Research in Phenomenology 45 (1):33-52 (2015)

Annabelle Dufourcq
Radboud University Nijmegen
The common opposition between the imaginary and the real prevents us from genuinely understanding either one. Indeed, the imaginary embodies a certain intuitive presence of the thing and not an empty signitive intention. Moreover it is able to compete with perception and even to offer an increased presence, a sur-real display, of the things, as shown by Merleau-Ponty’s analyses of art in Eye and Mind. As a result, we have to overcome the conception according to which the imaginary field is a mere figment of my imagination, a mental entity that I could still possess in the very absence of its object. On the other hand, the presence of reality is never complete or solid: “The transcendence of the far-off encroaches upon my present and brings a hint of unreality even into the experiences with which I believe myself to coincide.” Therefore, first, the imaginary has to be redefined as a special hovering modality of the presence of the beings themselves. Second and furthermore: is not the imaginary always intertwined with perception? Merleau-Ponty advocates the puzzling thesis that there is an “imaginary texture of the real.” What is the meaning of this assertion? To what extent will it be able to blur the classical categories without arousing confusion? Can we avoid reducing reality to illusion? Lastly, consistently followed, this reflection leads as far as to discover, in the imaginary mode of being, an ontological model, the canon enabling Merleau-Ponty to think Being, an “Oneiric Being.” Thus we will venture the apparently paradoxical contention that the imaginary is the fundamental dimension of the real. The notion of “fundament” becomes indeed problematic and receives an ironical connotation, however this is precisely what is at stake in a non-positivist ontology. Existence “lies” in a ghost-like, sketchy and unsubstantial ground, in a restlessly creative being that is open to creative interpretations. And there it finds the principle of the ever-recurring crisis that both tears it apart and makes it rich in future promise.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1163/15691640-12341301
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,091
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Image and Ontology in Merleau-Ponty.Trevor Perri - 2013 - Continental Philosophy Review 46 (1):75-97.
Merleau-Ponty's Concept of Depth.Anthony J. Steinbock - 1987 - Philosophy Today 31 (4):336-351.
Body.David Morris - 2008 - In Rosalyn Diprose & Jack Reynolds (eds.), Merleau-ponty: Key Concepts. Acumen Publishing. pp. 111-120.
Cezanne's Eye and Merleau-Ponty's Spirit.M. Holubova - 2001 - Filozofia 56 (7):474-484.
Merleau-Ponty's Hegelianism.Christopher Paul Nagel - 1996 - Dissertation, Duquesne University
Time and Ambiguity: Reassessing Merleau-Ponty on Sartrean Freedom.William Wilkerson - 2010 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 48 (2):pp. 207-234.


Added to PP index

Total views
25 ( #455,559 of 2,506,153 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #209,711 of 2,506,153 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes