This paper is the second part of an essay on the deconstruction of thinking based on the concept of ¡ÈI¡É (thinking of ¡ÈI¡É), generalized in our thinking especially since the experience of Descartes¡Ç Ego Cogito, through critical comparison with the concept of ¡ÉOther¡É developed by Levinas, Derrida, and other post-modern thinkers.
We first question the opinions of Kato and Nishitani on the construction of a Japanese ¡ÈWe¡É for the purpose of apologizing to those South-East Asian people who fell victim to our country in the Second World War. This ¡ÈWe¡É is a temporary construction to represent the Japanese nation, seeking to surmount the existing split of the Japanese people into two extreme positions: left and right. However, it not only ignores the multiplicity of the people, it also deteriorates into an egocentric ¡ÈI.¡É
In the thinking of ¡ÈOther,¡É ¡ÈOther¡É does not depend on ¡ÈOneself,¡É as in ¡ÈI = Ego.¡É Not as in the case of liberalism against Marxism, ¡ÈOther¡É must be considered as a moment through which we reach for the transcendental ¡ÈSomething,¡É like language, thinking, etc., breaking its immanency in a reach toward the ¡ÈOutside.¡É ¡ÈOther¡É leads us into an open space where all of being exists as ¡Èbeing-in-common,¡É developed by J. L. Nancy building on the concept of ¡ÈMit¡É in Heidegger¡Çs Mit-desein.
However, regardless of the target of the thinking of ¡ÈOther,¡É doesn¡Çt ¡ÈOther¡É presuppose the existence of ¡ÈI = Ego¡É? In this composition, will the latter take a dominant position? Will they be reduced to classical dualism? What is more, the fact is that all of being on earth comes late?late to others, to language, to thinking, etc. These facts of being are already there, before our birth. It is they which constitute our very existence, like a ¡Èbeing-in-common¡É on the earth. Then, I call this kind of thinking, respecting the previous existence of these things, a thinking of ¡ÈWe¡É not to be misunderstood nor allowed to lead away from the objective of this way of thinking, because we exist as ¡ÈWe¡É before we exist as ¡ÈI.¡É
This thinking of ¡ÈWe¡É shows us the meaning of ¡Èbeing-in-common.¡É In this paper we seek to understand it through an analysis of the word ¡Èpartage,¡É which means ¡Èdivide¡É and/or ¡Èshare,¡É and to develop it in the two senses of ¡Èheritage¡É and ¡Èparticipation¡É expressed in the Japanese word ¡Èazukaru¡É (¤¢¤º¤«¤ë).