Lear’s Subjectivity and Apotheosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 39-46
Author(s):  
Mehrdad Bidgoli
Keyword(s):  
King Lear ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Gradual Transition ◽  
Ontological Status ◽  
Ethical Awareness ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Ethical Character

Ethically attuned readings of King Lear typically study, among other issues, Lear’s ethical revolution. More specifically, Shakespeare critics who have engaged with Levinasian treatments of this play often do not present a clear-cut account of Lear’s status with regard to the authentic encounter with the destitute yet commanding face of the Other, and the ineluctably intervening third party. Trying to unravel these complexities, I examine one of the possible reasons why ethical readers of King Lear equivocate when they study Lear and his ethical apotheosis. I will discuss Lear’s subjectivity and trace its gradual transition to a more heightened ethical awareness, but refuse to envision him as a perfect ethical character. Lear does improve significantly with regard to his relationship with the Other, but while he appears to temporarily touch a Levinasian standpoint, his subjectivity undergoes an apotheosis, eventuating in a deontological (perhaps pre-ontological) status which cannot reconcile itself with the presence of ‘the third party’. This, as I will discuss, is his ethical-political flaw which blocks a final recourse towards a probable reconciliation of the Other and the Third. Lear’s ethical awakening, I suggest, fails to reconcile with and restore justice.

Optimal trade-in and third-party collection authorization strategies under trade-in subsidy policy

Kybernetes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 854-872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaiying Cao ◽  
Qiushi Bo ◽  
Yi He
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Profit Maximization ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Subsidy Policy ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Third ◽  
Optimal Decisions ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose This paper aims to study whether the recycling of a third party competes with the trade-in service of a manufacturer, and explores the optimal trade-in and third-party collection authorization strategies for the manufacturer. Design/methodology/approach According to whether to authorize a third party to collect its used products, the manufacturer has two choices: one is not authorization (NA); the other is authorization (A). This paper uses profit-maximization model to investigate the optimal decisions of the manufacturer and the third party under NA and A, respectively, and then explores which choice is better for the manufacturer. Findings It is observed that there is a competition between trade-in service and third-party recycling when the durability parameter of the used product is relatively small. Moreover, when the durability parameter of the used product is relatively large, A is always better choice for the manufacturer; otherwise, NA is a better choice except for the case that the unit trade-in subsidy is low and the salvage of the used product is high. Practical implications These results provide managerial insights for the manufacturer and the third party to make decisions in the field of recycling. Originality/value This paper is among the first papers to study the competition between trade-in program and third party’s collecting program under government’s trade-in subsidy policy. Moreover, this paper presents the conditions under which the manufacturer should authorize or not authorize the third party to collect its used products.

Mrs. Gore's legacy to commerce

Legal Studies ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-295
Author(s):  
P.J. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Legal Liability ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Commercial World ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Privity Of Contract

It is commonplace in the commercial world for contractual obligations to be performed by persons other than the original parties to the contract. Because of the doctrine of privity of contract persons who are not party to a contract generally cannot take advantage of terms contained in it. If, therefore, a person undertakhg the performance of obligations which someone else has originally assumed misperforms those tasks so as to incur legal liability towards the other original contracting party, it would seem that he cannot rely on a protecting clause in the contract even though that clause may purport to afford him cover. A variety of avenues of escape from this situation (which is often commerically inconvenient) have been at various times advocated: the doctrine of vicarious immunity and the trust idea have been explored and eventually rejected. Other methods of avoidance retain more vigour: we have probably not heard the last of arguments based on the doctrines of volenti non fit injuria and disclaimer, of the bailment on terms and of the idea of spelling out a separate contract (or offer) between the party now suing and the third party.

scholarly journals La politique comme le lieu de l’universalisation de l’exigence éthique chez Levinas

2022 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-181
Author(s):  
Ericbert Tambou Kamgue
Keyword(s):  
Final Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
The Third ◽  
Ethical Subjectivity ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Ethical Requirement

Levinasian philosophy is characterized as a philosophy of ethical subjectivity and asymmetrical responsibility. Ethics is understood as the subject that gives itself entirely to the Other. However, the Other is never alone. His face attests to the presence of a third party who, looking at me in his eyes, cries for justice. There is no longer any question for the subject to devote himself entirely to the Other (ethical justice), to give everything to him at the risk of appearing empty-handed before the third party. How then to serve both the Other and the third party? The question of the political appears in the thought of Levinas with the emergence of the third party who, like the Other, challenges me and commands me (social justice). The third party establishes a political space. Politics is in the final analysis the place of the universalization of the ethical requirement born from face-to-face with the face of the Other.

Guarantee and Indemnity

2021 ◽  
pp. 280-294
Author(s):  
Hannah McCarthy
Keyword(s):  
Construction Industry ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Essential Characteristic ◽  
The Third ◽  
Specific Event ◽  
The Third Party

This chapter tackles guarantee or bond, which has no definitive judicial definition but is widely held to be a contract in which the guarantor agrees to be answerable for the debt or default of another to a third party. It cites the primary obligation of a third party that is underwritten by the guarantor as an essential characteristic of a guarantee. It also explains how the guarantor becomes answerable for the faults of the third party. This chapter talks about the indemnitor that undertakes a primary liability to another party in order to indemnify the other party against a specific event, which may or may not involve the act or default of a third party. It points out that the indemnity contained in construction sub-contracts is the most frequently used form of indemnity in the construction industry.

20. Personal Liability of Third Parties

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Virgo
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Personal Liability

This chapter examines the personal liability of third parties when there is a breach of trust or breach of fiduciary duty. It explains that there are two types of personal liability of third parties. One is receipt-based liability when a third party has received property in which the beneficiary or principal has an equitable proprietary interest and the other is accessorial liability when the third party has encouraged or assisted a breach of a trust or fiduciary duty. The elements of different causes of action relevant to receipt-based liability and accessorial liability are examined, notably the action for unconscionable receipt and the action of dishonest assistance. The controversial question of whether liability should be strict or fault-based is considered and, if the latter, the nature of the fault requirement.

scholarly journals Kepler’s Tertius Interveniens

1997 ◽  
Vol 1 (01) ◽  
pp. 51-54
Author(s):  
Ken Negus
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
The One

Tertius Interveniens, written in 1610, is one of Kepler's most powerful and passionate treatises on astrology, written as a defence of the subject against extremists on both sides, on the one hand those who would condemn astrology altogether, and on the other those who accepted everything said and done in its name, no matter how preposterous. Hence he is the ‘third party intervening’, as indicated by the title.

20. Personal Liability of Third Parties

2020 ◽  
pp. 624-662
Author(s):  
Graham Virgo
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Personal Liability

This chapter examines the personal liability of third parties when there is a breach of trust or breach of fiduciary duty. It explains that there are two types of personal liability of third parties. One is receipt-based liability when a third party has received property in which the beneficiary or principal has an equitable proprietary interest and the other is accessorial liability when the third party has encouraged or assisted a breach of a trust or fiduciary duty. The elements of different causes of action relevant to receipt-based liability and accessorial liability are examined, notably the action for unconscionable receipt and the action of dishonest assistance. The controversial question of whether liability should be strict or fault-based is considered and, if the latter, the nature of the fault requirement.

Ch.5 Content, third party rights and conditions, s.2: Third party rights, Art.5.2.1

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vogenauer Stefan
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Third Person ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Triangular Relationship

This commentary focuses on Article 5.2.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning contracts in favour of third parties. Art 5.2.1 stipulates that the parties to a contract can validly agree to benefit a third party, and that it is possible that the third party acquires a right from such an agreement. It also introduces a particular terminology for denominating the parties in the triangular relationship. There are two original parties (‘the parties’) whose agreement contains the promise of one of them (‘the promisor’) to the other (‘the promisee’) to benefit a third person (‘a third party’). This commentary discusses the ‘relativity’ or ‘privity’ of contracts, validity of contracts in favour of third parties, power of the promisor and the promisee to create third party rights, content of the beneficiary's right, rights of the promisee, and implications of invalidity of contracts for third parties.

Ch.2 Formation and authority of agents, s.2: Authority of agents, Art.2.2.1

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krebs Thomas
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Contract Authority ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
The One ◽  
Own Name

Article 2.2.1 provides an overview of the scope of Section 2.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC), which deals with authority of agents. Section 2.2 governs the authority of a person (‘the agent’), to affect the legal relations of another person (‘the principal’), by or with respect to a contract with a third party, whether the agent acts in its own name or in that of the principal. It governs only the relations between the principal or the agent on the one hand, and the third party on the other. This commentary discusses legal relations ‘by or with respect to a contract’, authority to affect the legal relations of another person, agent acting in its own name or in that of the principal, internal aspects of agency, and exclusion of agency by operation of law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document