在《会饮篇》中，苏格拉底借狄欧蒂玛之口将爱欲阐释成一个实存者追求与美善本身之关系的动力。这是列维纳斯所要明确反对的。列维纳斯旨在通过阐述爱欲关系，来展现一个具有个别性的个体的人何以能够与一个完全相异于自己的同样具有个别性的人处在关系之中，并表明唯有这种关系才有可能是非暴力的。此外，哲学家对于个体性问题的思考并不止步于爱欲关系，他最终要将个体性推及整个社会——力图将大全总体的世界彻底打碎，由真正具有个体性的实存者组成社会。本文共有七章。第一章为绪论，介绍问题的提出与选题的意义，并综述主题研究状况。第二章分析新近出版的列维纳斯未刊稿《关于爱欲的哲学注释》中，对于经验生活中人际关系的现象学还原，正式提出爱欲与个体化问题的隐藏关联：作为具有他异性的个体的他人无法出场于交换关系、共事关系甚至友爱关系之中；唯有在爱欲关系之中他人，才能够作为具有他异性的他人呈现自己。第三章以实存者之个体化的思路梳理列维纳斯《时间与他者》中给出的两条个体化进路。第四章集中分析何为作为方法的“去形式化”，并解释在《总体与无限》一书中占据重要篇幅的“面容”观念在何种意义上并没有实现个体化——面容在个体化问题上的失利使得解决的希望再度指向爱欲。第五章是从面容过度到爱欲问题的间奏，在正式讨论超逾面容之前，梳理与爱欲问题息息相关的女性形象。第六章厘清哲学家所要讨论的具体论题乃是爱欲的歧义性，进而阐发从爱欲到生育诸环节中实存者的主体性与他人的个体化，并解析爱欲之中的实存者何以获得个体性、以及如何将推这种个体性推广至整个社会。第七章为研究结论。国内外学界对于列维纳斯前期哲学的研究往往汇集于“面容”观念，而对于哲学家明确表示能够超逾面容的“爱欲”观念又往往一带而过。列维纳斯运用了很多与性别相关的术语，导致其论证中与爱欲相关的内容遭到女性主义研究者的激烈批评。本文希望通过对列维纳斯最新文本和丰富文献的细致分析，紧扣实存者的个体化问题这一主线，力求展现哲学家早期对爱欲问题思考的全景式视角，并为这一视角提供新的辩护。
In Symposium, through the words of Diotima Socrates interprets the concept éros as an impetus pursuing the relation with the beauty itself. Levinas explicitly rejected this interpretation and viewed éros as the only relationship in which two unique and heterogeneous individuals could be together nonviolently. Levinas’ analysis of individuation transcends erotique relationship, and expands to the entire society. Levinas seeks to shatter the totality in pieces in an attempt to constitute a new society with genuinely individual existants.The dissertation comprises seven chapters. The first chapter is an introduction, which presents the problematic and relevant researches domestic and abroad. In the second chapter, we analyse the phenomenolgical reduction of interpersonal relationships in daily life, which was discussed in the unpublished manuscripts of Levinas, Notes philosophiques sur le thème d’éros. In this book, he reveals the concealed relation between éros and individuation. Autrui, as individual with alterity, cannot arise in an exchange relationship, nor in comradeship, nor in friendship. Only in éros could autrui express itself as autrui with alterity. The third chapter reveals two approaches to individuation in Le temps et l’autre. In the fourth chapter, we concentrate on illustraing deformalization as a method, and elaborate why the idea of visage, which is an essential concept in Totalité et infini, could not lead to individuation. The failure of the concept of visage shifts the point towards éros again. The fifth chapter is an interlude between visage and éros, where we scrutinize the female figure, which is closely linked to the problem of éros. In the sixth chapter, after clarifing the ambiguity of éros as the precise levinasian theme, we demonstrate the subjectivity of the existant and the individuation of autrui through the whole process from éros to fecundity, and explain how the existant in éros could attain individuality, and how individuality could spread to the entire society. The last chapter is a conclusion of the whole dissertation.The previous researches on Levinas’ early works mournfully limits the attention on explaining the idea of visage. On the contrary, in this dissertation, according to Levinas’ motivation, we claim that the idea of éros could go beyond visage. At the same time, since Levinas used several terms about sexual distinction, the contents upon éros have received some of the radical criticisms from feminists, Through thorough examination of texts with a focus on individuation of the existant, we seek to give a panoramic view of the problem of éros in the early stage of Levinas, and to provide a new defense of this view.
