Displaying: 1-20 of 35 documents

0.098 sec

1. Chiasmi International: Volume > 14
Pierre Rodrigo Compte-rendu de Jan Patočka, Aristote, ses devanciers, ses successeurs. Études d’histoire de la philosophie d’Aristote à Hegel
2. Chiasmi International: Volume > 15
Clélia Zernik Emmanuel Alloa et Adnen Jdey (éds.), Du sensible à l’oeuvre: Esthétiques de Merleau Ponty; Mauro Carbone (éd.), L’empreinte du visuel: Merleau-Ponty et les images aujourd’ hui
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
The collective works edited by Emmanuel Alloa and Adnen Jdey, Du sensible à l’oeuvre, and by Mauro Carbone, L’empreinte du visuel, meet the dual requirementimposed by reading the work of Merleau-Ponty today: on one hand, they extend the philosopher’s thought and highlight its obvious necessity in reading the mostcontemporary art; and, on the other hand, by not allowing themselves to be lulled by the gentle seduction of the writing, they emphasize the coherence of his thought andthe rigor of certain of his key concepts such as style, resumption, flesh or individuation, which are the object of precise and unpublished studies.
3. Chiasmi International: Volume > 15
Frédéric Jacquet Emre Şan, La transcendance comme problème phénoménologique: lecture de Merleau-Ponty et Patočka
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
In his book, Emre Şan undertakes a confrontation between Merleau-Ponty and Patočka on the question of transcendence understood as a phenomenological problem,indeed as the problem of phenomenology. This approach has the great merit of identifying the meaning of being of Being as promise, on the path of an ontology beyondHusserl and Heidegger. Emre Şan’s book thus offers a very important contribution to phenomenological studies.
4. Chiasmi International: Volume > 16
Frank Chouraqui On Rajiv Kaushik’s Art, Language and Figure in Merleau-Ponty: Excursions in Hyper-Dialectic
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Rajiv Kaushik’s Art, Language and Figure in Merleau-Ponty continues the work begun last year in Art and Institution by exploring the ontological grounds upon whichMerleau-Ponty locates the continuity of philosophy with the visual arts. The mission and the privilege of art are to allow the invisible to appear in its own terms. As such, artpossesses the potential of completing the endeavors of philosophy by bringing the world to expression without abusively bringing it to visibility. Kaushik’s analyses of Merleau-Ponty’s concept of “figural philosophy,” of the relevance of Merleau-Ponty’s reading of Saussure for his philosophy of art, and of the dynamic and ontological potential contained in the tracing of a line are profound and each makes decisive contributions to the study of Merleau-Ponty’s aesthetics. In addition to these, Kaushik’s analysis of artworks and artists such as Cy Twombly allow him to make this more than a book about Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy or a book about art; it is a book that enacts their continuity as it describes it, in true hyper-dialectical fashion.
5. Chiasmi International: Volume > 16
Kathleen Hulley, Donald A. Landes Phenomenology, Ontology, and the Arts: Reading Jessica Wiskus’s The Rhythm of Thought
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Jessica Wiskus’s book The Rhythm of Thought: Art, Literature, and Music (University of Chicago Press, 2013) is a fascinating study of Merleau-Ponty’s late philosophy inrelation to the artistic expression of Mallarmé, Cézanne, Proust, and Debussy. By invoking examples from across the arts and citations from across Merleau-Ponty’soeuvre, Wiskus provides us with a style for reading some of Merleau-Ponty’s difficult late concepts, including noncoincidence, institution, essence, and transcendence.In this review, we explore some of the key concepts and insights of Wiskus’s rich, interdisciplinary book and offer some places where the depth that it opens up perhapsinvites further exploration.
6. Chiasmi International: Volume > 16
Guy-Félix Duportail Un autre retour à Freud : à Propos de Force-Pulsion-Désir de Rudolf Bernet
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
In his latest work, Force-Pulsion-Désir, Rudolf Bernet seeks to clarify one of the fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis, that of “drive.” He engages such authorsas Aristotle, Leibniz, Schopenhauer, Freud, Husserl, Nietzsche and Lacan to better elucidate philosophically the sense of the concept of drive. The work’s argument thushighlights a kind of destiny of drive: the first moment concerns the dynamic aspect of the drive, that of force; the second is that of drive taken in its essence and truth;the third is that of desire which prolongs and sublimates the drive. The path followed in this book thus goes from the non-human to the human or, if one prefers, fromnature to subject, and interrogates their interpenetration. In contrast to naturalism and historicism, Rudolf Bernet chooses to read Freud in a resolutely philosophical way, in a way that at the same time challenges our perception of the relation between philosophy and psychoanalysis. The epistemic stakes are high. Without claiming to address every implication, we briefly retrace here the overall trajectory.
7. Chiasmi International: Volume > 16
Claudio Rozzoni Orcid-ID Chi scrive? Chi legge? Il chiasma fra autore e lettore a partire dalle Recherches sur L’usage littéraire du langage
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
The recent publication of Recherches sur l’usage littéraire du langage, the preparatory notes for Merleau-Ponty’s “Monday course” at the Collège de France in 1953, provides further evidence of the turning points of the French philosopher’s reflections during this period. This course, on the style of expression in the work of Stendhal and Valery, is interesting in that it truly reveals to us a unique perspective on the questions that, on the one hand, are related to research made during the previous period at the Sorbonne; and that, on the other hand, find a new echo, a new development in the course on “The Philosophy of Proust” given by Merleau-Ponty in the following year, also at the Collège of France. The problem of the intersubjectivity of the work of art in particular finds a crucial complement in this course. Starting from the work on literary language, this offers a path toward thinking the chiasm between author and reader in an unprecedented way that avoids falling back into the fruitless opposition between two poles: one represented by a purely subjective point of view, with its solipsistic excesses, and one that tries to take into account the communication between two subjects, author and reader in this case, by thinking them as an “already given” unity before the gesture of writing and the experience of reading.
8. Chiasmi International: Volume > 17
Anna Caterina Dalmasso La désillusion créatrice. Merleau-Ponty et l’expérience du réel
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
La question du réel, se trouvant au coeur de la tradition métaphysique, implique une conception de la rationalité et de son pouvoir définitoire-prédicatif, bref, elle met en jeu notre croyance, voire notre confiance en la raison humaine, car elle confronte la pensée avec le surgissement d’un point insaisissable, à savoir avec les possibilités et les limites du concept. Le réel est donc ce qui oppose une certaine résistance à la conceptualisation. Le questionnement du réel devra alors se nourrir d’une attitude se situant au niveau de l’opacité du sens, « au niveau de la défaillance du concept, au moment où celui-ci révèle sa limite et laisse, à côté de lui, un résidu indéterminé ». C’est précisément une telle méthode, que Guillaume Carron reprend de Merleau-Ponty dans son ouvrage La désillusion créatrice. Merleau-Ponty et l’expérience du réel ; de cette résistance du réel au concept, Carron fait le point de départ de son étude ainsi que le fil rouge de son cheminement à travers la réflexion merleau-pontienne.The question of the real, found in the heart of the metaphysical tradition, implies a conception of rationality and its defining-predicative power which, briefly, puts into play our belief, and even our faith in human reason, for it confronts thought with the emergence of an ungraspable point, that is to say with the possibilities and limits of the concept. The real is consequently that which opposes a certain resistance to conceptualization. Questions regarding the real shall therefore nourish themselves with an attitude that positions itself at the level of the opaqueness of sense, “at the level of the breakdown of the concept, at the moment when it reveals its limit, and leaves, next to it, an indeterminate residue.” It is precisely such a method that Guillaume Carron takes away from Merleau-Ponty in his work The Creative Disillusion: Merleau-Ponty and the Experience of the Real. This resistance of the real to the concept is the starting point of Carron’s study as well as the guiding thread of his path through the thought of Merleau-Ponty.La questione del reale si trova al cuore della tradizione metafisica. Implica una precisa concezione della razionalità e del suo potere definitorio-predicativo. In altri termini mette in gioco la nostra credenza, al limite la nostra fede nella ragione umana, perché mette a confronto il pensiero con l’insorgenza di un punto inafferrabile, quindi con le possibilità e i limiti del concetto stesso. Il reale è ciò che oppone una certa resistenza alla concettualizzazione. L’interrogazione del reale dovrà allora nutrirsi di un’atteggiamento capace di situarsi a livello dell’opacità del senso, “a livello del cedimento del concetto, quando questo rivela il suo limite e lascia accanto a sé un residuo indeterminato”. È questo il metodo che Guillaume Carron riprende da Merleau-Ponty nel suo libro La désillusion créatrice. Merleau-Ponty et l’expérience du réel. Ed è quest’idea di una resistenza del reale al concetto, a costituire il punto di partenza della riflessione di Carron e il filo rosso del suo cammino attraverso il pensiero merleau-pontyano.
9. Chiasmi International: Volume > 17
Frédéric Jacquet Phénoménologie du mouvement. Patočka et l’héritage de la physique aristotélicienne
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Le livre de Dragoş Duicu présente l’oeuvre de Patočka comme une phénoménologie du mouvement dont il opère l’archéologie conceptuelle en effectuant un retour à Aristote, ce qui permet aussi de situer Patočka dans le paysage phénoménologique. Il est établi tout au long de l’ouvrage que le mouvement est le sens d’être de l’être, dès lors compris comme physis, et de l’existence elle-même qui est mouvement de part en part, force voyante. Ce qui pour la tradition philosophique échappe au mouvrement est en vérité toujours une extase du mouvement, déposé par lui, et s’avère dès lors secondaire, dérivé, car sédimenté. La philosophie de Patočka se donne donc indissociablement comme une ontologie et une phénoménologie du mouvement, l’auteur proposant un approfondissement cosmologique de la phénoménologie largement étayé sur une théorie de la sédimentation. Le livre offre une interprétation aussi érudite qu’originale de la cosmologie et de l’anthropophénoménologie patočkiennes.The book of Dragoş Duicu, presents the work of Patočka as a phenomenology of movement wherein he operates a conceptual archaeology by returning to Aristotle, and which allows him to situate Patočka in the phenomenological landscape. It is established throughout the work that movement is the meaning of being, therefore understood as physis, and that existence itself is all-around movement, force voyante. That which in the philosophical tradition escapes from movement is always in truth an ecstasy of movement, laid by the movement, which happens to be secondary and derivative, for it is ‘sedimented.’ The philosophy of Patočka presents itself therefore inseparably as an ontology and phenomenology of movement, as the author proposes a cosmological deepening of phenomenology largely supported by a theory of sedimentation. The book offers an interpretation as scholarly as it is original of the Patočkian cosmology and anthropo-phenomenology.Il libro di Dragoş Duicu presenta l’opera di Jan Patočka come una fenomenologia del movimento di cui l’autore svolge un’archeologia concettuale, che risale fino ad Aristotele, e al tempo stesso una ricollocazione all’interno del paesaggio fenomenologico. Il libro è attraversato da un filo rosso: il movimento è il senso d’essere dell’essere, in quanto physis, e dell’esistenza stessa, in quanto movimento anch’essa da cima a fondo, movimento o forza veggente. In questa prospettiva, ciò che per la tradizione filosofica si sottrae al movimento è sempre in verità un’estasi del movimento, depositata dal movimento stesso e proprio perciò secondaria, derivata, sedimentata. La filosofia di Patočka si offre, indissociabilmente, come un’ontologia e come una fenomenologia del movimento, come mostra Duicu sulla base di un approfondimento cosmologico della fenomenologia patockiana largamente incentrato su una teoria della sedimentazione. Il libro offre quindi un’interpretazione tanto erudita quanto originale della cosmologia e dell’antropologia patočkiane.
10. Chiasmi International: Volume > 18
Ariela Battan Horenstein The Movement of Experience
11. Chiasmi International: Volume > 18
Charles Bobant Merleau-Ponty et le renouvellement de la métaphysique
12. Chiasmi International: Volume > 19
Glen A. Mazis Voyance, Precession and Screen in Merleau-Ponty’s Later Philosophy in Mauro Carbone’s The Flesh of Images
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Mauro Carbone’s The Flesh of Imagesexplores the status of images as the precession of the invisible and the visible in Merleau-Ponty’s notion of “sensible ideas” ideas, but is at the same time a concise, original, and illuminating exploration of Merleau-Ponty’s sense of the flesh and his later philosophy, as well as speculating on an important historical shift in the sense of Being. Carbone articulates the flesh as the traversal, by Visibility, of the seer as Being, where the invisible is shown forth indirectly by the visible and is ultimately the activity of visible Being that manifests a sort of desire to see itself through enveloping the visible beings that are seers. Carbone utilizes the notion of “voyance” as a seeing further into what had not been present before as the opening of a latency that is carried forth as the invisible’s pregnancy within the visible that ultimately brings into undecidability the primacy of perception and that of imagination,as well as being a retrograde movement within time that allows access to a mythical time and renders a differing, an immemorial time that has never been—the time in which Proust’s and Merleau-Ponty’s “sensible ideas” live. Carbone details Merleau-Ponty’s“ontological rehabilitation of the surface” in which the surface like the film screen is no longer a veil as constituting an obstacle, but rather is the surface of manifestation of Being, expressing the modern mutation in the relation to Being.Dans The Flesh of Images, Mauro Carbone explore le statut des images en tant que précession du visible et de l’invisible à partir de la notion d’« idées sensibles », mais il offre en même temps une étude à la fois synthétique, originale et éclairante du sens de la chair et de la pensée du dernier Merleau-Ponty, ainsi qu’une réflexion théorique sur un tournant historique fondamental dans le sens de l’Être. Carbone articule une pensée de la chair comme ce qui est transversal – par la Visibilité – au voyant en tant qu’Être, où l’invisible se donne à voir de manière indirecte à même le visible et est ultimement l’activité de l’Être visible qui vient manifester une sorte de désir de se voir par le fait même d’envelopper les êtres visibles qui sont voyants. Carbone se sert ainsi de la notion de « voyance » en tant que voir plus ou plus loin ce qui ne s’est pas encore présentifié comme l’ouverture d’une latence qui est portée en tant que prégnance invisible au sein du visible, ce qui fait que le primat entre perception et imaginaire devient indécidable, se construisant comme un mouvement temporel rétrograde, qui donne accès à un temps mythique et réalise un temps différé et immémorial qui n’a jamais été présent – le temps des idées sensibles de Proust et de Merleau-Ponty. Carbone expose la « réhabilitation ontologique de la surface » opérée par Merleau-Ponty en ce que la surface de l’écran cinématographique ne fonctionne plus comme un voile, c’est-à-dire ne constitue plus un obstacle, mais est plutôt la surface sur laquelle l’Être se manifeste, en exprimant la mutation contemporaine de notre relation à l’Être. The Flesh of Images di Mauro Carbone esplora lo statuto delle immagini come precessione di visibile e invisibile, secondo la nozione merleau-pontiana di “idee sensibili”, ma allo stesso tempo costituisce un’indagine concisa, originale e illuminante del concetto di carne e del pensiero dell’ultimo Merleau-Ponty. Il volume riflette inoltre su un importante slittamento storico nella concezione dell’Essere. Carbone articola il concetto di carne come ciò che è trasversale, attraverso la Visibilità, al vedente in quanto Essere, in cui l’invisibile appare indirettamente attraverso il visibile e in cui, in ultima analisi, è l’attività dell’Essere visibile che manifesta una sorta di desiderio di vedere se stesso rivestendo quegli esseri visibili che sono i vedenti. Carbone impiega la nozione di “voyance” per indicare un vedere oltre che coglie ciò che non si è ancora reso presente. Si tratta dell’apertura di una latenza che emerge come pregnanza dell’invisibile all’interno del visibile. Tale dinamica conduce a un’indecidibilità del primato della percezione e dell’immaginazione, costituendo al contempo un movimento temporale retrogrado che permette di accedere a un tempo mitico e che realizza un tempo differito e immemoriale che non è mai stato presente – il tempo delle “idee sensibili” di Proust e di Merleau-Ponty. Carbone espone la “riabilitazione ontologica della superficie” condotta da Merleau-Ponty, secondo cui la superficie dello schermo cinematografico non è più un velo che ostacola, ma piuttosto una superficie su cui l’Essere si manifesta, che esprime la trasformazione contemporanea della nostra relazione all’Essere.
13. Chiasmi International: Volume > 19
Mathias Goy Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Entretiens avec Georges Charbonnier et autres dialogues, 1946-1959
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Ce volume contient la transcription de plusieurs entretiens radiophoniques : La Tribune de Paris (1946-1948), La Tribune des Temps Modernes (1947), Les Entretiens sur la philosophie (1950-52), et les longs Entretiens avec Georges Charbonnier (1959). Alors que les premiers sont malheureusement donnés sans les interventions des tiers (Sartre, Hyppolite, etc.), qui sont résumées, ceux avec Charbonnier sont livrés in extenso, y compris avec les chutes non retenues lors des émissions radio. Enfin, s’ajoutent à cet ensemble des textes de la main de Merleau-Ponty, il s’agit des interventions dans le Forum de L’Express (1954-54) qui n’avaient pas été retenues par l’auteur lorsqu’il a composé les « Propos » de Signes (1960). L’essentiel du volume est consacré à la politique, et permet de préciser le rôle que Merleau-Ponty assignait au philosophe dans la cité : celui d’un analyste qui ne cherche pas seulement à dévoiler les mensonges des idéologies, mais à montrer ce que les situations peuvent avoir d’ambigu, sans pour autant renoncer à l’idéal de liberté et de justice, par un mélange de pragmatisme et de discours de vérité qui s’adresse directement à la conscience des citoyens et non à telle classe sociale. This volume contains the transcripts of several radio interviews: La Tribune de Paris (1946-1948), La Tribune des Temps Modernes (1947), Les Entretiens sur la philosophie (1950-52), and the lengthy Entretiens avec Georges Charbonnier (1959). While the first few are unfortunately presented without the other person’s responses (Sartre, Hyppolite, etc.), which are summarized, those with Charbonnier are presented verbatim, including the slips not retained in the radio broadcasts. Finally, texts by Merleau-Ponty’s own hand are added to this collection. They are the responses in the Forum of L’Express (1954-54) that had not been retained by the author when he composed the “Propos” of Signs (1960). The bulk of the volume is dedicated to politics and enables the clarification of the role that Merleau-Ponty assigned to the philosopher in the city: that of an analyst who does not just seek to expose the falsehoods of ideologies, but to reveal the potential ambiguity in situations through a mixture of pragmatism and truth speaking that addresses itself directly to the conscience of citizens and not to a particular social class, and all of this without renouncing the ideal of liberty and justice. Questo volume contiene la trascrizione di diverse interviste e colloqui radiofonici: La Tribune de Paris (1946-1948), La Tribune des Temps Modernes (1947), Les Entretiens sur la philosophie (1950-52), e le lunghe interviste di Merleau-Ponty con Georges Charbonnier (1959). Mentre i primi colloqui sono restituiti purtroppo senza gli interventi di terzi (come ad esempio Sartre e Hyppolite, etc.), che vi si trovano solamente riassunti, le interviste con Charbonnier sono invece riportate per esteso, ivi compresi gli errori che erano stati eliminati nelle trasmissioni via radio. Completa il volume una selezione di testi di Merleau-Ponty, in cui sono raccolti gli interventi apparsi nella rubrica Forum de L’Express (1954-54), che non erano confluiti nella sezione « Propos » pubblicata dall’autore in Segni (1960). L’insieme del volume è essenzialmente dedicato alla tematica politica e permette di comprendere il ruolo che Merleau-Ponty assegnava al filosofo rispetto alla città : quello di un analista che non cerca solamente di smascherare le menzogne delle ideologie, ma anche di mostrare l’ambiguità delle circostanze, senza però rinunciare ad un ideale di libertà e di giustizia, con un miscuglio di pragmatismo e di discorso di verità che si rivolge direttamente alla coscienza dei cittadini e non a una certa classe sociale.
14. Chiasmi International: Volume > 19
Martina Ferrari Paradoxical Beginnings: Reading Judith Butler’s Senses of the Subject
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Spanning nearly twenty years (1993-2012), the essays in Judith Butler’s Senses of the Subject investigate the processes of subject formation. Via an engagement with canonical philosophical figures like Descartes, Malebranche, Merleau-Ponty, Spinoza, Irigaray, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Sartre, and Fanon, Butler develops the thesis that a radical “susceptibility” or “impressionability” vis-à-vis social and linguistic powers is constitutive of the “I.” This claim, as I suggest in the review, has two implications. First, any attempt to account for this process of initial formation is inherently paradoxical; it seeks to put into words a moment that is temporally and structurally prior to the emergence and development of the “I” and the ability to recount such an emergence. Second, the subject, and also the process of subject’s formation, is structurally and temporally open, incessantly relying upon that which is “external” to the subject for its emergence. This collection, which is exclusively devoted to Butler’s engagement with the philosophical tradition, is an invaluable contribution not only to the understanding of Butler’s philosophy and her relationship with the canon. It also opens the space for an investigation of Butler’s philosophical commitments to query why the body seems to dematerialize from her work, even, it seems, when she makes the materiality of the body an explicit focus of her inquiry.Sur une durée de presque vingt ans (1993-2012), les essais rassemblés dans Senses of the Subject de Judith Butler examinent les processus de la formation des sujets. À travers le débat avec des figures philosophiques canoniques telles que Descartes, Malebranche, Merleau-Ponty, Spinoza, Irigaray, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Sartre et Fanon, Butler développe la thèse qu’une « susceptibilité » ou « impressionnabilité » radicale par rapport aux pouvoirs sociaux et linguistiques est constitutive du « Moi ». Cette thèse, comme je le suggère dans ma recension, a deux implications. En premier lieu, toute tentative de rendre compte de ce processus de formation initiale est paradoxal ; elle consiste à mettre en mots un moment qui est temporellement et structurellement premier par rapport à l’émergence et au développement du « Moi » et donc à la capacité de rendre compte d’une telle émergence. En second lieu, le sujet, et donc aussi le processus de formation du sujet, est structurellement et temporellement ouvert, et repose continuellement sur ce qui est « externe » au sujet pour son émergence. Ce recueil, exclusivement consacré au débat de Butler avec la tradition philosophique, est une contribution incontournable, non seulement pour la compréhension de la philosophie de Butler et de sa relation avec le canon, mais encore parce qu’il ouvre un espace pour examiner pourquoi le corps semble dématérialisé dans son oeuvre, même lorsqu’elle fait de la matérialité du corps le centre de sa réflexion. Distribuiti lungo l’arco di quasi vent’anni (1993-2012), i saggi contenuti in Senses of the Subject di Judith Butler indagano il processo della formazione del soggetto. Attraverso un confronto con figure canoniche della filosofia come Cartesio, Malebranche, Merleau-Ponty, Spinoza, Irigaray, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Sartre e Fanon, Butler sviluppa la tesi che l’“Io” sia costituito da una radicale “suscettibilità” o “impressionabilità” rispetto ai poteri sociali e linguistici. Questa tesi, come suggerisco nella mia recensione, ha due implicazioni. In primo luogo, qualunque tentativo di rendere conto di questo processo di formazione iniziale è paradossale: si tratterebbe di un tentativo di esprimere attraverso le parole un momento che è temporalmente e strutturalmente precedente all’emergere e svilupparsi dell’“Io” e alla capacità di riportare e riferire questo stesso emergere. In secondo luogo, il soggetto, così come il processo della sua formazione, è strutturalmente e temporalmente aperto, e si affida incessantemente a ciò che è “esterno” al soggetto stesso nel suo emergere. La raccolta in questione, interamente dedicata al confronto di Butler con la tradizione filosofica, non soltanto rappresenta un contributo inestimabile per la comprensione della filosofia dell’autrice e della sua relazione con la tradizione; essa offre anche la possibilità di mettere a fuoco i termini dell’impegno filosofico di Butler, così da chiarire perché il corpo sembri smaterializzarsi dal suo lavoro anche laddove apparentemente l’autrice fa della materialità del corpo un nucleo centrale della propria indagine.
15. Chiasmi International: Volume > 19
Sarah McLay Self as Divergence: Reading David Morris’ and Kym Maclaren’s Time, Memory, Institution. Merleau-Ponty’s New Ontology of Self
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Kym Maclaren’s and David Morris’ edited volume Time, Memory, Institution: Merleau-Ponty’s New Ontology of Self is an excellent study of Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s concepts of memory, temporality and institution. Its chapters examine these concepts in their relation to his indirect ontology, together revealing that selfhood is instituted via ontological disparity or divergence (écart). In this review, I explore what I take to be the most salient insights of the book’s authors, and suggest that the volume as a whole repositions phenomenology towards a method that is implicated and operates in the movements of Being itself, and therefore calls for a critical phenomenology.Le volume Time, Memory, Institution: Merleau-Ponty’s New Ontology of Self dirigé par Kym Maclaren et David Morris présente une excellente étude des concepts de mémoire, temporalité et institution chez Merleau-Ponty. Ces concepts sont examinés en rapport avec l’ontologie indirecte de Merleau-Ponty, afin de révéler que le soi s’institue à travers un écart ontologique. Dans ce compte rendu, j’explore les intuitions des auteurs que je considère comme étant les plus significatives et je cherche à montrer comment l’ouvrage dans son ensemble vient replacer la phénoménologie dans la perspective d’une méthode qui opère dans les mouvements de l’Être lui-même, et appelle donc à une critique de la phénoménologie.Kym Maclaren e David Morris sono i curatori del volume Time, Memory, Institution: Merleau-Ponty’s New Ontology of Self che presenta un’eccellente analisi dei concetti di memoria, temporalità e istituzione nel pensiero del filosofo francese. Queste nozioni sono indagate in relazione all’ontologia indiretta di Merleau-Ponty, rivelando allo stesso tempo che il sé si istituisce a partire dalla disparità (écart) o dallo scarto ontologico. In questa recensione, mi concentro su quelli che ritengo essere gli apporti più significativi di questa opera collettiva, per mostrare come il volume nel suo insieme venga a riposizionare la fenomenologia nella prospettiva di un metodo che opera nei movimenti dell’Essere stesso e quindi implica una critica della fenomenologia.
16. Chiasmi International: Volume > 21
Judith Wambacq L’animisme de Merleau-Ponty et Guattari. Une critique de La machine sensible de Stefan Kristensen
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Avec son livre La machine sensible, Stefan Kristensen réalise, de façon magistrale, deux objectifs. D’abord, il met en lien la pensée de deux philosophes qui sont à première vue très éloignés l’un de l’autre. Il s’agit de Félix Guattari et de Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Traditionnellement, Merleau-Ponty est considéré comme le philosophe du corps, tandis que Guattari est connu comme le philosophe du corps sans organes. Merleau-Ponty est un phénoménologue, tandis que Guattari prétend abandonner le point de vue du sujet. Kristensen démontre avec succès quel est le terrain commun des deux auteurs : la critique de la conception psychanalytique du sujet.Le deuxième objectif du livre découle directement du premier : présenter au lecteur une alternative à la conception intimiste de la subjectivité, soit comprendre la subjectivité comme fondamentalement parcourue par une altérité. Merleau-Ponty a été l’un des premiers, à l’instar de Paul Schilder, à mettre l’accent sur le caractère collectif et intersubjectif de cette altérité. Guattari a compris que cette altérité possède des sédiments politiques et historiques.With his book La machine sensible, Stefan Kristensen accomplishes two goals in a masterly way. First, he links the works of two philosophers who are very different at first sight: Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Félix Guattari. Traditionally, Merleau-Ponty is considered the philosopher of the body, whereas Guattari is known as the philosopher of the body without organs. Merleau-Ponty is a phenomenologist, whereas Guattari pretends to abandon the point of view of the subject. Kristensen identifies the common ground of the two authors: the criticism of the psychoanalytical conception of the subject.The second goal of the book derives directly from the first: present the reader with an alternative for the intimate conception of subjectivity, that is, present him or her with the idea that subjectivity is always characterized by an alterity. Merleau-Ponty, following the example of Paul Schilder, has been one of the first to stress the collective and intersubjective nature of this alterity. Guattari has understood that this alterity has political and historical sediments.Con il suo libro La machine sensible, Stefan Kristensen realizza magistralmente due obiettivi. Innanzitutto, egli mette in relazione il pensiero di due filosofi a prima vista molto distanti tra loro: Félix Guattari e Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Se tradizionalmente Merleau-Ponty è considerato il filosofo del corpo, Guattari è invece noto come il filosofo del corpo senza organi. Merleau-Ponty è un fenomenologo, mentre il pensiero di Guattari intende abbandonare il punto di vista del soggetto. Kristensen propone allora di leggere la critica della concezione psicoanalitica del soggetto come terreno comune tra i due autori. Il secondo obiettivo del libro discende direttamente dal primo: presentare al lettore un’alternativa alla concezione intimista della soggettività, ovvero concepire la soggettività come fondamentalmente percorsa da un’alterità. Merleau-Ponty è tra i primi, sulla scorta di Paul Schilder, a porre l’accento sul carattere collettivo e intersoggettivo di questa alterità. Dal canto suo, Guattari ha compreso che questa alterità possiede dei sedimenti politici e storici.
17. Chiasmi International: Volume > 21
Charles Bobant Compte Rendu de Anna Caterina Dalmasso, Le Corps, c’est l’écran. La philosophie du visuel de Merleau-Ponty
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Dans son livre Le corps, c’est l’écran. La philosophie du visuel de Merleau-Ponty, Anna Caterina Dalmasso met en évidence la présence de la pensée merleau-pontienne dans les réflexions contemporaines relevant des visual studies, de la médiologie et des études cinématographiques. Les analyses menées révèlent un Merleau-Ponty à l’origine d’un certain nombre de « tournants » majeurs dans le questionnement, touchant notamment à la conception de l’image (de l’image copie d’un modèle à l’image qui nous regarde) et du médium (du modèle de la transparence à celui de l’opacité). Enfin, l’une des ambitions – et l’une des réussites – de l’ouvrage est de restituer l’apport significatif de Merleau-Ponty pour les film studies. A.C. Dalmasso jette des lumières nouvelles sur une interrogation en constante évolution, en s’appuyant à la fois sur les textes bien connus (« Le cinéma et la nouvelle psychologie », L’OEil et l’esprit) et les « inédits » (Le Monde sensible et le monde de l’expression).In her book Le corps, c’est l’écran. La philosophie du visuel de Merleau-Ponty, Anna Caterina Dalmasso brings to light the presence of Merleau-pontian thought in contemporary reflections relevant to visual studies, as well as film and media studies. The analyses she carried out reveal a Merleau-Ponty at the origin of a certain number of major “turns” in the inquiry, touching notably on the conception of the image (from the image as copy of a model to the image that looks at us) and of the medium (from the model of transparency to that of opacity). Besides, one of the ambitions – and one of the successes – of the work is to demonstrate the significant contribution of Merleau-Ponty for film studies. A.C. Dalmasso throws new light on an interrogation in constant evolution, stressing both well-known texts (“Film and the New Psychology,” Eye and Mind) and unpublished manuscripts (Le monde sensible et le monde de l’expression).Nel volume Le corps, c’est l’écran. La philosophie du visuel de Merleau-Ponty, Anna Caterina Dalmasso mette in evidenza la presenza del pensiero merleau-pontyano nelle riflessioni contemporanee dei visual studies, della teoria del cinema e dei media. Le analisi che vi sono condotte rivelano un Merleau-Ponty all’origine di alcune importanti “svolte”, che riguardano in particolare la concezione dell’immagine (dall’immagine come copia di un modello ad un’immagine che ci guarda) e del medium (da un modello basato sulla trasparenza a uno che fa perno sulla sua opacità). Inoltre, una delle ambizioni – e uno degli aspetti più originali – dell’opera è quella di restituire il significativo apporto di Merleau-Ponty per l’ambito dei film studies. A.C. Dalmasso fa luce in modo innovativo su un tema di ricerca in costante evoluzione, appoggiandosi ad un tempo su scritti più noti (come “Il cinema e la nuova psicologia” e L’occhio e lo spirito) e su alcuni testi “inediti” (in particolare Le monde sensible et le monde de l’expression).
18. Chiasmi International: Volume > 21
Matteo Segatto Recensione ad “aut aut”, numero 381, “Sartre/Merleau-Ponty. Un dissidio produttivo”
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
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.
19. Chiasmi International: Volume > 22
Jérôme Melançon Recension d’Ange Bergson Lendja Ngnemzué, Identité et primauté d’autrui. La philosophie merleau-pontyenne de l’hospitalité
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
The book Identité et primauté d’autrui presents a study of intersubjectivity in Merleau-Ponty. Subjectivity emerges against a background of a world shared with the other, a human world, and is preceded by its relationship to the other. The assumption of the primary character of this relationship takes on the shape of hospitality. Such a politics of hospitality is opposed to state politics aiming for cultural security and the defense of values, taking their origins in neoconservatism and notably deployed against immigration and mixity. This original study of hospitality, departing from Merleau-Ponty in an original manner while remaining anchored in the Phenomenology of Perception, offers a response to the need to protect an unavoidable ontological pluralism.
20. Chiasmi International: Volume > 22
Martín Miguel Buceta Compte rendu de Claudio Cormick, Opacidad y relativismo. La situacionalidad del conocimiento en tensión entre Merleau-Ponty y Foucault
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
In Opacidad y relativismo. La situacionalidad del conocimiento en tensión entre Merleau-Ponty y Foucault, Claudio Cormick introduces Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s and Michel Foucault’s philosophies as attempts to face two possible obstacles for human knowledge : on the one hand, the opacity of consciousness with regard to the foundations of its own positions; on the other, the relative, non-absolute character of our claims to truth, inasmuch as they are formulated within concrete social and historical conditions.