熊の親切,ウサギの迷惑 : レヴィナスとマルクス

概要

論文の詳細を見る
When a bear found a mosquito biting a rabbit's face, he kindly slapped the mosquito with the rabbit; consequently the poor rabbit fell down in a faint. This sort of thing happens often to most of us. For example, when we go to the aid of someone, you may not please him nor get his thanks, but instead make him unhappy. In Russian expression, such a behavior is called 'a bear's kindness,' i.e. a well-meant action having an opposite effect. That sort of kindness is popular in every aspect of our life from our daily behaviors to political or religious ideologies. In this paper I examine 'bear's kindnesses' that take the form of Marxism. Through the twentieth century ten million people were killed by this theory of Marxism. In brief, it is the denial of private possession and the abolition of a market economy; yet, a lot of people are still charmed by Marxism. This is because Marxism has been fighting for the equality of all men; therefore it appears so appealing, especially to the poor or miserable. But such kindness as Marxism is not a kindness in the true sense. As Martin Malia believed, Marx's idea was derived from his fantasy, to say more accurately in my words using a Dostoevsky's expression, from his 'love in fantasy.' Zosima in Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" separates 'the love in fantasy' from 'the love in action.' The person possessed by 'the love in fantasy' neither really faces his neighbor's trouble nor fully appreciates it. But at the same time, having intense desire to be good out of his vanity, he will invent 'the love of fantasy' to make himself believe that he could support mankind, especially the poor or miserable. As is often the case with 'a bear's kindness,' his love of fantasy will bring disaster to his poor neighbors. 'A bear's kindness,' which is a form of 'the first violence' stated in my previous paper, arises from 'the love in fantasy.' The first violence' consists of two conditions: 1) not fully listening to another's story and 2) imposing one's own story on others. 'A bear's kindness' meets these two conditions. These conditions are in sharp contrast to the person holding 'the love in action' that, in turn, can fully appreciate his neighbor's trouble and suitably give him a helping hand. Consequently, 'the love in action' produces love in the true sense. In this paper, I tried to make clear what 'the love in action' is, referring to the E. Levinas' ethics of responsibility. In the Levinas' ethics, while our concrete behaviors of love and our beliefs in God are united, the former is much more important than the latter. Here is a community of thought between Levinas and Dostoevsky; however, Levinas is a Judaist and Dostoevsky is a Christian. I have therefore tried to define a difference between these two religions, referring to the Christian concept 'kenosis', i.e. humility, because the 'kenosis' is so important for both Levinas and Dostoevsky. At the end of this paper, I have translated into Japanese the 49th chapter of the novel "Life and Fate" which Levinas highly praises as an example of'the love in action.' A Soviet Jewish writer, Vasilii Grossman, wrote this novel. Though the Soviet government tried to frantically erase this novel from existence, copies were saved by a miracle.
2003-03-31

熊の親切,ウサギの迷惑 : レヴィナスとマルクス

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク