Displaying: 41-60 of 1066 documents

0.195 sec

41. Chiasmi International: Volume > 13
Stella Maranesi Merleau-Ponty, Varela, Nagarjuna. Una Triangolazione Possibile
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Merleau-Ponty, Varela, Nagarjuna. Une triangulation possibleDans cet article, on voudrait mettre en évidence une triangulation possible entre Maurice Merleau-Ponty, le biologiste chilien Francisco Varela et le philosophebouddhiste de l’Antiquité Nagarjuna. L’objectif de cette perspective réside dans l’urgence d’une étude de la dynamique du réel, et même de la sensibilité en général.Dans The Embodied Mind, le « projet neuro-phénoménologique » et « l’urgence énactive » de Varela se joignent à la pratique bouddhiste Mahayana de Nagarjuna, à laquelle le biologiste consacre une grande partie de son oeuvre. Ce rapprochement révèle l’intérêt de Varela pour l’ontologie bouddhiste, non substantielle et permanente, ce qui, non seulement le conduit jusqu’aux ultimes conséquences de la chair merleaupontienne, mais accroît aussi sa compréhension de la signification de cette chair.Dans les années précédant le développement de son ontologie, Merleau-Ponty se consacre à l’anthologie intitulée Les philosophes célèbres et décide d’y inclure un chapitre sur la philosophie orientale. Il y montre la nécessité d’un retour à l’Orient en tant qu’il a souvent été le précurseur et le « résonateur de notre rapport avec l’être ». Le présent travail se demande à quoi Merleau-Ponty fait allusion quand il nous invite « à mesurer les possibilités que nous nous sommes fermés en devenant ‘‘occidentaux’’ et, peut-être, à les rouvrir », afin d’établir la possibilité d’une convergence entre la chair, la constitution bouddhiste de la réalité et le projet énactif varélien.Merleau-Ponty, Varela, Nagarjuna. A Possible TriangulationIn this article, we would like to bring to light a possible triangulation between Maurice Merleau-Ponty, the Chilean biologist, Francisco Varela, and the ancientBuddhist philosopher, Nagarjuna. The purpose of doing this lies in the urgency of a study of the dynamic of the real and even of the sensible in general.In The Embodied Mind, Varela’s “neuro-phenomenological project” and the “enactive urgency” are joined to the Nagarjuna’s Mahayana Buddhist practice, to which the biologist devotes a large part of this work. This intersection reveals Varela’s interest in Buddhist ontology, an ontology that is non-substantialist and permanent. It leads not only to the ultimate consequences of Merleau-Ponty’s idea of the flesh, but also it adds its way of understanding to the significance of this flesh.In the years preceding the development of his ontology, Merleau-Ponty devoted himself to the anthology called Les philosophes célèbres. He decides to include in it a chapter on oriental philosophy. He shows there the necessity of a return to the Orient insofar as the East has often been the precursor and the “resonator of our relation to being.” The present work asks to what is Merleau-Ponty alluding when he invites us “to take stock of the possibilities in which we are enclosed by becoming ‘Western’ and perhaps we should reopen these possibilities” in order to establish the possibility of a convergence between the flesh, the Buddhist constitution of reality, and Varela’s enactive project.
42. Chiasmi International: Volume > 13
Marta Nijhuis Specchio, Specchio Delle Mie Brame: Sulla soglia della reversibilità, l’ardore libidico delle immagini
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Miroir, miroir de mes désirsAu seuil de la réversibilité, la libido ardente des imagesEn parcourant les perspectives de Lacan, Merleau-Ponty et Deleuze, je me propose de montrer comment l’image – une image dont le rôle, depuis Platon, a été réduit par la métaphysique occidentale à celui de simple copie – rend possible une pensée nouvelle non dualiste, une pensée ouverte par le désir, c’est-à-dire par ce qui dépasse tout dualisme simpliste et qui trouve dans l’image sa voie privilégiée.L’image du miroir – considérée par le platonisme comme le simulacre par excellence, comme l’emblème de la copie déformante et trompeuse d’un modèle originaire harmonieux – donne à voir bien plus qu’elle ne nous montre : comme Lacan le remarquait dans son célèbre essai de 1949, devant le miroir, nous nous découvrons, comme les enfants, sujets du monde, mais aussi, inévitablement, sujets au monde. Le «je» – dont nous sommes in-formés par l’image du miroir – s’abîme, par cette même image, dans les l’inquiétante étrangété de l’autre, et par suite dans les gorges insondables de son désir. Si l’image du miroir nous permet d’embrasser la totalité de notre corps et d’apprécier en un regard notre statut de sujet, ce regard nous est toutefois restitué – aveugle et insistant – sous la forme d’un objet partiel (objet a) qui nous interpelle comme sujets désubjectivés, comme sujets castrés, ou encore comme simples « taches » dans lapeinture du monde. L’image fixée par l’enfant dans le miroir fonde, paradoxalement, l’idée traditionnelle du sujet comme pôle dynamique de la relation je-monde. Comme le remarque Slavoj Žižek, en commentant Lacan, la capacité dynamique du sujet se fonde en somme sur une fixation excessive de l’image du sujet lui-même, fixation qui trouve son origine absente dans le regard entendu comme objet a, c’est-à-dire comme point aveugle de la conscience, lieu d’acquisition et de perte qui, par la castration du sujet, ouvre la plaie libidineuse et pulsionnelle de l’inconscient et renverse par là le désir de l’homme en désir de l’autre, comme le rappelle une célèbre formule de Lacan.Longtemps considérées comme porteuses d’illusions, comme l’illusion en tant que telle, les images nous montrent en fait la vérité de cette illusion : le monde est déformation et réversibilité, et nous-mêmes, prétendus sujets faisant face à son tableau inerte, n’en sommes que des taches. Au cours des mêmes années durant lesquelles Lacan élabore une théorie du regard, Merleau-Ponty, son interlocuteur direct – qui se réfère lui aussi au comportement de l’enfant devant le miroir – réfléchit sur la question du « en-être », c’est-à-dire de la réversibilité de la chair, ce tissu de différences qui nous constitue – les animaux et les choses – comme autant de plis d’un horizon commun. Pour Merleau-Ponty comme pour Lacan, dans une telle perspective, le sujet ne se défi nit pas positivement, mais comme écart par rapport à lui-même, comme coupure dans la peau de la conscience, comme plaie ouverte sur l’inconscient et sur le désir qui en jaillit abondamment. Ainsi, voir dans le miroir que, comme disait le poète, « je est un autre », implique que l’image soit libérée de son statut dévalorisant de « seconde chose » hérité du platonisme. Cela inaugure, en fait, une pensée sans dualisme. Gilles Deleuze travaillera lui aussi dans ce sens, lorsqu’il théorisera un renversement du platonisme à partir des images, dans son essai de 1966 Renverser le platonisme.Historiquement, le commencement de la philosophie a coïncidé avec la recherche d’une origine, d’une archè. Mais un monde où les relations nées du désir tracent des itinéraires imprévisibles, où le je et l’autre ne se distinguent plus, où sujet et objet ne connaissent plus de frontière, où la copie cesse de présupposer le modèle, un monde ainsi fait, a-t-il encore une origine accessible ? Confronté à cette question essentielle, Merleau-Ponty théorisera – une fois encore à partir de la vision –, au lieu d’une origine en soi préétablie, un originaire en perpétuelle explosion. De son côté, Deleuze élaborera quelque chose d’analogue, à partir de la réflexion sur le cinéma qui l’occupera dans les années 1980 : il « encapsulera » les extases temporelles dans une image-miroir, une concrétion cristalline à plusieurs facettes où le monde se différencie sans cesse, dans un éternel retour.Mirror, Mirror of my DesiresOn the Threshold of Reversibility, the libidic Passion of ImagesIn a journey through the perspectives of Lacan, Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze, I shall show how images – the images that from Plato on have been relegated by Western metaphysics to the role of mere copies – allow us to trace the direction of a new and non-dualistic thought, a direction opened up by desire, that is to say, by something exceeding any simplistic dualism and fi nding precisely in images its privileged channel.The specular image – conceived by Platonism as the simulacrum par excellence, as the emblem of the deforming, deceiving copy of a harmonious preliminarymodel – makes us see more than it actually shows: as Lacan remarked in a renowned essay published in 1949, since childhood, in front of the mirror, we discover ourselves as subjects of the world, but also – and inevitably – as subjected to the world. The ego – of which we are in-formed by the specular image – is turned, through that very image, into the obscure, uncanny chasm of the other, and, consequently, in the unfathomable vortex of the other’s desire. Indeed, if in the mirror we can embrace the whole of our body and catch with a single gaze its status of subject, by the mirror that very gaze is however returned – blind and insistent – as a partial object (objet a) summoning us as desubjectivized subjects, as castrated subjects ($), namely, as mere “stains” in the picture of the world. Quite paradoxically, the image fixed by the child in the mirror founds the traditional idea of the subject conceived as the dinamic pole of the relation between the ego and the world. In short, as Slavoj Žižek remarks commenting on Lacan, the dinamic capability of the subject is grounded on an excessive fixation of the image of the subject itself, fixation which finds its absent origin in the gaze meant as object a, namely, meant as that blind point of consciousness, that point of acquisition and loss which, by castrating the subject, opens the acies of the libidically throbbing wound of the unconscious and turns, to borrow a renowed Lacanian expression, man’s desire into the other’s desire.For long considered to herald illusions, images show us the truth of illusion itself: the world is deformation and reversibility and we – presumed subjects in front of its inert picture – are, on the contrary, its “stains.” In the same years in which Lacan was elaborating a theory of gaze, Merleau-Ponty, who was then a direct interlocutor of his, was articulating – by referring, as Lacan did, to the child’s behaviour in front of the mirror – a series of important reflections over the problem of the en-être, that is to say, over the problem of the reversibility of flesh, i. e., that differential fabric constituting us – animals and things – as variegated gatherings of a common horizon. For Merleau-Ponty, as well as for Lacan, according to such a perspective, the subject, far from being defined in a positive way, is defined by a gap in relation with its own self, that is to say, by a cut in the skin of consciousness, by a wound opening to the unconscious and to the desire spurting abundantly from the subconscious.To see in the mirror that, as the poet said, “I am an Other,” is to free images from the status of “second things” with which Platonism had dismissed them; it is, in other words, to inaugurate a non-dualistic thought. For his part, Deleuze will also engage in the same direction by theorizing a reversing of Platonism from the very standpoint of images in his 1966 essay Renverser le platonisme.The beginning of philosophy has historically matched with the search for an origin, namely, an arké. But in a world in which the relations inaugurated by desire trace unpredictable itineraries, in a world in which the ego and the other can no longer be distinguished, in a world in which the subject and the object know no more boundary lines, in a world in which model and copy cease to exist as the presupposition of one another, in such a world, I said, is it still possible to find an origin? By measuring himself with such a crucial question, Merleau-Ponty will theorize – once again from the standpoint of vision – an “originating in perennial explosion” instead of a narrow, pregiven origin. For his part, Deleuze will elaborate something similar (similar in a Deleuzian way, of course, that is to say, similar from the standpoint of a basic difference) in his reflection on cinema, which will keep him busy in the first half of the eighties, by capsulating the temporal dimensions in a mirror-image, i. e., a crystalline concretion in whose facets the world perennially becomes in an eternal differential return.
43. Chiasmi International: Volume > 13
Isabelle Thomas-Fogiel Merleau-Ponty: De La Perspective Au Chiasme, La Rigueur Épistémique D’Une Analogie
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Merleau-Ponty: From Perspective to the Chiasm,the Epistemic Rigor of an AnalogyHere, we wish to take up the discussion of Merleau-Ponty’s notion of chiasm in light of the question of its status. Is it a matter of a metaphor without any cognitive value resulting from an analogical and arbitrary transfer from one domain to another, or is it a matter of a rigorous concept susceptible of being experimented upon, taken up again, or improved? If the latter is the case, what is the nature of this concept? Is it descriptive, heuristic, or even logical? The question is worth asking insofar as it is not only the most orthodox positivists who may be likely to see, in this transfer of concept, nothing more than poetic license. Indeed, the most careful commentators authorized by Merleau-Ponty are in lockstep with the critics of his supposedly “literary” style. “Ambiguous” is thus the term, which more often describes Merleau-Ponty’s notions of encroachment, of reversibility, or even chiasm. First, we shall examine the function and the role of the concept of chiasm in Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy. We shall then establish its scope in order to be able to determine its exact status. It is only at the conclusion of this study that we will be able to show how this notion sheds light on Merleau-Ponty’s main concern, namely, to produce a counter-model of perspective and to promote a newcategory of relation – a concern which organizes the seemingly unrelated elements in his philosophy.Merleau-Ponty: dalla prospettiva al chiasma,il rigore epistemico di un’analogiaIntendiamo riprendere, in questa sede, la discussione sulla nozione di chiasma in Merleau-Ponty, alla luce di una domanda circa il suo statuto: si tratta di una metafora, priva di ogni valore cognitivo perché nata da un trasferimento analogico ed arbitrario da un campo semantico ad un altro, o si tratta di un concetto rigoroso, suscettibile di essere messo alla prova dell’esperienza e via via perfezionato? In tal caso, qual è la natura di questo concetto? È descrittiva, euristica, oppure logica? È interessante porre questa domanda dato che non sono solamente i positivisti più ortodossi, a vedere in questo trasferimento una semplice licenza poetica. In effetti, molti tra i commentatori più autorevoli di Merleau-Ponty aderiscono alle diverse critiche sollevate intorno alla presunta natura «letteraria» di questa espressione, e ritengono che il chiasma sia una semplice metafora. Interrogheremo innanzitutto la funzione e il ruolo di questo concetto nella filosofia di Merleau-Ponty al fine di determinarne l’esatto statuto. Solo al termine di questo studio preliminare potremo mostrare come questa nozione possa gettare nuova luce sulla preoccupazione principale di Merleau-Ponty, vero e proprio filo rosso che organizza in profondità tutti gli elementi apparentemente eterogenei della sua filosofia: vale a dire, il tentativo di produrre un contro-modello della prospettiva e una nuova categoria di relazione.
44. Chiasmi International: Volume > 13
Stephen A. Noble Maurice Merleau-Ponty, O Il Percorso Di Un Filosofo: Elementi per una biografi a intellettuale
45. Chiasmi International: Volume > 13
Paolo Godani Variazioni Sul Sorvolo: Ruyer, Merleau-Ponty, Deleuze e lo statuto della forma
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Variations sur le survolRuyer, Merleau-Ponty, Deleuze et le statut de la formeLa question principale que j’aborde dans cet article concerne la manière dont Merleau-Ponty et Deleuze assument l’héritage du finalisme du vingtième siècle.En analysant certains textes fondamentaux de ces deux auteurs, on aperçoit en effet clairement leur dette à l’égard, notamment, du néo-finalisme de Raymond Ruyer. Autant Merleau-Ponty que Deleuze lisent l’oeuvre de Ruyer en la séparant de son contexte d’origine et de ses intentions explicites, à savoir hors de toute exigence de nature épistémologique. Entre ces deux auteurs subsiste toutefois une différence substantielle dans la manière d’employer les concepts ruyériens. Merleau-Ponty réfute l’hypothèse d’une forme qui survole les matériaux constituant l’organisation idéale, mais valorise l’idée d’un thématisme immanent, d’une essence qui subsiste seulement à l’intérieur de ses variations. Deleuze, lui, semble reprendre sans réserve à son compte ces mêmes notions de forme et de survol parce qu’il les interprète comme des concepts plutôt que comme des causes formelles ou finales. Le concept deleuzien n’est pas pris dans la « pâte » du vécu, mais survole toute expérience vécue et tout état de choses. C’est pourquoi il ne peut être que créé, et c’est pourquoi la philosophie ne peut pas être uneactivité descriptive, à la manière de la phénoménologie, mais doit être nécessairement constructive.Variations on the SurveyRuyer, Merleau-Ponty, Deleuze and the Status of the FormThe main question that I confront in this article concerns the way in which Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze take up the heritage of 20th century finalism. By analyzing some of both of these authors’ basic texts, we clearly perceive their debt to, particularly, the neofinalism of Raymond Ruyer. Merleau-Ponty as much as Deleuze read Ruyer’s work separately from its original context and its explicit intentions, that is, they read it outside of any sort of epistemological demand. Nevertheless, we still find between the two a substantial difference in the manner of using Ruyer’s concepts. Merleau-Ponty refutes the hypothesis of a form that surveys the materials that constitute the ideal organization, but valorizes the idea of an immanent thematism, of an essence that only subsists within its variations. Deleuze, for his part, appears by contrast to take unreservedly into his own account these same notions of form and survey because he interprets them as concepts rather than formal and final causes. The Deleuzian concept is not “infested” with the lived, but surveys all lived experience and every state of things. That is why itcan only be created and that is why philosophy cannot be a descriptive activity, in the manner of phenomenology, but will necessarily be constructive.
46. Chiasmi International: Volume > 13
Gilles Deleuze, Claudio Rozzoni Corso Vincennes – Saint Denis (20/01/1987)
47. Chiasmi International: Volume > 13
Claudio Rozzoni Breve Nota Sulla Piega: “Una storia come quella di Merleau-Ponty”
48. Chiasmi International: Volume > 13
Claudio Rozzoni Lo Spazio Estetico: Il “rovesciamento del cartesianismo” in Deleuze e Merleau-Ponty
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
L’espace esthétiqueLe « renversement du cartésianisme » chez Deleuze et Merleau-PontyCet essai se propose de développer le rapport entre Deleuze et Merleau-Ponty à partir de la tentative des deux philosophes français d’aller au-delà du courantde pensée qu’on pourrait qualifi er, comme le fait Merleau-Ponty lui-même, de « cartésianisme ».Nous commençons notre itinéraire avec la critique que les deux philosophes adressent à la notion cartésienne de « ligne » – passage obligé pour penser, à travers Leibniz et sa notion de « point », la ligne en tant qu’« ensemble de points ». On cherche ensuite à penser une ligne qui ne serait plus tracée dans un espace objectif présupposé, mais plutôt qui « se trace » dans un « espace expressif ».Un tel renversement de la « ligne cartésienne » produit, comme on le verra, des effets qui intéressent également la représentation de la ligne du temps. Émanciper cette dernière du modèle cartésien signifi e la penser par-delà toute référence chronologique, toute dépendance du temps de Kronos. On peut lire dans ce sens la tentative des deux philosophes pour penser le temps de l’événement, le temps de l’Aion. On verra enfin comment, d’un espace et d’un temps anticartésiens, doit naître, pour Merleau-Ponty et Deleuze, une nouvelle grammaire porteuse d’une nouvelle compréhension de la métaphore. Ni l’idée de métaphore proposée par Merleau-Ponty, ni le concept de devenir créé par Deleuze ne concernent une ressemblance fondée sur une identité donnée. Si la métaphore merleau-pontienne et le devenir deleuzien doivent être en mesure de restituer l’essence d’une chose, une telle essence se trouve, ou mieux se crée,à partir d’un mouvement vers « ce que la chose n’est pas ». C’est précisément dans ce sens que Merleau-Ponty lit la métaphore proustienne et que Deleuze cherche à rendre compte des ressemblances créées dans l’oeuvre de Gombrowicz.The Aesthetic SpaceThe “Reversal of Cartesianism” in Deleuze and Merleau-PontyThe present essay proposes to explore the relationship between Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty from the attempt they make to go beyond the current of thought thatwe may qualify, like Merleau-Ponty does it himself, as Cartesianism. We begin our itinerary with the critique that both philosophers direct at the Cartesian notion of the line. The passage through the Cartesian notion of the line is “obligated” in order to think – by means of Leibniz and his notion of point -- the line as a “set of points.” The Cartesian passage is obligated moreover in order to think a line which could no longer be drawn in a presupposed objective space but, rather, which would be “drawn” in an “expressive space.” Such a reversal of the Cartesian line, as we shall see, produces effects that concern also the representation of the line of time. To emancipate the line of time from the Cartesian model means we must think beyond all chronological references, beyond all dependence on the time of Chronos. We are able to read, in this way, both philosophers’ attempt to think the time of the event, the time of Aion. Finally we shall see how, for Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze, a new grammar carrying a new understanding of the metaphor must be born from an anti-Cartesian space and time. Neither the idea of metaphor proposed by Merleau-Ponty nor the concept of becoming created by Deleuze speaks of a resemblance founded upon an identity that is given ahead of time. If Merleau-Ponty’s idea of metaphor and Deleuze’s concept of becoming must be able to produce the essence of a thing, such an essence finds, or better, it iscreated on the basis of a movement toward “what the thing is not.” It is precisely in this sense that Merleau-Ponty reads Proust’s metaphors and that Deleuze will seek to give an account of created resemblances in the work of Gombrowicz.
49. Chiasmi International: Volume > 15
Elena Tavani Il mondo e la sua ombra: estetica e ontologia in Hannah Arendt e Merleau-Ponty
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Starting from a specific critique of the traditional «metaphysical mistake» (i.e., the distinction between being and appearing), Hannah Arendt comes to supporta “phenomenalism” that is not only radical but also spectacular in the sense that it enhances, not appearances that would replace an unknown being or substance, but an appearing as a unique exhibition on the world stage in view of an opinion to communicate or an action to perform. Along this path, an encounter with Merleau-Ponty’s thought can occur at several levels. Specifically, the thesis of the ‘spectacular’ character of the world is presented in Arendt’s political theory as intimately linked to the thesis of an aesthetic and, at the same time, ontological basis of experience, which relates her thought to the Merleau-Pontian theory of vision as “thought conditioned” by the world and “which advents” as “instituted” in a body that is properly its own (Eye and Mind). For Arendt, thought is not only invisible (“not manifest even when it is actualized,” The Life of the Mind), it is also ontologically visible as “doxa” in which it is divided into “aspects of world” that are revealed in a “specular” fashion as positions to take and show “outside,” to present and defend. This is a valuable asset in the context of political “advertising.”
50. Chiasmi International: Volume > 15
Jakub Čapek, Ondřej Švec Introduzione
51. Chiasmi International: Volume > 16
Stefano Micali Il giudizio riflettente estetico nella Critica del Giudizio. Una ripresa fenomenologica
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
In this essay, the author intends to show the reasons for the interest on the Critique of Judgment, and especially to aesthetic judgment of taste within thephenomenological context. The study is divided into four sections: at first the concept of aesthetic reflective judgment will be introduced, highlighting the crucial role it assumes within the Kantian critical project as a whole (I). In a second step the specificity of the judgment of taste will be studied with particular attention on its character of Zweckmässigkeit and its universal voice (II). In the third section it will be shown how the judgment of taste introduces a new paradigmatic articulation of the relationship between feeling and thinking, which is further explained through a critical comparison with the interpretations of Jean-Francois Lyotard and Marc Richir (III) of aesthetic judgment. In the last and more extended section, the affinity of the disinterested character of the judgment of taste with the phenomenological attitude will be at the center of the research (IV).
52. Chiasmi International: Volume > 16
Faustino Fabbianelli Dalla “riflessione radicale” alla “superriflessione”. La fenomenologia di Merleau-Ponty tra Hegel e Schelling
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
In this essay, I intend to show the evolution that the thought of Merleau-Ponty undergoes from the Phenomenology of Perception to The Visible and the Invisible. I do so by employing the Merleau-Pontyian notions of “radical reflection” and “hyper-reflection,” which I will consider as expressions of two alternative ways of resolving the task of philosophy: to highlight, in the first case, the immediate relation between the subject and the world, in the second case, the chiasm between the thinking and the Being of the world. There are three main stages to my reasoning: 1) to show the conceptual differences that obtain between the first Merleau-Pontyian phenomenology and the Hegelian philosophy; 2) to illustrate the insufficiency, recognized ex post by Merleau-Ponty himself, of the existential analyses contained in the Phenomenology of Perception; 3) to identify the concept that allows him to formulate a new ontology, and to go beyond the Hegelian dialectic, in the “nature” which is spoken of in the positive philosophy of the late Schelling.
53. Chiasmi International: Volume > 17
Leonard Lawlor Presentazione
54. Chiasmi International: Volume > 17
Mauro Carbone, Federico Leoni, Ted Toadvine Nota dei Direttori
55. Chiasmi International: Volume > 17
Rita Messori In Punta di Parole: Figura e Metafora in Maurice Merleau-Ponty e Paul Ricoeur
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
La recente pubblicazione delle note di corso Recherches sur l’usage littéraire du langage sono una conferma del ruolo giocato dal linguaggio poetico in Merleau-Ponty in quell’ambizioso e incompiuto progetto perseguito dal 1951 Sur la phénoménologie du langage. La convinzione che il linguaggio sia la questione cruciale per la fenomenologia avvicina le ricerche di Merleau-Ponty a quelle che Ricoeur svilupperà negli anni Settanta: è nella parola, nel discorso pronunciato, che avviene non solo il rapporto tra soggetti, ma anche quello con le cose. Per entrambi i filosofi la Lebenswelt è una sorta di terra promessa della fenomenologia; un mondo che ci è dato cogliere soltanto in modo mediato. E a rappresentare una forma di mediazione esemplare è la figura retorica della metafora, negazione di ogni tentazione di presa diretta, di trasparenza del linguaggio stesso: nella parola metaforica, non riducibile alla dimensione nominale, viene delineata una ontologia “indiretta” o “abbozzata”. Tecnica stilistica da Merleau-Ponty, a differenza di Ricoeur, più praticata che teorizzata, la metafora poetica, o viva, realizza lo snodo tra pre-categoriale e categoriale, tra mondo sensibile e mondo dell’espressione, tra logos muto e logos pronunciato. Riprendendo l’analogia individuata da Valéry tra danza e linguaggio letterario, Merleau-Ponty traccia una teoria della figura come espressione degli ordini di senso percepiti che può trasfigurare il linguaggio ordinario; teoria molto vicina a quella ricoeuriana di “figurazione” che nel mondo della vita si radica per poi tornarvi.La publication récente des notes du cours Recherches sur l’usage littéraire du langage confirment le rôle joué par le langage poétique chez Merleau-Ponty dans le projet ambitieux et inachevé qu’il engage à partir de 1951 dans l’essai Sur la phénoménologie du langage. La conviction que le langage est la question cruciale pour la phénoménologie rapproche les recherches de Merleau-Ponty de celles que Ricoeur développera dans les années 1970 : c’est dans les mots, dans le discours prononcé, qu’advient non seulement les relations entre sujets, mais aussi nos rapports avec les choses. Pour les deux philosophes, la Lebenswelt est une sorte de terre promise pour la phénoménologie ; un monde qu’on ne peut saisir que de manière indirecte. Et c’est la figure de la métaphore qui représente une forme de médiation exemplaire, comme négation de toute tentative de prise directe, de transparence du langage lui-même. Dans l’expression métaphorique, non réductible à la dimension nominale, une ontologie « indirecte » ou « ébauchée » est esquissée. Technique stylistique chez Merleau-Ponty, plus pratiquée que théorisée à la différence de Ricoeur, la métaphore poétique, ou vivante, réalise la jonction entre le précatégorial et le catégorial, entre le monde sensible et le monde de l’expression, entre logos muet et logos proféré. Reprenant l’analogie de Valéry entre danse et langage littéraire, Merleau-Ponty trace une théorie de la figure comme expression des ordres de la perception qui peut transfigurer le langage ordinaire ; une théorie très proche de celle de Ricoeur de la « figuration » qui, enracinée dans le monde de la vie, y retourne ensuite.The recent publication of the lecture notes Research on the Literary Use of Language confirms the role played by poetic language in Merleau-Ponty’s ambitious and unfinished project that began in his 1951 essay “On the Phenomenology of Language.” The conviction that language is the crucial question for phenomenology in Merleau-Ponty’s work nears the research Paul Ricoeur would develop in the 1970’s: it is in words, in expressed discourse, that we encounter not only relations among subjects, but also our relation to things. For the two philosophers, the Lebenswelt is a sort of promised land for phenomenology, a world that we can grasp only indirectly. And, it is the figure of the metaphor that represents an exemplary form of mediation, as a negation of every attempt toward a direct grasp, of the transparency of language in itself. In the metaphorical expression, which is not reducible to a nominal dimension, an “indirect” or “outlined” ontology is sketched out. In the stylistic technique of Merleau-Ponty, more practiced than theoretical unlike Ricoeur, the poetic or living metaphor constitutes a junction between the pre-categorical and the categorical, between the sensible world and the world of expression, between silent logos and pronounced logos. Referring to Valery’s analogy between dance and literary language, Merleau-Ponty traces a theory of the figure as expression in the orders of perception that can transfigure ordinary language, a theory very similar to that of Ricoeur’s “figuration” which, rooted in the world of life, subsequently returns to it.
56. Chiasmi International: Volume > 17
Lamberto Colombo Metafisica ed Esperienza in Ricoeur e Merleau-Ponty
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Partendo dalle definizioni che Ricoeur e Merleau-Ponty assegnano al concetto di filosofi a, è mia intenzione mostrare come non una metafisica tradizionalmente intesa, quanto un ideale metafisico insito in una teoria filosofica della conoscenza appaia e sia necessario ai fini dell’investigazione dell’esperienza (tratto che accomuna le analisi dei due filosofi presi in questione). Ritengo che la dialettica tra trascendenza ed immanenza della verità nella storia, nonostante le diverse declinazioni dovute agli interessi dei due pensatori, possa contribuire a rendere un’immagine unitaria e, a più riprese, interdipendente di Ricoeur da Merleau-Ponty e di quest’ultimo alla luce della revisione ermeneutica operata all’interno della fenomenologia dal filosofo di Valence.En partant des définitions que Ricoeur et Merleau-Ponty donnent du concept de philosophie, c’est mon intention de montrer comment non pas une métaphysique au sens traditionnel, mais un idéal métaphysique logé dans une théorie philosophique de la connaissance apparaît et est nécessaire dans la perspective d’une investigation de l’expérience (un trait qui rapproche les analyses des deux philosophes considérés). Je soutiens que la dialectique entre transcendance et immanence de la vérité dans l’histoire, quelles que soient les différentes déclinaisons qu’elle connaît dans les intérêts des deux penseurs, peut contribuer à donner une image unitaire et, à plusieurs reprises, à montrer une interdépendance de Ricoeur à l’égard de Merleau-Ponty et de ce dernier à l’égard de la révision herméneutique opérée à l’intérieur de la phénoménologie par le philosophe de Valence.By starting from the definitions that Ricoeur and Merleau-Ponty give to the concept of philosophy, I intend to show how a metaphysical ideal lodged in a philosophical theory of knowledge, and not a metaphysics in the traditional sense, appears and is necessary when viewed from the perspective of experience (a characteristic which brings the two philosophers under consideration closer together). I hold that the dialectic between transcendence and immanence of the truth in history, despite the difference of interest in how it is developed by the two thinkers, can contribute to the formation of an unified image and, in several ways, to showing an interdependence of Ricoeur in relation to Merleau-Ponty and of Merleau-Ponty in relation to the hermeneutical revision effected within phenomenology by the philosopher from Valence.
57. Chiasmi International: Volume > 18
Federico Leoni Presentazione
58. Chiasmi International: Volume > 18
Federico Leoni Introduzione. Un altro inconscio
59. Chiasmi International: Volume > 18
Jennifer McWeeny Introduzione. Il corpo del nostro tempo
60. Chiasmi International: Volume > 19
Ted Toadvine Presentazione