시간론은 철학적 사유의 최종주제로 불릴 정도로 중요한 문제이지만 다루기가 쉽지 않은 주제이기도 하다. 대체로 서구 고대와 중세는 영원한 존재를 향한 염원으로부터 시간의 문제를 다루었고, 근대는 자연과학적 관점에 토대를 둔 시간론이 논의되었으며, 현대철학은 주체의 의식 속에서 시간지속의 기원을 찾고자 하였다. 이들 제시간론과는 다르게, 레비나스는 시간에 있어서 타자의 시간성의 문제를 던진다.시간의 흐름에서 발생하는 차이를 배제하면서 과거와 미래를 현재로 표상하는 것은 주체의 특권적 작업이라고 할 수 있다. 그러나 이런 자기의식의 노력과 의지에도 불구하고, 시간의 수동적 종합아래서 주체는 늙어 감을 감내할 수밖에 없는 수동성과 인내를 드러낼 뿐이다. 이런 주체에 대하여 레비나스는 정체성이 없는, 그러나 유일성의 주체로 설명한다.타자의 시간들은 자의식과 현재의 연속성으로부터 구성되는 것이 아니며, 더욱이 현재의 질서에 속하지도 않으며, 현재에 그 기원을 두고 있지도 않다. 이는 타자의 시간과 주체의 현재 사이의 절대적 간격, 불연속성, 차이를 함축하는 것으로 동시성과는 다른 통시성을 드러낸다. 레비나스는 미래를 주체의 가능성과 기투로부터 확장되는 현재로부터 오는 것이 아니라 에로스를 통한 출산을 통해 선사되는 것으로, 즉 나이면서 내가 아닌 아이들로부터 미래가 주어진다고 주장한다. 그리고 이와 같이 타자를 통해 주체의 시간성은 무한성의 계기를 만나게 됨을 드러낸다.

One says that the theory of time is the last these of philosophical thinking. This amounts to saying that it is an important and difficult question in philosophy. Usually, in the western ancient and middle times, numerous attempts have been made to demonstrate eternal being by scholars. In modern times, scientific research is based on the concept of chronological time and philosophical studies have been made on the origin of consistence of time. Levinas argues that there is the question which has been not explored the time of the other. Inspite of the lapse time produces the difference, the ego represents past and future in the present. It seems to be an excessive act on subject's part. But despite of his effort and will, in the passive synthesis of the time, subject must suffer aging and shows only the passivity and patience. Levinas explains this kind of subject as without identity but with singularity. The Time of the other can't be constituted from continuity of present and self-consciousness. Furthermore it can't belong to the order of present and it don't have its origin in present. It means the difference, discontinuity, and a absolutely gab between time of subject and time of the other. In particular, it shows diachrony otherwise than synchrony. Levinas argues that the future does not come from the present which is expanded from project and possibility of the subject, but is presented from the fecundity through eros. That is, the future is given from the other, and the finite ego's time meets the moment of infinity.

One says that the theory of time is the last these of philosophical thinking. This amounts to saying that it is an important and difficult question in philosophy. Usually, in the western ancient and middle times, numerous attempts have been made to demonstrate eternal being by scholars. In modern times, scientific research is based on the concept of chronological time and philosophical studies have been made on the origin of consistence of time. Levinas argues that there is the question which has been not explored the time of the other. Inspite of the lapse time produces the difference, the ego represents past and future in the present. It seems to be an excessive act on subject's part. But despite of his effort and will, in the passive synthesis of the time, subject must suffer aging and shows only the passivity and patience. Levinas explains this kind of subject as without identity but with singularity. The Time of the other can't be constituted from continuity of present and self-consciousness. Furthermore it can't belong to the order of present and it don't have its origin in present. It means the difference, discontinuity, and a absolutely gab between time of subject and time of the other. In particular, it shows diachrony otherwise than synchrony. Levinas argues that the future does not come from the present which is expanded from project and possibility of the subject, but is presented from the fecundity through eros. That is, the future is given from the other, and the finite ego's time meets the moment of infinity.

diachrony, present, trace, anarchy, the infinite time