur will broaden this approach to show that both the self and the other are identities in action and that self and others are flexible positions from the hermeneutic standpoint: the self is another and this is a self. Consequently, the relationship between the two cannot be dissymmetrical but reciprocal (mutual recognition in states of peace), since both are equally vulnerable and can respond to the vulnerability of others. Ricoeur does not find in the appearance of the other anything that, ontologically, demonstrates the Levinasian claim. The lesson to retain from this debate is to understand that Ricoeur's proposal for mutual recognition in states of peace is to complement and advance the idea of ethical dissymmetry advocated by Levinas. This puts dissymmetry as the condition of the birth of a new rationality based on justice that the third will require. The third requires subjectivity to act in a rational manner, distributing its responsibilities to all who require it. This position is close to the idea of recognition of Ricoeur, because the distribution that Levinas says should be proportional will require that others also act reciprocally for the self, as Paul Ricoeur argues.