Chapter 1:

General Introduction

An act of heroism made by an intern student at the Chinese General Hospital

whose name Charlie Jandic. According to an Interaksyon report, Jandic was about to

exit the station when she heard a crash and people screaming. She saw a woman

who lost her arm in an accident at the Metro Rail Transit 3 (MRT 3) Ayala station. At first

when she heard that a woman got into an accident she assumed the worst. Thinking

with a fast-moving vehicle and loud thud, though she didn't see what happened totally

but she takes into consideration the possibility that the victim is already dead. Jandic

tried to escape and let go of the circumstance, maybe she was thinking that she has a

little knowledge and nervous too. But she heard somebody shouting from the stairs

asking for help for the woman. But her instinct from her medical training took over so she

went back to see what she could be done. she found the victim in a better condition than

she was expected. Jandic began to do her job, she used a cardigan and a policeman’s

belt as a makeshift tourniquet to stop Fernando's bleeding. She also instructed

onlookers to retrieve the severed arm. Jandic stayed with Fernando throughout the

latter's ordeal – from the time she was brought onto the platform, to when she was

brought to the station clinic, and up until Fernando was brought to the nearby Makati

Medical Center. After a long surgery the right arm was cut off as a result of the accident,

it was sewn back. 24-year-old Angeline Fernando's arm wouldn't have been saved if

Jandic did not perform the first aid on the victim. [CITATION Rap19 \l 13321 ]

Last May 23rd, 2017 Marawi siege broke the hearts of many Filipinos. A video

was uploaded in the world wide web and went viral especially in the social media. In the

video, it was shewn the face of humanity as a failure of a certain group destroying the

Marawi cathedral and bombing some places. The image of the many Filipino in Marawi

1
was injured, their face was covered with blood, now their highest hope it’s no longer

soar. Their faces are the image of the suffering and despair of innocent people,

especially the children. According to [CITATION CNN19 \l 13321 ], The war in Marawi

has raged for nearly five months since it began in May. Thousands of residents suffer

from massive displacement, as the city is left in ruins. Several soldiers and terrorists

have been killed, and civilians have died in the long-drawn-out conflict. Government

forces clashed with members of the rebel group Maute in Marawi City, Lanao del Sur.

In every natural calamity especially tropical cyclone, we are very graceful

not because we are hit by typhoon but we are hit by the kindness of many

people. Regardless of the of caused catastrophic destruction but during this

catastrophic event, many Philippine companies reached out help, and one

concrete example the typhoon Yolanda, and according to rappler.com, Some of

the donors were Henry Sy’s and Sm Group, George Ty-Led Metrobank, Toyota

Motor Philippines and Toyota Finacial Services Philippines through Metrobank

Foundation donated and spent for relief operations while the other spent millions

to rebuild structures such as schools and churches, many countries also showed

their support and help to the victims of the super typhoon, like China, USA etc.

typhoon Yolanda left the Philippines with unspeakable amount of devastation.

[ CITATION Rap15 \l 13321 ].

Innate to man to have this responsibility or obligation to help the Other in a

given circumstance. In the examples narrated above: Charlie Jandic the intern

student though she wants to escape of the circumstance but his responsibility as

a person called her to help the 24-year-old Angeline Fernando. (In the Marawi

2
siege) and lastly in every natural calamity we experience there are people who

give their total self to help others. Primarily It is because its innate in man’s self to

help his neighbor. It’s man’s responsibility to respond to his obligation to Other.

In every event of life, through ups and down even in the dull moment man

encounters, he must not worry because there would always be that Other who

would reach out to help him. Thus, our self cannot be actually accounted for and

fully understood apart from its relation to the other. And this relation between the

self and the other to its practical significance we can say that every person lives

not just with himself but also with the other. We can even say further that the self

does not just live with the other but for the other. In the same manner, the other

presupposes the reality of the self. Both the self and the other, therefore, are co-

existent and they are not inseparable from each other. The concept of

responsibility will be more understood in the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas,

his ideas and philosophy are in line with ethics. Emanuel Levinas lived during

Nazi period and was able to see the German holocausts. He was a Jewish

thinker who valued the face of the other. “The human face we encounter first of

all as the other’s face strikes us as a highly ambiguous phenomenon. It arises

here and now without finding its place within the world. Being neither something

real inside, or something ideal outside the world, the face announces the

corporeal absence of the Other” [CITATION Emm61 \l 13321 ]

Levinas chose the face because upon seeing the face of the other human being,

man realizes that the human he is face to face with has also face like his. This shows the

relatedness of the person facing the face of another human being. “The face, still a thing

3
among things” breaks through the form that nevertheless delimits it. This means

concretely: the face to me and thereby invites me a relation is commensurate with a

power exercised, be it enjoyment or knowledge” (Levinas 198).

It is not man seeing the face of the Other but it is the face of the Other that shows

himself to man. The face beyond its physical feature says something to the one seeing

it. Face of the Other invites the one seeing it. It invites or reminds the person to respond

to a radical responsibility. “The face opens the primordial discourse whose first word is

obligation” (Levinas 201).

Now we have the tendency to become self-centered and egocentric because of

the world offer to us. Our own perspective imposes things according to our will. We

become less selfless because the kind of thinking we construct the life of survival of the

fittest, and thus we tend to forget our responsibility to others, hoping it should be other

way around. Because the Other is more primary than one’s self it is the way Other

reveals itself. As we often said man is a social being. He lives not for himself alone but

also for others.

The fulfillment of one’s existence is through the existence of others. As the old

epigram say, “no man is an island” man is responsible to the Other. Because of man’s

responsibility to the Other, and because of the Other is more primary than one self, it

doesn’t directly mean that man should lose his selfness or that he must disregard

himself. The Face of the Other is not an rejection of the self. The presence of the face of

the Other does not remove the freedom of the self. Man can impose his will or his

freedom to the other, but Face reminds man of his responsibility and obligation to others.

Statement of the Problem

The researcher aims to expose Emmanuel Levinas’ idea of responsibility in line

with the Filipino Concept of Pakikipagkapwa. He will also articulate the experiences that

4
influenced Emmanuel Levinas in Philosophy and it could be clearly understood with the

following guide questions

Main problem: How is the Filipino Concept of "Pakikipag-kapwa" Analyzed using

Emmanuel Levinas's Idea of Responsibility as a Framework?

1 What is Levinas's Idea of Responsibility

2. What is the Filipino Concept of Pakikipag-kapwa

3 How is Levinas's Idea of Responsibility used in analyzing the Filipino Concept

of Pakikipag-kapwa

Relevance of the Study

The word we live in today might caught into a dilemma that everyone of us turn to

confusion we might become busy and ego-centric because of the various options that

our society offers us. sometimes man forgets to reach out and help the Other. Man tends

to neglect his responsibility towards the Other. The idea of responsibility of Emmanuel

Levinas serves as a reminder for a man to his vocation for responsibility. With this, the

researcher would like to lay to the readers and highlight the relevance of this paper.

First, the study is significant because it educates and informs the readers about the

Filipino concept of pakikipagkapwa in the light of Emmanuel Levinas idea of

responsibility. It gives the readers an idea about philosophy of Levinas and essential

thing about Filipino values. Moreover, it shows particular events or experiences

influenced Levinas to come up with his idea of responsibility the relevance of Emmanuel

Levinas’ Idea of responsibility in our modern society and especially in the Philippines.

Secondly, the study also contributes to further understanding of man’s

responsibility. Through this researcher, it suggests the readers right approach to respond

and be responsible towards the Other. The study lay the foundation and importance of

5
the Other as part of ourselves. In addition, the study also enlightens the readers with the

right knowledge and attitude towards the face and the kapwa.

Finally, the researcher invites the reader to respond suitably to call for a radical

responsibility towards the Other. By educating the readers about the philosophy of

Emmanuel Levinas, the researcher makes the reader aware of the responsibility he has

toward the Other. And the goal after reading this study the researcher hopes to illumine

the readers to fulfill their obligation in their relatedness to others. This study will benefit

our modern society to become better one.

Delimitation

This study aims to expose the concept of Emmanuel Levina’s Idea of

responsibility and relevance to the Filipino concept of “Pakikipagkapwa.” The discussion

of Levinas’ notion idea of responsibility consists of the presentation the Ethics of the

Face, self-responsibility, responsibility towards the Other, the act of responsibility and the

Filipino values such as “utang na loob” “pakikisama” close family ties and “kagandahang

loob” The researcher will discuss also the following subtopics in relation to main topic:

The importance of the term responsibility of Emmanuel Levinas. And the Filipino concept

of pakikipagkapwa as connection of each individual in helping one another. There are

many related topics about Emmannuel Levinas’s philosophy, but the study discusses

only the social and ethical aspect of the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas particularly his

idea of responsibility.

Methodology

Like any paper that derives most of its data for discussion, this paper gathers its

contents as a product of the exposition of the philosopher’s thought and other field of

social sciences. In short, this paper uses an expository method by means of library

6
research and some website documents and articles. And this research is divided into

four sections. The first section discusses about Levinas’s philosophy and his

understanding of responsibility. It also articulates the factors influenced him in coming up

with his philosophy. The second part discusses the Filipino concept of “Pakikipagkapwa”

and the third exposes the keys needed in order to respond to call for radical

responsibility towards the kapwa. The fourth is conclusion. The paper suggests that the

idea responsibility serves as a challenge among the Filipino men… In doing this man is

able to fulfill his obligation towards the Other. And this Expository method analyzes and

explains and inform or educate the readers:. With its emphasis on logic and

organization. Its purpose is simply to describe or explain a specific topic to the reader,

using factual information. An expository method doesn’t have develop an argument. With

this expository method as tool, the researcher tries to expose the Filipino concept of

“Paikikipagkapwa” in the framework of Emmanuel Levinas idea of responsibility.

The researcher uses as his primary source book entitled Emmanuel Levinas

Definition of terms

Kagandahang loob- This word is literally translated as ‘ beauty-of-will’. The beauty of

the will in this context is determined by one’ s relationship towards the kapwa. Someone

who has an affective concern for others and the willingness to help them in times of

need is a person with kagandahang-loób . It is best understood through the paradigmatic

example of a mother’ s love and concern for her child, most especially during the child ’s

weakness in infancy. (in the study of Jeremiah Reyes “ Loób and Kapwa : An Introduct

ion to a Filipino Virtue Ethics”)

Kapwa- translated as ‘other’ or ‘other person’ but it is in a way untranslatable into

English. This is because it is embedded in an entirely different worldview “Kapwa” has

7
therefore been translated by local scholars as “shared self “, “shared identity”, or “self-in

the-other”. (in the study of Jeremiah Reyes “ Loób and Kapwa : An Introduct ion to a

Filipino Virtue Ethics”)

Pakikipagkapwa- In its most basic sense, “pakikipagkapwa” means being with others,

being one with suffering of the other, being responsible for the other.

Pakikisama- In its most basic sense, ‘pakikisama’ means going along with others. Its

basic etymological source is ‘sama’ (to go with). A derived term is ‘kasama’ (companion;

together with). In the social interaction context, ‘pakikisama’ means ‘getting along with

others’, and ideally getting along ‘well’ with others. The first part of the term ‘paki-’ is also

significant, since it also happens to be the Tagalog affix for ‘please’. It’s as if the

individual is being requested to ‘please’ get along well one’s fellow human beings. (

Russ Russell, Still kicking Survival & Lethealiaty. https://www.quora.com/What-is-

pakikisama)

Pananagutan- the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having

control over someone.

Utang-na- loob This word is literally translated as ‘debt-of-will’ . It is the natural

response to kagandahang-loób. It is the self-imposed obligation to give back the same

kind of kagandahang-loób to the person who has shown it to you. When utang-na-loób is

returned ‘with interest’, that is more than what is due, it can bring about a circular

dynamic between two persons where the one who pre-viously showed kagandahang

loób is now the one with utang-na-loób , and then vice versa; it continues to alternate

and strengthen the relationship in the process. This is where kapwa naturally develops

into mutually sacrificial friendships. (in the study of Jeremiah Reyes “ Loób and Kapwa :

An Introduct ion to a Filipino Virtue Ethics”)

8
Biographical sketch

In order for us to understand the philosophy of Emmaunel Levinas, it is important

know its foundation and its roots. Emmanuel Levinas was a Jew, he lived during the

German Holocausts. It is important to know his early life because his philosophy was

rooted from his experience during the Nazi Horror. He came up with the Ethics of the

Face and Ethics as the first philosophy due to the influences that he had during his

lifetime. Upon knowing the roots and influences that lead Levinas to come up with such

philosophy, we may know where Emmanuel Levinas is coming from, and have a clearer

and better understanding of his Philosophy.

Emmanuel Levinas was born on January 12 1906, Kovno or Kaunas, Lithuania in

accordance to the Julian calendar used in the Russian empire at that time, on 30

December 1905. He was the eldest of three brothers: Boris and Aminadab, both

murdered by the Nazis. The Levinas Family belonged to Konvo’s Large and important

Jewish community, whereas Levinas later recalled, to be Jewish as natural as having

eyes and ears, the first language Levinas learned was Hebrew, although Russian was

his mother tongue, the language of his formal education and remained the language

spoken at home throughout his life; also, Levinas’s parents spoke Yiddish. As a youth

Levinas read great Russian writers, Lermontov, Gogol, Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky

and Puskin. The last was most important influence, and it is these writers whom Levinas

credits with the awakening of his philosophical interests, Shakespeare was also and

would remain an influence on his thinking [ CITATION Sim06 \l 13321 ]. During World

War I, after Germans occupied Kovno in September 1915, the Levinas family became

refugees and moved to Kharkov in Ukraine, after being refused entry to Kiev. Levinas

was one of the very few Jews admitted to the Russian Gymnasium. The Levinas family

9
experienced the upheavals of the revolutions of February and October 1917. After

initially considering studying in Germany, Levinas went to the University of Strasbourg in

France. When asked why he chose France, Levinas replied ‘Parce que c’est I’ Europe!’

Bizarrely enough, Strasbourg was apparently chosen because it was the French city

closes to Lithuania. His Subjects included classics, psychology and good deal of

sociology, studying Bergson and Husserl in particular. In autobiographical reflections, he

mentioned Charles Blondel, Henti Carteron, Maurice Halbwachs and Maurice Pradines

as the four professors who most influenced his thinking, what made a very strong

impression on the young Levinas was the way in which Pradines, who would later be his

thesis supervisor, used the example of the Dreyfus affair to illuminate the primacy of

ethics over politics. [ CITATION Sim06 \l 13321 ]

In the year 1972 he obtained his license in philosophy through the help of

Gabrielle Pfeiffer. He began a close study of Husserl’s Logical Investigations and

eventually chose Husserl’s theory of intuition as his dissertation topic. The following year

until the year 1929 he spent the academic year in Freiburg, Germany. There he also

gave a presentation in Husserl’s at seminar and he also attended Heidegger’s Being and

Time (Critchley xvi). In the year 1930 he became a French citizen and performed his

military service in Paris. He then married Raissa Levi, whom he had known from

schooldays while he was still in Kovno. He obtained a teaching position at the alliance

Israelite Universelle in Paris. Levinas couldn’t apply for university position or teaching

position in Lycee, because he did not have the aggregation in philosophy. In a private

conversation, Levinas admitted that what prevented him from sitting the aggregation was

his ignorance of Greek. The alliance was established in France in a860 by a group of

Jews prominent in French life. They wished to promote the integration of Jews

everywhere as full citizens within their states, with equal rights and freedom from

persecution. The alliance saw itself as having a civilizing mission through the education

10
of Jews from the Mediterranean basin who were not educated in the Western tradition

[ CITATION Sim06 \l 13321 ]

His first child was a girl, Simone, who later trained to become a doctor. He was

drafted at the year 1939 into the French Army, and served as an interpreter of Russian

and German. Levinas was taken prisoner of war in Rennes with the Tenth French Army

in June 1940 and held captive there in a Frontstalag for several months. He was then

transferred to a camp in Fallinspostel, close to Magdeburg in Northern Germany.

Levinas returned to his Family in Paris in the year 1945. Levinas became the Director of

the Ecole Normale Israelite Orientale (ENIO), through the intervention of Rene Cassin.

As a former student of the ENIO points out in a memoir of Levinas as a teacher, the

school was neither normal, nor truly Israeli nor completely oriental. It was during the year

of 1949 when he had his son named Michael, now a recognized composer4, concert

pianist and professor of Musical Analysis at the Paris Conservatory. Levinas didn’t have

a university position until 1964 when he was in is late fifties. Levinas’s most professional

life was spent as school administrator with extensive and rather routine responsibilities

for the day today welfare of ENIO students. His Time and Other was Published in 1948

in a collective volume and reappeared in 1979 as separate volume with a revealing ne

preface (xxi). But his first original book, De I’existence a I existant (Existence and

Exitents) was published the year before the time and the Other came out. His original

book was published by Georges Blin in Editions de la Revue Fontaine because it was

refused by Gallimard (Critchley xix). The famous Totality and Infinity was published in

Holland. Martinus Nijhoff publishers was the publisher. This was a part of their famous

Phenomenological series, this was under the patronage of the Husserl archives which

situated in Leuven. After the publication of Totality and Infinity, Jean whal invited Levinas

to lecture to the Societe Francaise de philosophie. There he presented ‘Transcendence

and Height’. It is a very useful summary of the book from an epistemological perspective

11
[ CITATION Sim06 \l 13321 ]. Levinas was awarded an honorary doctorate at Loyola

University of Chicago and he was also awarded the Albert Schwietzer philosophy prize.

He was appointed professor of Philosophy at the Sorbornne (Paris IV) then retired. Upon

his retirement he became an honorary professor in 1976. He was also a Karl Jaspers

prize awardee in Heidelberg. But this award was accepted by Michael Levinas on behalf

of his Father. Because Levinas vowed to never enter Germany after the war. [ CITATION

Sim06 \l 13321 ].

In the night of December 24-5, 1995, the Jewish thinker died in Paris after a long

struggle with illness. It was Jacques Derrida who gave the funeral oration or the Adieu at

the internment on December 28 1995 [ CITATION Sim06 \l 13321 ].

The Nazi horror

In the year 1939 to 1945, the Second world war occurred. It was a war between

the allied powers consists of the United States, United Kingdom, and Soviet Union

against the Axis powers consists of Germany, Japan, and Italy. During the year of 1929,

Germany move in to the period where economic depression and widespread

unemployment is severe. The Nazis sensationalized these events and blamed the

government behind these sufferings and began to win elections during that time. In

January 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed as the German chancellor and not sooner

then, his government whom he called the Nazis invaded every aspect of German life.

During the rule of the Nazis, all other political parties were banned. In the year 1933, the

first concentration camp of the Nazi was opened in Dachau, Germany. This serves as a

house for political enemies and prisoners. The first concentration camp in Dachau

12
evolved into death Camp where countless thousands of Jews were massacred and killed

while the other Jews died because of Malnutrition, overwork and disease. Aside from

Jews, Hitler also included in these death Camps artist, intellectuals, Gypsies, the

physical and mentally handicapped and homosexuals. These are groups considered as

unfit for the new Germany [ CITATION Naz09 \l 13321 ]

During their regime the Nazis started different measures whose aim is to persecute Jews

in the Germany. In the year 1938, the Jews were banned from public places in Germany.

This discrimination even intensified during the war. The invasion of Poland by German

troops. Thousands of Polish Jew were shot and killed, many are also confined in

ghettoes were they experienced sever hunger and later on died due to starvation and

malnutrition. While others were forced into slave to do labor. When Germany invaded the

Soviet Union, in 1941, Nazi death squads machine-gunned tens of thousands of Jews in

the western regions of soviet Russia (“Nazi Party” n.pag). The Nazi Party decided on the

last phase pf what it called the “Final Solution” of the “Jewish problem” this took place at

Wannsee conference near Berlin, as early as 1942. They spelled out plans for the

systematic murder of all European Jews. The persecution and killing of the Jews by the

Germans spread widely specially in the western also established here during the last

months of war, as the German armies were retreating toward Berlin. Before Hitler

committed suicide in April 1945, 6 million Jews had already died [ CITATION Naz09 \l

13321 ]

The period of the Nazi horror is full of violence. It is during this period that

Levinas gave birth his philosophy Ethics of the Face. One can better understand the

ethics of Emmanuel Levinas in the context of violence. Violence is a prevailing factor

during the Nazi horror. It is present in almost everyday life of Emmanuel Levinas. This

Violence is rooted in the desire of man to be higher than the Other. It is the natural

attitude of man especially of the self. But Emmanuel Levinas saw a different perspective

13
in this kind of situation or event. He was able to extract the good side in a ruthless

situation.

According to “signature”, Levinas’ autobiographical note, his life was dominated

by premonition and remembrance of the Nazi horror. Otherwise than Being beyond

Essence is dedicated to the memory of those who are closest among the six million

murdered by the National Socialists besides the millions and millions of human beings of

all confessions and all nations, victims of the same hatred of the other humans, of the

same anti-Semitism [ CITATION Pep83 \l 13321 ]

Because Levinas was an officer in the French army, he was not sent to a concentration

camp but to a military prisoners’ camp, where he did force labor in the forest. His camp

had the number 1492, the date of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain! The Jewish

prisoners were kept separately from the non-Jews and wore uniforms marked with the

word ‘JUD’. Most members of his family were murdered by the Nazi during the bloody

programs that begun in June 1940 with the active and enthusiastic collaboration of

Lithuanian nationalists. Although it is not certain, it would appear that his brothers,

mother and father were shot by the Nazis close to Konvo. The names of close and more

distant murdered family members are recalled in Hebrew dedication to his second major

philosophical work, Otherwise than being or Beyond Essence. (Critchley xix)

Emmanuel Levinas was able to see the German Holocausts. It is not only by

attentively considering the intellectual background of Levinas that one gains a grip on his

philosophy. One must also look into the conditions and circumstances of the time in

which he, as a Jewish thinker, lived and moved (Festin 289). One might speculate about

the possibility of writing a history of French philosophy in the twentieth century as a

philosophical biography of Emmanuel Levinas. He said that his life had been dominated

by the memory of the Nazi horro (Critchley 1.). his mother-in-law was also deported from

14
Paris and executed in some unknown place. His other Jewish friends, relations, and

distant family members are involved in the same tragic fate (Festin, 290).

During the time of the German holocausts was the dark times of the Jews. For

them it was a moment full of terrors, hope was seemed to be missing. But what is

notable about “Levinas during this time was he was able to saw the foundations of ethics

and put the Other over himself or anyone and anything else.

Levinas’s experience during the persecution of the Jews during the World war II,

was traumatic. Almost all of the people close to him were persecuted and killed by the

National Socialists or the Nazis. But beyond that painful experience he was able to come

up with an insight. He then reali9zed that these4 people responsible for the death of

many Jews were educated people they are not just an ordinary citizen but they are

educated people with a high attainment in education. These were Germans and their

way of thinking ca be understand in the context of Western Philosophy. Because of thihs

Emmanuel Levinas saw a defect in western philosophy would give emphasis to the self,

to Being. Emmanuel Levinas opposes the ontology or the study of the self. The

emergence of the modern thinking made a division between the subject and the object.

Because of these division man gave importance to the self. It is what metaphysics is

trying to teach us, that everything must start from oneself. But Levinas would tell us that

before there is the consciousness of the self there is first a consciousness of the Other.

Because of these Emmanuel Levinas would argue that ethics is the first philosophy and

not metaphysics. It is a reversal of the ontological perspective to the subject.

Levinas’ experiences during World war II shaped his later work: the philosopher

described his writings as being dominated by “the presentiment and the memory of the

Nazi horror.: the “Nazi horror” took many forms, including Heidegger’s involvement with

National Socialism and the mureder of many Levinas’s family members. Levinas was

saved from the extermination camps (though not the work camps) because of his French

15
uniform. After the war, he continued his work in phenomenology through a variety of

increasingly critical studies of Heideggerian ontology. In several essays, he struggled to

develop his own voice, a voice that would find international acclaim in his state doctoral

thesis Totality and Infinity (”Emmanuel Levinas Biography”).

The Bible and Rabbinic Commentaries

Emmanuel Levinas is a Jew. In his early life as a Jewish philosopher we can see

the influences of the Hebrew Bible through his Rabbinic Commentaries. His first

language is Hebrew. He started learning bible while he was a child in Lithuania. After the

second world war he discovered the rabbinic commentaries. Being a Jew, one of

Levinas’s philosophical aims is to refer to the Greek language of philosophy. He wants to

clarify ideas that come from the Hebrew worldview, he wants to give clear insight into

Greek categories and concepts [ CITATION Cat95 \l 13321 ] 1). What Levinas is trying to

explain especially to his contemporaries is the distinctive aspect in Judaism, but at the

same time he also wants to remain faithful to the language of philosophy (Chalier 5)

Emmanuel Levinas, being a Jew who value his religion very much is also a

philosopher who values reason and rational thinking. There is notion that reason and

faith are two things that are very different from one another. But in one of the interviews

of Emmanuel Levinas in the book Ethics and infinity he discusses his stand with the

French philosopher Philippe Nemo.

Philippe nemo asked:

Ph. N.: what thus have been for you the first great books encountered, the bible

or the philosophers?

E.L.: Very early the bible, the first philosophical texts at the university, after a hazy

survey of psychology at secondary school and rapid reading of some pages on

16
“Philosophical Idealism” in a “Introduction to Philosophy” But between the bible and the

philosophers, the Russian classics--- Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, Turgenev,

Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, and also the great writers of western Europe, notably

Shakespeare, much admired in Hamlet, Macbeth, and king Lear. The Philosophical

problem understood as the meaning of the human, as the search for the famous

“meaning of life” --- about which the characters of the Russian novelists ceaselessly

wonder--- is it a good preparation to Plato and Kant registered in the degree program in

philosophy? It takes time to see the transition. (Cohen 22)

Since Emmanuel Levinas was a Jewish thinker, his philosophy can also be

traced in the Sacred Scriptures. Taking the Jewish perspective as a basis, one could

possibly see an initial sepiction of encounter with the Face of the Other and the starting

point of responsibility towards the other. The first depiction of an encounter with the face

of the Other can be traced back from Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament which

narrates the story of Cain and Abel:

The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain,

saying, “I have produced a man with the help of the Lord.” Next she bore his brother

Abel. Abel became a keeper of flocks, and Cain a tiller of soil. In the course of time Cain

brought an offering to the Lord from the fruits of the soil, while Abel, for his part, brought

one of the best firstlings of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering,

Cain and his offering he did not. Cain greatly resented this and was crestfallen. So the

Lord said to Cain: “why are you so resentful and crestfallen? If you do well, you can hold

up your head: but if not, sin is a demon lurking at the door: his urge is toward you, yet

you can be his master.

Cain said to his brother Abel, “let us go out in the field.” When they were in the

field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. Then the Lord asked Cain, “Where is

your brother Abel?” He answered, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” the lord

17
then said: “what have you done! Listen: your brother’s blood cries out to me from the

soil. Therefore, you shall be banned from the soil that opened its mouth to receive your

brother’s blood from your hand. (“the New American Bible” Genesis 4:1-11)

One of the influences that lead Emmanuel Levinas is the bible, to be specific, the

Jewish bible or the old testament. In the story of Cain and Abel, Cain answered “I do not

know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” in this statement one can see the element of

responsibility toward the Other. But on the other hand Cain failed to see his responsibility

towards the Other, specially towards his own brother. The moment he asked if he is his

brother’s keeper it is in that moment that starts to fail to answer to call for radical

responsibility. Because it is already given that man is responsible for the Other, there in

the Filipino term, ‘Pananagutan’

One can see an actualization of the response of the self to his radical

responsibility in another bible passage. In this bible passage one can trace an element

of the Absolute Other through the Other: one can also perceive concrete ways in order to

respond to the moral obligation one has. The gospel of Matthew narrates the response

to the self to the Other as well as the absolute Other:

[CITATION Mat \l 13321 ]

In this biblical passage found in the gospel of Matthew. One can have a better

understanding of the relation of the Other to the Absolute Other. Manj has the obligation

to help the Other because in helping the Other man is also helping the Absolute Other-

God. Is is by the face of the other man sees and trace of the face of God, because he

created man in his own image and likeness. What man does to this Other he is also

doing it to God who is the Absolute Other.

The dimension of the divine opens forth from the human face” (levinas 78). It is

written in the bible that man is created by God’s own image and likeness. We see God in

the face of the Other. Levinas seems to be saying that when the face of the Other

18
doesn’t only reveals itself to man but it also imparts that beside from his face there is

much greater than him. It opens man to the notion of having an Absolute Other. By

seeing the face of the Other face man sees not only the face of the Other but also he is

able to see the image of himself. And most of all he is able to see the face of the

absolute Other. In here one can clearly see the great influence of religion in Emmanuel

Levinas’s philosophy. He believes that philosophy was derived from religion.

19
 Chapter 2:
Emmanuel Levinas on idea of Responsibility

The Face of the Other

Emmanuel Levinas’s thought represents a break away from the traditional notion of

ontology as first philosophy and proposes the innovative conception of ethics as the first

philosophy. The traditional Western Philosophy would give emphasis to the self or Being

and it pave away to made a critique on western philosophy. 1 Emmanuel Levinas

opposes the ontology or the study of the self. His critique of western thought is directed

not only to the classical texts of philosophers but also to the whole ideology implicit in

the “western life-style, planning, practice, and technology. 2 For Levinas, western

philosophy is a way of thought that reflects a particular attitude and perspective. “He

thinks that it has been or is dominantly as ontology;” 3 and more often it considers

“ontology as the first philosophy”.4 Because his philosophy particularly his ethics would

give importance to the Other. Ethics for him is beyond the same or self, but primarily it is

not conceived as a set of norms or a system of values, which are implicitly lived in a

community; it refers to a concrete relationship with irreducible alterity manifest in the

face of the Others. The self is greater than something and it is the Other. The emergence

of the modern thinking made a division between the subject and the object. There is a

division because man always sees the Other as an object. He separates himself from

the Other making the Other as an object not as a subject like him. Man tends to objectify.

1Adrian Peperzak op, ”Emmanuel Levinas: Jewish experience and philosophy.”

Philosophy today 27 (march, 1983) cit., 298.
2 ibid

Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Trans.

3
Alphonso Lingis. (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1969)
4
Ibid., 46
20
Because of these division man gave importance to the self. Because it is the self which

determines the essence of the Other. It is what metaphysics is trying to teach us, that

everything must start from oneself. But Levinas would tell us that before there is the

consciousness of the self there is first a consciousness of the Other. You are first being

conscious of the existence of the Other before being conscious of your own existence.

There is always an awareness that there is this Other having an awareness that there is

the same or the I recognizing the Other. That is the reason why Levinas would argue

that Ethics is the first philosophy. Because the moment man conceived, he would first be

aware the existence of others rather than his own existence. It is a reversal of the

ontological perspective to the subject.

Levinas would attack the idea of Solipsism, having a high regard in oneself, because

it focuses on being on oneself, it somehow negates the Other. He would attack this idea

by arguing that the Other is higher than the self. The Ethics of the face of Emmanuel

Levinas is an ethics of responsibility. For Levinas being ethical is being responsible for

the other. Levinas would also argue that focusing on the Other than Being or the self

would make one authentically being human.

Idea of Responsibility

For Levinas, the responsibility towards the other things begins at encounter with

the face; this face-to-face encounter or the epiphany of the face is the start of his

philosophy and also the start of ethical relation. He argues that philosophy begins with

this relation, and this relation comes with an ethical request, an obligation towards the

Other, man has to help the Other, man shall not kill the Other. Levinas gives a strong

point on this idea during the interview with Philippe Nemo, in the said interview Philippe

Nemo asked levinas about Totality and Infinity you speak at greater length of the face. It

is one of your frequent themes. What does this phenomenology of the face, that is, this

21
analysis of what happens when I look at the Other face to face, consist in and hat is its

purpose?

E.L.: I do not know if one can speak of a “phenomenology” of the face, since

phenomenology describes what appears. So, too, I wonder if one can speak of a

look turned toward the face, for the look is knowledge, perception. I think rather

that access to the face is straightaway ethical. You turn yourself toward the Other

as toward an object when you see a nose, eyes, a forehead, a chin, and you can

describe them. The best way of encountering the Other is not even to notice the

color of his eyes! When one observes the color of the eyes one is not in social

relationship with the Other. The relation with the face can surely be dominated by

perception, but what is specifically the face is what cannot be reduced to that.

There is first the very uprightness of the face, its upright exposure, without

defense. The skin of the face is that which stays most naked, most destitute. It is

the most naked, though with a decent nudity. It is the most destitute also: there is

an essential poverty in the face; the proof of this is that one tries to mask this

poverty by putting on poses, by taking on a countenance. The face is exposed,

menaced, as if inviting us to an act of violence at the same time, the face is what

forbids us to kill. (Cohen 85)

As man sees the face of the Other, he cannot escape from this obligation or

moral responsibility. It is inescapable. Man cannot just ignore the face of the other when

it shows itself to him, and this response always comes with man’s responsibility for the

other. For Levinas, to be responsible is to be responsible for the other. (Tangyin 155)

The human being is a being which has a face that is very distinct. We can easily

identify the differences of the human face. It is only the human face that can be changed

22
according to the feelings or moods of the human person. The face of the human being is

unique in its own self. “The human being is a being which has a face” (Critchley 67). But

what does it really mean to speak to the face? In this conversation to the face of the

other is the one speaking to us. But man is not merely a viewer he is also a participant in

this conversation only if man is able to answer to what is the face is speaking to him.

Because of these kinds of encounters, man can say that he needs others in order for

him to affirm his existence. Man cannot give his own existence. That is why he needs to

be mindful of his own existence. By being aware of the existence of Other man should

also be sensitive and he should respect the existence of others. If we are aware of

another’s awareness of one’s self, they should be treated with outmost respect and love.

Man must not inflict violence towards others so that the world will remain in peace. On

one of Emmanuel Levinas’s interview he explains it beautifully to Philippe nemo:

Ph.N.: In Totality and Infinity you speak at great length of the face. It is one of

your frequent themes. What does this phenomenology of the face, that is, this analysis

of what happens when I look at the Other face to face, consist in and what is its

purpose?

E.L.: I do not know if one can speak of a “phenomenology” of the face of a look

turned toward the face, for the look is knowledge, perception. Io think rather that access

to the face is straightway ethical. You turn yourself toward the Other as toward an object

when you see a nose, eyes, a forehead, a chin, and you can describe them. The best

way of encountering the Other is not even to notice the color of his eyes! When one

observes the color of the eyes one is not in a social relationship with the Other. The

relation with the face can surely be dominated by perception, but what is specifically the

face, its upright exposure, without defense. The skin of the face is that which stays most

naked, most destitute. It is the most naked, though with a decent nudity. It is the most

23
destitute also: there is an essential poverty in the face; the proof of this is that one tries

to mask this poverty by putting on poses, by taking on a countenance. The face is

exposed, menaced, as if inviting us to an act of violence at the same time, the face is

what forbids us to kill. (Ethics and Infinity 86)

Nose, eyes, forehead, ears, mouth, dimples, and wrinkles, these are the things

that comprises an ordinary face. We usually classify persons we encounter through their

noses, the eyebrows the eye color and the lips. Everything which the face possesses. In

other words, the face of the Other, whether masked by make-up, earrings, artificial

coloring, scarves, and so forth encounters me directly and profoundly and most

especially intimately. Face to face encounter with the Other reveals the other’s

weakness and impermanence. Naked and destitute, the face commands: “Do not leave

me in solitude” [ CITATION Lin15 \l 13321 ]. Man must take care of the Other. Man ought

to be welcoming, be hospitable to, the Other who come across man, as it were, from

beyond, from a transcendent dimension, from “out of the blue.” He or she is the stranger

who comes to man in his ordinary, self-centered existence demanding from man a “Here

I am.” That challenge includes the “Thou shalt welcome the stranger in thy midst,” of

Jewish Law. [ CITATION Lin15 \l 13321 ]

Why did Levinas choose the face? What is it in the face of Levinas saw? Levinas

chose the face because the face has a distinct characteristic. In every event, occasion or

experience man undergoes, it is the face that he remembers the most. It is much easier

to remember the face than the name of the other. Why? Maybe because names are

verbal and faces are visual, and the human mind easily remembers what is visual. Upon

seeing the face of the other human being, man realizes that the human he is face to face

with has also a face like his. This shows the relatedness of the person facing the face of

another human being (Young). The face plays a very important role on human body. The

face speaks a lot of the person. Although man should not be judged by his physical

24
appearances, the face is the one that allows man recognize who he is. In every event,

the man would always remember the face. In dealing with criminals, man would

recognize the criminal by their faces that is why sometimes criminals wear masks to hide

their identity. The face speaks of the identity of the person. As Critchley said:

Ethics, for Levinas, takes place as the putting into question of the ego, the self,

consciousness or what he calls, in the term that he borrows from Plato, the same (Le

Meme, to auton). What is the same? It is important to note that the same refers not only

to the subjective thoughts, but also to the objects of those thoughts. [ CITATION Cri99 \l

13321 ]

When Levinas speaks of human face he is telling us that whenever we see the

Other it is the face that we see first. The eyes, lips, nose, ears, and etc. But Levinas is

not only referring to that kind of face that is only physical and for aesthetic value. Rather,

Levinas is trying to explain that when we see the face of the Other, we see the living

presence of the Other we are recognizing the existence of the other. Man needs the

existence of others in order to affirm his own existence. Man cannot give his own

existence that is why he should be aware of others existence. By being aware he should

be sensitive and he should respect the existence of the others. If man is aware of

another’s awareness of one’s self, they should be treated with outmost respect and love.

He must be courageous enough to listen and communicate to the message the face is

trying to send. Man must not inflict violence towards the Others so that the world will

remain in peace. It means that in every encounter the face of the Other is exposing itself,

it is vulnerable and trying to express itself by being present and recognizing one’s “Living

Presence”.

By “face” Levinas means the human face (or in French, visage), but not thought of or

experienced as a physical or aesthetic object. Rather, the first, usual, unreflective

encounter with the face I as the living presence of another person. “living presence,” for

25
Levinas would imply that the other person (as someone genuinely other than myself) is

exposed to me—that is, is vulnerably present—and express him or herself simply by

being there as an undeniable reality that cannot reduce to images or ideas in my head

(Young).

But how Ethics of the face possible if the sense of sight is lacking? Emmanuel

Levinas does not limit encounter with the face of the Other to the sighted. The Other’s

face is “seen” in different ways, the encounter doesn’t only pertain to the seeing of the

Other’s face by the sense of sight. Man can see the face of the Other through tactile

sensations, from a sense of presence, indirectly. An example of which is Helen Keller,

though blind and deaf, for example through feeling her teacher’s lips, tongue, mouth,

eyes, nose, and vocal cords encountered the command and authority of the Other. This

encounter made communication and learning possible. Because encounter doesn’t only

mean seeing each other but it is more than that (Lindhal).

In his Ethics of the Face Emmanuel Levinas would use the term “Epiphany”. He

used more particularly the “Epiphany of the Face”. He used this so that there would be a

distinction from “manifestation” or “monstration” which are all finite. It is the phenomenon

were the Face shows or presents himself to the same. It is the encounter of the self with

the Other. It is the manifestation or the showing of the face. Levinas wrote:

The face resists possession, resists my powers. In its epiphany, in expression, the

sensible, still graspable, turns into total resistance to the grasp. This mutation can occur

only by the opening of a new dimension. For the resistance to the grasp is not produced

as an unsurmountable resistance, like the hardness of the rock against which the effort

of the hand comes to naught, like the remoteness of a star in the immensity of space.

The expression the face introduces into the world does not defy the feebleness of my

powers, but my ability for power. (198)

26
 Another term that he used is the “Metonymy”. When we say metonymy it is

simply described as a part is being substituted for the whole. When riding an airplane,

the pilot in the place wouldn’t ask how many passengers does he has? Rather, he would

ask the flight attendant, “How many souls are on board?” The term soul is a substitute

term for passenger. The soul stands for the passenger. When Emmanuel Levinas

speaks of the face, he is speaking particularly to the whole of the person. So, to see the

face of the Other is seeing the Other as a whole person not just the face.

Levinas speaks of the face as an important part of the body. It means that it is the

possession of the human person wherein he can communicate to the Other without

speaking or uttering word. The moment the same or the I see the face it already resists

its possession. It means that when one sees the face of the Other he immediately loses

its selfness. Because in its epiphany it then delivers a message, a message of the

obligation. That the Other’s invitation for an obligation is difficult to resist by the same.

But this expression doesn’t defy the weakness of the same or the self. It doesn’t negate

the I or its freedom. But rather it is the manifestation of the other.

Self-Responsibility

In the Ethics of Emmanuel Levinas the emphasis is given to the Other. There is a

responsibility for the Other. People are ethical person expected to respond to that

responsibility. Levinas would tell us that:

To approach the Other in conversation is to welcome his expression, in which at each

instant he overflows the idea a thought would carry from it. It is therefore to receive from

the Other beyond the capacity of the I, which means exactly: to have the idea of infinity.

But this also means: to be taught. The relation with the Other, or Conversation, is a non-

allergic relation, an ethical relation; but inasmuch as it is welcomed this conversation is a

27
teaching. Teaching is not reducible to maieutics; it comes from the exterior and brings

me more than I contain. In its non-violent transitivity the very epiphany of the face is

produced. (51)

Responsibility is taken a key concept. It is clearly reoriented in the ethics of

Emmanuel Levinas. It invites us to respond to the call for radical responsibility which is

present and innate in Others. When we talk about responsibility the idea that crosses our

mind are the words, accountability, and obligation. Responsibility comes from within, it

starts in the self then towards the Other. Man cannot be responsible for the other if he

isn’t first responsible to himself. How can he be able to respond to the call for radical

responsibility if in the first place he isn’t capable of helping himself, then it also follows

that he is also not capable of helping others.

Responsibility towards the Other

“And yet the Other does not purely and simply negate the I; total negation, of which

murder is the temptation and the attempt, refers to an antecedent relation (Levinas 194).

The Ethics of the face tells us about our responsibility towards the other. It also tries to

impart that the other is more primary that oneself. Because of man’ responsibility to the

Other, and because of that the Other is more primary than one self, it doesn’t directly

mean that man should lose his selfness or that he must disregard himself. It doesn’t

really mean an annihilation of the self or of one’s identity. It doesn’t necessary follow that

one ‘self is considered less important. The face of the Other is not an exclusion of the

self. The presence of the face of the Other does not remove the freedom of the self.

Emmanuel Levinas discusses primary of the Other in his interview:

Ph.N.: In the face of the Other you say there is an “elevation,” a “height.” The Other is

higher than I am. What do you mean by that?

28
E.L. The first word of the face is the “Thou shalt not kill.” It is an order. There is a

commandment in the appearance of the face, as if a master spoke to me. However, at

the same time, the face of the Other is destitute; it is the poor for whom I can do all and

to whom I owe all And me, whoever I may be, but as a “first person,” I am he who finds

the resources to respond to the call. (Cohen 89)

Free will is still present even during the face-to-face encounter with the Other. A

perfect example of this are man facing the Other during the war. Man’s responsibility

during a war is to win the war and survive. Because of this man now is facing an indirect

obligation. Man now needs to kill in order to live. The Ethics of Face would tell us that

the Other is still speaking to man.

The responsibility for the Other is an immediate responsibility. It is not only a

matter of seeing the Face or a perception. As soon as the Other looks at me, it is

expected of me to be responsible to him. Man doesn’t need to undergo reflection in

order to answer to that radical call for responsibility. And this call can neither be refused

nor simply ignored. This responsibility is somehow endless. It always starts in the

Epiphany of the Face. There is an obligation even though there is the assurance that it

wouldn’t be reciprocated.

Before man can be responsible to Others he must be first responsible to himself. It

always starts from within and then from there man can now go beyond the self or the

same as Emmanuel Levinas would call the self. If man isn’t first responsible of himself,

he wouldn’t become effective in responding to the call for radical responsibility to the

Other.

autrui, he uses it to refer to human others which whom man maintains ethical relations

(Festin 302). Dr. leo Garcia beautifully puts it:

Responsibility comes “through the Other”. The other in addressing me makes me

aware of my responsibility. What is most original in thi9s interpretation of responsibility is

29
that I am not only responsible for what I do but even for what I do not do, for what I do

not decide, for what I meet as Face. Without having chosen it, I am responsible for the

Other who comes my way. Responsibility then essential to my being. It is not an added

luxury. To human is to be responsible for the Other whom I do not choose. (250)

"What one gives, what one takes reduces itself to the phenomenon, discovered

and open to the grasp, carrying on an existence which is suspended in possession-

whereas the presentation of the face puts me into relationship with being” (Levinas 212).

Emmanuel Levinas used the term Other to pertain another being other than oneself. It is

a collective term that is used in his ethics to differentiate oneself to another beings. The

idea of ‘otherness’ is central to sociological analyses of how majority and minority

identifies as created. This is because the representation of different groups within any

given society is measured by groups that have superior political power. In order for us to

understand and comprehend the notion of The Other, sociologists first seek to put a

serious spotlight on the ways in which social identities are constructed. Identities are

often thought as being natural or innate or something that we are born with (Zevallos)

But it is taken for granted for today in our present situation. As Levinas would put it:

The other as Other is not only an alter ego: The Other is what I myself is not. The

Other is this, not because of the Other’s character, or physiognomy, or

psychology, but because of the Other’s very alterity. The Other is, for example,

the weak, the poor, ‘the widow and the orphan’, whereas I am rich and the

powerful. (49)

For Levinas the Other is the one beyond the self. It is another than the self. But in

particular, Levinas points out that the Other as the one that is being under the same or

the self. The face, actually the whole person of the Other, puts man under incredible

obligation. Even without saying a word, encountering another person speaks sizes. The

30
human face comes with a built-in “ought” man can recognize or refuse the gaze of the

stranger, the widow, the orphan. Levinas discusses further the obligation of the self to

the Other is situations that man seems to have no choice or doesn’t gives him freedom:

Ph.N.: War stories tell us in fact that it is difficult to kill someone who looks

straight at you.

E.L.: The face is signification, and signification without context. I mean that the

Other, in the rectitude of his face, is not a character within a context. Ordinarily

one is a “character”: a professor at the Sorbonne, a Supreme Court justice, son

of so-and-so, everything that is one’s passport, the manner of dressing, of

presenting oneself. And all signification in the usal sense of the term is relative to

such a context: the meaning of something is in its relation to another thing. Here,

to the contrary, the face is meaning all by itself. You are you. In this sense one

can say that the face is not “seen”. It is what cannot become a content, which

your thought would embrace; it is uncontainable, it leads you beyond. It is in this

that the signification of the face makes it escape from being, as a correlate of a

knowing. Vision, to the contrary, is a search for adequation; it is what par

excellence absorbs being. But the relation to the face is straightaway ethical. The

face is what one cannot kill, or at least it is what whose meaning consists in

saying: “though shalt not kill.” Murder, it is true, is a banal fact: one can kill the

Other; the ethical exigency is not an ontological necessity. The prohibition against

killing is maintained in the bad conscience about the accomplished evil –

malignancy of evil. It is also appears in the scriptures, to which the humanity of

man is exposed inasmuch as it is engaged in the world. But to speak truly, the

appearance in being of these “ethical peculiarities” – the humanity of man is a

rupture of being. It is significant, even if being resumes and recovers itself.

(Cohen 86)

31
Welcoming the Other puts man’s own freedom into question. It involves a fundamental

responsibility that should function in all interpersonal relationships. Above all, it entails

the command, “thou shalt not kill.” Encountering the face of the Other, when the Other is

your officially-designated, mortal enemy, creates problems for military personnel and

operations. It is so much tougher to follow an order to shoot or bayonet a person when

you are looking him in the eye in hand to hand combat. This is the common crisis

soldier’s faces. Clearly such “faces” were added to make it possible for young soldiers to

overcome the “Thou shalt not kill” which is real faces express. As Levinas puts it, war

makes us play roles in which we no longer recognize ourselves. War rescinds the

unconditional imperative connected with the Other, it suspends morality (Lindhal).

“Infinity presents itself as a face in the ethical resistance that paralyses my

powers and form the depths of defenseless eyes rises firm and absolute in its nudity and

destitution.” (Levinas 199). The ethics of the face for Levinas would tell that the face is

the most dominant part of the human body. The face really plays an important role in

man’s relatedness with others. It is in the face of the other man sees their emotions or

their hidden plans or their prejudices. But the face also shows something that man

usually takes for granted. It shows our relatedness with others, it shows that man is finite

being and because man is finite being our existence can’t come from him. So, he needs

the existence of others. It means that man is a being that needs others in order not only

to exist but also to live. The face to face encounter shows the intimacy of human beings.

In the Philosophy of man, the question, “Who am I?” can’t answer by man himself alone,

others play a big role in answering that question. The ethics of the Face shows the

relevance of others to man. It shows the importance of others in the society. “The face,

still a thing among things, breaks through the form that nevertheless delimits it. This

32
means concretely: the face speaks to me and thereby invites me to a relation is

commensurate with a power exercised, be it enjoyment or knowledge” (Levinas 198).

It is not man seeing the face of the Other but it is the face of the Other that shows

himself to man. The face beyond its physical features says something to the one seeing

it. The face of the Other invites the one seeing it. It invites or reminds the person to

respond to radical

responsibility. The face opens the primordial discourse whose first word is obligation. In

every face man encounters every day, he was an obligation to the Other, Responsibility

begins in seeing the face of another human being. Considering that man has particular

relatedness to the Other, the Face of the human speaks to man in a special language. It

tries to remind man that the approach to the Face of the Other is the most basic

responsibility man has. There would be a call for radical responsibility towards the Other.

When the face shows himself, he commands man. Man therefore is called in an

unquestionable and unconditional manner. The face commands to serve him, therefore

the face of the Other becomes the master of man. But man would serve the Other not

because he is now a slave to the Other. He is doing this because like the Other he is

also a master. He responds to the command of the Other out of respect. The moment

the face commands man he is also at the same time acknowledging the existence of

man. Man is also an Other to Other. Because of this man must not be afraid to fall short

or to be inadequate because liker the Other he is also capable of receiving help from the

Other.

The responsibility of Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophy means that man is ethically

accountable for the Other in every way. This responsibility is an obligation prior to

anything else, prior to the self. It is a responsibility that commits man to the Other. A

question now would arise, what does it mean to be responsible “for” the Other. The “for”

must be understood as substitution.

33
 It means that the self is substituting the Other by being one with the suffering of

the Other. There is a sense of belongingness and relatedness. The Other doesn’t

enforced the self to help because responsibility wouldn’t be responsibility of the Self, and

the substitution wouldn’t be a substitution of the self if the Other enforces it to the Self

(Peperzak 47).

Responsible for the Other can’t be disregarded. When one refer to the Other he

usually say m”the I and the Other” or “the same or the Other.” These are always

together. The Other may not approve the Same but it does not follow that he is already

contradicting the Same or against the Same. The Other and the Same are two terms

that cannot be separated. The I is always connected to the Other. There is always a

relatedness and connection between them, because of their ethical relationship. The

subjectivity of the I is a subjectivity in the reference to the Other

The Act of Responsibility

In man’s daily activities it is clearly seen that the other is more primary than

oneself. Whenever man encounters the other through his daily activities let us say for

example at work, when man sees a co employer trying to enter the comfort room man

usually says “after you, sir” or “after you, ma’am,”. Additionally, when a security guard

greets you “good morning sir” every time you passed by him. Another example is when

you see a gentle man opens a door for a woman or offers a seat for her. These daily

activities of man are signs of man’s recognition of the Other. Why does man wants the

Other to go first when they meet the face at an elevator or comfort room? The encounter

34
with the other face to face awakens our empathy to the other. To be gentle man and

stand aside to offer a seat is a gesture which Levinas studies and imparts in his

philosophy, particularly in his ethics. Levinas believes that man has an innate empathy,

which can be seen in every simple daily activities of man.

Modernity had taken place. Man is very busy unlocking the secrets of the

universe. He is busy on things that he thinks of great importance. For man to be able to

survive, he thinks he need to work every day for him to be able to meet the basic needs

of his existence such as food,

Clothing, housing and the like. Man is preoccupied with all these things and forgetting

the essential thing that he must think for him to be able to live meaningfully. Man is now

experiencing different advances. One of these advances is in the field of technology.

Man is now living in a technological age. The use of technology today especially the

world wide web is widely manifested. Due to this intimacy of the encounter of man with

the Other is deficient. Man is only seeing the other by their profile pictures, their email

addresses, their texts, etc. Man doesn’t hear properly and fully the language the face of

the Other is communicating to him. In man’s present situation, it is very hard for him to

reach out and help the Other. Why? Man now is living in a fast phase world. He is busy

making living. Man now lives in the world unconsciously following a certain type

categorization within himself. When man faced with the Other or when there is an

encounter with the other, man is unconsciously classifying the other if he is a neighbor or

a friend or a family member or does he know the other or not or worse he is trying to see

if the other would benefit for him. He quickly classifies people according to his

categorization. Because man tends to seclude the other which are not of use for him. He

looks at other unequally. There is already a choosing of sides, which is improper. There

is already a barrier that divide man and the Other every time he would put his biases first

before his responsibility. Man now tends to come short in answering the call for radical

35
responsibility towards there Other. The danger here is when man tends to be more

alarming is that he only responds or help those who needs assistance are being left out

because they are complete strangers or that they are not useful to the welfare of the

person.

In man’s daily relations with fellowmen it is easy and sometimes even necessary

to take the face for granted. It seems easier to get by in practical and routine

circumstances without consedeing the singularitry of each person with whom man deals.

Most of the time man relates habitualy to person within a given social perspective: as co

worjers, colleague, customers or client. But man have not really related to other people

personally or “face to face”, there is no intimacy as long as we deal with them in the

“usual manner”, the manner in which man takes them for granted because of his

prejudices. Conflicts arise whether not anticipated whenever there is a break in the usual

routine occurs it is only then we begin to see the Other personally or “face to face”.

Certain conditions hence require that we bracket our usual understanding of other the

world that can be common to us” (Tugado)

The invitation now for man is to respond to the Other without any hesitation or

without any concern if the Other is real stranger. Because for Emmanuel Levinas when

we say the Other he is someone apart from you regardless if he is a complete stranger

or a friend or a family member. Because when a man responds to that responsibility to

Other he helps them. When man is helping he offers with his whole heart without any

concern of the social status, skin color, and race of the Other. If man is to be called the

persons of the twenty first century or as post-modern persons, he needs to learn how to

remove his biases and put others before himself. Because in putting others before

oneself means that you are giving yourself to the other. When he is able to give his self

to the other, it is only then that man can say that he truly owns life.

36
 For Emmanuel Levinas, coming face to face with the Other is a non-symmetrical

relationship. Man has the responsibility for the Other without knowing that the Other will

reciprocate. Whether or not Others reciprocate man is still entitled to this responsibility.

Thus, according to Levinas, man is subject to the Other without knowing how it will come

out. In this relationship, Levinas finds the meaning of being human and of being

connected with justice. It tells to put the Other first (Lindhal)

Man can see the simplicity of Levinas’ ideas that in Ethics of the face man finds

in the face the ethical code and the moral law. By just looking at the face of the Other

man now is being aware of the responsibilities and inadequacies he has. People

nowadays needs to be educated by Levinas’ ethics. Considering that the world now is a

fast pace world where man walks and works side by side. He now needs to consider

pausing and try to meet the Other face to face.

There are times that man is faced with different difficulties. But these difficulties

are just test whether man would respond to the call of radical responsibility the face of

the Others trying to convey. Example of these circumstances are wars. Even though

man is put in under a tremendous obligation encountering the face of the Other in still

speaks to man. The face still entails the message “thou shall not kill”. Wars are events

that tries to defy man’s morality and tries to destroy man’s relatedness towards the

Other. But beyond these situations we must keep our composures and try to put our

morality above duty.

Man can impose his will or his freedom to Other, but the face reminds man his

responsibility and obligation. The face just serves as reminder. The challenge now for

man is to be responsible enough to follow that reminder the face of the Other is telling

him. Man must be responsible enough to respond to call for radical responsibility. He

must put that obligation first before any assessment. He must remove all prejudices and

all first impression so that he can hear or get the message of the face the Other is telling

37
him. He must put aside all subjective judgments. He must be able to communicate in the

language the face the Other says to him. In order for the present world to become better,

man must be courageous enough to past all of his prejudices to Other. He must learn to

go beyond the obvious in order to see clearly what is truly inside.

38
 Chapter 3:
Filipino Concept of Pakikipagkapwa

The Filipino term Kapwa

This word is literally translated as ‘other’ or ‘other person’ but it is in a way

untranslatable into English. This is because it is embedded in an entirely different

worldview and web of meanings unique to Philippine culture and history —namely, a

Southeast Asian tribal and animist culture mixed with Spanish Catholicism. It is tribal and

Christian at the same time. Kapwa has therefore been translated by local scholars as

‘shared self’, ‘shared identity’, or ‘self-in-the-other’. I use ‘together with the person’. And

some escolar would call Kapwa a way of “being-at-home-in-the-world” 5 (De Guia, 2005,

p. 8) ”Kapwa” in the filipino concept is rich in meaning it doesn’t confirmed as other or

others only hence it is almost a pious word, a reminder of moral virtues and religious

ideals that bears a genuine declaration of their true character the word is a testament to

the willingness to help of the Filipino and to be more compassionate, and more

importantly, follow the golden rule, which is to do no harm upon the other. Filipino says

the word kapwa, it shows an ethos of sharing, seeing and caring the other as oneself. It

radiates a psyche and philosophy of noblest intention of being human, of becoming one

with the other. Thus the English word “other” is not enough to demonstrate the depth of

kapwa.

5 De Guia, K. (2005). Kapwa: The self in the other: Worldviews and lifestyles of Filipino

culture-bearers. Pasig City: Anvil Publishers

39
The Filipino Values

The Filipino value system arises from our culture or way of life, our distinctive

way of becoming human in this particular place and time. We speak of Filipino values in

a fourfold sense. 24

First, although mankind shares universal human values, it is obvious that certain

values take on for us a distinctively Filipino flavor. The Greek ideal of moderation or

meden agan, the Roman in medio stat virtus, the Confucian and Buddhist "doctrine of

the Middle", find their Filipino equivalent in hindi labis, hindi kulang, katamtaman lamang.

Secondly, when we speak of Filipino values, we do not mean that elements of

these Filipino values are absent in the value systems of other peoples and cultures. All

people eat, talk and sing, but they eat different foods, speak various languages and sing

different songs. Thus, we easily recognize Filipino, American, Chinese, Japanese or any

other foreign food, language or music. The difference lies in the way these elements are

ranked, combined or emphasized so that they take on a distinctively Filipino slant or

cast. For instance, in China, honesty and hard work may rank highest; Chinese and

Japanese cultures give great value to politeness and beauty; American culture to

promptness and efficiency; and Filipino culture to trust in God and family centeredness.

In this sense of value-ranking and priority of values, we can speak of dominant Filipino

values.

Thirdly, universal human values in a Filipino context (historical, cultural, socio-

economic, political, moral and religious) take on a distinctive set of Filipino meanings

and motivations. This is true not only of the aims and goals, beliefs, convictions, and

social principles of the traditional value system of the lowland rural family but also of

40
what Fr. Horacio de la Costa, S.J. calls the Filipino "nationalistic" tradition (pagsasarili,

pagkakaisa, pakikisama, pakikipagkapwa-tao, and pagkabayani.

A Filipino value or disvalue does not exist alone, in isolation or in a vacuum.

Filipino values like bahala na, utang na loob, hiya, pakikisama, pakiusap are clustered

around core values like social acceptance, economic security, social mobility, and are

always found in a definite context or set of circumstances. Both positive values and

negative disvalues together form a characteristic constellation in school (aralan at

dasalan [studying and praying], kuwentuhan at laruan [storytelling and game], inggitan

at tsismisan [envying and gossiping]), which differs from the configuration found in

government offices (pagkakaisa [unity] , pagkabayani [heroism], intriga [intrigue],

palakasan [show of power], sipsipan [bribery], palusot), in business firms (palabra de

honor [word of honor], delicadeza [finesse], "commission", "kickback", padulas [grease

money], lagay [bribe]), or in the barrio barangays (paggalang [honoring], pagdadamayan

[comforting], bayanihan [cooperation], bahala na [come what may], utang na loob

[gratefulness], hiya[shame] pakiusap[appear], palakasan [show of power]). To change a

framework of values, it may be necessary to change the constellation and context of

those negative values that hinder Filipino and Christian development.

Fourthly, we can speak of Filipino values in the sense that the historical

consciousness of values has evolved among our people. The Filipino concept of justice

has evolved from inequality to equality, and to human dignity; from the tribe, to the

family, and to the nation. Filipino consciousness of these different values varies at

different periods of our history. It is only in the last two decades that the Filipino people

have become more conscious of overpopulation and family planning, environmental

pollution (Kawasaki sintering plant) and wildlife conservation (Calauit Island), and the

violation of human rights (Martial Law), active non-violence and People Power (1986

non-violent Revolution).25

41
 While there are numerous Filipino values that could be deconstructed for equally

numerous reasons, the following have been selected to be the subject of discussion in

this paper. Not that the other values are not found fit for deconstruction but because they

are truly numerous that an undergraduate paper such as this I could not accommodate

them all. Instead, the following values are the chosen ones for this paper. These values

give us a better picture or knowledge of the Filipino identity, albeit, some are negative

values, that makes him unique among other peoples around the world.

What we aim to do —besides expounding the Filipino virtues themselves —is

thoroughly compare the Filipino virtues with the Western cardinal virtues

(prudence,Asian Philosophy 157Downloaded by [KU Leuven University Library] at 02:26

12 March 2016 justice, temperance and fortitude) and at least one theological virtue

(charity). This immediately provides us a structure and order for the virtues which offers

improve-ments over the arbitrary schemes proposed by some Filipinoscholars.11

Aquinas mentions only two virtues in his system which are properly in the will:charity and

justice ( Disputed Questions on Virtue , Q.1, A. 5). These virtues are properly directed

towards another, either towards God or towards other people. He conceives of the other

virtues as being properly individual. These are prudence in the reason, and temperance

and fortitude in the sensitive appetites. Now when it comes to the Filipino virtues, they

are all in the will, in the loób, because that is the only part of the soul that Filipino virtue

ethics is concerned with.12 Perhaps one can say that the Filipino idea of the soul is still

compact and holistic, in that the faculty of reason has not yet been extracted or

separated. It is in this sense ‘pre-rational ’.However, there is a compatibility because

insofar as all the Filipino virtues are found in the loób, they are also all relational and

directed towards others (ka pw a), which Aquinas would hold for virtues whose subject

is the will. In addition, Aquinas introduces the i de a of potential virtues, that is virtues

which are somehow connected to the cardinal virtues but directed to ‘secondary’

42
matters, and which fall short of the whole power of the cardinal virtue (Summa

Theologiae II-II, Q. 48 and Q. 80; Disputed Questions on Vi rt ue, Q. 5, A. 1, ad. 12).

There is therefore room to annex these Filipino virtues to the cardinal virtues of Aquinas

while fully respecting their difference. We now begin with the Filipino virtues which are

counterparts to those two virtues

properly in the will according to Aquinas (charity and justice): kagandahang-loób and

utang-na-loób. The dynamic of these two virtues presents us with the ‘beating heart’ of

the Filipino system.

Manifestation of Pakikipagkapwa

Filipinos are known for being family oriented, hospitable, friendly, and for their

endearing traits. NCDP tells us this; it is a (Pinoy)/Filipino trait that can be easily

observed. Everyone is welcomed and very much taken care of. Filipinos are also known

of (Pakikisama)/good relations with others, because of our (kapwa) concept, we Filipinos

deal with each other in a special way. It is more than just joining or conforming to

somebody or something, it is adjusting our lives in order to establish mutual trust and

bonding towards each other. Related to (pakikisama)/good relations with others are

other life promoting values such as (Pakikipag-kapwatao)/love of neighbor,

(pagdadamayan)/sympathy to a person in need, (pagtutulungan)/service to one another,

and (bayanihan)/service to the community. These values affirm the importance of

(mabutingloob) as they enable Filipinos to attain communion with the other members of

society. (National Catechetical Directory for the Philippines,(Catholic Bishops’

Conference of the Philippines, 2007), Pg., 62.)

Generally, the researcher characterized that Filipinos are happy as long as they

can relate and connect with a family, with a community, a group of peers in the

neighborhood, school, Church, or workplace.(NCDP p 40) Filipinos continue to nurture

43
and sustain one another through the community as a family relationship, togetherness in

prayer, through clan reunions, through shared meals and through mutual support in

times of sickness, death, and other tragedies. (NCDP p 64) There can be no doubt that

the Filipino family in the community plays a vital role in the life of the individual and

society.

Filipino culture is rich of values that highlight on one’s being responsible to his

fellow. Cultural values such as pagmamalasakit, the popular Filipino bayanihan, the

value of pakikipagkapwa, to name a few manifest how one considers the Other as

himself. These values may be found also in other cultures. They are universal ones.

Pakikisama

Many Filipino cultural values reflect the desire to be together as a group. One

example is pakikisama. This is the ability to get along in a group, and to enjoy

camaraderie and togetherness. One who understands pakikisama will yield to group

opinion and sacrifice individual welfare for group welfare.

This Filipino type of camaraderie gives everyone a sense of belonging. Filipinos

want to be a part of a certain group or community as I believe other races commonly

share. In the name of Pakikisama, a Filipino individual gains a “corporate personality”

where is could identify himself with.

Fr. Mercado in his book, Elements of Filipino Philosophy, describes this Filipino

attitude of belonging to a group as part of what he calls sakop mentality of the Filipinos.

This leads us to realize why Filipinos love to have a barkada, a group of friends where

one is closely associated.

44
Kagandahang Loob

Kagandahang-loób is literally translated as ‘beauty-of-will ’ and is synonymous

with another term kabutihang-loób or ‘ goodness-of-will’. According to Virgilio Enriquez:

The concept [kagandahang loób ] is manifested through an act of generosity or

kabutihan. Thus, one sees kagandahang-loób in the act of lending utensils to neighbors

or graciously accommodating a guest. But to qualify as kagandahang-loób, such acts of

generosity must spring spontaneously from the person ’s goodness of heart or kabaitan.

A display of kagandahang-loób must have no motive save that

of kindness and inherent graciousness. (Enriquez, 1992, p. 57) (Enriquez, V. (1992).

From colonial to liberation psychology . Quezon City: The University of the Philippines

Press.) Consider the act of giving money to someone because her father is in the

hospital and they can’ t pays the bills. The act of buying a take-out meal and giving it to a

beggar sleeping on a sidewalk. The act of taking an extra effort to help an unemployed

friend find a job in the company you’ re working in. These are all examples of

kagandahang-loób, but it is not only the act that counts but also the motivation. The act

of kindness must not be guided by an ulterior motive to be paid back. As De Castro

explains: An act can be considered to convey kagandahang loób only if it is done out of

kusang loób (roughly, free will); and can only be considered to have been done out of

kusang loób if the agent (1) is not acting under external compulsion, (2) is 158 J. Reyes

Downloaded by [KU Leuven University Library] at 02:26 12 March 2016 motivated by

positive feelings (e.g. charity, love or sympathy) towards the bene-ficiary, and (3) is not

motivated by the anticipation of reward. These conditions entail debt-of-good-will

relationships where the benefactor has no right to demand reciprocity but the beneficiary

has a ‘self-imposed ’ obligation to repay kagandahang loób with kagandahang loób. (De

Castro, 1998 ) De Castro, L. D. (1998, August 10 –15). Debts of good will and

45
interpersonal justice. Retrieved March20, 2014, from Boston University:

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Asia/AsiaDeCa.htm Kagandahang-loób might seem just

like any act of kindness or altruism. But this is where the importance of the two

background traditions comes into play. There is a tribal and familial element involved.

We help members of the tribe or clan for the sake of the survival of the tribe or clan.

When it comes to family, we hardly question at all why we need to help someone in the

family—you do it simply because he or she is a blood-relation, that is enough reason in

itself. Kagandahang-loób towards the kapwa is about treating him or her as part of your

‘primal group’, that is your family, clan or tribe. It is urgently manifested when the kapwa

is weak or in need. The greatest paradigm is the mother’ s love for her weak and needy

child. The mother loves, protects and nourishes her child without asking for anything in

return. It is, especially in the earliest stages, a unilateral giving. As Dionisio Miranda

says: Maternal love is unconditional, or gratuitous. The mother loves her child as her

creature. It has not done anything to merit this love; in fact, there is nothing that the child

can do to obtain this love. All that it can ‘do’ is to be, to be her child. (Miranda, 1987, p.

72)

(Miranda, D. (1987). Pagkamakatao: Reflections on the theological virtues in the

Philippine context.Manila: Divine Word Publications.) The new-born infant needs his/her

mother simply to survive. Likewise, the purest form of kagandahang-loób is shown when

the kapwa is in desperate weakness and need. Disasters, illness and extreme poverty

provoke the need and the occasion for showing kagandahang-loób. Of course, even

when the child is already grown up and is less dependent on his mother, he is still the

recipient of generous acts of love and kindness, though it is no longer a matter of life and

death. And so kagandahang-loób manifests itself in various other minor gifts and

services, like those mentioned by Enriquez. Presumably you are able to show

kagandahang-loób to someone because you already experienced kagandahang-loób

46
yourself. The natural place to learn kaganda-hang-loób is within the family —from the

parents, especially the mother, and then practiced towards siblings, and then towards

cousins and relatives. As Miranda says: ‘Maternal love means to insure that the child ’s

love also becomes ‘ maternal’ . ‘… It means to develop the love of the child so that it

becomes itself a source of life’ (Miranda, 1987, p. 72). One common practice of

kagandahang-loób within the family is for the eldest sibling to postpone marriage and

starting his or her own family in order to financially support the younger siblings until they

have finished college. Another contemporary manifestation is the Overseas Filipino

Worker (OFW), usually a parent, but sometimes one of the children, who faces uncertain

prospects to get a job abroad in order to support the family back home. In the p ast

generations, Filipino families usually had more than seven children, with a w ide circle of

cousins and relatives, plus ritual kinship relations a s w ell (e.g. godfathers and

godmothers) (Jocano, 1998 ) (Jocano, F. (1998). Filipino social organization: Traditional

kinship and family organization . Quezon City: Punlad Research House.) This would

certainly have provided a Asian Philosophy 159 Downloaded by [KU Leuven University

Library] at 02:26 12 March 2016 lot of practice, forging one’s behavior before he or she

interacts with the society at large. As Guthriesay s: ‘The family pattern becomes, in many

ways, the prototype of interpersonal patterns…The tranquility and unanimity cherished

within the nuclear family is also cherished and idealized in nonfamily contacts’ (Guthrie &

Jacobs, 1966 , p. 194). Like we said , the Christian tradition is what was supposed to

widen this exclusive family instinct towards those who are not blood- related, and so

religion obviously plays an important role. As Modesto De Castro ( 1 938 )says in

Urbana at Feliza : ‘ the love for the kapwa is the fruit of a love for God, so those who

love God know h ow to be kapwa ’ (De Castro , 193 8 ,p. 3). 13 (De Castro, M. (1938).

Pag Susulatan nang Dalauang Binibini na si Urbana at ni Feliza na Nagtuturo ng

Mabuting Kaugalian . Manila: J. Martinez)

47
But nevertheless the natural starting point is the devotion and loyalty given towards

family clan or tribe. Because of the ‘maternal’ element, it is not surprising that Leonardo

d e Castro has called kaga nd ahang-loób a ‘ fe min i ne ’ concept a nd id entifie d

similarities with the feminist ethics of care of Nel Noddings (De Castro, 2000 ). But he

also warns that one should not reduce kagand ahang-loób to a mere subclass of feminist

thought, and this is important because as we have stressed, this ethics was born in a

unique cultural and historical context and is properly understood only through that

context.Is kagandahang-loób the same as the theological virtue of charitas ? Charitas

according to Aquinas is foremost towards God and then loving the neighbor for God’ s

sake (Summa Theologiae II-II, Q. 25, A. 1). And as we have said, kagandahang-loób

certainly has a Christian element. However, kagandahang-loób is usually shown to

someone in need. God is to be loved by us but not with kagandahang-loób . Rather, God

shows kagandahang-loób to us. 14 Kagandahang-loób comes from someone in better

condition to help someone who is in an inferior condition. In this sense, it is more like a

certain aspect of charity called benevolence (benevolentia ) and its exterior act of

beneficence (beneficentia ), as it involves a movement from the superior to the inferior,

like in the giving of gifts (Summa Theologiae II-II, Q. 31, A. 1). However,

Aquinas adds that among men, he who is superior in one respect may be inferior in

another, and so two people may still end up showing kagandahang-loób to each other.

Since a human being can be better off compared to other human beings (but not to

God), then kagandahang-loób can be seen as a very human virtue in terms of its

application.

Close Family-ties

48
 To understand Filipinos is to accept the complete centrality of the family and that

means the extended family, including several generations. No other single aspect of life

is likely to be as important, lasting or influential on choices and decisions from

25 Hunt, Chester L., et al. Sociology in the Philippine Setting. (4th ed.) Quezon

City, Philippines: Phoenix, 1987).

childhood to old age. The typical Filipino individual exists first and foremost as a member

of a family and looks to the family as the only reliable protection against the uncertainties

of life.26 Reliance on the family for love, support, and refuge has historically been as

much an economic necessity as it is a cultural tradition. However, the relationship to

family is not just a practical trade off of autonomy for social security. It transcends

socioeconomic, educational, and regional differences and is part of a collectivistic

cultural orientation or way of perceiving the place of the individual in the social context.

For Filipinos, the family is the source of one's personal identity and of emotional and

material support; it also is the focus of one's primary duty and commitment. Dependence

on, loyalty to, and solidarity with the family and kin group are of the highest priority.

Concern for the welfare of the family is expressed in the honor and respect

bestowed on parents and older relatives, the care provided to children, and the individual

sacrifices that are made on behalf of family members. A primary focus on the needs of

immediate as well as extended family members may translate into behaviors such as

considerable sharing of material things. A Filipina, for example, can walk into a store to

buy a blouse for herself and come out with one for her sister instead. Filipinos living in

the United States will routinely send money, clothes, household goods, and other items

as well as bring many gifts on personal visits to extended family members "left behind" in

the Philippines.

In fact, the vast majority of Filipino-Americans particularly the most recent

immigrants send large sums of money back home to their kin; these "remittance dollars"

49
add up to billions a year and are the biggest source of hard currency in the Philippines

[Schoenberger, 1994]. Examples of individual sacrifices on the part of various family

members might include postponing marriage or passing up a job promotion that would

entail transferring to another location away from the family. However, family loyalty also

might dictate that a young parent temporarily leave his or her family and children in order

to pursue better educational, training, or employment opportunities in the United States

or other countries. This sense of family obligation begins early on when children are

conditioned to be grateful to their parents for their birth. A lifelong debt of gratitude or

utang na loob ("debt from within" thereby creates binding relationships of love, respect

and obedience.27

Status is further integrally linked to education. Filipinos view education as a

"passport to good jobs, economic security, social acceptance, and as a way out of a

cycle of poverty and lower class status, not only for their children, but for the whole

family." Education, then, is not an individual but a family concern and considered to be

an economic investment toward which family members must contribute significant effort

and often personal sacrifice. Once successfully graduated and employed, the individual

is expected to assume the responsibility of helping his or her parents finance the

education of the next child. The next child is then responsible for the next, and so on.

This practice reflects the value of utang na loob in which the debt of gratitude

incurred to the whole family ensures the graduate's contribution to the family welfare,

which takes precedence over individual economic and social mobility. Thus, degrees,

diplomas, certificates, good grades, and academic honors are much sought after

symbols. Such achievements are typically recognized with great pride and significant

attention by extended family, friends, and the larger community. Moreover, if one is well

educated, Filipinos expect that person to talk, act, and dress the part.

50
 The preceding review of traditional Pilipino values reveals complexity as well as

contrast among such values and those corresponding to more individualistic, Eurocentric

cultural orientations. There also are apparent contrasts between various Pilipino values

and observed behaviors among Filipinos. These contrasts can be expected between

immigrant and American Born Filipinos and among those of varying social class,

generation, and degree of acculturation. Thus, as is the case with other Asian ethnic

groups, awareness and appreciation of such contrasts and complexity are critical to

determining the relative influence of traditional values among families.

Utang na Loob

Another value that binds groups together is utang na loob. This is the Filipino

obligation to repay a debt or favor upon request, and repay it with interest. Every Filipino

has utang na loob to someone, while others have utang na loob to him. Filipinos also

believe strongly in suki, which is the building of personal bonds between businesses

and customers and loyal patronage.

Closely referred to as Filipino way of expressing a debt of gratitude, utang na

loob expresses the belief that a good act should be reciprocated with a similar good act.

The act of repaying or returning the good act done to a Filipino is a value that expects

fulfilment. Failure to return the good act earns one a “monicker” walang utang na loob. It

is an offensive calling to receive or to be called as such. Kagandahang-loób inspires the

reverse current of this dynamic which is called utang-na-loób. Utang means ‘debt ’, and

so utang-na-loób means a ‘ debt of will (loób) ’. It can be understood once more by the

parent– child relationship, most especially the relationship with the mother. The mother

has given the child his very existence, carried him in her womb for 9 months, and

nourished and protected him into adulthood. The child should acknowledge this and be

51
grateful, and must strive to repay her back somehow. 160 J. Reyes Downloaded by [KU

Leuven University Library] at 02:26 12 March 2016 Children are expected to be

everlastingly grateful to their parents not only for al l the latter have done for them in the

process of raising them but more fundamentally forgiving them life itself. The children

should recognize, in particular, that their mother risked her life to enable each child to

exist. Thus, a childs utang na loob to its parents is immesurable and eternal. Nothing

can do during his life time can make up for what they have done for him (Holnstein er,

19 73 ,pp. 75 – 76 ) Therefore, in Filipino society it is common for children to take care of

their parents when they are old and infirm. To send them to a ‘home for the elderly ’ is

considered a kind of negligence, and besides it is financially costly and not an option for

many households. As an example of utang na loob out side the family context say I lak

money to pay my tuition for semester in college. A friend hears about my situation and

insists that he lend me money rather than I I postpone my studies. I gratefully accept his

offer. After the semester, I save enough money to repay him back. However, I do not

consider my utang na loob finished, but I am open to help him should the opportunity

arise. Years later, as professionals it does come. He losses his job and has difficulties

finding an other one to support his larger family. Being a manger in my own company. I

got the extramile to secure him a good position pulling some strings along the way. He

ends up with better job than the one he lost my utang na loob has translated into a

significant kagandahang loob for him, such that no given the gravity of hihs situation he

is the one with an utang na loob towards me. This example is one where there is a

cyclical or alternating dynamic between kagandahang-loób and utang-na-loób . It is a

kind of repayment with interest, a kind of ‘one-upmanship’ , as Holnsteiner would say

( 1973, p. 73). Our exchange could continue even further, and I could end up once more

having a greater utang-na-loób to my friend. As they constitute one dynamic, utang-na-

loób is expected to possess many of the same characteristics as kagandahang-loób ,

52
namely (1) its personal and sympathetic character and (2) being free from external

compulsion. As De Castro says ‘the

obligation to pay the debt is a self-imposed one ’ (1998) and Miranda also concurs that it

is ‘ self-binding’ (1987 , p. 37). One does not have utang-na-loób because it is required

by the other person (though they could hope for it), but rather it should come from one ’s

self. To have utang-na-loób means that one values kapwa relation-ships and seeks to

prolong and strengthen these relationships. For Filipino virtue ethics, healthy kapwa

relationships are ends in themselves and sources of happiness. As scholars have

pointed out, utang -na-loób should not be equa te d with me recommercial transaction

(Kaut, 1961 , p. 260). I t can perhaps involve some kind of monetary contract (in the

above example, I knew just how much I needed to payback to my friend for the tuition),

but the situation of need makes it much more than that (Holnsteiner, 1973, p.79). My

friend is not an official ‘ money lender ’ , but he is just someone who saw my need and

offered to help me . And therefore it is not the money but rather the person behin d the

money — and my relationship Asian Philosophy 161 Downloaded by [KU Leuven

University Library] at 02:26 12 March 2016 within: that is the primary focus. In this way it

isdifferent from the commu-tative justice that Aquinas speaks of. F or Aquinas,

commutative justice is only about the ‘ arithmetical mean ’ between individuals ( Summa

T heo logiae II-I I, Q . 61,A. 2). If two people have 5, and one of the m gives 1 to the

other so that the other now has 6 and the other 4, justice will be done if the one who has

6 gives 1 to the one who has 4, so that the mean is restored. In terms of goods and

services, it is a bit like “I scratch your back and you scrath mine.” Utang na loob may

also involve ‘mean’ but ideally it is not only about restoring them but also cycling the

debt, in order to strengthen the relationship and inter dependence. Some scholars have

compared utang na loob with Marcel Mauss ‘thoughts on gift-exchange in tribal

societies, where gift-giving serves as a kind of cohesive process for relationships within

53
the tribe. 15 This is probably true, but one should not conclude that the utang-na-loób

now is exactly the same as its tribal version, given the 300-year influence of Christianity.

The tribal gift-giving, as Mauss describes it, requires a return. But the dynamic of

kagandahang-loób and utang-na-loób has something ‘altruistic’ about it, in that the return

is hoped for, but cannot be and should not be demanded. Finally, one of the worst things

to be called in Filipino society is to be called ‘walang utang-na-loób’, that is having no

utang-na-loób. This is when someone has been shown significant kagandahang-loób but

does not acknowledge or repay it. A child who has been brought up in comfortable

circumstances by his parents but who ends up neglecting them in their old age is walang

utang-na-loób. Someone who has been given a job when he needed it, but who ends up

stealing from their company is walang utang-na-loób. It is related to another derogative

expression called walang hiya (without hiya ) which we will mention later.

54
 Chapter 4:
Understanding the Filipino concept of Pakikipagkapwa using Levinas Idea of
Responsibility in a framework

Teleological Ends of Pakikipagkapwa

“Pakikipagkapwa” are open to others and feel one with others. We regard

others with dignity and respect and deal with them as fellow human beings.

“Pakikipagkapwa” is manifested in a basic sense of justice and fairness and in

concern for others. It is demonstrated in the Filipino’s ability to empathize with

others, in helpfulness and generosity in times of need (pakikiramay), in the patience

of bayanihan or mutual assistance and in the famous Filipino hospitality.

Pakikipagkapwa results in camaraderie and a feeling of closeness to one another. It

is the foundation for unity as well as of the sense of social justice. This

“Pakikipagkapwa” is not just a mere idea or an occurances, this is something that

concrete. It needs to be concretized. When one is “nakikipagkapwa” he must open

his eyes to see the face of “kapwa.” He must also open his heart so that he can feel

the innate relationship between the self and the others. He must also open his hands

which will serve as a tools so that he may be able to help and concretize his

responsibility for the other. Thus, in “Pakikipagkapwa” man must be able to open his

whole self and must willing to surrender it for the Other. It is by giving one’s self to

the Other is the only concrete way man can say that his own life, because one

cannot give what doesn’t have.

55
Religious presupposes

The terms “the Other” and the “Constitutive Other” identify a cumulative,

constituting factor in the self-image of a person - the acknowledgement of being real.

As such, the Other is dissimilar to and the opposite of the Self, of Us and of the

Same. “Pakikipagkapwa”,is a characteristic the Other, is the state of being different

from and unknown to the common identity of a person and to the distinctiveness of

the Self.

In everyday life of man, he is faced with different situations. Situations such

as when man is approached by a beggar or someone who needs or asks for help.

The first thing man does is looks at his pocket for a small amount of bill and give it to

the person. But there is another approach. If one does not have a smaller bill he

would refuse to give alms or to help Other. Because when man gives big amount he

would suspect that there is a monkey business behind. Man may not give alms in

fear of the first one that would profit is not the one asking for alms but the one

superior to him or her. Because of this fear, man chooses not to help or not to fulfill

his responsibility. His response is inadequate. But behind that refusal man oftentimes

ask for forgiveness because he was not able to help. The term ‘patawad po’ or ‘I’m

sorry, I do not have a change’ would tell us that man is really sorry because he was

not able to fulfill his responsibility for Other. Why does man feel sorry even though

the Other is a complete stranger? Because everyone is responsible for the Other, we

all have ‘pananagutan’. Given those situations, if one could look deeper, one can say

our responsible for the Other is based primarily in achieving religious taught. Levinas

stresses the idea that to be truly oneself is to be good. Responsibility for truth

56
 essentially implies an underlying responsibility for goodness and also the Bible

speaks.

Cultural Presupposes

“Pakikipagkawa” where a person is evaluated as good or bad, just or unjust

right or wrong on the basis of how one regards. in the normative dimension, a golden

rule-type is called for in relating to one’s “kapwa’ or fellow human being.

“Pakikipagkapwa” yields the social-participative meaning of essentially “being one in

the other person’s humanity, where a person empathizes or sympathizes and

compassion with fellow humans during critical periods (e.g. a death in the family).

Thus one of the requirements to have this responsibility to Others is compassion.

Why compassion? Because upon seeing the face of the Other is a force that would

tell man to help the Other. Compassion came from two words, the prefix com

meaning with and the passion segment is derived from passus meaning one who

suffers. The meaning of compassion now is one who suffers with. When man is

compassionate he is basically responding to his obligation, he is suffering with the

Other. He is one with the Other’s suffering. In the Jewish tradition, God is

compassionate and is regarded as father of compassion. In the sacred scriptures

particularly in the second epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians God is depicted as the

“Father of Compassion.” It reads as follows: “Blessed be God the Father of our Lord

Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and God of all encouragement, who

encourages us in every affliction, so that we may enable to encourage those who are

in any affliction…” (New American Bible 2 Corinthians 1: 3-7). There should be

57
 compassion to move the self in order to show the empathy of man to Other. Because

man has an innate empathy in him. Compassion is indeed needed in order to

awaken the empathy inside man.

Relation between “Pakikipagkapwa” and Responsibility

In its most basic sense, “pakikipagkapwa” means being with others, being one with

suffering of the other, being responsible for the other. Its basic etymological source is

“kapwa” (shared self’, ‘shared identity’, or ‘self-in-the-other’) A derived term is “kapwa”

(‘together with the person). In the social interaction context, “pakikipagkapwa” means

“sharing you self or identity with others but in the most intensive sense “pakikipagkapwa”

has an obligation to the other.. The first part of the term “paki” is also significant, since it

also happens to be the Tagalog affix for “please”. It’s as if the individual is being

requested to “please” be with the Others. Since the affix “paki” denotes a special part in

the word “pakikipagpwa” it has something direct command to ourselves to be with the

others, since “paki-“ is equivalent of “please” in English, in giving a request to a

subordinate. The moment we encounter the face of “kapwa” there is a conversation

happening. The other is communicating to us and it is a prerequisite for self to respond.

Thus, for Levinas that infinity comes to us. Conversely, it is not we who seeks it. But its

“coming” to us is not a disclosure that is comprehended in the light of Being and time. It

is not an uncovering of a theme that is cognitively absorbed, possessed, itemized, and

digested. “Kapwa” is needed or one of the key in order to approach the Other is the most

basic responsibility man has. He must not be stuck and stop in there. Thus,

“pakikipagkapwa” as a starting point in order to fulfill our basic obligation towards the

Other. Our encounter with the face of the “Kapwa” is a conversation, there is a

communication between the self or the same and the Other. Thus the Filipino concept of

“pakikipagkapwa”, possesses that quality of uniqueness and that element of

58
timelessness which gives Filipino an enduring values and makes them relevant to

anyone in any place at any time. Such as “bayanihan”, “pakikisama”, “kagandahang

loob” and “utang na loob” in particular, provides us with an understanding of what it really

means to be a responsible subject to others. Emmanuel Levinas would say that mans

responsibility for the other is never ending. It is infinite. This means that no matter how

man will respond to it, it will always inadequate. But not in a negative way that man’s

response is useless because it is always in in adequate. The Filipino values such “utang

na loob” in particular is the best example, “utang na loob” can never be paid. If you

acquire or “tumananaw ka ng utang na loob” it is until the last day of your life. It means

our responsibility for that person never ends. (Calanzas. 173).

“Pakikipagkapwa” carries a deeper level to the Self as responsible subject that

committed to life of goodness. Levinas stresses the idea that to be truly oneself is to be

good. And goodness lies at the very basis of all expression and truth. Responsibility for

truth essentially implies an underlying responsibility for goodness. And when the Self

devotes its life to goodness, it actually attaches itself to the very source of all goodness,

i.e. the Infinity Transcendent Other, the good and beyond being, or the God that the

Bible speaks. “Pakikipagkapwa” deepens our understanding of a radical responsibility by

showing the ethical structure of the Filipino values. And this structure refers to a

relationship between the Self and the Other, who manifests himself in the things which

are discoverable in the intentionality of the body as well as in that of thought. This ethical

relation likewise reveals the non-phenomenal reality of the transcendent and infinite

Other, who conveys to the Self the Self’s essential identity and who also signifies to the

Self itself as the Other in its role as ultimate source at all truth and meaning. For

Emmanuel Levinas the presupposition is that we as human beings are ethically

responsible for one another. In the self and the other, Levinas claims to find the evidence

of our responsibility for one another within the relationship between the selfsame and the

59
Other. Levinas’s presupposition that we are ethically responsible for the Other depends

for its validity that we actually experience ourselves as ethically responsible for each

other.6 It is through our “Pakikipagkapwa” that we find ethical responsibility within this

phenomenon. Levinas maintains that our ethical obligation to the other is within the

relationship between “Kapwa” and, hence, can be discovered and described not only

religiously but also purely phenomenologically 7.Our responsibility is a phenomenological

fact of human existence, that human experience themselves as ethically responsible for

one another. We experience ourselves as responsible for the other person. Our

“pakikipagkapwa” begins with the encounter with the Other/kapwa.

6 Robert John Sheffler Manning, Interpreting Otherwise than Heidegger:Emanuel

Levinas’s ethics as first philosophy (Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania: Duquesne university
press,1993), 142.

7 Ibid., 143.
60
 Chapter 5:
Conclusion

Summary

In this paper, the researcher presented and exposed Emanuel Levinas’s

Philosophy of Ethics of the Face and the radical responsibility towards the Other in line

with compassion and relatedness.

The researcher discussed in the second chapter the early life, experiences and

influences that helped Emanuel Levinas come up with his philosophy. In order to have a

better understanding of his philosophy one must know the background of his early life

and experiences. In the first part, the researcher presented the early life of Emmanuel

Levinas. This is important so that the readers would have a background on what of

environment he grew up. Levinas being raised by Jewish parents somehow influenced

his thinking. In the second part, the researcher presented Levinas’s experiences on the

German holocausts and how the ‘Nazi Horror’ played a big factor and somehow

contributed in the giving birth of Levinas’s philosophy. Levinas, who lived during the

German holocausts saw a different perspective towards the Other in spite of dark

circumstances. In the third topic, the researcher showed the influences of the Bible and

the Rabbinic commentaries in the ideas, works and writings of Emmanuel Levinas.

These writings greatly influenced the works and books of Levinas. In the last topic of the

second chapter, the researcher gave an overview on how the Phenomenological

approach of Edmund Husserl influenced the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. Husserl’s

phenomenological approach is one of the foundations of the philosophy of Emmanuel

Levinas.

61
 The researcher exposed in the third chapter philosophy Emmanuel Levinas

particularly his ethics. The first part is an overview and explanation on the claim of

Levinas that Ethics is the first philosophy. In here the researcher presented the critique

of Emmanuel Levinas on the western philosophy. The second part is an overview of the

face of the Other in the context of the Ethics of the Face of Emmanuel Levinas. In the

third topic, the researcher discussed the self-responsibility and followed it with the

responsibility for the Other and end the discussion of the third chapter by discussing the

act of responding for the Other. The responsibility of the Other always begins from the

self, being responsible for the Other man must act and concretize his responsibility by

reaching out to the Other.

The fourth chapter deals with radical call for responsibility towards the Other. The

first topic discusses compassion as one key in responding for the radical responsibility

towards the Other. Man has an innate compassion and empathy. But why does he have

these? The researcher then would lead to the second topic of the fourth chapter, which

is relatedness. In the last topic, the researcher articulates relatedness as one key to

respond to the call for radical responsibility. Because of the relatedness of man to one

another, there is an innate empathy in man and compassion towards the Other.

Conclusion

Our present world is busy world and cluttered due to the natural calamities and

because of needless wars happening right now, sometimes man forgets to reach out and

help the Other because of fear, hopelessness, greediness and self-centeredness of

man. Man is too busy to deal with the Other. Man tends to neglect his radical

responsibility towards the Other. The ethics of Emmanuel Levinas serves as a reminder

for man to his call for radical responsibility. Man is busy with himself; he is becoming

62
self-centered and egocentric. He always looks at things through his own perspective and

imposes things according to his will. Man’s greediness had spread like a virus in

humanity. He becomes less selfless because the kind of thinking that he has is that one

self is primary or greater than the other human being, he tends to be ego-centric, but it

should be the other way around. Because the Other is more primary than one’ self it is

the way Other reveals itself.

When man helps he should feel the inconvenience. Because when man reaches out,

there should be an intimacy. It should be personal encounter with the face. After the

medieval period modernity has taken place. During the modern period a sense of

individuality grew. Man became now the center things. In modernity it is anthropocentric.

It is not Man who adjusts in order to fit in to nature and to survive. But instead it is Man

that makes ways in order for him to be convenient in living this world. Because of this

modern thinking, man tend to take his fellowmen for granted. It is somehow easier to

ignore the message of the Other’s face that is speaking to us. The ethics of the face of

Emmanuel Levinas tries to encourage us to respond to the call for radical responsibility.

The keywords are compassion and relatedness. Whenever we see faces, familiar or not,

there is always an intimate encounter. Man can experience that intimate encounter when

there is a face-to-face relation.

Going back to the problem the world is facing the sufferings man experiencing

the wars and disputes in religions, the natural calamities like the typhoon Yolanda in the

Philippines particularly in Tacloban, wars in the different countries, in these situations,

man’s effort would always not be enough. In these instances, man would always have

the support of the Other in order to face these challenges.

By being knowledgeable and aware of the responsibility man has towards the

Other. AMn now would be less selfish and begin to be more selfless. The Ethics of the

63
face of Emmanuel Levinas serves not only a reminder but also an eye opener to man,

that he is not just the one who is living in this world but there are also Others like him. It

inculcates to man that he does not only live for himself, but he is also living for Other.

Man does not own his life alone. By being compassionate and by being able to relate

himself to Others, man now can speak to the language the face is speaking to him. He

can now fulfill his responsibility towards the Other.

Recommendations

For the readers and all those who find interest with Emmanuel Levinas and his

philosophy, the researcher would like to recommend some of the books, readings and

writings about Emmanuel Levinas that may help understand his philosophy better,

especially his Ethics of the Face and the responsibility towards the Other.

Here are some of the works the researcher himself recommends:

Totality and Infinity (1961), this book is highly influenced by phenomenology, it is

a profound and thought-provoking work of Emmanuel Levinas. This work can also be

understood or considered as a response to the educators or teachers of Levinas,

Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. It is entitled Totality and Infinity because in this

work Levinas described how an element of subjectivity can be traced in the idea of

infinity, and this infinite is a product of the ethical relationship the self and the Other

have. This book is ideal to students, professors and researchers that would want to

encounter Levinas for the first time.

Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence (1974). This book is the second of

Levinas’s mature philosophical works. This is the sequel of Levinas’s first book Totality

and Infinity. This book elaborates further the rich and comprehensive philosophy of the

ethical metaphysics that Levinas had introduced in his earlier work. This book gives

64
emphasize to the themes of moral sensibility and language within the system of ethical

metaphysics which are introduced in Totality and Infinity but developed only in this book.

If Totality is focused on ethical alterity, otherwise is focused on ethical subjectivity.

Levinas claims that the ultimate account of these phenomena is not in ontology, but

paradoxical discourse of what is beyond Being.

The Cambridge companion to Levinas (2006), this book is ideal in understanding

Levinas’s philosophy less difficult. Because it describes it describes Levinas in a very

simple yet complete way. It makes Levinas easy to understand and makes his works

also easy to understand. It is indeed a companion for students and ordinary person who

wants to know Levinas profoundly but in a more uncomplicated way. It contains an

overview of commissioned essays by scholar who are experts on Emmanuel Levinas.

This book is of great help to students who feel intimidated when faced with difficult and

challenging thinker.

Ethics and Infinity (1982), this book contains the conversation of Emmanuel

Levinas and the French philosopher Philippe Nemo, in which Nemo would ask questions

to Levinas regarding his philosophy particularly his ethics. In this book, we can see

combined elements of Bible, the fundamental Ontology of Martin Heidegger and

phenomenology of Huserl. This also contains necessary questions one might ask and

that may appear when one is trying to study Levinas’s philosophy.

Ethics as First Philosophy (1995), this book explores the writings and the idea of

Emmanuel Levinas concerning the study for philosophy, psychology and religion. Edited

by Adrian T. Peperzak, this also gives an overview of the most recent research on

Levinas. Reading this book, understanding Levinas would be easier and less puzzling.

65
 Emmanuel Levinas: Basic philosophical writings (1996), this book is an anthology

of Levinas’s key philosophical texts. It also offers insights in his most innovative ideas.

Each essay written is accompanied by a brief introduction and notes written by

Peperzak.

Futhermore, the researcher would like to recommend some selected readings on

philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. Such as, “Emmanuel Levinas,” in The Ethics of

Deconstruction by Simon Critcheley, “Jewish Existence and Philosophy,” in Beyond: The

Philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas by Adrian Theodor Peperzak, Eduardo Jose E.

Calasanz’s article “Ethics with a Human Face,” in Commentaries on Moral Philosophy

and Dr. Leovino Ma. Garcia’s essays entitle “Philosophy speaking: What it means to be

human” and “What are you doing for me” in The Manila Chronicle. These articles are

useful reference in understanding these research and the philosophy of Emmanuel

Levinas.

Also, the researcher humbly recommends this paper for those who would like to

find meaning in their lives by reaching out for help to Others through the Ethics of the

Face of Emmanuel Levinas. By being compassionate and able to relate oneself to the

Other, one is able to respond to the call for radical responsibility towards the Other.

Because of this one is being responsible.

For the future researchers on the Levinasian Philosophy of Ethics of the Face

and the Responsibility for the Other, this can also serve as a reference for the future

philosophical studies and research. It can contribute some important ideas and

clarifications regarding Levinas’s ethics and thinking. Also, for those who are blinded by

violence, greed, selfishness, solipsism and discrimination, those who are not sensitive

enough in the needs of Others and those who only think of themselves and care less for

the Other, this paper can somehow serve as an eye-opener which may shed the light of

66
the primacy of the Other. The acknowledgement of the Other is the acknowledgment of

the Absolute Other- god. What one does to the Other, he is also doing to himself and

predominantly, he is also doing to the Absolute Other.

Finally, the researcher humbly admits that this research work does not

exhaustively encapsulate the whole of Levinas’s mind and understanding. This paper is

also subject to human finitude. On the other hand, the researcher strongly suggests

future researchers to look and read more references about Emmanuel Levinas and his

philosophy.

Man, consciously or unconsciously guilty of dropping or categorizing the Other in

his own terms. Man sometimes forget that he is not the only person living but he lives

with Others. He must do somethings for the Other not because he is waiting for the

Other to reciprocate it or that he would accept something in return after doing good to

Others. Man must help the Other because he is he at the most naked and destitute way.

He must see the Other not as slave, a master something that can possess but rather he

must see the Other as a face in whom he has responsibility. Man must get out one’s

comfort zone and be able to fulfill his obligation towards the Other. Because like the

Other man is also the Other.

67
 Bibliography

Chalier, C. (1995). "The Philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas and the Hebraic Tradition." Ethics as
First Philosophy The Significance of Emmanuel Levinas for Philosophy, Literature and
Religion. Ed. Adrian T. Peperzak. New York: Routledge.

CNN. (2017, October 28). CNN Philippines. Retrieved from

http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/05/24/marawi-crisis-timeline.html

Critchley, S. (1999). Emmanuel Levinas, The Ethics of Deconstruction. In he Ethics of

Deconstruction (pp. 281-287). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University. Press.

Crithley, S. (2006). The Cambridge Companion to Levinas. United Kingdom: Cambridge University
Press.

Levinas, E. (1961). Totality and Infinity. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.

Levinas, E. (1961). Totality and Infinity. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.

Lindhal, & Pietisten, E. M. (2015, November 17). Retrieved from Pietisten,2002:

http://www.pietisten.org/summer02/facetoface.html

Matthew 25:31-46, . (n.d.). The New American Bible Saint Joseph Edition. Philippines: St. Paul.

Nazi Party. (2009, November 9). A&E Television Networks. Retrieved from HISTORY:
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/nazi-party

Peperzak, A. T. (1983). Jewish Existence and Philosophy, Beyond: The Philosophy of Emmanuel
Levinas. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern Press.

Rappler. (2015, November 9). Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/nation/43316-timeline-

super-typhoon-yolanda

Rappler. (2017, November 15). Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/nation/188599-

national-emergency-bill-mrt-3-charlie-jandic

68
 Table of Contents

Chapter 1:
General Introduction
Statement of the Problem.........................................................................................................4
Relevance of the Study.............................................................................................................5
Delimitation................................................................................................................................ 6
Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 6
Definition of terms..................................................................................................................... 7
Biographical sketch...................................................................................................................7
The Nazi horror...................................................................................................................... 10
The Bible and Rabbinic Commentaries..................................................................................14
Review of Related Literature...................................................................................................17
The Face of the Other.............................................................................................................. 18
Idea of Responsibility.............................................................................................................. 19
Self-Responsibility.................................................................................................................. 25
Responsibility towards the Other............................................................................................26
The Act of Responsibility........................................................................................................32
The Filipino term Kapwa......................................................................................................... 36
The Filipino Values.................................................................................................................. 37
Manifestation of Pakikipagkapwa...........................................................................................40
Pakikisama............................................................................................................................. 41
Kagandahang Loob................................................................................................................ 41
Close Family-ties.................................................................................................................... 45
Utang na Loob........................................................................................................................ 47
Teleological Ends of Pakikipagkapwa....................................................................................51
Religious presupposes........................................................................................................... 52
Cultural Presupposes............................................................................................................. 53
Relation between Pakikipagkapwa and Responsibility........................................................54
Summary.................................................................................................................................. 57
Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 58
Recommendations................................................................................................................... 60
Bibliography............................................................................................................................... 64

69
70