JOURNAL

AMERICAN

OPEN ACCESS OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES

Alterities Required for Living Together

Wellington Amancio da Silva
Universidade do Estado Da Bahia - UNEB
Research Group Human Ecology CNPq
welliamancio@hotmail.com

Abstract
This article outlines some existential concepts and socio-affective self, of others and nature on
the altered perspective of Hannah Arendt (2010a, 2010b, 1997) and Leonardo Boff (1991, 1999,
2000) in their usual representations in everyday life. From the point of view of the analysis of the
Cartesian world view, the self that is considering in the foreground in the face of the other and
the world, representations and set up all show that there is always from the perspective of the
self, the ego cogitans, egocentrism. This article urges readers to invite everyone to rethink this
rather artificial logic governing human relations from Western, especially the Middle Ages, and
it has shown injustices from that imbalance of meanings and judgments in the face of otherness,
which bring in ourselves.
Keywords: Otherness, Living, Caring, Philosophy.

INTRODUCTION historical relationships between individuals

The three otherness can be seen here: a) the
representations that the individual makes of
himself, as narratives of self-history, so on,
subjective processes - these narratives would
be the first test for an identity emancipation;
b) relations with the other - in the face of the
same degree of importance given to himself
(according to Lvinas (1961,1969,1992), the
other is never an analysis object for the
individual's knowledge); c) a major issue for
discussion on otherness assumes that the
relationship with nature, a long time have
not been of empathy, but of distinction as
estrangement and topophobia. Thus, it is
noteworthy that all three of these relations as
well as plurals, are given in fields of
influence and understanding in constant loss
of hegemonic control, and also that their
complexity determine the social
representations by which give the modes of
the individual being and being in the world
is how to represent them and represent
themselves are demanding the discussion of
otherness.
ASSOCIATION AND CARE
Otherness to the representations that the
individual makes of himself has its function
as another worldview field and redefinition
of reality itself in the world. Alterity not
only happens through the processes of
individualization, that is, building socially
stable behaviors such as introjections,
inculcation, ideology, assimilation, etc.
However, to the extent that opens many
possibilities for criticizing the internalization
processes of individual, that is, Subjectivity,
the new meaning of otherness can be a
program that escapes the logic of social and
seen before. In this regard:
Identity is not a simple thing. Indeed,
the word identity is ambiguous in
ways that are theoretically
consequential. Perhaps the most
important ambiguity is that between
practical and categorial identity [....] It
is defined by a set of categories,
prominently including gender, race,
ethnicity, religion, and so on. Categorial
identity produces in-group/out-group
divisions, with all that they entail. In
contrast, practical identity is ones set of
habits, skills, and propensities. To use a
Heideggerian phrase, it is ones way of
being in the world (Hogan, 2012, p. 8).
Our assumption is that the identity of the
individual basis, in all its possibilities, is
woven through conflicting processes with
distinction (as antonym and even identity
and identification), however these processes
guide, so to speak, the individual (Ego)
against its objective acquisitions and, above
all, subjective notion of what will be other
(Alter), so in the field of possibilities of his
live in the world and to educate and be
educated builds himself in the face of the
other and Furthermore, the representations
of the other does not dispense with self-
projection.
The face of a neighbor that I meet in
proximity signifies for me an
unexceptionable responsibility,
preceding every free consent, every
pact, every contract. It escapes
representation; it is the very collapse

AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 6928 Vol. 5 | Issue 1 | March 2015 | 348


OPEN ACCESS
of phenomenality [...] (Lvinas, pp.
157).
Autonomy of being in the world will depend
on the autonomy of the other to be different
in the face of our otherness.
As beings that are perfect humanizing
ourselves, we have a responsibility to be
ethical, and, above all, we go to the ethics of
the other, and this means going beyond my
being and be of the other as we conceive it,
and walk into the unknown of an otherness
absolute in addition to a large extent
unseen, through actions that promote life
and prerequisite to live with another infinite
otherness. (Levinas, 1961).
Still, their subjective processes are what they
are, because of the constant shock you with
the Alter of all that is outside and inside
you, and even if the individual is convinced
of his personhood and subjectivity - that is
the goal and function this ideological
grafting - what comes to yourself, your
personal brand alienated from each other;
Indeed, there is at the core aspects of
identity, what is not yours, but thinking as
his personal construction, (a taste, a
temperament, a way of being and living, a
unique way of thinking and arguing in the
world) that come from outside, as that part
of human culture that was ideology.
The representations of self, identity by
subjectivity, is a field of struggle where
would the possibilities of deeper identity
emancipation condition in being and being
of individuals. But we must try to
understand these representations of
themselves acquired by subjectivity, that is,
than being outer to the individual passes to
believe it as his, we may be looking at more
complex processes of expropriation of
being.
Otherness concerns here - the most dynamic
forms of its concept - individual's relations
with others and with ethnic, cultural,
religious, scientific groups. Otherness of
meaning and relationship in which the I-
individual only captures and inferred
meanings from yourself to the other
distinguished: what comes to be the one for
the individual? The reconstruction of group
identities as emancipation is embraced by
the identity of the other, not according to the
parameters of tolerance in the field where
they give the socio-cultural and emotional
AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 6928
JOURNAL
AMERICAN
OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES
relationships, but recovery in diversity and
difference implied in these relations.
Je suis responsable dautrui sans
attendre la rciproque, dt-il mecoter
la vie. La rciproque, cest son affaire.
Cest prcismentdans la mesure o
entre autrui et moi la relation nest pas
rciproque,que je suis sujtion autrui;
et je suis sujet essentiellement en
cesens. (Lvinas, 1992, p. 94).
I am responsible for others without
waiting for the reciprocal me even if it
cost lives. The converse, that's his
business. It is precisely insofar among
others and myself the relationship is not
reciprocal, I subjection to others; and I
'subject' mainly insense. (Translate,
1992, p. 94)
So, welcome, that is, to value each other
and give access to the exchange between
culturally diverse and subjectively different
individuals, is what gives sense of being and
the human person: the man, the otherness, he
has with all that exists and the distinction he
shares with all who live (Arendt, p.189,
1997).
Alterity is strongly related to the themes of
diversity and its concepts (in the field of
foreign relations to the individual); is, in
turn, refers to the individual's relationship
issues with each other, that is, it appears you
and phenomena, and leaving the world's
objectivity in its multifaceted way to
introduce yourself to the individual, and that
gives his subjective representations in
support of thinking and living that which is
different - even if only in a foreign context,
especially the size of the cultural. Being
different amounts is not another necessarily.
For example:
Today, however, otherness is, in a sense,
no longer an absolute otherness, for its
otherness is bound up with the condition
of also being part of the same. Today,
with the transformation of the markers of
difference into the category of ethnicity,
the equation has been decisively
rewritten: with ethnicity, one is allowed
to be different, but it goes along with
recognition that at a fundamental level,
both in terms of intellectual and cultural
capacity and in terms of political rights,
one is essentially the same. (Mudimbe-
Boyi, 2012, p. 158).
Vol. 5 | Issue 1 | March 2015 | 349

OPEN ACCESS
Alterity is the condition of possibility of
emptheia (empathy) in a dialogical
inter-subjective process in the field of
interactions, in decision-awareness of
being and being of individuals as a way
of intellection with everything
phainomenon- and evaluative meaning of
exchanges on the other and you happen to
inter-retributive form. So, Maturana
(2001) gives us a password to say that
every individual life - the life of each of
you, my life - is derived from a structural
change contingent with our interactions
(p.82).
From another point of view, the otherness
(not within the range) from the perspectives
of Different - here is more a judgment than
the possibilities of external distinctions of
diversity - sought to discuss the features of
the other as different from the individual,
and their recovery possibilities of the other
while being and being different, as another
means of expanding empathy conditions (to
identify with the other, as the same, the
match up, and also to identify with each
other for the distinction it as recognition of
the individual's own distinction to be
recognized to the point of view of the other).
Indeed, the judgment of distinction taken by
the individual is a way to represent the
other, one of the greatest problems of
modernity lies here: the unilateral judgment!
It is fundamentally pacific[...] the Other
is not another freedom as arbitrary as
my own in which case it would traverse
the infinity that separates me from him
and enter under the same concept. His
alterity is manifested in a mastery that
does not conquer, but teaches (Lvinas,
1969, p. 171).
Understanding the other as different (not
different) can only equalize, i.e. legitimize
the judgment of the individual on the other,
when the judgment of Distinction is
constructed, discussed, accessed and
dialogued in the inter-relationships and
interactions through individual-other of a
share of influence between the individual,
these concepts. Distinctions in otherness of
recovery cant be set unilaterally, because
the individual is culturally front of others
claiming referentiality condition before the
world and to the world. Although, any
opposition can occur, even with the
possibility of sharing meanings about it.
AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 6928
JOURNAL
AMERICAN
OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES
The individual's relationship with the
cosmos have been punctuated by two major
interpretations of Nature (otherness) as: the
Other as opposed to the individual (hear,
for example: You have to discover the laws
of nature so we can survive she, nature is
cruel, his strength and weather do not
forgive anyone), so distant; and also and
also it is interpreted as: the Other as an
inexhaustible source for the operation. The
set of almost everything that had been
thought of and respected, from Antiquity to
Modernity, about her has been the
theoretical, practical and spiritual framework
that enabled the individual more than the
distance to be identified, equitable
relationship, and finally, emptheia with
Nature; the individual while being and
concept, distanced itself from the other,
losing the sense of it as the same; relations
and representations of nature, this is always
outside, intangible, unfathomable,
threatening, however controllable and
exotic. It is evident that this strangeness of
the environment in relation to man in human
culture allowed all theoretical confusion and
poor significance in the representations of
nature; its consequent degradation is linked
to the way in which the man understood,
represented, and henceforth was related with
nature. The identity of Nature is still
undervalued part of the individual, while
historical significance to you: being is
contingent, not static, answers and co-
responds with and for the world.
Otherness of the individual's relationship
with nature is currently being built
according to a new paradigm now more
positive about the issues addressed here. A
rescue would return to the intuitive
principle to read it. We recommend the
study of the myth of the old Mother
Nature, the issues of relationship that
prehistoric man had with nature - excluded
is obviously the fear of concepts of nature
present therein - as myth would become
valid for up add the proposed valuation of
nature as the possibility of peaceful
coexistence and empathetic!
The representations of what the other (I, the
Other and Nature) are completed as the
individual identities and sine qua non of the
possibility of being in the world, in respect
to what is the world, it is in the world, and to
be in and the world; there is no absolute to
be another face of social relations,
relationships with oneself and with nature. It
Vol. 5 | Issue 1 | March 2015 | 350

OPEN ACCESS
is impossible to understand the issues and
concepts of otherness excluding Unlike in
turn, the experience of different as a whole
will determine what we are building a d
understanding diversity, to meet multiple
and possible otherness a dynamic of
freedom, namely like mutual acts and
conscious of Safe Haven when this happens
with each other and nature.
Once Boff (2000) said that we are one of
the planet feels and thinks, he loves, who
cares and that therefore we are the
Planet. Inspired in this beautiful
epistemology of human, Entwining think
to love, to feel and look, we understand that
to say it, he was emphasizing both our share
of responsibility for the latest planetary
events and inviting us to to-hopes (Freire)
building a new paradigm. It inspired us to
attempt to outline some contributions to the
ecology of human subjectivity (Guattari,
p.8, 2004). Therefore, try to get the meaning
of questions and redefinition of individual
concepts, individual, otherness, etc., in its
externality, that is, into the world, not as
change the world, but as a return to the very
old, maybe shamanic adaptability in the
world. For us to promote the necessary
change in us shall we make a paradigm shift
in the concepts themselves, but not as
reform of these concepts. On the other
viewpoint, the problem is not in changing
the concept of the world (Heidegger),
because it would be a form of self-affirming
power of attorney over nature. Therein, a
donation of sense of problematic way.
Maybe changing the concepts themselves
have a beautiful panoramic view of the
world anyway.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
As these authors, I recognize that my project
is unfinished in the short term. My text,
although finished because now released, is
a continuing research project in expansion
and its deliciously heuristic constant and
lasting, will need ratifications or expansion
and future correction of these pages, or
writing, for me, other related works. I
would, as long dream conceived and carried
out here, which is publication may
contribute to the reflection of the topics
discussed here, and they are born
discussions and written records. I hope I
have contributed at least minimally
understanding of the issues present here.
Culturally the individual is also compared to
AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 6928
JOURNAL
AMERICAN
OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES
other individuals claiming referentiality
condition before the world and to the world.
REFERENCES
1. Arendt, H. (1997-2010a) A Condio
Humana. Rio de Janeiro: Forense
Universitria.
2. Arendt, H. (2010b) A vida do esprito.
Rio de Janeiro: Civilizao Brasileira.
3. Arendt, H. (1979) Entre o Passado e o
Futuro. 2 edio. So Paulo:
Perspectiva.
4. Blanc, M. de F. (1997) Introduo
Ontologia, Instituto Piaget: So Paulo.
5. Boff, L. (2000) Ecologia, grito da terra,
grito dos pobres. So Paulo: tica.
6. Boff, L. (1993) Ecologia,
mundializao, espiritualidade a
emergncia de um novo paradigma. So
Paulo: tica.
7. Boff, L. (1999) Saber cuidar. 8 edio.
Petrpolis: Vozes.
8. Guattari, F. ( 2004) As trs ecologias.
15 Ed. Papirus, So Paulo.
9. Gusmo, N. M. M. de (1999).
Linguagem, cultura e alteridade:
imagens do outro. Cadernos de Pesquisa
(Fundao Carlos Chagas), 107 julho de
1999.
10. Hall, S. (2000) A identidade cultural na
ps-modernidade. DP&A: So Paulo,
2006.
11. Heidegger, M. Nietzsche I. Ediciones
Destino, S. A.Barcelona.
12. Husserl. E. (2008) Ideias para uma
fenomenologia pura e para uma filosofia
fenomenolgica. Ideias & Letras, So
Paulo
13. Levinas E. (1992) Ethique comme
philosophie premiere. Paris: Payot &
Rivages.
14. Levinas E. (1961). Totalit et infini.
Essai sur l'exteriorit. La Haye:
Martinus Nijhoff.
15. Levinas E. (1969). Totality and Infinity:
An Essay on Exteriority. Trad. A. Lingis.
Pittsburg, P.A.: Duquesne University
Press,
16. Mudimbe-Boyi, E. (Ed.). (2012). Beyond
dichotomies: histories, identities,
cultures, and the challenge of
globalization. Suny Press.
17. Hogan, P. C. (2012) Empire and poetic
voice: cognitive and cultural studies of
literary tradition and colonialism. Suny
Press.
Vol. 5 | Issue 1 | March 2015 | 351