Skip to main content
Log in

Beyond Cartesianism: Body-perception and the immediacy of empathy

  • Published:
Continental Philosophy Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current debates dealing with empathy, social cognition, and the problem of other minds widely accept the assumption that, whereas we can directly perceive the other’s body, certain additional mental operations are needed in order to access the contents of the other’s mind. Body-perception has, in other words, been understood as something that merely mediates our experience of other minds and requires no philosophical analysis in itself. The available accounts have accordingly seen their main task as pinpointing the operations and mechanisms that enable us to move beyond body-perception—and here acts such as inference, simulation, and projection have usually been the main candidates. This whole setting, however, seems to rely on a somewhat Cartesian assumption, according to which body-perception fundamentally amounts to the perception of a material thing, res extensa, starting from which we then strive to grasp the other as a res cogitans. Insofar as one begins with the question of how we can discover and understand mindedness in things that cannot be directly perceived as minded, the Cartesian setting is already taken for granted—and this is, in fact, exactly what most of the available proposals seem to be doing. From a phenomenological point of view, the Cartesian setting is untenable and seriously misleads the whole debate. The present article reassesses the role and status of body-perception in empathy. Making use of the Husserlian theory of expressivity in particular, the article engages a phenomenological framework of analysis, challenges the above-mentioned assumption concerning the nature of body-perception, and argues for the immediate nature of empathy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See, e.g., Overgaard (2007), Ratcliffe (2007), Gallagher (2008), Zahavi (2008, 2011).

  2. Husserl, for instance, has sometimes been situated in the simulationist camp—such parallels have been drawn by Gallese and others (see Gallese 2003, 2005; Gallese et al. 2004; Petit 1999; Ratcliffe 2006; Thompson 2001).

  3. Schlossberger (2005, p. 140).

  4. De Preester (2008, pp. 136, 141–142); cf. Costello (2012, p. 38).

  5. In this connection, I will accordingly not be discussing the problems of “mediated immediacy,” developed especially by Plessner and others (see Plessner 1982). For an account dealing with one point of intersection between these topics, see Breyer (2012).

  6. Hua XV, 12.

  7. Hua I, 139.

  8. Hua XIII, 373.

  9. Hua IV, 198.

  10. Hua IV, 200.

  11. Hua IV, 375.

  12. Hua XV, 41.

  13. Hua I, 144; Hua XV, 631.

  14. Hua XI, 240.

  15. Hua XV, 471.

  16. Hua XXXIX, 93.

  17. Hua XXII, 70.

  18. See Hua XIV, 336.

  19. Hua XV, 641.

  20. Hua XIX/1, 32ff.

  21. Husserl initially introduces the concept of expression exclusively in connection to verbal language, but he later on extends it to also cover bodily gestures (see Bernet 1988; Zahavi 2007; Heinämaa 2010). At least from 1913 onwards, Husserl thinks that considering a body as an indication of another subjectivity already presupposes grasping the body as an expression of the other—this is already clear at least in the supplementary volume to the Logical Investigations, where Husserl clearly associates embodiment with expressivity, formulating his ideas in ways that anticipate Merleau-Ponty’s later reflections: “[I]n a peculiar manner, bodiliness generally speaking is ‘expression’” (Hua XXII, 69) and, so, when “I see another human being, I ‘understand’ his countenances in a certain manner, as the ‘expression’ of anger, etc. In his countenances I ‘look at’ the anger” (Hua XXII, 188; my emphasis).

  22. Hua IV, 236.

  23. Hua XIX/1, 41–42.

  24. See Hua IV, 239.

  25. Cf. Hua III/1, Sect. 111.

  26. Merleau-Ponty (2002, p. 466).

  27. Such characterizations would also enable a possibly rewarding comparison between empathy and art-perception. Instead of engaging with this broad topic in this connection, I will present a quotation from Merleau-Ponty that motivates the comparison: “I would be at great pains to say where the painting is I am looking at. For I do not look at it as I look at things; I do not fix its place. My gaze wanders in it as in the halos of being. It is more accurate to say that I see according to it, or with it, rather than ‘I see it’“(Merleau-Ponty 1964, 164).

  28. Again, this is another feature that motivates comparing empathy with art-perception, since Husserl goes on to say that (as in empathy) “in pictorial presentation, [the meaning regard] is pointed toward the image” (Hua XXII, 34).

  29. Hua XIX/1, 42.

  30. Hua IV, 238.

  31. Hua IV, 240.

  32. Hua IV, 240.

  33. Hua XXII, 190; cf. Hua IV, 244.

  34. See Hua XIX/1, 42.

  35. Hua IV, 347.

  36. Hua IV, 234.

  37. Hua IV, 246–7; cf. 245.

  38. Hua IV, 245.

  39. Merleau-Ponty (1963, p. 156).

  40. Hua IV, 237; cf. Hua IV, 340; Hua XIV, 491.

  41. See Hua XIX/1, 282 and 284ff.

  42. Hua XIX/1, 239.

  43. Hua XIX/1, 244.

  44. Husserl clarifies: “This fusion is not a matter of fading into one another, neither in the sense of continuity nor in the sense of removing all separateness; but it is nonetheless a sort of peculiarly intimate mutual interconnection which necessarily and with one stroke sets the whole complex of interpenetrating moments into relief, as soon as even one single discontinuous moment has provided the right conditions” (Hua XIX/1, 251).

  45. Hua XIX/1, 185–186.

  46. Zahavi (2007, p. 32).

  47. Hua IV, 240.

  48. Hua IV, 236.

  49. Hua IV, 244.

  50. Hua IV, 246.

  51. For places where Husserl himself says this rather explicitly, see Hua XIV, 283; Hua XV, 271.

  52. I have examined these notions in Taipale (2012, 2014, 2015).

References

  • Bernet, R. 1988. Husserl’s theory of signs revisited. In Husserl and the phenomenological tradition. Essays in phenomenology, ed. R. Sokolowski, 1–24. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.

  • Breyer, T. 2012. Helmuth Plessner und die Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität. Bulletin d’analyse phénoménologique VIII 4:1–18.

  • Costello, P. 2012. Layers in Husserl’s phenomenology. On meaning and intersubjectivity. Toronto: Toronto University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Preester, H. 2008. From ego to Alter ego: Husserl, Merleau-ponty and a layered approach to intersubjectivity. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 7(1): 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S. 2008. Direct perception in the intersubjective context. Consciousness and Cognition 17: 535–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallese, V. 2003. The Roots of empathy: The shared manifold hypothesis and the neural basis of intersubjectivity. Psychopathology 36: 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallese, V. 2005. Embodied simulation: From neurons to phenomenal experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 4: 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallese, V., C. Keysers, and G. Rizzolatti. 2004. A unifying view of the basis of social cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(9): 396–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinämaa, S. 2010. Embodiment and expressivity in Husserl’s phenomenology: From logical investigations to Cartesian meditations. SATS 11: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, E., and Hua I. 1950. Cartesianische Meditationen und Pariser Vorträge, by Stephan Strasser. Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.

  • Husserl, E., and Hua III/1. 1950. Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologische Philosophie. Erstes Buch: Allgemeine Einführung in die reine Phänomenologie, by Karl Schuhmann. Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.

  • Husserl, E., and Hua IV. 1952. Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologische Philosophie. Zweiter Buch: Phänomenologische Untersuchungen zur Konstitution, by Marly Biemel. Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.

  • Husserl, E., and Hua XI. 1966. Analysen zur passiven Synthesis. Aus Vorlesungs- und Forschungsmanuskripten, 19181926, by Margot Fleischer. Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.

  • Husserl, E., and Hua XIV. 1973. Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität. Texte aus dem Nachlass. Zweiter Teil: 19211928, by Iso Kern. Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.

  • Husserl, E., and Hua XV. 1973. Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität. Texte aus dem Nachlass. Dritter Teil: 19291935, by Iso Kern. Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.

  • Husserl, E., and Hua XIX/1. 1984. Logische Untersuchungen. Zweiter Teil. Untersuchungen zur Phänomenologie und Theorie der Erkenntnis, by Ursula Panzer. Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.

  • Husserl, E., and Hua XXII. 1979. Aufsätze und Rezensionen (18901910) [Articles/essays and reviews (1890-1910).], by B. Rang. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

  • Husserl, E., and Hua XXIII. 1980. Phantasie, Bildbewusstsein, Erinnerung. Zur Phänomenologie der anschaulichen Vergegenwärtigungen. Texte aus dem Nachlass (18981925), by Eduard Marbach. Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.

  • Husserl, E., and Hua XXXIX. 2008. Die Lebenswelt. Auslegungen der vorgegebenen Welt und ihrer Konstitution. Texte aus dem Nachlass (19161937), by Rochus Sowa. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. 1963. The structure of behavior (trans: Fisher, A.). Boston: Beacon Press.

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. 1964. Primacy of perception. And other essays on phenomenological psychology, the philosophy of art, history and politics, by James Edie (trans: Carleton Dallary). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. 2002. Phenomenology of perception (trans: Colin, S.). London: Routledge.

  • Overgaard, S. 2007. Wittgenstein and other minds: Rethinking subjectivity and intersubjectivity with Wittgenstein, Levinas, and Husserl. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit, J.-L. 1999. Constitution by movement: Husserl in light of recent neurobiological findings. In Naturalizing phenomenology, ed. J. Petitot, F. Varela, B. Pachoud, and J.-M. Roy, 220–244. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plessner, H. 1982. Ausdruck und menschliche Natur. Gesammelte Schriften VII. ed. by Günter Dux, Odo Marquard, Elisabeth Ströker et al. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

  • Ratcliffe, M. 2006. Phenomenology, neuroscience, and intersubjectivity. In A companion to phenomenology and existentialism, ed. H.L. Dreyfus, and M.A. Wrathall, 329–345. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, M. 2007. Rethinking commonsense psychology. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlossberger, M. 2005. Die Erfahrung Des Anderen: Gefuhle Im Menschlichen Miteinander. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taipale, J. 2012. Twofold normality. Husserl and the normative relevance of primordial constitution. Husserl Studies 28(1): 49–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taipale, J. 2014. Phenomenology and Embodiment. Husserl and the Constitution of Subjectivity. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

  • Taipale, J. 2015. Similarity and asymmetry. Husserl and the transcendental foundations of empathy. Phänomenologische Forschungen. (Forthcoming).

  • Thompson, E. 2001. Empathy and consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8(5–7): 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi, D. 2008. Simulation, projection and empathy. Consciousness and Cognition 17: 514–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi, D. 2011. Empathy and direct social perception. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2(3): 541–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi, D. 2007. Empathy and expression. In Folk psychology re-assessed, ed. D. Hutto, and M. Ratcliffe, 25–40. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joona Taipale.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taipale, J. Beyond Cartesianism: Body-perception and the immediacy of empathy. Cont Philos Rev 48, 161–178 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-015-9327-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-015-9327-3

Keywords

Navigation