Abstract: Should it be an “ethical misunderstanding” in the fact of using Levinassian categories in the hope of building a radical philosophy of care? In a field where subtlety and singularity of actors and situations are so important, is an “hyperbolic ethics” useful? Some “conceptual syntagms”, more than concepts stricto sensu, can inspire good practice. We keep five of such theoretical elements, before to evoke the dialectics “caress/profanation” that specifies human care.
