young man in the process of moving from his early revolutionary
Maoism to the strictures of his rediscovered Orthodox Jewish faith,
taking advantage of a blind and failing old man.^48
Le ́vy, of course, has a different opinion on the matter, which he
expressed in a “Final Word” to the revised published volume of these
essays.^49 But however one interprets the texts in dispute, it is clearly a
hermeneutical challenge that has yet to be resolved. The majority of the
tapes of their conversations were in Le ́vy’s possession when he died of
cancer in Israel years later, and remain unavailable, which only adds to
the complexity of the matter.
What I hope to accomplish in the concluding portion of this chapter is
to summarize the basic claims that Sartre introduces in support of the
“Dialogical” ethics, to determine what is novel about them in comparison
with his previous writings when he was unhampered by blindness and
possibly weakened mental powers, and to offer a plausible assessment of
the nature and significance of these differences.
Respecting his view of his own apparent contradictions, Sartre
remarked: “I’ve changed like everyone: within a permanence.”^50 What
remained constant within these fluctuations was the conviction that
“History has no reality except by human praxis; it makes men only to
(^48) Though Le ́vy abandoned his Maoist alias, Pierre Victor, in favor of his family name, Benny
Le ́vy some time after the interchange with Sartre and Gavi, published asOn a raison de se
re ́volter, Beauvoir insisted on calling him “Victor” to the end of her life. Her criticisms and
that of the “family” ofLes Temps Moderneswere substantive as to the incompatibility of the
thinker interviewed inHope Nowand the man whose thought they knew, or thought they
knew, so well over the years. An example is Aron’s reported challenge to Le ́vy on television
after Sartre’s death: “Sartre always chose to think against himself. But this was never done to
flounder in easy answers. This vague and flabby philosophy that Victor ascribes to him
doesn’t suit him at all.” (Ce ́r 151 and note). But some of the arguments were shockinglyad
hominem, as Beauvoir’s quote attests: “Victor did not express any of his opinions directly; he
made Sartre assume them while he, by virtue of who knows what revealed truth, played the
part of prosecuting attorney. His tone, the arrogant superiority that he adopted with Sartre,
outraged all the friends who saw the text before it was published” (Ce ́r 150 ). Bernard-Henri
Le ́vy offers a more sympathetic account of Benny Le ́vy’s role in this controversy. See his
Sartre, The Philosopher of the Twentieth Century, trans. Andrew Brown (Cambridge: Polity ,
492003 ), Epilogue,^476 –^502.
SeeHope. Those interested in pursuing the matter in his defense should consult the
following: Le ́vy,Pouvoir et liberte ́; Benny Le ́vy, “La Double posterite ́de Sartre,” inLa
Ce ́re ́monie de naissance(Paris: Verdier, 2005 ), 113 – 119 ; and Benny Le ́vy,Le Nom de l’homme
50 (Paris: Verdier,^1984 ).
Quoted by “L’Exigence” 558.
Sartre’s third, “Dialogical” ethics 377