In his 2006 volume, Communion and Otherness , John Zizioulas pretty directly connects Western philosophy with the fall of Adam. Adam claimed to be God and thus “rejected the Other as constitutive of his being.” As a result, Self took “ontological priority over the Other,” with the result that “otherness and communion could not ultimately coincide.”
The priority of Self over Other marks Greek philosophy, with its equation of knowing and Being. Even in Husserl and Heidegger, the same principle holds. Husserl sees the Other as “an instrument of self-discovery,” which enables constitutes the Self. BUt this is true only in the sense that the Other “is constituted by me as constituting me: the I is primary; the Other exists because I exist and for me.” In Heidegger, the world functions as a “necessary medium” through which the Other is known, and this means that the Other cannot have a “constitutive role in ontology.” The Other is only “part of the ‘panoramic’ nature of existence,” and thus the particular being is always “within the horizon of Being, forcing us to identify it always with reference to the universal, and in this way ultimately to reduce the Other to the Same.”
In recent philosophy, Zizoulas finds a break with this tradition only in Buber and Levinas. But Levinas doesn’t deliver the goods: “Given that the Other we infinitely desire is one who attracts our Desire but does not himself desire us or any other, otherness finally evaporates in a Desire without the Other.” Desire never rests ultimately in the Other: “For Levinas the ultimate destination of Desire is not the Other but the Desire of the Other,” and Zizioulas strikingly notes the similarity with de Rougemont’s analysis of courtly love. So long as desire is the desire for desire, as it is for Levinas, the Self retains priority over the Other because the Self is the source of desire.
This is strikingly different from the Greek Fathers, “for whom God, the Other par excellence, as eros both moves outside himself and attracts to himslef as the ultimate destination of their desire those whose desire he provokes.” Desire is thus not a movement of the Self, but is evoked by the Other, God, and “there is an event of communion of Desire at the very heart of otherness.”
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from Philosophy
Continue reading related articles

Substance or Tune?
Jonathan Edwards didn’t think the world is a machine. At the heart of the mechanistic interpretation of Newtonian physics, he discerned, was the notion that “bodies” are (in Robert Jenson’s words) “the sort of thing that either can or cannot act ‘properly by themselves.’” The mechanistic world picture involved an…

Paul's Idol Polemics
Joshua Jipp argues that Paul's Areopagus address contains both critique and propaganda, critique of Athenian superstition, lust for novelty, and idolatry, and propaganda in favor of Christian faith as a more consistent fulfillment of the aspirations of Hellenistic philosophical theology. Much of the critique, Jipp shows, is drawn from Isaiah's…

Of Causes and Effects
This essay was first published in The Theopolitan, a weekly newsletter for Theopolis Partners. To become a Partner, you must donate at least $500 per year or $50 per month. Give here . Craig Carter’s Thesis #2 about Trinitarian classical theism ( Contemplating God with the Great Tradition ) is,…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.