The accusation of Nihilism, which Jacobi expressed in his Letter to Fichte, marks a caesura in Fichte’s production. Reputed to be the paradigmatical representantive of a philosophical tradition letting any reality dissolve in a simple game of shadows, Fichte sees himself constrained to clarify the status of the image in his system. This paper aims to examine the strategy to which he has recourse in the Destination of Man, in order to find an answer to the attack.

The question whether Fichte was or not Platonist is not to be considered harmless. This is first and foremost a question that Fichte asks himself in front of his students during his Lecture on Ethics at the University of Berlin (SL-1812 GA II /13, 318). In this way Fichte pretended to clarify a point that he considered decisive for characterizing his conception of ethics. Thus, the question of his Platonism no longer concerns his knowledge nor his interpretation of Plato, but rather his manner and reasons for referring to him. In the following pages I try to identify the features and stakes of Plato’s image in Fichte’s texts. In this way, my aim is at identifying the function that the reference to Plato deploys in Fichte’s arguments. That means to elaborate an ethic to be thought over the formalism that Fichte imputed to Kant. From this angle, ,Plato‘ becomes to all effects a ,conceptual person‘ allowing Fichte to forge a singular concept, that of ,Vorbild’. My thesis is finally that Fichte’s Platonism enigma – or the deepest meaning that we can attach to this question – is recovered by that concept. The Vorbild is the keystone for a new conception of ethics, which Fichte elaborated under the name of ,superior morality‘.La question de savoir si Fichte a été ou non ‘platonicien’ ne peut pas être considérée comme anecdotique. Déterminer s’il a été ou non platonicien, c’est avant tout une question que Fichte se pose lui-même devant ses étudiants, durant le cours de La Doctrine de l’éthique (Sittenlehre) à l’Université de Berlin (SL-1812 GA II/13, 318). Ce questionnement de sa part nous intéresse ici parce que, par ce biais, Fichte veut éclaircir un point qui est à ses yeux décisif pour caractériser sa conception de l’éthique. Ainsi, la question de son platonisme ne porte plus sur ses connaissances ou son interprétation de Platon, mais plutôt sur sa manière et sur ses raisons de s’y référer. Dans les pages suivantes, nous tâcherons de cerner les traits et les enjeux de l’image de Platon dans les textes de Fichte.Nous voulons ainsi dégager le rôle que la référence à Platon joue dans ses argumentations en vue de l’élaboration d’une éthique qui puisse être pensée par-delà le formalisme que Fichte impute à Kant. Sous cet angle, ‚Platon‘ devient alors un ‘personnage conceptuel’ permettant à Fichte de forger un concept singulier, celui de ‚Vorbild‘. La thèse que nous allons donc défendre est que l’énigme du platonisme de Fichte – ou bien le sens le plus profond que nous pouvons attacher à cette question – tient exactement au concept de Vorbild qui deviendrait, ainsi, la clef de voûte pour une nouvelle conception de l’éthique, élaborée sous le nom de ‘morale supérieure’.

Fichte’s ethics changed in many ways between 1794 and 1812: in the first place spiritual life replaced the transformation of nature; individual supersession was radicalized; and ethics was linked with first philosophy. In 1812 it was no longer a matter of inflecting natural necessity by means of the model image of an ideal world (Vorbild). The theme of image reappears as an externalizing of absolute life. Ethical action becomes a moment of this manifestation: a return to unity, following the process of fragmentation of the originary phenomenon (the I or the I-one), into an infinity of individual I’s. This fragmentation is fondamental: life is self-consciousness only in this individual form. The ethical act manifests the concept or image of God with the self-annihilation of individuality. Fichte had already written, in part XI of the Second Introduction, that the I, “only reasonnable”, “is no longer an individual”, and in the first Sittenlehre, § 18 : “We are all supposed to act identically”. Fichte’s final Ethics thus does not radicalize the supersession of the individual. It defines the rational individual by this supersession of himself [or herself], making ethics into a moment [stage] of the absolute life. The matter is not to merge the individual into the whole, but to partake in a living order, in the activity of the whole, which reaches out to each of its members, only to return to the first unity, by forming the whole as such.De 1794 à 1812, l’éthique de Fichte connaît plusieurs évolutions : abandon de la transformation de la nature au profit de la vie spirituelle, radicalisation du dépassement de l’individu, et rapprochement entre éthique et philosophie première. En 1812 il n’est plus question d’infléchir la nécessité naturelle par l’image modeèe (Vorbild) d’un monde idéal. La thématique de l’image apparaît comme extériorisation de la vie absolue. L’action éthique devient un moment de cette manifestation : le retour vers l’un, au terme d’un morcellement du phénomène originaire (le »Moi« ou »Moi un«) en une infinité de Moi(s) individuels. Cette diffraction est essentielle : la vie ne peut être consciente d’elle-même que dans cette forme individuelle. L’agir éthique manifeste le concept ou l’image de Dieu en anéantissant l’individualité. Mais la XIe section de la Seconde Introduction précisait déjà, que dans le monde moral, le Moi »uniquement raisonnable«, »a cessé d’être un individu« et dans la première Sittenlehre, § 18, Fichte écrivait : »Nous devons tous agir de la même manière«. L’éthique tardive ne radicalise donc pas le dépassement de l’individu. Elle définit l’individu rationnel par le dépassement de soi, en faisant de l’éthique un moment de la vie absolue. La question est donc moins de fondre l’individu dans un tout que de participer à un ordre vivant, à l’activité du tout qui va jusqu’à chacun des membres pour revenir vers l’unité première en constituant la totalité comme telle.

This paper addresses some of the figurative properties of Fichte’s philosophical discourse. In many texts from the so-called Spätphilosophie the WL is depicted as an »image of knowing«. In keeping with this idea, the author examines how figure and discourse are inextricably bound up in the space of Fichtean philosophy. The 1794 lectures Concerning the Difference Between the Sprit and the Letter Within Philosophy are particularly telling in this respect, for they foreground metaphor as the necessary vehicle for philosophical expression. Thus, Fichtean philosophy, understood both as discourse (in the sense of pragmatic linguistics) and as »material image«, openly embraces figural modes of knowing, for knowing itself is fundamentally an imagistic activity. In the final analysis, Fichte’s discourse does not separate concept and figure, philosophy and metaphor; instead, it opens up philosophy to the space of the figural – a space from which it ultimately stems and which constitutes the medium of the Wissenschaftslehre as such. In closing, the author reconsiders one of Fichte’s most striking metaphors, i.e., philosophy as Eucharist, in order to shed new light on a famous portrait of Fichte from 1812. He argues that the latter sustains in painterly form a meditation on the place of the figurative in philosophical discourse.Cet article est consacré à la question de la figurabilité du discours philosophique chez Fichte. La WL, on le sait grâce aux textes de la Spätphilosophie, incarne ce que Fichte appelle en 1812 l’»image du savoir«. Cet énoncé constitue le point de départ de notre réflexion sur les liens entre figure et discours dans la philosophie fichtéenne. À la lumière de quelques énoncés métaphilosophiques incontournables pour l’intelligence de la WL nous envisageons, dans un premier temps, le rôle de la métaphore dans l’enseignement fichtéen. Nous démontrons que la philosophie fichtéenne, entendue comme discours (au sens de la linguistique pragmatique) et comme »image matérielle«, doit épouser les traits d’une figure afin qu’on puisse la transmettre à autrui. Ainsi, loin de séparer concept et figure, philosophie et image, le dispositif fichtéen ouvre au contraire l’espace de la philosophie sur l’espace figural dont il est issu et qui en constitue le véritable médium. Dans un deuxième temps, en revenant sur une des métaphores les plus prégnantes dans le discours de Fichte, à savoir la philosophie comme Eucharistie, nous proposons l’analyse d’un célèbre portrait de Fichte qui n’a pas encore reçu l’attention philosophique qui lui revient et qui constitue, selon notre hypothèse, une réflexion inédite sur la figurabilité du discours en philosophie.

Further Questions. A Way Out of the Present Philosophical Situation(via Merleau-Ponty)This essay contains a short analysis of Merleau-Ponty’s Eye and Mind. The analysis focuses on the final pages of Eye and Mind, in which Merleau-Ponty speaks of a false imaginary. It is through this consideration of the “false imaginary” that we can determine Merleau-Ponty’s contribution to the idea of overcoming metaphysics, that is, the transformation of who we are, from manipulandum to being, all of us, painters. More generally however, the short analysis of Eye and Mind functions as the means to open a research agenda for what we have called in the twentieth century “continental philosophy.” The research agenda contains four conceptual features: 1) the starting point in immanence (where immanence is understood fi rst as internal, subjective experience, but then, due to the universality of the epoche, immanence is understood as ungrounded experience); 2) difference (where difference gives way to multiplicity, itself emancipated from an absolute origin and an absolute purpose); 3) thought (where thought is understood as language liberated from the constraints of logic, and language is understood solely in terms of its own being, as indefi nite continuous variation); and 4) the overcoming of metaphysics (where metaphysics is understood as a mode of thinking based in presence, and overcoming is understood as the passage to a new mode of thought, a new people and a new land). But, as we shall see, this conception of philosophy really ends up posing “further questions.” My essay attempts to summarize my new book called Early Twentieth Century Continental Philosophy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011).Altre domande. Una via d’uscita dalla situazione fi losofi ca attuale(via Merleau-Ponty)Questo saggio contiene una breve analisi de L’occhio e lo spirito di Merleau-Ponty. L’analisi si concentra sulle pagine conclusive dell’opera, nelle quali Merleau-Ponty parla di un falso immaginario. È attraverso l’esame di tale “falso immaginario” che possiamo determinare il contributo di Merleau-Ponty all’idea di un superamento della metafisica, ovvero la trasformazione di chi noi siamo, da manipulandum ad essere, noi tutti, pittori. Più in generale, la breve analisi de L’occhio e lo spirito funziona come mezzo per aprire un programma di ricerca per quella che nel XX secolo abbiamo defi nito “filosofi a continentale”. Tale piano di ricerca presenta quattro aspetti concettuali: 1) il punto di partenza nell’immanenza (laddove l’immanenza è intesa dapprima come esperienza interna soggettiva, ma successivamente, a causa dell’universalità dell’epoché, essa è compresa in quanto esperienza non fondata); 2) la differenza (laddove la differenza apre la via della molteplicità, emancipandosi da un’origine e da un fine assoluti); 3) pensiero (inteso come linguaggio liberato dai vincoli della logica, e compreso solamente nei termini del suo essere proprio, come variazione continua e indefinita); e 4) il superamento della metafisica (laddove per metafisica si intende un modo di pensare basato sulla presenza e per superamento s’intende il passaggio ad una nuova modalità del pensiero, un nuovo popolo ed una nuova terra). Ma, come vedremo, questa concezione della filosofi a finisce per porre “ulteriori domande”. Tale saggio si propone anche di compiere una sintesidel mio nuovo libro Early Twentieth Century Continental Philosophy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011).

The Political Imaginary.Reflections on Merleau-Ponty’s reading of MachiavelliThis essay attempts to set in relief an aspect of Merleau-Ponty’s political thought that has still received little study: his conception of the political imaginary. This fertile aspect of his political thought appears explicitly in his reading of Machiavelli as it is developed in “Note on Machiavelli”, which appeared for the first time in 1949. In this note, Merleau-Ponty treats the specific problem of power. In trying to characterize this, Merleau-Ponty comes to discover the inevitably imaginary dimension of the political space.To begin, this essay retraces the aim and scope of Machiavelli’s thought, while bringing to the fore those aspects in his political reflections that are properly imaginary. Next, the essay compares these reflections to those Merleau-Ponty had on the political imaginary in the same period as his courses on childpsychology at the Sorbonne (held between 1949 and 1952). Following the descriptions of the phenomenon of the imaginary, this time from the phenomenological point of view, the third and final section of this essay will articulate the analyses of the “Note on Machiavelli” together with the theoreticaljustification of the political imaginary and will show how these analyses are inscribed in the heart of Merleau-Ponty’s path. We will then discover how thephenomenon of the imaginary is intimately linked to the constitution of the self and the other, the body and the intersubjective world, and how this problematicobliges us to pose the question of the symbolic.Across this path, the essay will aim to show how Merleau-Ponty’s reading of Machiavelli allows us to think in a new way about diverse ideas and traditionsand to articulate afresh the meaning and scope of the properly political dimension of human praxis.L’immaginario politico.Riflessioni sulla lettura merleau-pontyana di MachiavelliQuesto saggio intende mettere in rilievo un aspetto ancora poco studiato del pensiero politico di Merleau-Ponty, la sua concezione dell’immaginario politico. Tale fecondo aspetto della riflessione merleau-pontiana sul politico appare esplicitamente nella lettura di Machiavelli svolta nella «Nota su Machiavelli» (1949). In questo testo Merleau-Ponty affronta il problema specifico del potere, ed è nel tentativo di caratterizzare il potere stesso che Merleau-Ponty scopre la dimensione inevitabilmente immaginaria dello spazio politico.In un primo momento, il saggio ricostruisce l’intenzione e la portata del pensiero di Machiavelli mettendo in luce gli aspetti legati all’immaginario presenti nella sua riflessione politica. In un secondo momento, il saggio mette a confronto tali riflessioni con quelle svolte da Merleau-Ponty sul medesimo tema dell’immaginario nei corsi dedicati alla psicologia dell’età evolutiva, tenuti alla Sorbona tra il 1949 e il 1952. In un terzo momento, ripercorrendo le descrizioni del fenomeno immaginario, questa volta dal punto di vista fenomenologico, il saggio articola le analisi svolte nella «Nota su Machiavelli» con la giustificazione teorica di questa stessa nozione di immaginario del politico ; ricolloca tali analisi all’interno del complessivo percorso merleaupontyano; mostra come il fenomeno dell’immaginario sia intimamente legato alla costituzione stessa dell’io e dell’altro, del corpo e del mondo intersoggettivo; come tale problematica renda infine necessario porre il problema del simbolico.L’insieme del percorso svolto nel presente saggio mostra quindi come la lettura merleau-pontyana di Machiavelli consenta di pensare in modo inedito nozioni e tradizioni differenti, nonché di articolare in maniera rinnovata il senso e la portata della dimensione propriamente politica della praxis umana.

Being and Negativity. The Thinking of the Subjective-Objective in Merleau-Ponty and GrimaldiThe thought of Maurice Merleau-Ponty is distinguished at the outset from that of Nicolas Grimaldi as much by their methodological commitments as by the place each one accords to time. Nevertheless, their adoption of a double point of view on the human being – as at the same time consciousness and object – justifies bringing them together. Confronted to its full extent, the problem of the subjective-objective implies the development of a monistic ontology and authorizes the critique that Merleau-Ponty and Grimaldi both address to Sartre and Bergson. In thinking a negativity internal to Being, the two authors come to restore an authentic passivity of mind, inaccessible to the dialectic of being and nothingness. Their philosophical paths diverge conclusively in the solution each brings to this common problem : whereas Merleau-Ponty only sees an apparent contradiction in the duality of points of view, one that is to be lifted by reworking them, Grimaldi’s realism maintains the contradiction at the heart of a substantial unity conceived as time.Essere e negatività. Il pensiero del soggettivo-oggettivo in Merleau-Ponty e GrimaldiIl pensiero di Maurice Merleau-Ponty e di Nicolas Grimaldi si distinguono, ad un primo sguardo, sia per la loro presa di posizione metodologica che per il ruolo che rispettivamente accordano al tempo. Ciononostante, la loro presa in considerazione di un doppio punto di vista sull’uomo – compreso alo stesso tempo come coscienza e come oggetto – giustifica un loro confronto. Affrontato in tutta la sua ampiezza, il problema del soggettivo-oggettivo implica lo sviluppo di un’ontologia monista ed autorizza le critiche che Merleau-Ponty e Grimaldi rivolgono entrambi a Sartre e Bergson. Pensando ad una negatività interna all’Essere, i due autori giungono a restaurare una passività autentica dello spirito, inaccessibile alla dialettica tra essere e niente. In definitiva, le due vie filosofiche considerate in questo saggio divergono rispetto alla soluzione che essi forniscono a questo problema comune : mentre Merleau-Ponty vede nella dualità dei punti di vista una mera contraddizione apparente che si tratta di eliminare riformulandoli, il realismo grimaldiano mantiene la contraddizione inseno ad un’unità sostanziale concepita in termini di tempo.

Thinking the Visual, Visualizing the Thought.A perceptual and Political Model of VisionMerleau-Ponty’s program of perceptivizing thought has depoliticizing effects that, though he does not recognize them, undermine his understanding of politics. These anti-political consequences, moreover, bring out the internal difficulties of his anti-intellectualist starting point. There are three areas in which Merleau-Ponty gave a thorough application, though with unequal success, of his perception-based model: the presentation of his own thought, in which his program of picturalization had a striking success; the explanation of the historical process, in which his visualization model was only partly effective; and access to other people’s thought, in which his perceptivist views encountered an undeniable failure. Merleau-Ponty’s successive approaches to other people’s thought show, by two distinct paths, and beyond his own intentions, an unforeseen political defect. His perceptive model proves incompatible with his political ideas when it is applied in depth, and it thus breaks apart the cohesion of his thought. From a larger perspective, it disrupts reflective approaches to politics since it damages their conceptual bases. This article shows successively that Merleau-Ponty laid out a perceptive model of universal scope; that he applied it to several areas, including politics; that this model proves politically deficient when it serves to remove the autochthonous sources of sense; that these depoliticizing effects become more acute when Merleau-Ponty employs the perceptive model to elucidate other people’s thought; and that its frustration in this area not only devalues his political reflections, but also signals that the perceptive model simply prevents a “thinking of the political.”Pensare il visuale, visualizzare il pensiero.Un modello percettivo e politico della visioneIl programma di percettivizzazione del pensiero intrapreso da Merleau-Ponty comporta effetti spoliticizzanti che sconfessano nascostamente la sua comprensione della politica. Tali conseguenze antipolitiche mettono altresì in rilievo le difficoltà intrinseche alla sua posizione anti-intellettualista. Vi sono tre ambiti nei quali Merleau-Ponty, con diverso successo, ha applicato il suo modello percettivo : la presentazione del suo stesso pensiero, nella quale questo programma di pittoricizzazione incontra un successo trionfale; la chiarificazione del processo storico, dove tale modello “visualeˮ non è efficace che in parte; infine l’accesso al pensiero di altri autori, terreno sul quale questa prospettiva percettivista subisce uno scacco innegabile. Molti tentativi merleaupontiani di approcciare il pensiero di altri autori attestano in vario modo un imprevisto deficit politico. Il modello percettivo di Merleau-Ponty si rivela in altri termini incompatibile con le sue idee politiche, nel momento in cui viene applicato in profondità, e in ultima analisi mette a dura prova la coerenza del suo pensiero. In una prospettiva più ampia, esso ostacola un approccio riflessivo alla politica poiché ne degrada le stesse basi concettuali. Il nostro articolo mostra quindi che Merleau-Ponty ha articolato un modello percettivo di portata universale; che l’ha applicato a svariati ambiti d’indagine, tra cui la politica; che quel modello si rivela deficitario quando viene utilizzato per attingere a specifiche fonti di senso; che tali effetti spoliticizzanti si acuiscono nel momento in cui Merleau-Ponty adotta il modello percettivo per illuminare il pensiero di altri autori; che, per concludere, la sua incongruenza con questo peculiare ambito di riflessione non solo impoverisce le sue riflessioni politiche, ma attesta che in linea generale il modello percettivo sbarra la strada a un qualsiasi «pensiero del politico».

Anthropology as Counter-Science. A Merleau-Pontyan approachThe author tries to show that the conception of the anthropology as counter-science, presented by Foucault (inspired by Lévi-Strauss), is limited to dissolve some naïve representations of subjectivity, and that the critical potential of this notion could be extended to the current theoretical conceptions (section 1). The author holds that the limited notion of contra-science can be found in the very Lévi-Strauss’ works, and this is made clear by comparison with Edmund Husserl’s works (sections 2-3). After that, the author tries to develop a larger notion of counter-science, based on Merleau-Ponty’s criticisms to Lévi-Strauss (section 4). The author uses the subject of acupuncture’s efficacy as an example of this larger notion of counter-science.L’antropologia come contro-scienza. Un approccio merleau-pontyanoIntendiamo mostrare come la concezione dell’antropologia in quanto contro-scienza presentata da Foucault (ispirata dalle opere di Lévi-Strauss) si limiti a smontare alcune rappresentazioni ingenue della soggettività, e che il potenziale critico di questa nozione potrebbe invece essere esteso alle concezioni teoriche in vigore (sezione 1). Sosteniamo che questa nozione limitata di contro-scienza può essere trovata nell’opera di Lévi-Strauss stesso, cosa che emerge con chiarezza nel confronto con alcuni testi di Edmund Husserl (sezioni 2-3). Cerchiamo quindi di sviluppare una più ampia nozione di controscienza antropologica, che si basa sulle posizioni critiche di Merleau-Ponty riguardo a Lévi-Strauss (sezione 4). Il tema dell’efficacitá dell’agopuntura è utilizato come esempio di questa nozione ampliata di contro-scienza.