A philosophy that subsumes concrete suffering into systematic totality—as Bosanquet's Absolute does—structurally prevents the ethical confrontation with evil that Levinas identifies as primary.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Bernard Bosanquet(the philosopher being criticized in the statement): A British philosopher (1848-1923) who believed that reality is ultimately one unified, perfect whole called the Absolute, and that individual suffering is absorbed into this greater harmony.
Concrete suffering(contrasted with abstract philosophical systems): Real, actual pain and hardship that specific people experience in the world, rather than suffering as an abstract idea.
Emmanuel Levinas(the philosopher being cited as an alternative to Bosanquet): A French-Lithuanian philosopher (1906-1995) who argued that our most basic ethical duty is to respond to another person's suffering and vulnerability before anything else.
Ethical confrontation with evil(the moral response that Levinas values): Directly facing and taking responsibility for the reality of suffering and wrongdoing, rather than explaining it away.

Based on where you are in your exploration

Primary(describing ethics as Levinas's foundational concern)

First in importance, order, or rank; the most fundamental or essential thing.

Structurally prevents(describes why utilitarianism cannot value nature for its own sake)

Built into the basic framework in a way that makes it impossible to do something, rather than just difficult.

Subsumes(as used in logic and philosophy)

Includes or contains within itself; when something is general enough to cover all the specific cases underneath it.

Systematic totality(describing how comprehensive philosophical systems work)

A complete, unified system of thought that tries to explain everything as one coherent whole.

the Absolute(Used in the context of Romantic philosophy as an ultimate but unreachable ideal.)

That which can never be fully determined and is pursued through an open-ended, striving commitment.

This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.