Philosophy often serves as a guide for those seeking to live a more meaningful life; however, the abundance of information available can sometimes feel overwhelming. It is important to return to the foundational concepts that form the basis of philosophical exploration. One such concept is Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophy, particularly his distinction between “saying” and “said.” Understanding this idea can profoundly influence how we apply philosophy to enrich our lives. This article will examine Levinas’s philosophy, explore the meaning of “saying versus said,” and consider their significance in the pursuit of a more meaningful existence.
Key features of Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophy
Emmanuel Levinas was a French philosopher best known for his work on ethics and the idea of “the Other.” Central to his philosophy is the belief that human relationships begin with the encounter with another person, which he describes as the “face-to-face” encounter. For Levinas, the face of the Other represents more than just a physical appearance; it symbolizes a call to responsibility and an ethical obligation. This encounter reminds us that we are responsible for others before any formal laws or codes of behaviour.
Levinas challenges the traditional focus of Western philosophy, which often prioritizes knowledge, reason, and self-interest. Instead, he emphasizes the importance of ethics as the first philosophy. He argues that being truly human means being open to the needs and vulnerability of others, prioritizing care and compassion over self-centered concerns. His works highlight concepts like infinite responsibility, which means our ethical duty toward others is never fully complete.
Another key part of Levinas’s thought is his critique of totality — the idea of understanding others within a rigid system or reducing them to stereotypes or categories. He celebrates the mystery and uniqueness of the Other, emphasizing respect for their individuality. Levinas’s ideas inspire a strong sense of interconnectedness and encourage living in a way that honours our obligations to one another.
What is saying versus said?
Emmanuel Levinas, a prominent philosopher, explored the distinction between “saying” and the “said” as a way to understand human communication and relationships. For Levinas, “saying” refers to the active, dynamic process of addressing another person. It conveys vulnerability, openness, and a genuine responsibility toward the other. “Saying” embodies the ethical act of revealing oneself to another and being present in the interaction, beyond the structure of language or specific content.
On the other hand, the “said” is the structured, fixed content of what is communicated. It reflects the conclusions, definitions, and ideas expressed in words. The “said” offers clarity and stability, turning the fluid nature of “saying” into something concrete and understandable. For Levinas, however, this transition can also limit the ethical aspect of communication, as the “said” may close off the openness inherent in “saying.”
Levinas emphasized that communication is not purely about transmitting fixed ideas or messages, but about the ethical relationship that arises in the act of addressing another person. The “saying” surpasses the limitations of the “said,” aiming to preserve the human connection and responsibility toward others. This distinction highlights how meaning is not just found in words themselves, but also in the act of engaging with others authentically.
This example helps demonstrate this philosophical perspective. Imagine a conversation between two people where one person apologizes for their actions. The act of apologizing—expressing regret and seeking reconciliation—represents the dynamic and open nature of the “saying.” It is a direct, personal encounter that prioritizes the relationship between the individuals. However, once the apology is formalized into specific words, written down, or analyzed later, it becomes part of the “said.” The apology is now a fixed statement, less fluid and less tied to the emotional immediacy of the moment. While the “said” captures the content of the apology, such as “I am sorry for what I did,” it does not fully convey the lived experience, vulnerability, or intent of the interaction. This example highlights the contrast between the living, relational act of communication (“saying”) and its static, recorded form (“said”).
Challenges to Emmanuel Levinas’s view about saying versus said
Some philosophers object to or reject Emmanuel Levinas’s ideas about the distinction between “saying” and “said” for various reasons. One major critique is the perceived vagueness or lack of clarity in his philosophical framework. Levinas’s terminology and concepts can be abstract and difficult to pin down, which leads some critics to argue that his ideas lack practical applicability or clear definitions. This can create concerns about how well his distinction can be engaged with or evaluated in philosophical discourse. For philosophers who value precision and straightforward argumentation, this ambiguity feels problematic and raises doubts about the usefulness of his ideas.
Another common objection arises from concerns over the balance of Levinas’s approach to ethics and communication. Some critics believe that his emphasis on the ethical dimension of human interaction, which might be tied to “saying,” sidelines other significant aspects of communication, like the structure, content, or established meanings involved in the “said.” These philosophers argue that communication is not simply about ethics or interpersonal responsibility but also about shared systems of meaning, logic, and truth. By focusing heavily on one side of the equation, they feel Levinas risks oversimplifying or ignoring the broader complexities of language and understanding.
Additionally, certain philosophers have challenged Levinas’s ideas on the grounds that they might conflict with traditional views on subjectivity and autonomy. Ethics in Levinas’s view is often tied to responsibility to the “Other,” which some critics perceive as downplaying the freedom and agency of the individual subject. They argue that this perspective could unintentionally create an imbalance, putting overwhelming weight on the ethical demand of the “Other” while potentially undermining the ability of individuals to fully express or realize themselves.
Lastly, Levinas’s approach has been critiqued for being overly idealistic. Real-world interactions are often messy, and philosophers skeptical of Levinas’s vision argue that his focus on abstract ethical ideals doesn’t always resonate with the complexities and imperfections of daily human communication. This disconnect between theory and practice can make some philosophers hesitant to fully endorse his view.
Why saying versus said is important to Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophy
These are some of the main reasons why grasping the concept of saying versus said is crucial to understanding Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophy.
- Focus on Communication as a Process
The distinction between saying and said highlights the dynamic nature of communication. It emphasizes that meaning is not fixed in what is said, but rather unfolds in the act of saying itself. This idea encourages a deeper understanding of communication as an ongoing process, where meaning is shaped and reshaped through interaction. This perspective invites us to pay attention not just to the content of what is spoken or written but also to the act of expression, which carries intention, tone, and openness to dialogue.
- Ethical Responsibility in Interaction
By distinguishing between saying and said, the idea opens a space to consider the ethical responsibilities of speakers. “Saying” can be seen as a means of continually addressing and responding to others in an open and engaged manner. This holds special importance in relationships and ethical discussions because it moves away from static assertions and towards a commitment to active, ongoing care and attentiveness toward others. It reminds us that communication is not merely delivering information but is rooted in the recognition and respect of others as they are.
- Fluidity of Meaning
The idea of saying versus said underscores the fluid nature of meaning in human interaction. Meaning is not final and can change based on the context, time, and the evolving relationship between individuals. Recognizing this fluidity can help avoid dogmatic thinking and instead encourage openness to reinterpretation, growth, and a shared pursuit of understanding. This fluid approach to meaning fosters adaptability in thought and action, which is essential in diverse and complex social situations.
- Encouragement of Openness
Saying represents an openness to others, an invitation to dialogue, and a willingness to listen. This perspective acknowledges that human relationships grow and deepen not through rigid statements but through a continuous exchange of thoughts and feelings. Highlighting the importance of saying prompts us to value the connections we form in the process of communication and the vulnerability involved in genuinely reaching out to others. It inspires an enduring attitude of openness in both personal and collective interactions.
Contrasting Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophy with Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy
Emmanuel Levinas’s distinction between the “saying” and the “said” highlights his focus on the ethical relationship between individuals. For Levinas, the “saying” emphasizes the act of communication itself — the responsibility and connection established between people in moments of speech. It reflects the ongoing dynamic and ethical engagement that goes beyond fixed language or definitions. On the other hand, the “said” refers to the structured, static content of language, such as ideas and statements that can be captured in words. This distinction underscores Levinas’s interest in ethics as a living experience rather than a concept fully contained in language.
When compared to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy, this focus presents a noteworthy difference. Wittgenstein, particularly in his later work, explored how language operates within life and activities, arguing that meaning arises through its use in specific situations, or “language games.” While both philosophers acknowledge the limits of language, Wittgenstein primarily focuses on the practical and social rules that govern communication and meaning-making. Levinas, however, emphasizes the ethical dimension that cannot be fully captured by the rules or systems of language.
Thus, while Wittgenstein is concerned with how language functions and shapes understanding, Levinas shifts attention to the relational and ethical experience underlying communication. This makes Levinas’s approach more concerned with the responsibility inherent in the encounter between the speaker and the listener, rather than the mechanics or rules of language itself.
Saying Versus Said, Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophy and the meaning of life
Understanding and reflecting on Emmanuel Levinas’s view about “saying” versus “said,” regardless of whether one agrees with it or not, can be a powerful exercise in living a more meaningful and intentional life. At its core, grappling with philosophical ideas encourages us to think deeply about the ways we communicate and engage with the world around us. While daily life often pushes us toward efficiency and clarity in expressing ourselves, the action of pausing to consider the layers of meaning and intent in our words can help us build stronger, more authentic connections with others. This reflection helps us develop a heightened sense of responsibility toward the people and situations we encounter.
Whether or not you align with Levinas’s perspective, reflecting on it underscores the potential for communication to be more than just a transfer of information. It invites us to consider how our words and actions affect others and challenges us to be more present in our interactions. By being mindful about how we express ourselves—not just the content of what we say, but the intention and humanity behind it—we can cultivate more compassionate and empathetic relationships. This act of mindfulness nurtures a greater sense of purpose because it aligns how we live and interact with our values.
Additionally, examining such philosophies can push us to see beyond the surface of our own existence and the routines we fall into. It reminds us that life’s meaning is not simply found in what we achieve or declare but also in how we approach and honour the ongoing process of being. Reflecting on ideas like those of Levinas can inspire us to be more thoughtful and deliberate in our actions, contributing to a more fulfilling and meaningful way of living. Even if we disagree with his views, the process of engaging with such ideas broadens our perspective, challenges our assumptions, and teaches us to live in a way that is deeply respectful to the complexity of being human.
Further reading
Critchley, S. (2002). Ethics, politics, subjectivity: Essays on Derrida, Levinas, and contemporary French thought. Verso.
Hand, S. (Ed.). (2009). The Levinas reader. Wiley-Blackwell.
Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority (A. Lingis, Trans.). Duquesne University Press.
Levinas, E. (1981). Otherwise than being, or beyond essence (A. Lingis, Trans.). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Morgan, M. L. (2007). Discovering Levinas. Cambridge University Press.
Peperzak, A. T. (1993). To the other: An introduction to the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. Purdue University Press.
Perpich, D. (2008). The ethics of Emmanuel Levinas. Stanford University Press.
Simmons, J. A. (1999). The third and the infinite: Levinas on individuality. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 7(4), 467–492.