이스라엘의 제노사이들을 부버와 레비나스의 철학으로 풀어본 것입니다.
궂이 ...이런 철학전 담론이 아니더라도 풀어 낼 수 잇는 이야기는 끝이 없을 것입니다.
중국인들 이라면 이렇게 어렵게 말 하지 않앗을 겁니다..
..경우를 바꿔 생각해 보라....고 쉽게 이야기 햇을 것입니다.
그런데 그리 쉬워 보이는 것도 복잡하고 골찌아픈 철학 만큼이나...잘 안됩니다.
..못한 놈이 빙쉰이지..왜 경우를 바꿔 생각해야 해??.....라는 냉소가 먼저 앞서게 됩니다.
민주화가 된 이후의 세상이...민주화 이전과 별반 달리 보이지도 않고,
오히려 어떤 부분에서는 독제시대 보다 더 세속화 악질화가 벌어졋고 더 개인화 원자화로 치 달리고 잇습니다.
민주주의가 본래 이런 것이 엇을까??.........라는 심한 자괴감은 ...민주화 이후의 세상에 대한 실망이라고 생각합니다.
민주주의 자체는 그리 나쁜 담론이 아닙니다...
하지만 현실의 그런 별 볼일 없는 담론 조차도 제대로 구현해 내지 못 하고 잇습니다..
다른소린 이런것이 철학의 빈곤이라고 생각 합니다.
시스템만 바꿔 놓으면 ...어찌 어찌 잘 될 것이다....는 생각이 틀렷던 것이지요.
바뀐 시스템의 빈 공간을 ....노무현교 미츤개들이 꽉 채우게 된 현재의 모순을 어떻게 설명 해야 합니까??
에효..
다른소린 민주화 이후의 세상에서 이런 꼴을 보게 될 것이라곤.....정말 꿈 쏙에서도 생각해 본적이 없습니다.
이런 꼴이 민주화의 결과엿다는 것을 알앗다면 죽을 힘을 다해 민주화를 막으려 햇겟지요.
이들의 해골에 철학이 잇엇다면....
그것이 무엇이던 간에 ..개통 철학이던 말똥 철학이던 ....이렇게 까진 망가지지 않앗을 것입니다.
생각은 행동을 저지 합니다.
생각을 할 수 없게 교조화 되어 버린 해골은 ...망나니들이 한껏 좆 꼴리는 대로 낙서질하며 농탕질 칠 수 잇는 좋은 백지공간인 것이지요.
니기미.............
아무래도 야가 다른소리 보단 더 오래살 것 같아 보이는데......
언제까지 이 더런 쌍판을 처 봐야 하나....
민주사회에서 철학이란 ...바로 이런 미친개들의 쌩 지뤌을 막을 수 잇는 보약 같은 것이지요.
함 죽 ....읽어 보기시 바랍니다.
Understanding Israel’s Dehumanizing Palestinians by Rereading Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas
Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair
Israel’s bombing and incursion into Gaza raise the question of proportionality(균형성의 문제). In addition to numerous war crimes and/or crimes against humanity, the fundamental of proportionality is being egregiously violated. Understood that 1400 Israelis were killed on October 7 and over 200 were taken hostage. But in terms of proportionality, does that justify the collective punishment of killing over 10,000 Palestinians, withholding basic food, electricity, medical supplies, and fuel for 2.3 million people, forcing displacement, and destroying a significant portion of Gaza and its infrastructure? I will attempt to answer this question with a brief look at two eminent Jewish philosophers which may give an insight into Israel’s underlying attitude towards Palestinians and disproportional actions.
The notion of proportionality dates to Hammurabi Code’s(함무라이 법전) famous dictum: “An eye for an eye” in 1750 BC. It is also found in the Old Testament’s Book of Exodus 21:23-27.(구약 출애급기) Note that an eye for an eye doesn’t mean an eye, a leg, an arm, or a head for an eye, or killing an entire family and its neighbors for an eye. An eye for an eye respects proportionality, even if it calls for vengeance. An eye for an eye, however primitive and non-forgiving, is proportional.
통상적인 생각과는 다르게,,,이글에서는 "눈에는 눈" 이란 원칙을 균형적인 대응으로 해석하고 방점을 두엇습니다..
상대가 내 눙깔을 팟다면...상대의 눙깔만 파라는 것이지요....상대의 죽이거나 상대의 가족들을 몰쌀 시켜 버리는 비 균형적인 짓 따윈 하지 말라는 원칙을 강조한 것입니다.
지금 이스라엘이 하고 잇는 짓은 눈에는 눈 이라는 원칙의 비관용과 단호함에만 꽃힌 것이지
본래의 의미인 당한 만큼만 되 갚으라는 것과는 다르다는 것입니다..
왜 함무라이나 구약에서는 이런 나른한 원칙을 이야기 햇을까요?
건들기만 하면 처철하게 싹 쓸어 본때를 보여줘야 ...확끈하고 분명한 방법일것 같은데?
지금의 이스라엘이 하고 잇는 짓이 바로 그 교훈입니다.
그리해서는 문제가 풀리는듯 보이지만...오히려 문제를 더 키우더라는 것이지요.
이 퇴역군인의 인터뷰에 100% 동의 하는 것은 아닙니다..
이스라엘의 범죄에 대한 사죄와 배상은 언급이 없고 단지 지금의 학살이 문제해결의 방법이 아니다 는 건만 이야기 합니다.
진행자도 서구 주류 언론 cnn의 썩은내가 확!!! 풍깁니다..
어쩟던 이 인터뷰의 촛점은 이런 식으로는 문제 해결은 커녕 문제를 더 키우고...종국은 이스라엘의 생존에도 좋을것이 없다는 것이지요...
언제까지 미국이 이스라엘의 뒤를 봐줄 것인지...보장도 없고,
건국 부터 지금 까지 전쟁만 해온 나라...그리고 앞으로도 영원히 전쟁을 해야 하는 나라에 ....무슨 희망을 찾을 수 잇습니까??
92 처 먹은 노인들 불러내....팔레스타인 학살 하는 애국심 연출극의 약발이 언제까지 계속 될 수 잇을까요??
Concept of proportionality is also fundamental in current international law. Specifically, Article 8 (2) (b) (iv) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
(The disproportionate use of force by Israel was confirmed by The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights recently in typical diplomatic language. “We have serious concerns that these are disproportionate attacks that could amount to war crimes,” it posted on social media.)
Beyond the legal question of proportionality, war crimes or crimes against humanity lies the underlying attitude of the Israeli government towards Palestinians that is reflected in the October 9 statement by Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant: “We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.”( 한국의 갱상도 수구 꼴통놈들의 단골 메뉴....때려잡자 공산도당...때려잡자 미친개...이런것도 다 홀로코스트와 관련된 개 소립니다.......이런말 함부로 하지 마세요.....)
Two prominent Jewish philosophers are worth citing in respect to the Minister’s statement and the government’s actions. Without going into an exegesis of texts which I have done previously,[i] a brief look at Martin Buber’s and Emmanuel Levinas’ understandings of social relationships clarifies the current Israeli government’s attitude and actions.
Both Buber and Levinas were concerned with social relationships. In their writings, they emphasized that interpersonal relationships are the basis of all ethics and intersubjectivity. While many of their writings are highly abstract, they do have relevance for the underlying Israeli attitudes toward Palestinians and the current excessive violence.
Martin Buber (1878-1965) was a Jewish Austrian/Israeli philosopher known for his dialogical writings about the distinction between I-Thou(나와 너) and I-It(나와 그것).--이런것이 어떻게 번역이 되엇는지는 여러분이 찾아 보기시 바랍니다)
Buber began from a foundational relationship of I-Thou, the “co-constituting” of all beings. He then moved from this prenatal, all-encompassing relation of everyone to others to describe how there is then a fundamental split from the I-Thou relationship to the establishment of a separate I, and eventually to the separateness of an I-It relation built on the separation of subject and object.
What began as everyone’s all-inclusive relationship to others, for Buber, could become a relationship more formal and distant.
The very possibility of a separation between an intimate relationship (I-Thou) and a more objective relationship (I-It) is central. For if we project Buber’s thoughts into the current political situation, it is obvious that for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government Israel is in an I-It relationship with Palestinians. There is no universal or even minimally neighborly semitic I-Thou relationship possible.
While Buber’s political position of binationalism was different from Israel’s founders’ desire for a uniquely Jewish state, his separation of I-It from I-Thou can be interpreted as denying the possibility of treating Palestinians in an open, direct, humane manner. To call Palestinians “human animals,” as the defense minister did, is only possible in an I-It relationship.
다른소리 세대들이 쇄뇌 교육을 받앗던 반공주의나....nz미친개들이 스스로 탐닉하여 도통한 주사파 척결도 ,, "나와 너"의 관계가 "나와 그것의 관계"로 객관화 되어 변화한 것입니다..
노무현교 쥐쇗끼들이 집착하는 토착왜구 사냥이나 김건희 사냥질도..."나와 그것의 관계"입니다..
이런 관계에서는 상대에 대한 인정은 말할 것도 없고 상대에 대한 배려 ...바꿔 생각하기 따윈 생각 조차 할 수 없습니다.
상대의 완전한 박멸......주사파의 완전한 박멸, 토착왜구의 완전한 박멸, 따위만 존재 할 뿐이지요.
전광훈의 주둥아리, 유시민의 주둥아리에서 나오는 말들이 무엇인가.....만 눈 여겨 봐도 알 수 잇습니다.
The possibility of the separation of I-Thou from I-It was the exact criticism of Buber by Emmanuel Levinas, a French/Jewish philosopher of the 20th century. Levinas believed in an all-encompassing relationship to the Other, a universal I-Thou that excluded the possibility of I-It. For Levinas, we are all intimately intertwined with others in a generalized, universal Other.
Here the story is more personal and directly related to Levinas’ understanding of the Other and Palestinians. I was invited to lecture at Hebrew University several years ago. I began by citing Levinas and his well-known philosophy of the importance of Otherness as “a social communion considered as the primary act of being.” And it is because of this original communal relationship, according to Levinas, that we are responsible for others. “Responsibility for the other, this way of answering without a prior commitment, is human fraternity itself, and it is prior to freedom,” he wrote. “Responsibility for the other” and “humanity fraternity” are Levinas’ major philosophical contributions.
"상대방에 대한 책임"과 "인류애"는 레비나스의 주요 철학적 공헌이다.
After citing Levinas and his all-encompassing “human fraternity” and “responsibility for the other,” I asked the audience of professors and students how this philosophy played out in terms of Israel’s relationship to Palestinians. I made specific reference to an extremely controversial radio interview[ii] Levinas gave in 1982, two weeks after the massacres in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, Lebanon, by Christian militiamen acting under the protection of the Israeli Defense Force.
In the interview, Levinas was asked: “Emmanuel Levinas, you are the philosopher of the ‘other.’…for the Israeli, isn’t the ‘other’ above all the Palestinian?”
Levinas replied: “The other is the neighbor, who is not necessarily kin, but who can be…. But if your neighbor attacks another neighbor or treats him unjustly, what can you do? Then alterity(타자성) takes on another character, in alterity we can find an enemy, or at least then we are faced with the problem of knowing who is right and who is wrong, who is just and who is unjust. There are people who are wrong.” (italics added)
After referring to these quotes, I asked the audience why, according to Levinas, Palestinians were outside the “other,” recalling that Robert Bernasconi, professor of philosophy at Penn State University, had criticized Levinas’s belief that “the Palestinian is not as such the Other of the Jew.”
There was a great silence in the room. No one directly answered my question. Eventually, I was told I didn’t understand the implications of Levinas’ non-recognition of Palestinians as members of his all-encompassing Other. I didn’t understand the context, I was admonished. To the Hebrew University audience, I was obviously pro-Palestinian, hence anti-Israel and antisemitic. The professors and students all accepted Levinas’ rejection of Palestinians as part of any all-encompassing Other. I didn’t agree.
---다른소리 영어로는 잘 독해가 안 됩니다..
The Israeli Defense Minister’s description of the Hamas terrorists as “human animals” and the disproportional Israeli reaction to October 7 are part of decades of an asymmetrical relationship between Israel and Palestinians. There can be no talk of a one-state solution, an eventual federation or even a two-state solution until there is an Israeli recognition of Palestinians as equals and worthy of being treated proportionally in a symmetrical, humane relationship based on mutual dignity. Until Palestinians become part of the I-Thou in Buber’s terms and are included in the Other in Levinas’ there will be no peace.
Notes.
[i] For a more detailed analysis see Daniel Warner; “Levinas, Buber and the Concept of Otherness in International Relations: A Reply to David Campbell.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 1996. Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 111-128.
[ii] A detailed description of the interview and conflicting interpretations can be found at: Oona Eisenstadt and Claire Elise Kintz: “The Faceless Palestinian: A History of an Error.” Telos 174(Spring 2016): pp. 9-32.
Daniel Warner is the author of An Ethic of Responsibility in International Relations. (Lynne Rienner). He lives in Geneva.