{"id":116395,"date":"2018-03-11T10:45:29","date_gmt":"2018-03-11T10:45:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.deberes.net\/tesis\/sin-categoria\/perspectivas-pola%c2%adticas-del-sentido-el-otro-y-el-rostro-en-levinas-y-deleuze\/"},"modified":"2018-03-11T10:45:29","modified_gmt":"2018-03-11T10:45:29","slug":"perspectivas-pola%c2%adticas-del-sentido-el-otro-y-el-rostro-en-levinas-y-deleuze","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.deberes.net\/tesis\/filosofia\/perspectivas-pola%c2%adticas-del-sentido-el-otro-y-el-rostro-en-levinas-y-deleuze\/","title":{"rendered":"Perspectivas pol\u00edticas del sentido, el otro y el rostro en l\u00e9vinas y deleuze"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>Tesis doctoral de <strong> Francisco De Borja Castro Serrano <\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Esta investigaci\u00f3n se articula desde un primer inter\u00e9s, netamente extravagante pero filos\u00f3fico, de enfrentar a emmanuel l\u00e9vinas y gilles deleuze, los que implican distancias y escasos v\u00ednculos te\u00f3ricos. Es el atrevimiento de comenzar la aventura del (des)encuentro. Este impulso general y parad\u00f3jico fue el primero que nos moviliz\u00f3 a pensar que si bien comparten la escena del pensamiento franc\u00e9s y del  siglo xx, ambos fil\u00f3sofos no muestran aparentemente encuentros te\u00f3ricos posibles.   visualizamos que, a pesar de las distancias, ambos fil\u00f3sofos trabajaban en su obra conceptos comunes, tales como el sentido, el otro y el rostro. En ese contexto, esta investigaci\u00f3n doctoral se articula bajo la siguiente hip\u00f3tesis de lectura en tanto objetivo principal: confrontar estas nociones comunes que trabajan tanto l\u00e9vinas como deleuze (el sentido, el otro y el rostro) para interrogarlas de modo pol\u00edtico a partir de una cierta perspectiva de la filosof\u00eda pol\u00edtica cr\u00edtica de miguel abensour. Nueva dificultad para nuestro trabajo: los dos fil\u00f3sofos escogidos no son fil\u00f3sofos pol\u00edticos &apos;cl\u00e1sicos&apos;, es desde su propia filosof\u00eda que re-piensan &apos;lo pol\u00edtico&apos;. De ah\u00ed la importancia de introducir una cierta perspectiva del fil\u00f3sofo pol\u00edtico abensour para interrogar las perspectivas pol\u00edticas despuntadas de la tr\u00edada sentido-otro-rostro en ambos fil\u00f3sofos.   para lograr este objetivo de investigaci\u00f3n, bajo una metodolog\u00eda hermen\u00e9utica construimos un escrito que se configura en tres partes y una apertura conclusiva en lugar de una &apos;cerrada&apos; conclusi\u00f3n. La primera comienza con dos cap\u00edtulos donde intentamos precisar nuestra clave de lectura sobre &apos;lo pol\u00edtico&apos; desde la perspectiva de miguel abensour. En el primero trazamos un camino filos\u00f3fico cr\u00edtico que nos permiti\u00f3 comprender el pensamiento pol\u00edtico de la modernidad, desde el cual engarzamos con el cap\u00edtulo 2. \u00e9ste trabaja sobre la clave abensouriana: la necesidad de pensar una cierta condici\u00f3n de irreductibilidad de lo pol\u00edtico investig\u00e1ndose en los m\u00e1rgenes, en lo singular, en los acontecimientos intempestivos. Se pens\u00f3 una pol\u00edtica renovada que especulara sobre las ruinas del estado, instalando as\u00ed una &apos;verdadera democracia&apos; que se presenta critica a la l\u00f3gica integradora y totalizadora del estado -seg\u00fan el decir del marx le\u00eddo por abensour-, permitiendo al estado no cerrarse sobre s\u00ed mismo como una unidad. Esta clave interrogar\u00eda los conceptos de l\u00e9vinas y deleuze en las siguientes partes del escrito. la segunda parte de la investigaci\u00f3n incluye dos nuevos cap\u00edtulos. El cap\u00edtulo 3 trabaja la tr\u00edada conceptual del sentido, el otro y el rostro desde la obra de l\u00e9vinas, lo que instala nuevas nociones sobre el humanismo y la \u00e9tica a partir de su novedosa aproximaci\u00f3n al otro, estableciendo una alteridad radical que logra configurar su lugar desde su particular noci\u00f3n de rostro. Ahora bien, la necesidad de desarrollar la tr\u00edada conceptual en un cap\u00edtulo aparte permite una cierta met\u00f3dica que hace despuntar mejor la perspectiva pol\u00edtica de los conceptos, de ah\u00ed la construcci\u00f3n del cap\u00edtulo 4. En l\u00edneas generales, nos encontramos que el sentido primero desplegado por el rostro del otro no tiene una relaci\u00f3n directa con la pol\u00edtica, pero s\u00ed es una plataforma necesaria para pensar lo pol\u00edtico en l\u00e9vinas.   luego, en un ejercicio similar a la segunda parte, pero trabajando a gilles deleuze, configuramos una tercera parte con otros dos cap\u00edtulos. Bajo el mismo gesto met\u00f3dico, desarrollamos el cap\u00edtulo 5 mostrando la tr\u00edada conceptual del franc\u00e9s en cuesti\u00f3n, atravesando toda una etapa primera de deleuze, a saber, desde proust y los signos (1964), pasando por su obra doctoral diferencia y repetici\u00f3n (1968), para cerrar con l\u00f3gica del sentido (1969) y su ap\u00e9ndice sobre el otro de michel tournier. Apostamos por mostrar que el territorio del otro es, justamente, el sentido; el otro es pensado como una estructura previa a la mirada que se actualiza cuando un yo aparece. En nuestro cap\u00edtulo 6 dilucidamos que su (sin) sentido implica una mirada cr\u00edtica a la pol\u00edtica, la cual apunta a lo subjetivante, a lo hipersignificante y sustantivo que la sociedad actual constantemente -v\u00eda la m\u00e1quina abstracta- rostrifica fijando y rigidizando. As\u00ed deleuze denuncia una &apos;pol\u00edtica del rostro&apos;. Vemos entonces que los conceptos deleuzeanos interrogados en la misma clave pol\u00edtica que los de l\u00e9vinas, pretenden abrir un nuevo tipo de incursi\u00f3n en lo pol\u00edtico, volviendo a lo pol\u00edtico mismo permitiendo deshacer el rostro reci\u00e9n descrito y su sentido totalizante.        a partir de esta descripci\u00f3n conceptual de ambos pensadores, vemos sus similitudes metodol\u00f3gicas, pero distancias te\u00f3ricas y filos\u00f3ficas. No obstante, creemos que al ir confrontando el corpus conceptual escogido de ambos autores en nuestra &apos;clave pol\u00edtica&apos; abensouriana se despliegan resultados y sentidos novedosos que lentamente comienzan a borrar las tensiones y las distancias entre ellos. Se puede pensar en una transformaci\u00f3n de lo pol\u00edtico. Por lo mismo cerramos el trabajo abriendo puertas ricas en nuevas significaciones filos\u00f3ficas que se relacionen con lo que arroja esta tesis. Cuesti\u00f3n que sugiere y cimenta caminos creativos para pensar la institucionalidad actual, aportando nuevos sentidos al di\u00e1logo social y a la din\u00e1mica de poder, escapando de los intentos totalitarios, y tal vez, alcanzando una imbricaci\u00f3n pol\u00edtica &#8211; \u00e9tica interesante desde ambos fil\u00f3sofos que desentra\u00f1an nuevos sentidos respecto del lugar del otro y del rostro.  this research is built on an initial interest, extravagant but philosophical, to confront the work of emmanuel levinas and gilles deleuze, two authors that share few theoretical links and similarities. It is the boldness of initiating an adventure of (dis)agreement. This general and paradoxical impetus was the first that mobilized us to think that despite sharing the scenes of the french thought and twentieth century, these two philosophers apparently show no possible theoretical encounters. in spite of their distances, we envision that both philosophers worked common theoretical concepts such as meaning, the other (autrui) and the face. In this context, this phd research is organized under the following reading hypothesis as the main objective: confronting these common notions developed by both l\u00e9vinas and deleuze (meaning, the other and face) and interrogating them in a political mode drawing from certain perspectives of miguel abensour&apos;s critical political philosophy. This analysis presents a new challenge, since both authors, l\u00e9vinas and deleuze, are not &apos;classical&apos; political philosophers but rather re-think the &apos;political&apos; through their own particular philosophies. Introducing a certain perspective from the political philosopher abensour to interrogate the political perspectives revealed from the meaning-other-face triad in l\u00e9vinas and deleuze is a important effort, as it underscores perspectives that have been hither to ignored.  to achieve this research objective, this manuscript is divided into three parts and a concluding opening instead of a &apos;closed&apos; conclusion. The first part contains two chapters where we attempt to define our key interpretation of &apos;the political&apos; from miguel abensour&apos;s perspective. In chapter 1 we trace a critical philosophical path that enabled us to understand the conceptual political territory installed by modern thought. This critical journey through modernity, gave us a foundation to transition to chapter 2, which is built in an abensourian framework: the need to think of a certain irreducibility condition of &apos;the political&apos; being investigated in the margins, in the singular, in the untimely events. A renewed politic that speculated about the ruins of the state was thought of, installing in that way a &apos;true democracy&apos; that shows itself critic to the integrative and totalizing logic of the state &#8211; according to marx as read by abensour -, allowing the state not to fold upon itself like a unit. This framework would interrogate levinas&apos; and deleuze&apos;s concepts in the following parts of the manuscript.  the second part of this research includes two new chapters. Chapter 3 works on the conceptual triad of meaning, the other, and face in levinas&apos;s oeuvre, which installs new notions about humanism and ethics from his inventive approach of the other, establishing a radical otherness that configures its place from his particular notion of face. However, the need to develop the conceptual triad in a separate chapter allows for better development of the political perspective of concepts; hence, the construction of chapter 4. Overall, we found that the first meaning displayed by the other&apos;s face has no direct relationship with politics, but it is a necessary platform for thinking the political in l\u00e9vinas. the third part, with two chapters, is similar to the second, however, its focuses on the work by gilles deleuze. Using the same methodology, we develop chapter 5 by showing the conceptual triad in the first period of deleuze&apos;s work: from proust and signs (1964), through his doctoral work difference and repetition (1968), and closing with the logic of sense (1969) and his appendix on michel tournier&apos;s other. We attempt to show that the territory of the other is, precisely, the meaning; the other is thought of as a previous-than-look structure that is established when a self appears. In chapter 6, we elucidate that his (non) sense implies a critical look at the political, which points to the subjectivating, hipersignificant and substantive that contemporary society constantly -through the abstract machine- fixes and rigidifies through the face [rostrificaci\u00f3n]. It is through this analysis that deleuze denounces a &apos;politics of the face&apos;. We can therefore see that these deleuzean concepts interrogated in the same political key as l\u00e9vinas, pretend to open a new type of inquiry into the political, returning to the political by itself, and allowing an unpacking of the recently described face and its totalizing meaning.  based on this conceptual description of both philosophers, deleuze and l\u00e9vinas, we see their methodological similarities, but also their theoretical and philosophical distance. Nevertheless, we believe that by confronting the chosen conceptual corpus from both authors in our abensourian &apos;political framework&apos;, novel results and meanings slowly begin to erase the tensions and distances between them. We can therefore conceive a transformation of the political. It is for this reason that this research concludes with opening new routes in philosophical significance based on the findings of this dissertation, presenting  and suggesting new and creative ways in which to think of current institutionalism, contributing to new meanings to the social dialog and power dynamics escaping totalitarianism, and, maybe, reaching a political-ethical imbrication from both philosophers that unravels new perspectives and meanings about the role of the other and the face.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>Datos acad\u00e9micos de la tesis doctoral \u00ab<strong>Perspectivas pol\u00edticas del sentido, el otro y el rostro en l\u00e9vinas y deleuze<\/strong>\u00ab<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>T\u00edtulo de la tesis:<\/strong>\u00a0 Perspectivas pol\u00edticas del sentido, el otro y el rostro en l\u00e9vinas y deleuze <\/li>\n<li><strong>Autor:<\/strong>\u00a0 Francisco De Borja Castro Serrano <\/li>\n<li><strong>Universidad:<\/strong>\u00a0 Murcia<\/li>\n<li><strong>Fecha de lectura de la tesis:<\/strong>\u00a0 29\/09\/2014<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>Direcci\u00f3n y tribunal<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Director de la tesis<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Patricio Pe\u00f1alver Gomez<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Tribunal<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Presidente del tribunal: Jos\u00e9 Luis Pardo tor\u00edo <\/li>\n<li>Juan  Alberto Sucasas pe\u00f3n (vocal)<\/li>\n<li>angel Prior olmos (vocal)<\/li>\n<li>claudia valentina Guti\u00e9rrez olivares (vocal)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Tesis doctoral de Francisco De Borja Castro Serrano Esta investigaci\u00f3n se articula desde un primer inter\u00e9s, netamente extravagante pero filos\u00f3fico, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[8649,165,8535,6008,8235],"tags":[49675,229797,229796,31505,218870,51042],"class_list":["post-116395","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-etica-filosofica","category-filosofia","category-filosofia-actual","category-filosofia-politica","category-murcia","tag-angel-prior-olmos","tag-claudia-valentina-gutierrez-olivares","tag-francisco-de-borja-castro-serrano","tag-jose-luis-pardo-torio","tag-juan-alberto-sucasas-peon","tag-patricio-penalver-gomez"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.deberes.net\/tesis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116395","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.deberes.net\/tesis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.deberes.net\/tesis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.deberes.net\/tesis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.deberes.net\/tesis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=116395"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.deberes.net\/tesis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116395\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.deberes.net\/tesis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=116395"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.deberes.net\/tesis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=116395"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.deberes.net\/tesis\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=116395"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}