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?

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.

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.

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 (oggi) e – soprattutto – che cos’è un filosofo (oggi). 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 questo il titolo del numero 381 di “aut aut”) 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 (aujourd’hui) et – surtout – avec ce qu’est un philosophe (aujourd’hui). 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 » (c’est le titre du numéro 381 de « aut aut ») 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 (today) – 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” (this is the title of number 381 of “aut aut”) is a vital act, at the same time an encounter and necessary confrontation between persons who breathe life into philosophy.

The Byzantine art can also be called the Christian art of East, between 4th century in which arose and 14th century in which the sunset began. In the 6th century the true grandiose of the arts was created by the Byzantine. This art maintained these classic traditions for various centuries and the renaissance of 10th and 14th centuries has had above all the persistence and the awakening of the ancient spirit. In the second half of the 13th century, we assist to the decline of the Empire of East, the advance of the invasion of Muslims and the separation from the Byzantine influence.The western culture is based on the reason of divine origin. The art, beyond the allegorical meaning, becomes technically constructive. The artist today difficultly succeeds to make a face human, an expression of the man-God. We are in full industrial age, from which we achieve egoism. Over the dogmatic contrasts between the two churches, the union is felt in spirit, and also in the spirit of art. The historical schism does not have the total force to separate; the re-unification of the Christian world is an aspiration of all the Europeans today.

This distance biographical will follow however one via little various from that in way immediate can to be meant like biography, because it will try to avoidthe fall in that Nietzsche calls “error of the biographers” and that she will try not to stop itself on the personal identifying data and neither to inquire around to the psychological configuration of the author, but will more rather follow the thread of the thought expressed in its works. The written ones of Nietzsche, as we have already pointed out, are from meaning like integer, also that in aphoristic shape that represent a fragmentary thought.The living as it operates has been taken in consideration, at first, from the fact that the works rise from the work that is the living, which constitute the privileged field of the creation of the artist hour this living have been looked at to approach the phenomenon of the tragedy. The scope of the art is to transform all that is bad, the painful, terrible and incommodious things.

Apart from what this word is usually known to mean (besides the known meanings of the term), the CLAQUE was in the history of the theatre a form of manipulation of the evaluation judgements and a way of corrupting the public’s taste. Infiltrated in the theatre hall, in the middle of the „innocent” audience, the CLAQUERS applauded when their chief told them to, in order to give the impression that the play was a huge succes. They did it for the money. Taking into account this phenomenon, we can say that in the whole history of culture and, of course, on the „stage” of the world as well, the CLAQUE was always present. The CLAQUE as a cultural phenomenon is, almost each time, the price of succes.

Directive of muse, as any authentic poet, Friedrich Schiller, author of an indelibly work, expressed himself in various styles: theatre, lyrical, ballad, and works of aesthetical. Thirsty of truth, exceeding rationality, he wrote for cotemporary saddles a lesson of civilization, inviting on each to enjoy from art and to live in consonance with the Geist world conscious that the aesthetical education is the road toward politics and a proper ethical corresponding with historic periods inwhich was enchain. Aesthetic expressions as "the beautiful", "the sublime", transformed into ethical expressions, not in the aim of forming of a value scale, but more to express feelings and provoke answers, forming a new consciousness.