Journals / FLSF Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2018 /

THE HUMAN-ANIMAL PROBLEM IN PHILOSOPHY: A NEW APPROACH TO THE OPPOSITION BETWEEN DERRIDA AND LEVINAS: ON HUGGING AS EMBRACING

FELSEFEDE İNSAN-HAYVAN SORUNU: DERRİDA VE LEVİNAS ARASINDAKİ KARŞITLIĞA YENİ BİR YAKLAŞIM: KUCAKLAMA OLARAK SARILMA ÜZERİNE

Pages
181–206
Publication Date
2018-04-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

A special relation is constructed between the meaning that is giving to embracing and rubbing of the back and existing

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this article, the difference between human and animal in philosophy is mainly handled.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This difference is thought over the concept of “the other” and Heidegger’s phenomenological distinction between human and animal.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:A special relation is constructed between the meaning that is giving to embracing and rubbing of the back and existing
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Felsefe · Hayvan · İnsan

Abstract

In this article, the difference between human and animal in philosophy is mainly handled. This difference is thought over the concept of “the other” and Heidegger’s phenomenological distinction between human and animal. With respect to especially the views of Derrida and Levinas regarding to this matter, it has been attempted to exhibit this difference. Therefore, the two approaches -which were represented as the opposition of Derrida and Levinas- have been tried to clarify. After this, as a new approach to this opposition, the concept of “embrace” is philosophically problematized. This examination which also can be read under the main heading of philosophy of body makes especially the dorsal and more generally the whole back surface of human body subject matter of philosophical interpretation. The concepts of dorsal and embracing -which can also be considered from the angle of phenomenology of the body- are approached from evolutionary and psychologically. With this, the concept of embracing deepens the thought of being-together-with-others in a specific context. A special relation is constructed between the meaning that is giving to embracing and rubbing of the back and existing

Özet

Bu makalede en temelde felsefede insan ve hayvan arasındaki fark ele alınmıştır. Bu fark, “öteki” kavramı ve Heidegger’in insan ve hayvan arasında ortaya koyduğu fenomenolojik ayrım üzerinden düşünülmüştür. Özellikle Derrida ve Levinas’ın konuya ilişkin görüşleri bağlamında bu fark ortaya koyulmaya çalışılmıştır. Böylece, Derrida ve Levinas karşıtlığı olarak temsil edilen iki farklı yaklaşımın açık kılınması amaçlanmıştır. Bunun üzerine, bu karşıtlığa yeni bir yaklaşım olarak “sarılma” kavramı felsefi açıdan sorunsallaştırılarak ele alınmıştır. Bir tür beden felsefesi üst başlığı altında da okunabilecek olan bu inceleme özellikle sarılmayı ve sırtı ve genel olarak insan bedeninin tüm arka yüzeyinin bir bütün olarak alınmasını felsefi bir yorumlamanın konusu kılar. Beden fenomenolojisi açısından da düşünülebilir olan sarılma ve sırt kavramlarına evrimsel ve psikolojik açılardan yaklaşılır. Bununla birlikte sarılma kavramı başkalarıyla-birlikte-olma düşüncesini spesifik bir bağlamda derinleştirir

🔖

Cite This Article

YURT, E. (2018). THE HUMAN-ANIMAL PROBLEM IN PHILOSOPHY: A NEW APPROACH TO THE OPPOSITION BETWEEN DERRIDA AND LEVINAS: ON HUGGING AS EMBRACING. FLSF Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 181–206. https://ajindex.com/articles/70941

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Agamben, Giorgio, The Open: Man and Animal, Çev. Kevin Attell, Stanford University Press, California 2004.
  2. Allman, John Morgan, Evolving Brains, Scientific American Library, New York 1997.
  3. Berendsel, Frank – Scheffer, Marten, “The Angiosperm Radiation Revisited, an Ecological Explanation for Darwin’s ‘Abominable Mystery’”, Ecology Letters, Cilt: 12, Sayı: 9, 2009.
  4. Blanchot, Maurice, The Infinite Conversation, Çev. Susan Hanson, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis 1993.
  5. Bruns, Gerald L., “Derrida’s Cat (Who Am I?)”, Research in Phenomenology, Sayı: 38, 2008.
  6. Buber, Martin, Ben ve Sen, Çev. İnci Palsay, Kopernik Kitap, İstanbul 2017.
  7. Buber, Martin, Ich und Du, Philipp Reclam Jun. GmbH & Co., Stuttgart 2009.
  8. Calarco, Matthew, “Deconstruction Is Not Vegetarianism: Humanism, Subjectivity, and Animal Ethics,” Continental Philosophy Review, Cilt: 37, Sayı: 2, 2004.
  9. Calarco, Matthew, Zoographies: The Question of the Animal from Heidegger to Derrida, Columbia University Press, New York 2008
  10. Cartmill, Matt, “New Views on Primate Origins”, Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, Cilt: 1, Sayı: 3, 1992.
  11. Cartmill, Matt, “Primate Evolution: Were Traits Selected for Arboreal Locomotion or Visually Directed Predation?”, Science, Cilt: 187, 1975.
  12. Cartmill, Matt, “Rethinking Primate Origins”, Science, Cilt: 184, Sayı: 4135, 1974.
  13. Changizi, Mark A. – Shimojo, Shinsuke, “‘X-ray vision’ and the Evolution of Forward-Facing Eyes”, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Cilt: 254, Sayı: 4, 2008.
  14. Cohen, Sheldon – Janicki-Deverts, Denise – Turner, Ronald B. – Doyle, William J., “Does Hugging Provide Stress-Buffering Social Support? A Study of Susceptibility to Upper Respiratory Infection and Illness”, Psychological Science, Cilt: 26, Sayı: 2, 2015.