2.

What are the convergences and divergences of Derrida’s position vis-a-vis

Levinas’ thought in the work “Violence and Metaphysics”? (400min-800max)
(15%)

The entire tradition of Western Philosophy has always been Greek. This is an irrefutable
fact. And whether we like it or not, Philosophy as we know it will always have the traces of its
Greek sources. This is not some sort of historicism or Occidentalism, and that whenever we try
to think in terms of Philosophy, we will always be thinking according to Greek-founded ideas.
This is simply because Philosophy developed as Greek and its founding fathers are Greek.1
Thus, whenever we speak of Metaphysics or, more specifically, of Being, we are
inevitably led back to our Greek roots. We are led back to the Greek elements. This Greek Being
is not just some sort of incidental ideas in the ancient days. This Greek Being is itself the Being
“whose irruption or call produced Greece.” 2 All the Greek elements which have influenced our
Philosophy and thinking up to this date can be said to be the very source of the possibility of our
civilization.
Now, in the language of the Greeks, we are given an idea of Being. This idea of being,
however, has been distorted and corrupted. And this idea of being has been used as an alibi for a
violent oppression in the western world. Nevertheless, Emmanuel Levinas sought to raise up and
liberate metaphysics from its corrupted position. He wished to raise Metaphysics in opposition to
that tradition of Metaphysics derived from Aristotle (that is, at least I think so, Scholasticism).3
Here, I think, is a convergence with Derrida’s thought with Levinas. However unclear
Derrida might be in his works or in fact as to his primary thesis, I would like to say that he was
primarily concerned with emancipation. This, I think, is seen in his deconstruction of the
tradition of Philosophy to treat concepts as binary opposites and to give a privileging to one of
the two binary opposites. Hence, if Levinas wishes to straighten up Philosophy and treat
Metaphysics as something that calls upon an ethical relationship, 4 then both Derrida’s and
Levinas’ thoughts might have some congruency.
Now, Levinas wishes to break free from these understandings of being. First, he breaks
free from Plato who thought that everything can be understood in the light of the ideal world.
That the world of sense is nothing but a copy of that ideal and perfect world. But this idea,
however, can be traced back to Parmenides who shapes non-being according to being, who
understands non-being in relation to being, i.e. non-being is merely the negation of being.5

1
Derrida, Writing and Difference, 82.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid. 89
5
 But this idea of non-being gives the impression that what is other than being is certainly
of lesser importance. There is then an oppression of light. In the guise of a master idea, being is
likened to that of a light under which things are to be understood.6
The whole thing about being likened to a light, likened to some source of authority,
however, is merely a metaphor. In a language which gives priority to light over darkness, we
cannot but understand being, since it is likened to light, as some sort of authority under which all
others must submit themselves. All these happen in and because of language. 7 Here, I think
Derrida wishes to show the irrationality of the privileging of being. This in turn results in the
many oppressions of institutions. Levinas’ other, precisely because in the mind of the Eleatics
what is other than being is non-being, cannot be reached with the current metaphysics which
treats being merely as existence. This liberation of metaphysics from this illusion by Levinas’
and Derrida’s critique of Philosophy as something which does not recognize the equity of
concepts is a convergence in their philosophies.

Word count: 620 (Excluding quotations)

6
Ibid., 92
7
Ibid.