Maurice Merleau-Ponty

Body Integrity Identity Disorder, formerly also known as apotemnophilia is characterized by a desire for amputation of a healthy limb and is claimed to straddle or to even blur the boundary between psychiatry and neurology. The neurological line of approach, however, is a recent one, and is accompanied or preceded by psychodynamical, behavioural, philosophical, and psychiatric approaches and hypotheses. Next to its confusing history in which the disorder itself has no fixed identity and could not be classified under a specific (...) discipline, its sexual component has been an issue of unclarity and controversy, and its assessment a criterion for distinguishing BIID from apotemnophilia, a paraphilia. Scholars referring to the lived body -- a phenomenon primarily discussed in the phenomenological tradition in philosophy -- seem willing to exclude the sexual component as inessential, whereas other authors notice important similarities with gender identity disorder or transsexualism, and thus precisely focus attention on the sexual component. This contribution outlines the history of BIID highlighting the vicissitudes of its sexual component, and questions the justification for distinguishing BIID from apotemnophilia and thus for omitting the sexual component as essential. Second, we explain a hardly discussed concept from Maurice Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception, the sexual schema, and investigate how the sexual schema could function in interaction with the body image in an interpretation of BIID which starts from the lived body while giving the sexual component its due. (shrink)

This paper takes as its point of departure recent research into the possibility that human beings can perceive single photons. In order to appreciate what quantum perception may entail, we first explore several of the leading interpretations of quantum mechanics, then consider an alternative view based on the ontological phenomenology of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Martin Heidegger. Next, the philosophical analysis is brought into sharper focus by employing a perceptual model, the Necker cube, augmented by the topology of the Klein bottle. (...) This paves the way for addressing in greater depth the paper’s central question: Just what would it take to observe the quantum reality of the photon? In formulating an answer, we examine the nature of scientific objectivity itself, along with the paradoxical properties of light. The conclusion reached is that quantum perception requires a new kind of observation, one in which the observer of the photon adopts a concretely self-reflexive observational posture that brings her into close ontological relationship with the observed. (shrink)

The Promise of Phenomenology: Posthumous Papers of John Wild includes articles that remained unpublished during Wild's lifetime, some of which he was preparing for publication, a journal that he kept, as well as a masterful exposition and commentary on Emmanuel Levinas' book, Totality and Infinity. This book gives a lively picture of a master philosopher at work conveying the vitality and importance of philosophy to everyday life.

The organism against its environment. The organism against other organisms, competing and struggling for life. Antagonism and confrontment as the only possible relation in nature. The tendency to anthropomorphize nature and explain it using concepts and facts from the human sphere. A stroll through the worlds of Uexküll and Merleau-Ponty in the search of alternative knowledge that allow us to understand relation from another point of view. A counterpoint and identification of common tonalities between the research programs from both thinkers (...) as a way to demonstrate the possibilities of a more fruitful approach. Umwelt as a generative system of meaningful relations in which its participants are not mutually exclusive, but express a melody that include them all. (shrink)

This paper seeks firstly to understand Deleuze’s main challenges to phenomenology, particularly as they are expressed in The Logic of Sense and Difference and Repetition. We then turn to a discussion of one of the few passages in which Deleuze and Guattari directly engage with Merleau-Ponty, which occurs in the chapter on art in What is Philosophy? In this text, he and Guattari offer a critique of what they call the “final avatar” of phenomenology – that is, the “fleshism” that (...) Merleau- Ponty proposes in his unfinished but justly famous work, The Visible and the Invisible. We argue that both Deleuze’s basic criticisms of phenomenology, as well as he and Guattari’s problems with the concept of the flesh, do not adequately come to grips with Merleau-Ponty’s later philosophy. Merleau-Ponty is not obviously partisan to what Deleuze finds problematic in this tradition, despite continuing to identify himself as a phenomenologist, and is working within a surprisingly similar framework in certain key respects. In fact, in the more positive part of this paper, we compare Merleau-Ponty’s notion of flesh, and Deleuze’s equally infamous univocity of being, as a means to consider the broader question of the ways in which the two philosophers consider ontological thought, its meaning and its conditions. It is our argument that through properly understanding both positions, a rapprochement, or at least the foundation for one, can be established between these two important thinkers. (shrink)

This paper has two aims. The first is to use contemporary discussions of naïve realist theories of perception to offer an interpretation of Merleau-Ponty’s theory of perception. The second is to use consideration of Merleau-Ponty’s theory of perception to outline a distinctive version of a naïve realist theory of perception. In a Merleau-Pontian spirit, these two aims are inter-dependent.

In this paper, I critically reconstruct the development of Merleau-Pontyan phenomenology and “radical embodied cognitive science” out of Berlin-School Gestalt theory. I first lay out the basic principles of Gestalt theory and then identify two ways of revising that theory: one route, followed by enactivism and ecological psychology, borrows Gestaltist resources to defend a pragmatic ontology. I argue, however, that Merleau-Ponty never endorses this kind of ontology. Instead, I track his second route toward an ontology of “flesh.” I show how (...) Merleau-Ponty’s arguments for this ontology depend upon criticisms of Gestalt Psychology to which radical embodied cognitive science remains vulnerable, and show that it leads him to a romantic philosophy of nature. (shrink)

This article addresses a debate in Descartes scholarship over the mind-dependence or -independence of time by turning to Merleau-Ponty’s "Nature" and "The Visible and the Invisible." In doing so, it shows that both sides of the debate ignore that time for Descartes is a measure of duration in general. The consequences to remembering what time is are that the future is shown to be the invisible of an intertwining of past and future, and that historicity is the invisible of God.

This essay compares Maurice Merleau-Ponty's notion of the flesh with Judith Butler's concept of primary vulnerability in terms of their helpfulness for developing an intersubjective ontology. It compares the flesh with Butler's more recent concept of primary vulnerability insofar as she sees both as useful for intersubjective ontology. The hiatus of the flesh is that which spans between self and world and opens Merleau-Ponty's thought onto an intersubjective ontology. While Butler's discussion of vulnerability as a primary condition of human existence (...) also makes this concept intersubjective, her understanding of violence as articulated through vulnerability makes this a more helpful concept for intersubjective ontology than the flesh. While many discussions of an intersubjective way of life focus almost exclusively on its positive possibilities, almost to the exclusion of violence altogether, the understanding of violence Butler presents through primary vulnerability helps us to discern whether a violation is benign or malign. In turn, this fuller understanding of violence lets primary vulnerability open onto an ethical imperative of reconciliation, but a reconciliation of what is never whole. (shrink)

This article explores the importance of Merleau-Ponty’s account of sexuality for his early theories of existence and expression. The holistic, social, and plural nature of expressive human behavior, which is elaborated in The Structure of Behavior, is used to argue against criticisms that his early works remain stuck in naturalism. Upon this theory of expression and through a close reading of 'Le corps comme être sexué' chapter of the Phenomenology of Perception, many classic criticisms of his phenomenology of sexuality are (...) challenged. Sexuality is ultimately identified with the most fundamental form of corporeal existence and is shown to be the ambiguous setting within which social and personal meaning emerges. The accounts of expression and sexuality are then used to criticize Sartre’s interpretation of bad faith. (shrink)

In this paper I investigate Merleau-Ponty's phenomenological theory of intersubjectivity. It turns out that any such theory requires a conceptualisation of the relation between the bodily subject and the objective reality that takes historicity seriously.

In this essay, I discuss how Maurice Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology concretizes our understanding of intentionality by rooting it in the body and in the senses in particular. In what follows I attempt to sketch out a version of "poly-intentionality" that I find implicit in Merleau-Ponty's chapter "Sensing" in his Phenomenology of Perception. Within this chapter, Merleau-Ponty argues that sensation is intentional, contrary to Husserl's stance that sensations require apperceptive acts of sense-giving in order to constitute them in experience.1 In addition to (...) arguing for sensation's intentionality, Merleau-Ponty claims that each sense offers its own unique mode of intending. Intentionality, therefore, can... (shrink)

I recommend this balanced, tripartite examination of phenomenology, psychology, and neuroscience.

Today, phenomenology, with an emphasis on direct explanations with regard to the lived experience of people is interest of different areas. With emphasis on body, Merleau- Ponty's phenomenology is considered in medical science. In his phenomenology, Merleau- Ponty gives new definition of body and names it lived body. Lived body is against of mechanical body and is the central of subjectivity and being- in- the – world and included all of existential aspects of man. Such definition enable doctors to consider (...) all of existential aspects of man besides his physiological and same understanding of the disease based on the patient lived experience. This paper attempts to examine the implications of this new concept of the body as it is described in the medical field. (shrink)

In this paper, I consider a challenge that naturalism poses for embodied cognition and enactivism, as well as for work on phenomenology of the body that has an argumentative or explanatory dimension. It concerns the connection between embodiment and emergence. In the commitment to explanatory holism, and the irreducibility of embodiment to any mechanistic and/or neurocentric construal of the interactions of the component parts, I argue there is (often, if not always) an unavowed dependence on an epistemic and metaphysical role (...) for emergence, especially concerning certain embodied capacities (motor-intentionality, know-how, skilful habits, affordances, etc.). While the problem of emergence is standardly dismissed as a problem for phenomenology, which brackets away the kind of materialist (and scientific) picture from which reflection on emergence derives, I argue that once a phenomenologist takes a fully-fledged embodied turn, they also have a genuine dilemma of emergence to confront, and I evaluate the relevant options. (shrink)

Kant and Heidegger argue that our subjectivity escapes scientific explanation, while also providing the conditions that enable it. This understanding of the relationship between subjectivity and science places limits on the explanatory scope of the sciences. But what makes transcendental reflection on the structure of subjectivity possible in the first place? Fink argues that transcendental philosophy encounters its own limits in attempting to characterize its own conditions of possibility. I argue that the limits of science and transcendental philosophy entail that (...) nature cannot be conceived as a specific object, or as a totality of objects in the world, but only as the ontological ground of phenomenal manifestation in general. Nature is not identical with anything discoverable in either science or phenomenology; it is, rather, the origin from which discovery of phenomena proceeds. (shrink)

Merleau-Ponty characterizes the poetic or literary use of language as bringing forth of sense as if it is a being that is an interlocutor with its readers. Sense will be explored as interwoven with a deeper imagination that works within the temporality of institution to become more fully manifest. Throughout the essay will be seen the overlap with Claudel’s ontology as expressed in L’Art poetique and Claudel’s approach to language. Why Merleau-Ponty’s articulation of embodiment and perception must culminate in the (...) poetic expression of the flesh ontology will be seen in: 1) how the phenomenology of sense leads to the flesh ontology as closely tied to the literary dimension of language, 2) that the analysis of sense leads to the vital importance of the physiognomic or vertical imagination as opening the latent depths of perception by its expression within poetic language, and also tracing the link between metaphor and the flesh ontology, and that 3) the expression of the latent sense of perception as the interplay of lateral relations as access to Being is the reversibility of the flesh, also articulated by Claudel as co-naissance, and calls for an “interrogative knowing,” a “question-savior.” The articulation of the texture of Being is an overlapping endeavor with Claudel as the poetic articulation of a stream of sense below our reflective life.Merleau-Ponty caractérise l’usage poétique ou littéraire du langage, en tant que producteur de sens, comme s’il s’agissait d’un être qui est un interlocuteur pour ses lecteurs. Le sens sera exploré comme entrelacé à une imagination plus profonde qui opère dans la temporalité de l’institution pour devenir pleinement manifeste. Dans cet article nous étudierons l’empiètement avec l’ontologie de Claudel telle qu’elle est exprimée dans l’Art poétique et avec l’approche de Claudel au langage. Les raisons pour lesquelles l’articulation merleau-pontienne de l’incorporation et de la perception doit aboutir à l’expression poétique de l’ontologie de la chair seront alors recherchées : 1) dans la manière dont la phénoménologie du sens conduit à une ontologie de la chair si étroitement liée à la dimension littéraire du langage ; 2) dans le fait que l’analyse du sens conduit à l’importance vitale d’une imagination physionomique ou verticale qui ouvrirait les profondeurs latentes de la perception par son expression dans le langage poétique, et aussi en traçant le lien entre la métaphore et l’ontologie de la chair, et 3) dans le fait que l’expression du sens latent de la perception, tout comme l’interaction des relations latérales et comme l’accès à l’Être, consiste dans la réversibilité de la chair, aussi décrite par Claudel comme co-naissance, et qui invite à une « connaissance interrogative », à une « question-savoir ». Ainsi, la tentative d’articuler la texture de l’Être s’entrecroise avec les réflexions de Claudel, comme l’articulation poétique d’un flux de sens au-dessous de nos vies réflexives.Merleau-Ponty caratterizza la poetica o l’uso letterario del linguaggio come portatore di senso, come se si trattasse di un essere che interloquisce con i suoi lettori. Il senso verrà esplorato come intrecciato con un’immaginazione più profonda che opera nella temporalità dell’istituzione per diventare pienamente manifesta. In questo articolo si esaminerà la sovrapposizione tra l’ontologia di Claudel, espressa nell’Arte poetica, e il suo approccio al linguaggio. Al fine di evidenziare i motivi che portano l’articolazione merleau-pontiana dell’essere incarnato e della percezione a culminare nell’espressione poetica dell’ontologia della carne si vedrà: 1) come la fenomenologia del senso conduca all’ontologia della carne in quanto strettamente legata alla dimensione letteraria del linguaggio ; 2) che le analisi del senso conducono all’importanza vitale della fisiognomica o dell’immaginazione verticale in quanto schiudenti le profondità nascoste della percezione, attraverso la sua espressione all’interno del linguaggio poetico e rintracciando, altresì, il legame tra la metafora e l’ontologia della carne; 3) che l’espressione del senso latente della percezione, sia come intreccio di relazioni laterali sia come accesso all’Essere, è la reversibilità della carne, che Claudel articola attraverso la nozione di co-naissance, ed esige un “sapere interrogativo”, un “sapere domandante”. Così il tentativo di articolare la trama dell’Essere si sovrappone all’articolazione poetica in Claudel di un flusso di senso che sottende la nostra vita riflessiva. (shrink)

Questo testo si propone di prendere in considerazione il ruolo del linguaggio nella filosofia di Merleau-Ponty. In particolare le nostre analisi si soffermeranno prima su La prose du monde e poi sugli appunti relativi ai romanzi di Claude Simon. In tal modo tenteremo di inquadrare la natura specifica di tale linguaggio indagandone le fonti, esplorandone i limiti e vagliandone in dettaglio le potenzialità.Le propos de ce texte est de prendre en examen le rôle du langage dans la philosophie de Merleau-Ponty. (...) En particulier, nos analyses se concentreront en premier lieu sur La prose du monde et, ensuite, sur les notes au sujet des romans de Claude Simon. Ainsi, nous essaierons de cerner la nature spécifique d’un tel langage en analysant ses sources, en explorant ses limites et en examinant dans le détail ses potentialités.The purpose of this paper is to study the role of language in the philosophy of Merleau-Ponty. In particular, our analysis will concentrate mainly on The Prose of the World and, following that, on the notes about the novels of Claude Simon. Thus, we will attempt to discern the specific nature of such language, analyzing its sources, exploring its limits, and examining in detail its potentialities. (shrink)

What resources does Merleau-Ponty’s account of the body schema offer to the Fanonian one? First I show that Merleau-Ponty’s theory of the body schema is already a theory of affect: one that does not oppose affects to intentionality, positioning them not only as sense but as force, cultivating affective agencies rather than constituting static sense content. Then I argue that by foregrounding the role of affect in both thinkers, we can understand the way in which the historical-racial schema innovates, anticipating (...) and influencing feminist theories of the affective turn – especially Sara Ahmed’s theory of affective economies. The historical-racial schema posits the constitution of affective agencies on a sociogenic scale, and these affective economies in turn account for the possibility of the collapse of the body schema into a racial epidermal schema, a disjunction of affective intentionality Fanon calls “affective tetanization.” Quelles ressources l’analyse du schéma corporel faite par Merleau-Ponty fournit-elle au schéma historico-racial proposé par Fanon? En premier lieu, je vise à montrer que la théorie du schéma corporel de Merleau-Ponty est déjà une théorie de l’affect : une théorie qui n’oppose pas les affects à l’intentionnalité, qui ne les considère pas seulement comme un sens, mais comme une force, en cultivant des agentivités affectives plutôt qu’en constituant des contenus de sens statiques. Ensuite, j’affirmerai qu’en mettant en premier plan le rôle de l’affect chez ces deux penseurs, nous pouvons comprendre les innovations qu’apporte le schéma historico-racial, en anticipant et en influençant les théories féministes du tournant affectif – surtout la théorie de Sara Ahmed au sujet des économies affectives. Le schéma historico-racial établit la constitution d’agentivités affectives sur une échelle sociogénique, et ces économies affectives expliquent à leur tour la possibilité d’une dégradation du schéma corporel en schéma épidermique racial, une disjonction de l’intentionnalité affective que Fanon appelle « tétanisation affective ».Quali risorse può offrire la nozione merleau-pontiana di schema corporeo a quella di Fanon? In primo luogo, mi propongo di mostrare che la teoria dello schema corporeo elaborata da Merleau-Ponty è allo stesso tempo una teoria dell’affetto: una teoria che non oppone la dimensione degli affetti all’intenzionalità, poiché li considera non solo come senso ma come forze, in quanto implicano delle agentività affettive piuttosto che costituire meri contenuti statici di senso. Intendo quindi sostenere che mettendo in evidenza il ruolo dell’affetto in questi due autori sia possibile comprendere il portato innovativo dello schema storico-razziale, che anticipa e influenza le teorie femministe legate all’affective turn – e in particolare la teoria delle economie affettive elaborata da Sara Ahmed. Lo schema storico-razziale afferma la costituzione di agentività affettive a un livello sociogenetico, mentre le economie affettive rendono conto della possibilità del collasso dello schema corporeo in uno schema razziale epidermico, una disgiunzione dell’intenzionalità affettiva che Fanon definisce “tetanizzazione affettiva”. (shrink)

Dans son livre Le corps, c’est l’écran. La philosophie du visuel de Merleau-Ponty, Anna Caterina Dalmasso met en évidence la présence de la pensée merleau-pontienne dans les réflexions contemporaines relevant des visual studies, de la médiologie et des études cinématographiques. Les analyses menées révèlent un Merleau-Ponty à l’origine d’un certain nombre de « tournants » majeurs dans le questionnement, touchant notamment à la conception de l’image et du médium. Enfin, l’une des ambitions – et l’une des réussites – de l’ouvrage (...) est de restituer l’apport significatif de Merleau-Ponty pour les film studies. A.C. Dalmasso jette des lumières nouvelles sur une interrogation en constante évolution, en s’appuyant à la fois sur les textes bien connus et les « inédits ».In her book Le corps, c’est l’écran. La philosophie du visuel de Merleau-Ponty, Anna Caterina Dalmasso brings to light the presence of Merleau-pontian thought in contemporary reflections relevant to visual studies, as well as film and media studies. The analyses she carried out reveal a Merleau-Ponty at the origin of a certain number of major “turns” in the inquiry, touching notably on the conception of the image and of the medium. Besides, one of the ambitions – and one of the successes – of the work is to demonstrate the significant contribution of Merleau-Ponty for film studies. A.C. Dalmasso throws new light on an interrogation in constant evolution, stressing both well-known texts and unpublished manuscripts.Nel volume Le corps, c’est l’écran. La philosophie du visuel de Merleau-Ponty, Anna Caterina Dalmasso mette in evidenza la presenza del pensiero merleau-pontyano nelle riflessioni contemporanee dei visual studies, della teoria del cinema e dei media. Le analisi che vi sono condotte rivelano un Merleau-Ponty all’origine di alcune importanti “svolte”, che riguardano in particolare la concezione dell’immagine e del medium. Inoltre, una delle ambizioni – e uno degli aspetti più originali – dell’opera è quella di restituire il significativo apporto di Merleau-Ponty per l’ambito dei film studies. A.C. Dalmasso fa luce in modo innovativo su un tema di ricerca in costante evoluzione, appoggiandosi ad un tempo su scritti più noti e su alcuni testi “inediti”. (shrink)

This interview with David Kleinberg-Levin, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Philosophy at Northwestern University, concerns his recent trilogy on the promise of happiness in literary language. Kleinberg-Levin discusses the relationship between and among philosophy, phenomenology, and literature. Among others, he addresses questions regarding literature’s ability to offer redemption, its response to suffering and justice, literary gesture, the ethics of narrative logic, and the surface of the text.Cet entretien avec David Kleinberg-Levin, Professeur émérite au département de philosophie de la Northwestern (...) University, est consacrée à sa récente trilogie sur la promesse du bonheur dans le langage littéraire. Kleinberg-Levin examine les relations réciproques et internes de la philosophie, de la phénoménologie et de la littérature. Entre autres, il pose des questions sur la capacité de la littérature à offrir une rédemption, sur sa réponse à la souffrance et à la justice, sur le geste littéraire, sur l’éthique de la logique narrative et sur la surface du texte.L’intervista a David Kleinberg-Levin, Professore Emerito presso il Dipartimento di Filosofia della Northwestern University, è dedicata alla sua recente trilogia sulla promessa di felicità nel linguaggio letterario. Kleinberg-Levin esplora il rapporto tra filosofia, fenomenologia e letteratura. In particolare egli affronta le questioni che riguardano la capacità della letteratura di offrire redenzione, la sua risposta alla sofferenza e alla giustizia, il gesto letterario, l’etica della logica narrativa, e la superficie del testo. (shrink)

Hanno ancora qualcosa da dirci Sartre e Merleau-Ponty oggi? Sessant’anni dopo i loro “contraccolpi” – consumatisi nella redazione di una rivista come “Les Temps Modernes” – vale ancora la pena di ripercorrere quella storia? È questa la domanda che apre l’ultimo numero di “aut aut” curato da Enrica Lisciani-Petrini e Raoul Kirchmayr. Si tratta di una domanda a cui è difficile rispondere e che ha a che fare con che cos’è la filosofia e – soprattutto – che cos’è un filosofo. (...) È una domanda che, nel caso di Sartre e di Merleau-Ponty, non chiama in causa soltanto due differenti scuole di pensiero, ma anche due modi differenti di intendere il mondo, la politica, gli altri e le relazioni con essi. Ma si tratta, in fondo, di una domanda che – con le parole di Sartre – ci porta a riflettere sul fatto che “si è filosofi quando si è morti”, poiché – in fondo – “fino a quando viviamo, siamo uomini che, tra l’altro, scrivono opere di filosofia”. E allora la risposta a quella domanda non può che essere affermativa: il loro “dissidio produttivo” è un atto vitale, un incontro-scontro necessario fra persone che fanno vivere la filosofia.Sartre et Merleau-Ponty ont-ils encore quelque chose à nous dire aujourd’hui? Soixante années après leurs « contrecoups » – qui ont eu lieu dans la rédaction de la revue Les Temps Modernes – vaut-il encore la peine de reparcourir cette histoire? Voilà la question qui ouvre le dernier numéro de la revue « aut aut », sous la direction d’Enrica Lisciani-Petrini et Raoul Kirchmayr. Il s’agit d’une question à laquelle il est difficile de répondre et qui est en rapport avec ce qu’est la philosophie et – surtout – avec ce qu’est un philosophe. Il s’agit d’une question qui, chez Sartre et Merleau-Ponty, ne met pas seulement en cause deux courants de pensée différents, mais aussi deux différentes manières de concevoir le monde, la politique, les autres et les relations qu’on entretient avec eux. Mais il s’agit, au fond, d’une question qui – en employant les mots de Sartre – nous conduit à réfléchir sur le fait que « l’on est philosophes quand on est morts », parce que – après tout – « jusqu’à ce que nous vivons, nous sommes des hommes qui, entre autre, écrivent des oeuvres de philosophie ». Alors la réponse à cette question ne peut être qu’affirmative : leur « différend productif » est un acte vital, en même temps une rencontre et un affrontement nécessaires entre des personnes qui font vivre la philosophie.Do Sartre and Merleau-Ponty still have something to say to us today? Sixty years after their “breakup” – which took place in editing the journal Les Temps Modernes – is it still worthwhile to go over this history? This is the question that opens the last issue of the journal “aut aut,” under the direction of Enrica Lisciani-Petrini and Raoul Kirchmayr. It is a question to which it is difficult to respond and bears on what philosophy is – and especially with what a philosopher is today. It is a matter which, according to Sartre and Merleau-Ponty, does not only call into question two different currents of thought, but also two different ways of conceiving the world, politics, others and the relations between them. But it is a matter, at its core, which – employing the words of Sartre – leads us to reflect on the fact that “we are philosophers when we are dead,” because – after all – “while we are alive, we are men who, among other things, write works of philosophy.” Thus, the response to this question can only be affirmative: their “productive difference” is a vital act, at the same time an encounter and necessary confrontation between persons who breathe life into philosophy. (shrink)

In his discussions on literature, Merleau-Ponty often turns to the notion of deviation as a constitutive principle of literary language. Deviation indicates the capacity of a literary work to transgress against its own limits and to offer an experience of otherness, or alterity. This alterity is not given in the work, but is constituted by the recipient through the more visceral and physical aspects of literary language. The recipient of the work thus adopts a second voice: that of the author (...) or creator of the work, which is absent from the text yet is reconstructed by the reader in a post hoc manner. The analysis of Merleau-Ponty’s ideas is complemented using the aesthetic insights of Paul Valéry, from which the philosopher was greatly inspired. The essay further explores the way in which the notion of literature as deviation illuminates other aspects in Merleau-Ponty’s theory of language.Dans son examen de la littérature, Merleau-Ponty se penche souvent sur la notion d’écart considérée en tant que principe constitutif du langage littéraire. L’écart indique la capacité d’une oeuvre littéraire de dépasser ses propres limites et d’offrir une expérience d’autrui, de l’altérité. Cette altérité n’est pas donnée dans l’oeuvre, mais elle est constituée par le destinataire à travers les aspects les plus viscéraux et les plus physiques du langage littéraire. Le destinataire de l’oeuvre adopte ainsi une deuxième voix : celle de l’auteur ou du créateur de l’oeuvre, qui est absente du texte mais est reconstituée après coup par le lecteur. L’analyse de la réflexion de Merleau-Ponty est complétée à partir des intuitions esthétiques de Paul Valery, dont le philosophe a été largement inspiré. Cet article explore ensuite la manière dont la notion de littérature comme écart nous permet de mettre en lumière d’autres aspects de la théorie du langage de Merleau-Ponty. Nelle sue riflessioni sulla letteratura Merleau-Ponty si rivolge spesso alla nozione di scarto quale principio costitutivo del linguaggio letterario. Lo scarto indica la capacità di un’opera letteraria di oltrepassare i propri limiti, offrendo così l’esperienza di un’alterità. Quest’alterità non si dà nell’opera, ma è costituita dal destinatario attraverso gli aspetti più fisici e viscerali del linguaggio letterario. Così il destinatario dell’opera adotta una seconda voce, quella del creatore o dell’autore, che è assente dal testo e tuttavia è ricostruita dal lettore a posteriori. L’analisi delle riflessioni merleau-pontiane è integrata a partire dalle intuizioni estetiche di Paul Valery, da cui il pensiero del filosofo fu ampiamente ispirato. Il saggio esplora inoltre il modo in cui la nozione di letteratura come scarto ci consenta di illuminare altri aspetti della riflessione merleau-pontiana sul linguaggio. (shrink)

Beginning with Fanon’s challenge to the universality of the project of ontology, this paper considers whether and how Merleau-Ponty’s early and late thinking may yield a response. From the outset, Merleau-Ponty’s appeal to the materiality of the body is intended as a limit on the scope of ontology. As I argue, however, Merleau-Ponty’s early concept of ‘one’s own body’ suggests an “ontological equality” that would be shared among all embodied beings; implicitly, this early approach risks reinforcing Fanon’s concern that ontology (...) is indifferent to embodied experiences of racial exclusion and oppression. Merleau-Ponty’s later ontology of the flesh, by contrast, entails a more radically differential structure of the body that troubles the notion of equality in principle, suggesting an ontology that could be more attentive to the fundamental grounds of systemic oppression.Cet article examine si, et de quelle manière, la réflexion de Merleau-Ponty peut répondre au défi lancé par Fanon à l’universalité du projet ontologique. La revendication initiale que fait Merleau-Ponty de la matérialité du corps est considérée comme une limite du champ de l’ontologie. Pourtant, comme je voudrais le montrer, la première conception merleau-pontienne du corps propre suggère une « égalité ontologique » qui devrait être commune pour tous les êtres incarnés ; implicitement, cette première approche risque de renforcer l’inquiétude de Fanon au sujet de l’indifférence de l’ontologie envers les expériences incarnées de l’exclusion raciale et de l’oppression. L’ontologie de la chair merleau-pontienne, au contraire, implique une structure du corps radicalement différentielle qui bouleverse la notion du principe d’égalité, en suggérant une ontologie qui pourrait être plus attentive aux fondements du système d’oppression.Questo articolo prende le mosse dalla sfida di Fanon all’universalità del progetto dell’ontologia ed esamina se e come il pensiero del primo e dell’ultimo Merleau-Ponty possa fornirvi una risposta. A prima vista, il richiamo di Merleau-Ponty alla materialità del corpo viene inteso come un limite all’orizzonte dell’ontologia. Tuttavia, come mi propongo di sostenere, il concetto di “corpo proprio” nel primo Merleau-Ponty suggerisce un’“uguaglianza ontologica” che sarebbe condivisa da tutti gli esseri incarnati. Implicitamente, questa posizione rischia di rinforzare la preoccupazione di Fanon rispetto al fatto che l’ontologia sia indifferente alle esperienze incarnate di esclusione e oppressione razziali. L’ontologia della carne dell’ultimo Merleau-Ponty, al contrario, implica una più radicale struttura differenziale del corpo, che complica la nozione di un’uguaglianza di principio e che suggerisce un’ontologia potenzialmente più attenta ai fondamenti dell’oppressione sistematica. (shrink)

Nella conferenza su Le cinéma et la nouvelle psychologie Merleau-Ponty introduce una singolare, ma decisiva notazione sull’arte filmica, legandola alla nozione di “ritmo”. Tale nozione dà avvio a una riflessione sull’immagine e sul rapporto tra l’immagine e lo sguardo dello spettatore al cinema. Nel presente articolo, l’uso che Merleau-Ponty ne fa e il senso di questa operazione saranno letti in riferimento alla riflessione di Émile Benveniste sul ritmo e ad alcune annotazioni contenute nei corsi di Merleau-Ponty al Collège de France, (...) di qualche anno successivi alla conferenza, su Le monde sensible et le monde de l’expression e quello sulle Recherches sur l’usage littéraire du langage. Dans le texte de sa conférence sur Le cinéma et la nouvelle psychologie, Merleau-Ponty introduit une lecture, singulière mais décisive, de l’art filmique, en la rapprochant de la notion de « rythme ». Cette notion engage une réflexion sur l’image et sur le rapport entre l’image et le regard du spectateur au cinéma. Dans cet article, l’utilisation que Merleau-Ponty en fait et le sens de cette opération seront lus à partir de la réflexion d’Émile Benveniste sur le rythme et à partir de certaines notes présentes dans les cours de Merleau-Ponty au Collège de France sur Le monde sensible et le monde de l’expression et sur les Recherches sur l’usage littéraire du langage, qui suivent de quelques années la conférence.In the text of his lecture on “Film and the new psychology,” Merleau-Ponty introduces a singular and decisive reading of filmic art, approaching the notion of “rhythm.” This notion engages in a reflection on image and on the relation between the image and the gaze of the spectator at the cinema. In this article, Merleau-Ponty’s actual usage of this notion and the meaning of this operation will be read starting from the reflection of Émile Benveniste on rhythm as well as certain notes presented in Merleau-Ponty’s courses at the Collège de France on The sensible world and the world of expression and Research on the literary usages of language, that follow some years after the lecture. (shrink)

Dans ce travail, nous tentons de démontrer que l’interrogation merleau-pontienne sur l’art s’ordonne selon trois mouvements spéculatifs distincts et successifs. Dans les années quarante, l’élaboration d’une phénoménologie de la perception conduit Merleau-Ponty à aborder l’art à partir de l’oeuvre d’art et du sujet percevant qui la reçoit, c’est-à-dire du spectateur. Au début des années cinquante, cette phénoménologie de l’oeuvre d’art et de la perception esthétique fait place à une philosophie de l’expression. Le point de départ du questionnement artistique change : (...) il est, non plus le sens exprimé, mais l’acte expressif ou créateur. La signification de l’oeuvre d’art se voit dès lors ressaisie à partir du sens d’être de l’artiste : l’oeuvre est une réponse aux manques perceptifs de l’artiste. À la fin des années cinquante, le cheminement merleau-pontien connaît un tournant ontologique. Merleau-Ponty en vient à régresser en-deçà de l’artiste, vers l’Être même, lequel s’impose finalement comme le créateur véritable. La dernière philosophie de l’art merleau-pontienne prend dès lors les allures d’une traditionnelle philosophie de l’inspiration.In this work, we undertake to demonstrate that the merleau-pontian inquiry into art orders itself according to three distinct and successive speculative movements. In the 1940s, the elaboration of a phenomenology of perception led Merleau-Ponty to approach art starting from the work of art and the perceiving subject who receives it, the spectator. From the beginning of the 1950s, this phenomenology of the work of art and aesthetic perception gave way to a philosophy of expression. The point of departure for artistic questioning changes: it is no longer the meaning expressed, but the expressive or creative act. The signification of the work of art sees itself from this moment understood starting from the meaning of being for the artist: the work is a response to perceptive omissions of the artist. At the end of the 1950s, the merleau-pontian progress of thought experiences an ontological turning. Merleau-Ponty wants to regress below the artist, toward Being itself, which imposes itself finally as the true creator. The last merleau-pontian philosophy of art takes from this moment the aspects of a traditional philosophy of inspiration.In questo lavoro cerchiamo di mostrare come l’interrogazione merleau-pontiana attorno all’arte si dispieghi secondo tre movimenti speculativi distinti e successivi. Negli anni Quaranta l’elaborazione di una fenomenologia della percezione porta Merleau-Ponty a esaminare l’arte a partire dall’opera e dal soggetto percipiente che la fruisce, ossia dallo spettatore. All’inizio degli anni Cinquanta, tale fenomenologia dell’opera d’arte e della percezione estetica cede il passo a una filosofia dell’espressione. Il punto di partenza dell’interrogazione artistica cambia: non è più il senso espresso, ma l’atto espressivo o creativo. Il significato dell’opera d’arte è quindi ricompreso a partire dal senso d’essere dell’artista: l’opera è una risposta alle lacune percettive dell’artista. Alla fine degli anni Cinquanta assistiamo a una svolta ontologica nell’itinerario merleau-pontiano. La ricerca di Merleau-Ponty ci conduce al di qua dell’artista, verso l’Essere stesso, che s’impone infine come l’autentico creatore. L’ultima filosofia dell’arte merleau-pontiana assume i contorni di una tradizionale filosofia dell’ispirazione. (shrink)

Merleau-Ponty spent the summer of 1960 in the small French village of Le Tholonet writing Eye and Mind. His choice of location was no accident. Le Tholonet was the physical and emotional epicenter of Paul Cezanne’s late painting, the ultimate proving ground of his relentless quest to reveal the truth of landscape in art.It makes perfect sense that Merleau-Ponty wrote Eye and Mind in Le Tholonet. The essay is a philosophical meditation on vision and painting. But it also is a (...) meditation on place, in the deeply saturated sense that encompasses the landscape, its natural and human history, and the history of the painter who brought this part of Provence to universal visibility in his art. Le Tholonet is the terroir of Eye and Mind, the site and soil of this final, extraordinary expression of Merleau-Ponty’s thinking. Merleau-Ponty passa l’été 1960 dans le petit village français de Le Tholonet en écrivant L’OEil et l’Esprit. Le choix de ce lieu n’est pas accidentel. Le Tholonet était l’épicentre physique et émotionnel de la dernière peinture de Paul Cézanne, le terrain d’essai final de sa quête incessante pour arriver à révéler la vérité du paysage dans l’art. C’est tout à fait sensé que Merleau-Ponty ait écrit L’OEil et l’Esprit à Le Tholonet. L’essai est une méditation philosophique sur la vision et sur la peinture. Mais c’est aussi une méditation sur le lieu, sur le sens profondément saturé qui entoure le paysage, sur son histoire naturelle et humaine, et sur l’histoire du peintre qui porta, par son art, ce coin de la Provence à la visibilité universelle. On pourrait alors dire que Le Tholonet est le terroir de L’OEil et l’Esprit, le site et le sol de cette expression finale et extraordinaire de la réflexion de Merleau-Ponty. Merleau-Ponty trascorse l’estate del 1960 nel piccolo villaggio francese di Le Tholonet, dedicandosi alla scrittura de L’occhio e lo spirito. La scelta di questo luogo non fu casuale. Le Tholonet fu infatti l’epicentro fisico ed emotivo della pittura dell’ultimo Cézanne, il campo di prova finale del suo tentativo instancabile di rivelare la verità del paesaggio nell’arte. È del tutto coerente che Merleau-Ponty abbia scritto L’occhio e lo spirito a Le Tholonet. Il saggio costituisce una riflessione filosofica sulla visione e sulla pittura, ma rappresenta anche una meditazione sul senso di un luogo, secondo un’accezione densa che comprende il paesaggio, la sua storia naturale e umana, e la storia del pittore che attraverso la sua arte ha portato questa parte della Provenza a una visibilità universale. Le Tholonet è il terroir de L’occhio e lo spirito, il sito che ospita e il terreno che nutre quest’ultima straordinaria espressione del pensiero di Merleau-Ponty. (shrink)

In a promising working note to the Visible and Invisible, Merleau-Ponty proposes that we understand Being according to topological space – relations of proximity, distance, and envelopment – and move away from an image of Being based on homogeneous, inert Euclidean space. With reference to treatments of cross-sensory perception, color-blindness, and the concept of quale or qualia, I seek to rehearse this shift from Euclidean to topological Being by illustrating how modern science confines color itself to a Euclidean model of (...) color space. I discuss “being as Object” in Merleau-Ponty’s later work before showing how color, and indeed all perception, is reduced to being as Object in the form of “quale”. Next, I address discussions in Merleau-Ponty’s work and contemporary research to illustrate how synesthesia and so-called color-blindness are rendered abnormal by this objectified being of color. Merleau-Ponty’s reading of synesthesia follows directly from his rejection of quale, and his use of color perception serves as a rejection of solipsism. With appeal to his proposed topological model of Being, I conclude by recognizing the problematic nature of synesthesia and color-blindness as being ontological, not psychological.Dans une note de travail, à mon sens décisive, du Visible et l’Invisible, Merleau-Ponty propose que l’on comprenne l’Être à partir de l’espace topologique – relations de proximité, distance et enveloppement – allant à l’encontre d’une l’image de l’Être fondée sur un espace euclidien homogène et inerte. En faisant référence aux traitements de la perception synesthésique, au daltonisme et au concept de quale ou qualia, j’essayerai de décrire ce passage de l’Être euclidien à l’Être topologique en montrant que la science moderne finit par confiner la couleur dans un modèle euclidien d’espace-couleur. J’examinerai « l’Être-objet » dans les derniers écrits de Merleau-Ponty avant de montrer comment la couleur, et plus en général la perception, est réduite à être comme un Objet dans la forme d’un « quale ». Ensuite, en examinant les analyses merleau-pontiennes et les recherches contemporaines, je montrerai comment la synesthésie et le daltonisme sont donc considérés comme anormaux à partir de cette objectivation de la couleur. La lecture que Merleau-Ponty donne de la synesthésie est la conséquence directe de son refus du quale, et l’utilisation qu’il fait de la perception des couleurs sert comme un refus du solipsisme. En faisant appel au modèle topologique de l’Être qu’il propose, je conclurai en constatant que la nature problématique de la synesthésie et du daltonisme est ontologique et non pas psychologique.In una nota di lavoro al Visibile e l’invisibile, Merleau-Ponty propone di comprendere l’Essere a partire da uno spazio topologico – secondo le relazioni di prossimità, distanza e avvolgimento – e abbandona l’immagine di un Essere fondato su uno spazio omogeneo, inerte, euclideo. Facendo riferimento ai trattamenti per le percezioni sinestetiche, al daltonismo e al concetto di quale o qualia, si cercherà di provare questo passaggio da un Essere euclideo a uno topologico, illustrando quanto la scienza moderna tenda a ridurre il concetto stesso di colore a un modello euclideo di spazio-colore. Si esaminerà l’“Essere-oggetto” degli ultimi lavori di Merleau-Ponty, mostrando come il colore, e in realtà la percezione tout court, vengano ridotti a oggetto nella forma di “quale”. Infine, si esaminerà l’opera merleau-pontiana e la ricerca contemporanea al fine di illustrare quanto la sinestesia e il daltonismo siano resi anormali da questa oggettivazione dell’essere del colore. L’interpretazione merleau-pontiana della sinestesia deriva proprio dal suo rifiuto del quale, e il suo uso della percezione del colore funge da rifiuto del solipsismo. Ricorrendo al modello topologico di Essere elaborato da Merleau-Ponty, si conclude riconoscendo che il problema della sinestesia e del daltonismo è, a tutti gli effetti, ontologico e non psicologico. (shrink)

This article examines Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s reference to Franz Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis” and “Investigations of a Dog” in his lecture on gesture and reconciliation, “Man Seen from the Outside.” Given the centrality of gesture in Kafka’s work, this essay considers the connections between the two figures and the likely influence of Kafka on Merleau-Ponty’s concept of gesture and intentionality. It compares their respective philosophies of gesture as they relate to meaning, reliability, silence, music, and intention. Finally, Kafka’s gestural motif of the (...) springing body is suggested as a significant example of Merleau-Ponty’s “escaping intentions,” expressing a powerful will to intend toward others.Cet article examine la référence de Maurice Merleau-Ponty à La Métamorphose et aux Recherches d’un chien de Franz Kafka dans sa « causerie » sur le geste et la réconciliation : « L’homme vu du dehors ». Étant-donnée la centralité du geste dans l’oeuvre de Kafka, cet article examine les liens entre les deux auteurs et la possible influence de Kafka sur les concepts merleau-pontiens de geste et d’intentionnalité. Nous comparerons leurs philosophies du geste dans leur manière de se rapporter au sens, à la fiabilité, au silence, à la musique et à l’intention. Enfin, le motif gestuel du corps jaillissant chez Kafka sera proposé comme un exemple significatif des « intentions fuyantes » de Merleau-Ponty, exprimant un puissant désir de se diriger vers les autres.Quest’articolo esamina i riferimenti merleau-pontiani a “La Metamorfosi” e a “Indagini di un cane” di Franz Kafka nella sua conferenza sul gesto e la riconciliazione, “L’uomo visto da fuori”. Data la centralità del gesto nell’opera di Kafka, questo saggio si propone di esaminare le connessioni tra i due autori e la possibile influenza di Kafka sulla concezione merleau-pontiana del gesto e dell’intenzionalità. L’articolo confronta le loro rispettive filosofie del gesto nella misura in cui si riferiscono al significato, alla veridicità, al silenzio, alla musica e all’intenzione. Da ultimo, il motivo gestuale del corpo elastico in Kafka è indagato come significativo esempio delle “intenzioni fuggevoli” merleau-pontiane che esprimono una volontà tesa verso gli altri. (shrink)

Dans son oeuvre tardive, Merleau-Ponty a souligné les convergences entre une pensée philosophique et une pensée s’exprimant par l’écriture littéraire, considérant que toutes deux répondent à une tâche commune liée à la description du monde. Ses premiers écrits théoriques – Simone de Beauvoir comme Jean-Paul Sartre l’ont souligné – sont quant à eux marqués par une distance plus nette vis-à-vis de la pratique littéraire. Pourtant, bien avant de publier ses premières monographies, Merleau-Ponty est l’auteur d’un livre écrit pour le compte (...) d’un autre : Nord. Récit de l’arctique, paru en 1928 chez Grasset. Le roman qui traite de la vie d’un explorateur dans le grand nord canadien, entre commerce de fourrures entre rencontre avec les Inuits, n’est qu’un travail de commande, que Merleau-Ponty ne revendiquera jamais. On trouve cependant dans cet écrit de jeunesse quelques motifs intéressants qui préfigurent sa pensée à venir. In his late writings, Merleau-Ponty stressed the convergences between philosophy and literature, highlighting their “common task” of describing the world. His early philosophical texts though – both Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre pointed this out – insist on demarcating themselves from literature. However, well before publishing his first monographs, Merleau-Ponty had already written a book on someone else’s behalf: Nord. Récit de l’arctique, published in 1928 by French publisher Grasset. The novel, which deals with the life of an explorer in Canada’s far north, between fur trade and encounters with the Inuit, is the result of ghostwriting, carried out for a friend. Merleau-Ponty later never stood to that book. There are nonetheless some interesting motifs in this early piece of writing that prefigure his future thinking.Nei suoi ultimi scritti, Merleau-Ponty ha sottolineato le convergenze tra filosofia e letteratura, evidenziando il loro “comune compito” nel descrivere il mondo. I suoi primi testi filosofici – lo hanno sottolineato sia Simone de Beauvoir che Jean-Paul Sartre – insistono però a distinguersi dalla letteratura. Tuttavia, ben prima di pubblicare le sue monografie, Merleau-Ponty aveva già scritto un libro per conto terzi: Nord. Récit de l’arctique, pubblicato nel 1928 per le stampe di Grasset. Per questo romanzo, che tratta della vita di un esploratore nell’estremo nord canadese, tra commercio di pellicce e incontri con gli Inuit, Merleau-Ponty fa da ‘ghostwriter’ ad un amico. Mentre ulteriormente, egli non si avvalse mai della paternità del romanzo, questo primo scritto contiene già alcuni spunti che prefigurano il suo pensiero futuro. (shrink)

Questo articolo riflette sul posto della letteratura nel complesso della ricerca di Merleau-Ponty, assimilando la funzione che essa svolge nell’economia del suo pensiero alla funzione in esso svolta da altre pratiche e saperi come la biologia o la psicoanalisi. Ciascuno di questi discorsi, chiamiamoli così, offrirebbe a Merleau-Ponty un accesso a qualcosa come una comune sostanza fantasmatica, una comune consistenza metamorfica dell’essere, che tanto il biologo quanto il letterato o lo psicoanalista lavorerebbero con le scritture e le categorie loro proprie. (...) Ma qui si apre anche un grande interrogativo. Quanto Proust arriva a corrispondere alla sfida che Merleau-Ponty lo vede vincere, quanto il suo linguaggio si rivela all’altezza dell’impresa di scrivere il fantasma? In che modo i limiti del suo linguaggio, che sono forse i limiti del linguaggio stesso, fanno invece ostacolo al suo progetto? E che cosa consente talvolta alle scienze di inoltrarsi su quella strada con successo più sicuro? Se fosse proprio la struttura della metafora, a impedire a Proust di scrivere davvero l’empiètement, e la dimensione della metonimia fosse invece quella in cui un certo discorso scientifico arriva a installarsi d’emblée? Se, infine e piuttosto, la metonimia fosse il cuore stesso della metafora, ora più ora meno felicemente lambito da questa o quella scrittura “regionale” del fantasma?Cet article examine la place de la littérature dans l’ensemble de la recherche de Merleau-Ponty, en assimilant la fonction qu’elle remplit dans l’économie de sa pensée au rôle que jouent en elle d’autres pratiques et d’autres savoirs tels que la biologie ou la psychanalyse. Chacun de ces « discours » offrirait à Merleau-Ponty un accès à quelque chose comparable à une substance fantasmatique commune, une commune consistance métamorphique de l’être, que le biologiste tout comme l’homme de lettres ou le psychanalyste travailleraient par les écritures et les catégories qui leur sont propres. Mais ici émerge aussi une question majeure. Jusqu’à quel point le langage de Proust se révèle-t-il à la hauteur de l’entreprise d’écrire le fantasme, jusqu’à quel point arrive-t-il à repondre à ce défi, que Merleau-Ponty le voit gagner? De quelle manière les limites de son langage, qui sont peut-être les limites du langage même, sont-ils un obstacle à son projet? Et qu’est-ce qui permet parfois aux sciences de s’engager dans cette voie en obtenant un succès plus sûr? Si c’était précisément la structure de la métaphore qui empêchait Proust d’écrire vraiment l’empiètement, et la dimension de la métonymie était au contraire celle dans laquelle un certain discours scientifique arrive à s’installer d’emblée? Si, finalement et plutôt, la métonymie était le coeur même de la métaphore, effleuré, avec plus ou moins de succès, par l’une ou l’autre des écritures « régionales » du fantasme?This article examines the place of literature in the ensemble of Merleau-Ponty’s research, comparing the function it fills in the economy of his thought to the role other practices and other disciplines such as biology and psychology play in his philosophy. Each of these “discourses” offered Merleau-Ponty access to something comparable to a common phantasmatic substance, a common metaphorical stability of Being, that the biologist, the writer, and the psychoanalyst work on, each in their own writings and categories. But here emerges also a major question. To what extent does the language of Proust reveal itself up to the task of writing the phantasm, to what extent does it respond to this challenge? In what manner are the limits of his language, which are perhaps the limits of language itself, an obstacle to his project? And what is it that permits, at times, the sciences to obtain greater success in engaging in this way? Was it precisely the structure of metaphor that hindered Proust in truly writing encroachment, and the dimension of metonymy was, on the contrary, that in which a certain scientific discourse succeeded at setting itself up on the first try? If, finally and especially, metonymy was the very heart of metaphor, with more or less success touched by one or the other of the “regional” writings of the phantasm? (shrink)

This paper investigates the role of literature and, in particular, Proust in Merleau-Ponty’s late works’ rehabilitation of the ontology of the sensible. First, I trace Proust’s role in Phenomenology of Percpetion, contrasting it with the somewhat more paradigmatic status as a model it plays in the late works. Second, I compare this with the role of the novel as partial myth in Schelling, who also played an essential role in Merleau-Ponty’s refiguration of the sensible. I briefly trace his examination of (...) the historical or “sociological meaning” of literature through works of the fifties, beginning with his Collège de France candidacy proposal and continuing through his examination of the rationality of modern disenchantment or dépoétization in the Adventures of the Dialectic. Finally, discussing the late analysis of Proust against this backdrop, I conclude with considerations concerning the relevance of Merleau-Ponty’s overall analysis of Proust both in his thought and contemporary literary criticism and philosophy more generally. Cet article examine le rôle de la littérature et, en particulier, celui de Proust, dans la réhabilitation ontologique du sensible qui se trame dans les derniers écrits de Merleau-Ponty. En premier lieu, je retracerai le rôle de Proust dans la Phénoménologie de la perception, en l’opposant au statut quelque peu plus paradigmatique, comme s’il s’agissait d’un modèle, qu’il joue dans le dernier Merleau-Ponty. Deuxièmement, je comparerai cela avec la fonction du roman conçu comme un mythe incomplet chez Schelling, qui a aussi joué un rôle essentiel dans la reconfiguration du sensible chez Merleau-Ponty. Je décrirai brièvement son analyse de la « signification sociologique » ou historique de la littérature à travers des oeuvres des années ’50, en me penchant, d’abord, sur sa candidature au Collège de France, et, ensuite, sur son étude de la rationalité du désenchantement moderne ou dépoétisation dans les Aventures de la dialectique. Finalement, en examinant les dernières analyses de Proust à partir de ces prémisses, je conclurai avec des considérations sur l’intérêt de l’ensemble de l’analyse que Merleau-Ponty fait de Proust à la fois pour sa pensée, pour la critique littéraire contemporaine et, plus généralement, pour la philosophie.Il presente articolo indaga il ruolo della letteratura e, in particolare, di Proust nella riabilitazione ontologica del sensibile negli ultimi scritti di Merleau-Ponty. In primo luogo, si delinea il ruolo di Proust nella Fenomenologia della percezione, contrapponendolo, in qualche modo, allo statuto paradigmatico di modello che l’autore riveste nei lavori dell’ultimo Merleau-Ponty. In secondo luogo, si confronta questo con il ruolo del romanzo come mito parziale in Schelling, che pure ha giocato una parte essenziale nella rifigurazione del sensibile in Merleau-Ponty. Si articolerà brevemente il significato storico o sociologico della letteratura attraverso gli scritti degli anni Cinquanta, a partire dalla proposta di candidatura di Merleau-Ponty al Collège de France e proseguendo mediante il suo esame della razionalità del disincanto moderno o depoetizzazione ne Le avventure della dialettica. Infine, esaminando l’ultima lettura di Proust a partire da queste analisi, propongo una considerazione riguardo alla rilevanza complessiva dell’autore della Recherche nella riflessione di Merleau-Ponty e, più in generale, nella critica letteraria e nella filosofia contemporanee. (shrink)

Le commentaire que propose Merleau-Ponty de L’origine de la géométrie de Husserl en 1960 accorde une place privilégiée au langage, à l’écrit : l’étonnement peut être grand de voir Merleau-Ponty, dans la continuité de Husserl, penser la genèse de l’idéalité géométrique à partir d’une méditation sur la littérature. La réflexion de Merleau-Ponty sur la littérature a pris un tour ontologique décisif au début des années cinquante, dans le long commentaire de Proust notamment en 1953-1954. C’est dans cet esprit que le (...) cours de 1960 accorde à la littérature un sens ontologique : l’idéalité géométrique ne peut advenir comme idéalité que par passage à la parole et à l’écrit, mais le sens même de l’idéalité scientifique ne peut se comprendre que si on la replace sur fond d’idéalités plus fondamentales que la littérature précisément dévoile, idéalités qui se nouent à travers le temps, dans le lien entre le passé et le présent, moi et l’autre. La littérature éclaire l’histoire de la géométrie d’une autre manière encore : elle met au jour l’entrelacement homme-langage-monde, condition d’émergence d’un sens vrai, qui advient dans l’histoire de la géométrie, et que la littérature, assumant notre être de parole, porte plus fondamentalement encore.The commentary Merleau-Ponty offers in 1960 on Husserl’s The Origin of Geometry gives a privileged place to language, to writing: it is perhaps a great astonishment to see Merleau-Ponty, in continuity with Husserl, thinking about the genesis of geometrical ideality beginning from a meditation on literature. Merleau-Ponty’s reflection on literature took a decisive ontological turn at the beginning of the 1950s, notably in the long commentary on Proust in 1953-1954. It is in this spirit that the course of 1960 grants to literature an ontological sense: the ideality of geometry can occur as ideality by the passage to speech and to writing, but the meaning of even scientific ideality can be understood only if one places it on the basis of more fundamental idealities that literature precisely reveals, idealities that are linked across time, in the connection between past and present, self and other. Literature clarifies the history of geometry in yet another manner: it brings to light the intertwining of human-language-world, condition of the emergence of a true sense, which occurs in the history of geometry, and which literature, assuming our being in speech bears more fundamentally still.Il commento de L’origine della geometria di Husserl proposto da Merleau-Ponty nel 1960 accorda un posto privilegiato al linguaggio, alla scrittura. Ci si potrebbe stupire del fatto che Merleau-Ponty, nel solco di Husserl, pensi l’idealità geometrica a partire da una riflessione sulla letteratura. Il pensiero di Merleau-Ponty sulla letteratura ha assunto un’inflessione ontologica decisiva all’inizio degli anni Cinquanta, in particolare nel lungo commento a Proust del 1953-1954. È proprio prolungando questa linea che il corso del 1960 attribuisce alla letteratura un senso ontologico: l’idealità geometrica diviene idealità proprio nel passaggio dalla parola allo scritto, ma il senso stesso dell’idealità scientifica può essere compreso solo se ricollochiamo quest’ultima su quello sfondo di idealità più fondamentali che la letteratura ci rivela, idealità che si instaurano attraverso il tempo, nel legame tra il passato e il presente, l’io e l’altro. Infine, è in un altro modo ancora che la letteratura illumina la storia della geometria: essa ci consente di illuminare l’intreccio uomo-linguaggio-mondo, condizione di emergenza di un senso vero, che si attesta nella storia della geometria e che la letteratura, in quanto essa assume il nostro essere già da sempre implicati con la parola, reca con sé in modo ancora più fondamentale. (shrink)

Avec son livre La machine sensible, Stefan Kristensen réalise, de façon magistrale, deux objectifs. D’abord, il met en lien la pensée de deux philosophes qui sont à première vue très éloignés l’un de l’autre. Il s’agit de Félix Guattari et de Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Traditionnellement, Merleau-Ponty est considéré comme le philosophe du corps, tandis que Guattari est connu comme le philosophe du corps sans organes. Merleau-Ponty est un phénoménologue, tandis que Guattari prétend abandonner le point de vue du sujet. Kristensen démontre (...) avec succès quel est le terrain commun des deux auteurs : la critique de la conception psychanalytique du sujet.Le deuxième objectif du livre découle directement du premier : présenter au lecteur une alternative à la conception intimiste de la subjectivité, soit comprendre la subjectivité comme fondamentalement parcourue par une altérité. Merleau-Ponty a été l’un des premiers, à l’instar de Paul Schilder, à mettre l’accent sur le caractère collectif et intersubjectif de cette altérité. Guattari a compris que cette altérité possède des sédiments politiques et historiques.With his book La machine sensible, Stefan Kristensen accomplishes two goals in a masterly way. First, he links the works of two philosophers who are very different at first sight: Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Félix Guattari. Traditionally, Merleau-Ponty is considered the philosopher of the body, whereas Guattari is known as the philosopher of the body without organs. Merleau-Ponty is a phenomenologist, whereas Guattari pretends to abandon the point of view of the subject. Kristensen identifies the common ground of the two authors: the criticism of the psychoanalytical conception of the subject.The second goal of the book derives directly from the first: present the reader with an alternative for the intimate conception of subjectivity, that is, present him or her with the idea that subjectivity is always characterized by an alterity. Merleau-Ponty, following the example of Paul Schilder, has been one of the first to stress the collective and intersubjective nature of this alterity. Guattari has understood that this alterity has political and historical sediments.Con il suo libro La machine sensible, Stefan Kristensen realizza magistralmente due obiettivi. Innanzitutto, egli mette in relazione il pensiero di due filosofi a prima vista molto distanti tra loro: Félix Guattari e Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Se tradizionalmente Merleau-Ponty è considerato il filosofo del corpo, Guattari è invece noto come il filosofo del corpo senza organi. Merleau-Ponty è un fenomenologo, mentre il pensiero di Guattari intende abbandonare il punto di vista del soggetto. Kristensen propone allora di leggere la critica della concezione psicoanalitica del soggetto come terreno comune tra i due autori. Il secondo obiettivo del libro discende direttamente dal primo: presentare al lettore un’alternativa alla concezione intimista della soggettività, ovvero concepire la soggettività come fondamentalmente percorsa da un’alterità. Merleau-Ponty è tra i primi, sulla scorta di Paul Schilder, a porre l’accento sul carattere collettivo e intersoggettivo di questa alterità. Dal canto suo, Guattari ha compreso che questa alterità possiede dei sedimenti politici e storici. (shrink)

Tout le trajet de la pensée de Merleau-Ponty est traversé – en certains cas de manière plus évidente que d’autres – par ce que je propose de définir comme une idée de la littérature et de la philosophie en tant que dispositifs de vision, pour utiliser une expression qui est née – et ce n’est pas un hasard – dans le domaine des études cinématographiques. Plus précisément, je voudrais montrer que Merleau-Ponty voit la littérature et la philosophie de son époque (...) opérer comme des dispositifs de vision convergents, vision qui est à considérer, à son tour, comme une pratique corporelle et pas seulement oculaire. Cela dit, il faut souligner que de tels dispositifs visuels convergents ont la particularité de fonctionner avec les mots, et que Merleau-Ponty met l’accent sur leur différente efficacité à exprimer son époque. De plus, je pense que l’idée implicite de la philosophie en tant que dispositif de vision opérant par des mots « comme toute la littérature » a une place importante, mais pour l’instant pas assez développée, dans la dernière période de la pensée de Merleau-Ponty. En outre, je voudrais souligner qu’une telle perspective est cruciale aussi pour notre époque, bien que je crois qu’elle soit différente de celle de Merleau-Ponty. En effet, je pense que notre époque et celle de Merleau-Ponty sont toutes deux caractérisées par une tension entre l’importance croissante des images et la centralité traditionnelle du concept dans notre culture.The whole path of Merleau-Ponty’s thought is crossed – some times more evidently than others – by what I propose to qualify as the idea of literature and philosophy as visual apparatuses, to use an expression that was born – and not by chance – in the field of Film Studies. More precisely, I aim at asserting that Merleau-Ponty sees literature and philosophy working in his epoch as convergent apparatuses of vision, in turn understood as a bodily and not merely ocular practice. Immediately after that, I should specify that such convergent visual apparatuses peculiarly function by words, and that Merleau-Ponty stresses their different efficiency in expressing his epoch.Moreover, I think that the implicit idea of philosophy as a visual apparatus working by words “like all literature” has a particularly relevant but so far not consequently developed place in in the last period of Merleau-Ponty’s thought. Also, I would like to stress that such a perspective is crucial in our own time too, even though I consider it to be different from Merleau-Ponty’s. Indeed, I think that both our time and Merleau-Ponty’s are characterized by a tension between the increasing importance of images and the traditional centrality of the concept in our culture.L’intero percorso del pensiero di Merleau-Ponty è attraversato, in certi casi in modo più evidente, da quella che propongo di definire come un’idea di letteratura e di filosofia come dispositivi di visione, per usare un’espressione nata, non a caso, nell’ambito dei Film Studies. Più precisamente, vorrei mostrare come Merleau-Ponty concepisca la letteratura e la filosofia della sua epoca come dispositivi di visione convergenti, intesi come una pratica corporea e non già meramente ottica. Specificherò, poi, che tali dispositivi di visione convergenti operano attraverso la parola e che Merleau-Ponty sottolinea la loro diversa efficacia nell’esprimere la sua epoca. Ritengo inoltre che l’idea implicita di filosofia come dispositivo di visione che agisce tramite la parola, “come tutta la letteratura”, occupi un posto particolarmente decisivo, anche se non del tutto esplicitato, nell’ultimo periodo del pensiero di Merleau-Ponty. Vorrei poi mostrare come tale prospettiva si riveli cruciale anche nel nostro tempo, per quanto diverso rispetto a quello di Merleau-Ponty. Infatti, penso che tanto la nostra epoca quanto quella di Merleau-Ponty siano caratterizzate da una tensione tra l’importanza sempre crescente delle immagini e la tradizionale centralità riservata al concetto nella nostra cultura. (shrink)