Turning the Theological Turn on Its Head—The Levinasian Secularization of Heidegger’s Theology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellent and insightful article. It makes a strong case and in doing so contributes very well to our understanding of the theological turn and indeed of Heidegger's indebtedness to theology. My suggestions below are more to contribute to the argument or to clarify certain issues/readings.

1. While Levinas's relation to Kant is well-described, Heidegger's indebtedness to the Konigsberg philosopher is only touched upon. Yet, arguably Heidegger's engagement with Kant was crucial not alone in the development of the structure of Being and Time but also in the manner in which Augustinian/Pauline themes were re-articulated in that work.

2. The use of the Pauline opposition of the world/in the world on p. 5 was suggestive, but in my view needs more exegetical defence. That Dasein is not at home in the world does not necessarily mean that Dasein is not of the world. Arguably, for Heidegger Dasein is both of the world and in the world precisely because its being is a question for it and as such the worldliness of the world is constitutive of it.

3. I was surprised that no account was taken of Heidegger's lecture "Phenomenology and Theology" in this discussion. Not alone does Heidegger address the question of theology (although not directly the secular) in this lecture, but he makes a significant methodological point that all theological concepts already assume a prior understanding of being. This does not necessarily contradict the account given here of the concept of fallenness, but it does complicate it because Heidegger is claiming in effect that the concept is primarily secular and only secondarily theological.

4. On page 12 the question of world-contempt is mentioned. It might be useful here to be more specific than simply to refer to something popping up from time to time in the history of theology and name it as a Gnostic tendency. Obviously, this is a contested term, but it would give a clearer signal as to what is being referenced here. 

Author Response

I thank you for an encouraging and insightful review. Due to feedback from other reviewers, the article has gone through major revisions, which has also impacted my response to some of your following points.

 

1. This is a very interesting suggestion, but due to feedback from other reviewers that the article was too bloated and lacking a clearer red thread, I decided against expanding on the article by exploring Heidegger’s connection to Kant.

 

2. I have expanded on this point, specifying that Dasein is not simply in the world like other innerworldly beings because it is not-at-home in the world, as you suggest.

 

3. I agree with your observation, and I have now added a brief discussion of Phenomenology and Theology

 

4. I have added a mention of Gnosticism, which I do agree is helpful in clarifying what I mean, whether or not the term is contested

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments – Religions: 2616727

 General Comments

 

The submitted manuscript deals with a profound issue that one cannot easily handle. Overall, the article is rich and sophisticated, and provides us with much information on the issue in a comprehensive way. In that regard, the author of the paper has done an important task.

 

However, it is questionable whether the author has succeeded in fulfilling the task completely. In relation to this, the article has, in a quasi-paradoxical way, some serious difficulties. First, the article’s merit, e.g., sophisticated and detailed accounts, often turns into its demerit. The author’s too much account makes him or her fail to generate a compact and convincing argumentation. The author seems to be good at writing, but the manuscript is often diffuse and verbose.

 

Next, due to the unnecessary excessive expositions, some of the vital points are overlooked. For example, the author claims that his or her central task in the article is to “turn the theological turn on his head”. Yes, but what is, exactly and theoretically, meant by “turn the theological turn on his head”? Is it refinement, criticism, transformation, abolishment, or substitution? And what could be the further philosophical and/or theological implications of the result? These matters remain unclear and vague.

 

In conclusion, the reviewer finds that the submitted article should be revised in a more logically compact and convincing way, and that some crucial ideas are to be more properly discussed. Considering the fact that the present journal tends to prefer a short but strong argumentation, the submitted manuscript needs to be curtailed, probably within 15 pages or so. The purpose of the author’s inquiry is not to show one’s vast amount of knowledge but to present a persuasive exposition and argumentation. To fulfil the task, the author should make a clear distinction between more important points and less important ones in the manuscript. Then, the article will be more cogent than it is now.       

 

Specific comments

 

1. The Introduction of the article could have been more compact and straightforward than now. More specifically, in section 1, instead of ending the last paragraph with interrogations, providing the clear and definite thesis that is to be proved in the paper will be better. Also, some transparent articulations of what theoretical advantages or implications can obtain when the author’s argumentation is successful need to be made.

 

2. In section 2, the author seems to make a one-sided, superficial interpretation of Kant’s ideas (pp. 2-3). That is, considering the primacy of the practical (in contrast to the theoretical) defended by Kant, it is hard to welcome the author’s interpretation of Kant’s philosophy. The author’s Kant is the Kant only in the Critique of Pure Reason.   

Also considering that the problem of infinity is a very complicated matter, it is doubtful whether the author’s brief remark on the idea of infinity (lines 121-129) is really helpful to develop the central idea of the article.

Similar points can be made in the many parts and sections in the manuscript. As is already indicated above, the manuscript often becomes verbose and unnecessarily detailed. For example, lines 228-239; p. 8; lines 481-497; lines 609-618 (Here, introducing Nietzsche does not seem to be helpful.); lines 851-859; p. 20, celebrity worship taken to be religious (not helpful; could be a hazy idea) etc.

It appears that the author needs to see the importance of the simplicity, straightforwardness, and robustness of argumentation.) In that respect, the author seems to write not an article but a book. It, rather, hampers our proper understanding of the author’s valuable insights.

All the sections in the paper should be more compact and cogent. The paper has important ideas; but it is very unkind to the readers including professional scholars. Again, the article needs to be rewritten, approximately within 15 pages or so.

 

3. In contrast to the huge amount of philosophical and theological information presented in the paper, the conclusion or the central thesis of the paper is surprisingly implicit and indirect. It needs to be expressed explicitly.

 

4. In addition to the long-winded sentences and thoughts, there are several typos, grammatical errors, and incomplete sentences. For example, check line 170 (“to”), line 398 (“notes”), line 645, line 658 (“target”), line 767, line 772 (“secularizes”), line 810, line 827 etc.    

The author may need to check all the cited references presented in the paper. For instance, in line 859, the page referencing is wrong. The quoted passage is not on p. 144 in Levinas 2007 but on p. 147!

 

5. When it comes to quoting an important original text, one needs to indicate the original publication year of the text. For instance, not Heidegger (2010) but Heidegger (1927/2010). It will be better.  

 

6. Some interreligious considerations of non-theistic religions, such as Taoism and Buddhism (particularly Zen Buddhism), might be helpful to resolve the paradoxical characters associated with transcendent religiosity and immanent religiosity. When we take the latter to be a form of secular religiosity, it seems to have two aspects, i.e., secular religiosity to be recognized (fulfilled) and secular religiosity to be overcome (emptied). One wonders how the Levinasian approach could cope with this matter. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see the comments above. 

Author Response

I thank you for a both encouraging and constructively critical review. In general, I agree with the assessment, that was shared by other reviewers as well, that the article was bloated and lacked a clear red thread. I have made the article much shorter, cutting out unnecessary side-tracks, and I have attempted to define more clearly what I am arguing and why I am arguing it. There are therefore quite significant changes in the introduction, conclusion and throughout the article.

 

1. I have written a new introduction that I hope answers these requests
   
   
2. I have added a footnote referencing the fact that there are other places in Kant’s corpus where God is deemed a legitimate object of philosophical inquiry, but explained why I choose to focus on his exclusion of God as a thematic
   I agree that many of the topics I bring up in the original manuscript ended up being distracting diversions, and I have thus cut the discussion of infinity, the point about Nietzsche, celebrity worship, and many others. The article should, hopefully, be more straightforward now.
   
   
3. I have written a new conclusion that I hope does a better job at…well, being a conclusion, which I admit the last manuscript lacked
   
   
4. I have corrected the typos you listed, and I hope there are not too many new ones in the new sections. Regarding the quote from “Beyond the Verse”, it hardly matters anymore since I have removed the quotation, but for the record: the quote does appear on page 144 in my edition, and not page 147.
   
   
5. I followed your instructions in this regard and added the original publication year for the following works, which were the works where I believe your instruction was most relevant; Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Ideas I, Being and Time, Totality and Infinity and Existence and Existents
   
   
6. Interesting suggestion, but in my efforts to make the article shorter and more straightforward, I have not pursued it

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Minor points: in the article there is a constant identification of philosophy with phenomenology, i.e., it is taken that what PN can contribute is what philosophy can contribute. This is obviously mistaken, as there is the analytic tradition. As far as theology is concerned, this overlooks a priori enterprises, i.e., Anselm and Abelard and contemporary apologists like Plantinga and Feser.

The article has three major movements:

1.       Heidegger starts out talking about a secular phenomenology of authenticity but is actually sneaking in theology in his admonition that we flee into inauthenticity when we are thrown and turn to the world; to turn away from authenticity is really just a trace of turning away from God.

2.       Levinas provides a secular critique of the theological phenomenology by showing that man’s turn towards the world is good.

3.       Even Levinas’s theology is of a secularizing type.      

Overall, movements 1 and 2 are excellent. The third, which begins in section 7, needs work for clarity. I would even omit it entirely. The central problem is that the author thinks that a secular theology is not religious, and this seems to me a mistake, or at least in need of clarification.    

Here are the points that require addressing.

The following may not be within the scope of the author’s article: Levinas’s notion of ‘secularisation’ seems a bit inadequate. I mean, merely turning towards the world as a source of enjoyment is not enough to constitute a secular worldview. After all, one might just think the worldly goods come from a loving God to whom we will return upon death. One can have one’s worldly cake and eat it too. So, this account of secularization, even of a philosophical type, needs to be interrogated.  

The following related point is within the author’s scope: at times I get the impression that secularization for the author, following Levinas, amounts to a turn to Judaic monotheism over an enchanted (polytheistic) conception of nature. This comes through in the opening passages to section 7 most clearly. That sure seems like a strange secularity. I understand what the author says here is that this disenchantment is coupled with the Judaic enjoyment of the Earth, but for the Jew, this enjoyment is coupled precisely with the worship of an otherworldly ethereal creator God. How is that secularity, exactly? More to the point, how is it more secular than the nature worship it replaced? The earth has been secularized, perhaps, but man and his place in the universe and his relationship to the earth which God created is still distinctly theological.  

It just seems to me that there is a massive ambiguity that plagues that final section of the article over exactly now what the author means by the terms ‘secular’ and ‘religious.’ This is a shame because, given the nature of the topic of the article, it is written in an incredibly lucid style, indeed with a lucidity often lack in other authors working in the field of the theological turn in French phenomenology.  

For example, the author says: “Today, however, the increased importance of the entertainment industry, social media platforms and digital technology has led to a culture of idolizing celebrities that with good reason can be called religious.” Well, what are these good reasons exactly? I mean if all the author now means by ‘religious’ is obsessive idolatry, that’s a strange religiousness when contrasted with Christianity.   

The author then says,

“Levinas’ Jewish theology thus presents the possibility of theology not only concerning itself with ‘theological themes’, that is, themes and notions regarding what transcends the human condition. It might also very well concern itself with the simple, human condition precisely in order to secularize and de-charm the pretensions to sacrality and religiosity that lies naturally in the human condition.” Well, if the intention is to secularize, how is this still theology?

Like I say, I got majorly confused with the third movement from 7 onwards so if the author could rewrite this final section so that it is less enigmatic it would be much improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A dozen typos need removing

Author Response

Thank you for your review. Regarding your minor point, I have added a footnote at the end of section 2 regarding my decision to identify phenomenology with philosophy in the article.

 

Regarding the points about Levinas and secularization, I think I have made amendments to the article that address your concerns. It is indeed true as you say that the fact that worldly goods can be enjoyed in themselves do not exclude a loving Creator who has created the world thus. As you write further, how is Levinas’ secularization more secular than the nature worship it replaces? You then write that “The earth has been secularized, perhaps, but man and his place in the universe and his relationship to the earth which God created is still distinctly theological”.

            As I have attempted to clarify in this revised manuscript, this is precisely Levinas’ stance. Levinas’ thinks within a theological universe where the world is created by God, but he argues that precisely because God creates the world out of nothing (ex nihilo), creation is different and separated from its Creator. The world is therefore secular. The fourth paragraph in section 5 explains this rather peculiar point of Levinas\s philosophy/theology, and I hope you find the explanation sufficient, and perhaps even convincing!

            In general, I have rewritten the final part concerning Levinas quite dramatically, dropping references to coffee and celebrity worship and trying to more clearly delineate the themes you found confusing.  

 

Ps. The first part of the article you found lucid has also gone through significant changes due to comments from other reviewers

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has many qualities. It is on the whole well written, and it gives some good readings of Heidegger, of Levinas and of Falque. In parts, it is also well argued, bringing together some interesting material and raising interesting questions. 

Unfortunately, there are some overall and consistent weaknesses that should be addressed. First and foremost, there is a lack of precision and explication of terms and concepts used. Furthermore, there is a lack of coherence seemingly due to a whole range of disparate and redundant themes introduced and juxtaposed. The impression is that the author is trying to synthetize too much into the format of an article. Formally, references are frequently lacking and there are many language errors and typos. I shall try to give some examples, even if I cannot point to them all throughout the article. 

(1) First, the need to be more precise in accounting for central terms and concepts primarily concerns the key terms of secularization and theology. 

To say that "secularism figures as a prominent theme in Levinas' writings" (line 72) seems an overstatement to say the least – and references on this is significantly lacking. Apart from in the article heavily referred to here, “Secularization and Hunger”, which is Levinas contribution to the Castelli seminary on “Hermeneutics of secularization” in January 1976, presented also in a following lecture in February 1976 (God Death and Time), secularization is never made a specific theme. The term itself is rarely used, there are just sparse mentions of the secular or secularization in his writings (mostly in Difficult Freedom) and none in Existence and Existents also referred to in the present article, nor in the following central writings at all. Of course, one may then, with Levinas as a starting point, reflect further on the issue of secularization, but to claim that this is a “prominent theme” for Levinas himself does not seem justified. So, in what sense is this sociological term used here?

Also, to not at least mention the central distinction between the sacred and the holy in Levinas seems an oversimplification that hampers the arguments. Is secularization the overcoming of the sacred? Or is it a neglect of the holy? Is to de-sacralize (line 880) the same as to secularize? This again need explication – secularization in what sense? 

It seems that the author more and more equals ‘secularization’ with ‘enjoyment of wordly life’ or something of the kind, which is a rather ideosyncratic interpretation of the secular. The paragraphs where the new thematic of enjoyment is introduced (from line 511sq) comes rather abruptly, it is not evident why this theme should come in here. Also, references are lacking so, again, there is little documentation of Levinas’ own use of the term or how and why enjoyment and secularism may be equated. Let me take as example where the author claims that Levinas calls the world “secular and profane” (line 570) and describes “our worldliness as secular, profane and atheistic” from insights “especially pertaining to enjoyment” (line 575sq), and further that he designs “worldly enjoyment as a secular realm” (line 581). Apart from a reference to Existence and Existents where these terms are not in use, the developments of these paragraphs have no references, not even for the term “atheist” which in fact is the only term here that Levinas himself uses. Not even in the article Secularization and Hunger referred to further on is “enjoyment” mentioned, and the simple equation or even identification between secularization and enjoyment needs an extended argumentation to be plausible, as “the secularization of idolatry becoming ontology” (1998) implies as much the rationality of representation and primarily points to theoretical and technical mastery overcoming the worries of hunger (starvation). It seems hard to recognize here the somewhat forced inclusion of the perspective of enjoyment. The examples are several until the conclusion of the article.

Some words also on the notion of theology, I will keep it brief.

In section 2 it would be wise of the author to take the consequences of what is said elsewhere, namely that what is criticized is “a certain type of theology” (line 349), and then to specify which kind. In the exposition in section2, it seems that “experience” has been alien to theology as a whole from the start and till the end, which of course is not the case.

As the author herself/himself problematize, it is not evident that there is a theology in Heidegger: Even if he is inspired by theologians, it is not obvious that his own work is theological (line 244-245). Also, to describe religious experience (line 368-369) does not necessarily turn a philosopher into a theologian. It makes sense to analyze the differences between Levinas and Heidegger in terms of how they conceive of our (existential) position in the world, but it is not clear why there should be some “theology” in Heidegger that Levinas “secularize”, this is not convincingly shown. Still, the articles whole argument hinges on this divide. The contradictions are not resolved.

(2) Especially from section 5 onwards, the impression is that the author seems to synthetize too much into the format of an article, introducing a range of redundant themes that hamper the coherence of the presentation. The disparate themes abound; marriage, existentialism, surrealism, ascetism (and Nietzsche), the abstinence movement ... the reader understands that some of these are meant to serve as examples, but they tend to introduce themes that are too big to be only superficially mentioned. And again, there are very few references. 

The argument is especially hard to follow from line 851 to the end.

Also, the paragraph from line 186 to line 194 seems a redundant summary for an article.

(3) I have already pointed out the lack of references, and I will add that also the lines 153-159 would need references. But let me finally just identify some language errors and typos. 

line 19-20 ... experiential nature of the intellectual and the spiritual itself. 

line 51 ... what are the legitimate borders between philosophy and theology 

line 200-201 ... does Heidegger elect choose to use the term ‘falling’, and ... ...  Heidegger is sure to make clear that it is not talk of a question of Dasein having ...

line 231 ... anxiety gives the answer to why Dasein tends ...

line 247 ... Heidegger’s approach are is of great relevance ...

line 263 ... the Christian life is demarcated marked by holding onto ... 

line 278 ... have to be concerned concern themselves with the worldly affairs of pleasing ...

line 331... in fact illuminate they the unique way in which humanity inhabits the world. 

line 357-358  What Heidegger found lacking was at fault in the Catholic theology of his  time was the incessant drive towards metaphysical systematization ... 

line 439 ... This tracks with Wolfe’s analysis ... ??

line 533 ... question of its Being remaining eerily in the background.  ??

line 584... the ontological structure first glanced by Paul and Augustine ... ??

line 623 ... the everyday-life they break away from has always been ...

 

In sum, despite many good readings and many interesting passages, there is a troublesome lack of nuances and some prevailing contradictions in the presentation which hampers the otherwise interesting reflections carried out and the conclusions drawn. When in addition the most central terms are not sufficiently accounted for and there is a serious lack of references, I am afraid the whole argumentation tends to collapse. In addition to working through the precision of terms and concepts, my advice would be to sharpen and clean up the whole article, to take away the many excursions to new topics (even when in guise of examples), and to limit the elements brought into the questions discussed. This could produce a more clear and coherent line throughout the article. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Sde comments  here over.

Author Response

Thank you for a thorough, detailed, constructively critical and at the same time encouraging review. In general, I have made significant changes to the article in response to your observation that the original manuscript tried to synthetize too many topics at once, something other reviewers also pointed out and with which I agree. The new manuscript is shorter and, hopefully, more clearly and intently structured. I also hope the key terms are more clearly defined.

 

1. Regarding whether secularism/atheism is a prominent theme in Levinas: I do believe that this is the case, and I have done more to show that it is the case. Regarding the term ‘secular’, I am somewhat confused, for Levinas does indeed use this term multiple times in Existence and Existents. Is the contention over the fact that the French term used is laic? I do believe this term is correctly translated as ‘secular’, which is the chosen translation by Lingis.
     As you mention, the term ‘atheist/atheism’ is more frequently used by Levinas, more specifically in Totality and Infinity, and I have tried to establish the connection between the discussion of the secular and profane in Existence and Existents and atheism in Totality and Infinity more clearly, a connection I believe is quite strong.
       Regarding your comment as to why “this sociological term is used here?”, I believe that ‘secular’, ‘profane’ and ‘atheistic’ are used by Levinas as phenomenological terms, and this is something I have tried to make much more clear in the article. In fact, showing that these terms can be used to describe the structure of experience has now become one of the main aims of the article, thus giving it a better aim and structure. Your objection on this point has therefore been very helpful, although I still disagree with it.
       I have also made renewed efforts to show that the theme of ‘the secular/atheism’ and ‘enjoyment’ are indeed connected. I hope you find my argumentation sufficient, and perhaps even convincing.
       I have added a discussion about Levinas’ understanding of the difference between the sacred and the holy in the beginning of section 6. In general, I have made efforts to show how Levinas’ discourse on the secular fits into a larger theological understanding of the universe.
       I do not agree that there needs to be an expanded discussion regarding the relation between experience and theology in section 2. I do not think that this section states that theology has always been foreign to experience, but only that the secular turn in modern philosophy saw it this way (i.e. that theology concerned metaphysical entities beyond human experience). The fact that I return to why this is not simply the case in my discussion of Heidegger and Falque should be enough, I believe, to address this concern.
       In regards to the objection that I am not able to convincingly show what is meant by Levinas’ secularization of Heidegger’s theology when I, as you correctly point out, do in fact consider Heidegger’s analysis in Being and Time as pre-theistic, I have re-written the three last paragraphs of section 5 in the hopes of making a convincing argument of what I intend with this. In short, I believe it is possible to secularize a pre-theistic account of human ontology.
   
   
2. I agree that the themes you mention are redundant and distract from the main aim of the article. I have therefore removed all the themes you mention and then some. The new article is much shorter and, hopefully, more to the point.
   
   
3. I have corrected the typos you identified, and I hope there are not too many new ones in the new and re-written sections.

 

In general, I have added more references where it seemed you found them most lacking, cut a lot of unnecessary fat and tried to give the article a clearer structure. I hope the new article is more convincing and generally a better read.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- General Comments

 

The revised manuscript has improved. In some parts of the article, however, there still are, with a somewhat exaggerated and complicated writing style, unnecessary entanglements of the ideas being presented. In short, the manuscript does not yet exhibit a complete perspicuity. It seems to be still progressing.

 

- Specific Comments

 

1. Sections 3 and 4 are too lengthy.

 

2. There are some vague sentences and paragraphs that hamper readers’ lucid understanding. For example: lines 127-135, lines 184-192 etc.

 

3. In the beginning part of section 6, it is not certain whether mentioning the issue of the sacred and the holy in Levinas (lines 642-652) is helpful to the author’s argumentation. (It puzzles readers.)

 

4. The author’s exposition of Heidegger is too slow, whereas that of Levinas and Falque is too quick and somewhat confusing. As a result, the author seems to make some strange, unexpected concluding remarks (lines 733-740). In that regard, the author may need to rework the manuscript.  

 

5. As far as the title and abstract of the manuscript is concerned, the following statements seemed to the central conclusion of the article. But sections 6 and 7 seem to make us think that they are not.  

“It means, on the one hand, that not only theological themes

are brought into phenomenology in order to illuminate the horizon of the human condi-

tion; more importantly, perhaps, the distinction itself between a secular and a religious

dimension of life is shown to reveal something about the structure of experience, even

when this happens in a pre-theistic sense.” (Lines 614-617).

 

6. In the manuscript, there are typos and ungrammatical expressions. (For example, line 72, line 234, lien 348, line 364, line 397(Being and Time), lines 466-477(publication years needed), line 499, line 539 (1111?), line 656(fathers idols), line 717 etc.) A thorough check is needed.                      

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see the comments above. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

I thank you for yet another thorough review, and I believe the re-submitted article has improved yet again due to your comments and that of other reviewers. I hope that the revisions, which I detail below, satisfy your concerns.

 

1. I agree with reference to section 3, where I have cut about two paragraphs. With regards to section 4, however, I disagree that there is redundant text, and I have left it standing as is with regards to length.
2. I have re-written the paragraphs in both instances you mention, and I hope that the revised versions are more lucid
3. I added the distinction between the Holy and the sacred because another reviewer argued it was necessary, and I in fact agree that it is. However, I have added another line arguing for why I believe it is important to address this distinction
4. As mentioned with regards to point #1, I have cut some of the exposition of Heidegger, and I have also extended the discussion of Levinas with an additional paragraph by re-adding a discussion of God, Death, and Time and ‘Secularization and Hunger’ from a previous version. I hope this evens the balance between Heidegger and Levinas somewhat. With regards to Falque, I agree that I could have expanded my description of Falque’s own understanding of the theological turn in the context of this article, and made him more of an equal partner to Heidegger and Levinas in the article. However, while I believe that a more expansive engagement with Falque would be interesting, it is, I believe, beyond the scope of this article. With reference to this article, I believe Falque functions a) as a guide giving direction as to how one can approach the theological turn (i.e. as an event rather than as a debate over legitimacy), and b) as an interpreter of Heidegger. With regards to what you describe as “strange, unexpected concluding remarks”, I believe this point is connected to point #5, which I address below
5. I agree that the point you reference fell out from the conclusion of the article, and I also agree with the point you made in point #4 that the conclusion came somewhat unexpected. I have therefore moved some of the conclusion to section 6, as well as re-written and expanded the conclusion itself. I hope the new conclusion is more able to connect with the point you reference.
6. I have corrected the typos and tried to improve the language in the places you reference

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

none

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my article yet again. I am pleased that I seem to have satisfied most of your concerns. The revised version does attempt to improve the language of the article, as well as respond to objections made by other reviewers.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has done a very good job in re-writing this article. It now appears clear and coherent, new elaborations make it possible to follow the arguments and make them plausible. Shortening and eliminating redundant stuff serves the structure well and helps identify the main points. Also, the key terms are better explicated, making the authors interpretations stand out more clearly. In sum, a very good article!

Still, I think the use made of the ‘secular’ in Levinas is a persisting weakness in the article. Even if one admits ‘secular’ as a translation, not of ‘seculaire’, but of ‘laïc’, also this term is rarely used in Levinas’ philosophical writings. It makes sense to highlight its use in the first part of the chapter “Le Monde” in EE and to point to its criticism of Heidegger. But beyond this, the term ‘laïc’ is not used further in EE nor in the philosophical texts thereafter (cf. the Levinas Concordance). As to ‘séculaire’ and ‘sécularisation’, the Sorbonne-lecture from February 1976 published in GDT, in fact the same as the Castelli-conference given in January the same year and published as the referred to article “Secularization and Hunger”, is the only one example of ‘sécularisation’ as a specific theme. So, given the scarce use of both these terms, why give ‘the secular’ such a prominent place? It still does not seem justified.

What is now well accounted for and integrated in the whole argumentation, is that ‘atheism’ and ‘separation’ are themes that can be used to describe the structure of experience, and likewise, that the themes of ‘atheism’ and ‘enjoyment’ are connected. The problem arises when all along the ‘secular’, the ‘profane’ and the ‘atheistic’ (‘secular/atheism’) are juxtaposed as were they one and the same. Equating ‘secular’ with ‘atheism’ in Levinas is not evident and their relation would need at least to be explicated and argued for. It seems an artefact to make the term of secularization so central when it is actually the terms of “atheism” and “separation” that carries the argumentation convincingly.

However, this is a discussion that may be continued. As the argumentation in the article now is more accomplished, it may simply be left to the author her/himself to consider whether s/he wants to discuss and nuance further, eventually opening for possible reservations as to this juxtaposition of terms before publishing. 

Thanks for a good read!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

I thank you for another round of review, and I am pleased that my last revisions settled many of your concerns. With regards to your continued objections to my usage of the term ‘the secular/secularization’, I have decided to keep using the term in the way I have previously, and the title as well as the overall argument thus stands. I have, however, attempted to add more argumentation for why I believe that this decision is valid, and also made it more clear that this is a decision I have made against other alternatives. These additions are four footnotes (5-9) as well as a re-written paragraph discussing the two lectures in God, Death, and Time and ‘Secularization and Hunger’. I hope these additions make my argument more convincing, even as I accept that we will probably have to agree to disagree on this one!