Response to Ochs

Author: Segal, Robert A.

Source: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Volume 74, Number 2, June 2006 , pp. 495-498(4)

Publisher: Oxford University Press

Key:

- Free Content

- New Content

- Subscribed Content

- Free Trial Content

Abstract:

If Peter Ochs' objections to what Levinas calls “the logic of the same” are to categorizations (binarism) or generalizations (over-generalizations) that do not fit the cases to which they are applied, then he is arguing against a straw man. If, alternatively, he is objecting to binarism or to generalization even when either does fit the cases to which it is applied, he needs to explain why. The quest for unifying principles is laudable, not lamentable. The way to detect categorizations and generalizations that do not fit is by trying to make them fit. Not soul searching but testing is the proper means. And testing is continually conducted by theorists and followers themselves, if also by rivals. One need not depend on critics of binarism or generalizations for tough-mindedness.

Document Type: Research article

DOI: 10.1093/jaarel/lfj059

The full text electronic article is available for purchase. You will be able to download the full text electronic article after payment.

$35.09 plus tax Refund Policy