신의 음성과 책임: 레비나스와 데리다의 생각 속의 키에르케고르적 윤리 (God’s Voice and Responsibility: The Kierkegaardian Ethic in Levinas’s and Derrida’s Thoughts)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국조직신학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국조직신학논총 / 28호 / 149 ~ 176페이지
· 저자명 : 윤원준

초록

본 논문의 첫 번째 부분은 레비나스의 글 속에 나타나는 키에르케고르를 다루고 있다. 특히 키에르케고르와 레비나스의 생각들을 파악하기 위해서, 그들의 글들에서 발견할 수 있는 가장 좋은 예들 중에 하나가 성경에서 나타나는 아케다(Akedah, 이삭을 제물로 바치기 위해서묶음) 사건에 대한 그들의 해석과 가능한 해석이다. 이 사건에 대한 그들의 해석의 차이를 통해서 레비나스가 이해하는 키에르케고르를 파악할 수 있을 것이다. 논문의 두 번째 부분은 데리다의 생각 속의 키에르케고르이다. 많은 부분 데리다는 키에르케고르의 생각들을 받아들이지만, 또한 일정 부분 첨가와 수정을 가하려는 시도를 통해서 그의 해체적 관심을 보여준다. 데리다의 키에르케고르 분석 속에서도 아케다 사건은 중요한 위치를 차지한다. 데리다의 아케다 사건에 대한 이해는 키에르케고르의 분석에 멈추지 않고, 레비나스에 대한 비판으로까지 나아간다. 그러므로 본 논문은 두 부분(레비나스의 키에르케고르와 데리다의 키에르케고르)으로 단절되는 것이 아니고, 아케다 사건을 둘러싼 세사람(키에르케고르, 레비나스, 데리다)의 논의가 중첩되는 것처럼 보일것이다.

영어초록

Since Kierkegaard’s existential philosophy’s main target was Hegelian rationalism and the Hegelian Christianity, most of Kierkegaard’s writings were colored with religious concerns and antirational thought. Like Kierkegaard, some postmodern thinkers, such as Emmanuel Levinas and Jacques Derrida, show their interests in religious issues and challenge the modern foundationalism based on human reason. Also like Kierkegaard, Levinas and Derrida want to shake the human rational systems using the words God,transcendence, infinity, or the absolute Other, which interrupt and disturb this world. Despite those similarities, the differences among Kierkegaard, Levinas, and Derrida should not be ignored. For understanding the differences concerning religious issues among them, one should examine their interpretations and the possible interpretation about the Akedah.
For Kierkegaard, Abraham showed two things in his action of binding his son Isaac: First, his duty toward God was absolute;second, his ethical responsibility toward the family and the society was relative and secondary when compared to the God’s command.
Kierkegaard interprets that through the obedience of trying to kill his son, Abraham showed his faith. Levinas’s understanding of the A k e d a h is radically different from the Kierkegaard’s. For Levinas,Abraham was tempted to kill his son by the first God’s voice.
However, Abraham could overcome that temptation through waiting patiently for the second God’s voice, and successfully came back to the real God’s ethic. Although Levinas does not say explicitly that Abraham saw or heard God’s voice “you are not to kill” on Isaac’s face, Levinas’s thought concerning human face can strongly support the interpretation that Abraham saw or heard God’s ethical command “you are not to kill” on his son’s face. Therefore, the ethics revealed through human face is prior to God’s direct command to sacrifice one’s own son. In contrast to Levinas’s interpretation, Derrida agrees Kierkegaard’s understanding that the absolute duty toward God conflicts with the responsibilities for family and society. Also like Kierkegaard, Derrida says that for the duty toward God, one should be ready for “the gift of death” that looks like a madness. However,Derrida does not want to abandon the universal ethical norms because of the religious faith. He wants to state that a responsibility for one other is always in conflict and in aporia with another responsibility for another(or other) other, using the expression “every other (one) is every (bit) other, tout autre est tout autre .” It is obvious that although Derrida does not want to ignore or to destroy any ethical system, his deconstruction does not try to construct an ethical system. Derrida correctly insists that every system seeking “the pure” or “the absolute”, including Levinas’s ethical system, has the possibility of violence to the other.

참고자료

· 없음