Nietzsche's Relationship With The Other

973 Words2 Pages

. These experiences are given names by Emmanuel Levinas within his philosophical theories: transcendence and an interaction with the Other. Levinas describes this experience of transcendence as an exit from oneself (which, in itself is humanity) in which we have a relationship with the Other (“Interview”). This “Other” is something that cannot be defined, but is prior to oneself and a confrontation with the face signifies a response of empathy (Levinas, pp. 24-25). Because Levinas expresses concepts such as these, it is possible to claim that he would be for a social system in which no person is discriminated against because of their sex. The Other could be considered a woman, which then implies that violence towards this being is senseless. …show more content…

Nietzsche believed that Christians were trapped in a herd mentality that causes them to be unable to think for themselves and blindly follow whatever their “leader” tells them to believe. In modern society, the concept of a herd mentality can be applied to both men and women alike, as both groups are still susceptible to believing whatever they hear from a majority figure or population (especially regarding the supposed inferiority of the female sex). In order to escape this herd mentality, Nietzsche proposes that God’s death should lead to the death of any absolute truths that existed when God was still “alive” through the concept of perspectivism. Therefore, if God is truly dead in the way the Nietzsche proposes he is, then the supposed “truth” that women are inferior to men that existed during God’s life should also be …show more content…

The noumena exists outside our experience. Humans cannot experience it as noumena are of another dimension/reality” (Lightsey, p. 17). Pamela Lightsey, another womanist theologian, interpreted Kant’s ideas “as saying that humans as rational beings could discover truth, but that our understanding (reason) was limited/constrained regarding what truth we can experience” (pg. 17). Thus, because humans are limited by what they experience, it may be difficult to present those outside the realm of oppression with a truth that they have not (or cannot) experience. This presents a problem with deconstruction and reconstruction, but it is not something that is impossible to overcome; it simply means that more work has to be done in order to work towards this truth of equality of the sexes. In a situation such as this, the intergroup contact that was discussed by Taschler, et al. would be beneficial in presenting new experiences in order to work towards the truth of

Open Document