We and Ouri argues that we-ness should be approached not only from a self-centered or a self-less point of view, in which the we is only either a collection of individuals or an anonymous whole, but should be based on 'relation.' This relation is pre-subjective, meaning that the conscious, reflective, subjective self is not the conceptual basis of the relation. The irreducible metaphysical distinction between self and other is always there, but the awareness of it is not prior to this relation, which is an ontological pre ...
Read More
We and Ouri argues that we-ness should be approached not only from a self-centered or a self-less point of view, in which the we is only either a collection of individuals or an anonymous whole, but should be based on 'relation.' This relation is pre-subjective, meaning that the conscious, reflective, subjective self is not the conceptual basis of the relation. The irreducible metaphysical distinction between self and other is always there, but the awareness of it is not prior to this relation, which is an ontological pre-condition of self. The author argues that the distinction and unity of self and other in this relation can be comprehended spatially by applying knot logic. The author analyzes certain linguistic practices in Korean to show one representation of pre-subjective we-ness in language, but not in an ethnographical manner. By doing so, the author criticizes and challenges the Eurocentric tendency of philosophy and seeks to expand the diversity in philosophy.
Read Less
