Displaying: 21-40 of 41 documents

0.093 sec

21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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).
25. 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.
26. Chiasmi International: Volume > 11
Paride Broggi Deleuze: una vita all’immanenza
27. Chiasmi International: Volume > 11
Simone Frangi Silenzio inedito
28. Chiasmi International: Volume > 11
Mariana Larison Vers une phénoménologie de la trans-parution
29. Chiasmi International: Volume > 4
Pierre Cassou-Noguès Chair et langage: Essais sur Merleau-Ponty
30. Chiasmi International: Volume > 5
Stefen Kristensen L’expression au-delà de la représentation: Sur l’aisthêsis et l’esthétique chez Merleau-Ponty
31. Chiasmi International: Volume > 6
Fabrice Colonna Du lien des êtres aux éléments de l’être: Merleau-Ponty au tournant des années 1945-1951
32. Chiasmi International: Volume > 12
Simone Frangi Vivant Jusqu’à La Mort (French)
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Vivant jusqu’à la mortCompte-rendu de A. Cavazzini, A. Gualandi (édité par), Logiche del vivente.Evoluzione, sviluppo, cognizione nell’epistemologia francese contemporanea,“Discipline filosofiche” XIX, I, Quodlibet, Macerata 2009Le nouveau recueil d’essais consacrés à une épistémologie pour la discipline philosophique, sous la direction de A. Cavazzini et A. Gualandi, se structure autourd’une idée forte de Bergson, celle d’ « attention à la vie ». Cette idée est utilisée comme instrument herméneutique pour désigner un aspect de la culture philosophique française du XIXè siècle et de l’époque contemporaine en particulier, qui voit dans l’épistémologie de la biologie un lieu de rencontre entre des perspectives hétérogènes, ainsi qu’un moyen de vérifier l’état actuel des sciences de la vie et d’étudier la possibilité d’une philosophie de la biologie prenant en compte et mettant profit les impulsions des avancées scientifiques. Le recueil cherche à rendre compte de la nouveauté du paradigme biologique contemporain, qui vise un degré extrême de synthèse entre les savoirs et les disciplines liées au « champ biologique ». Logiche del vivente parvient donc à rendre compte de la nouvelle approche synthétique du biologique, ouvrant à ce syncrétisme de positions qui contribue à sa définition contemporaine : évolution, développement et cognition, réunis dans une même perspective, sont les instruments d’une réécriture du vocabulaire et des catégories de la réflexion biologique, indépendamment de l’alternative paralysante entre le « mauvais » vitalisme et le mécanisme.Vivant jusqu’à la mortReview of A. Cavazzini, A. Gualandi (edited by), Logiche del vivente.Evoluzione, sviluppo, cognizione nell’epistemologia francese contemporanea,“Discipline filosofiche” XIX, I, Quodlibet, Macerata 2009Edited by A. Cavazzini and A. Gualandi, this new collection of essays devoted to an epistemology for the philosophical discipline is structured around one of Bergson’s powerful ideas, that of “attention to life.” This idea is used as a hermeneutic structure in order to outline an aspect of the French philosophical culture of the 19th century and of the contemporary epoch in particular. What one sees is that the epistemology of biology is a place of encounter between heterogeneous perspective. As well, it is a means to verify the current state of the life sciences and to study the possibility of a philosophy of biology which would take account of the novelty of the contemporary biological paradigm, a paradigm that aims at an extreme degree of synthesis between the sciences and the disciplines connected to the “biological field.” Logiche del vivente therefore manages to take account of the new synthetic approach of biology, opening itself up to a syncretism of positions which contributes to its contemporary definition: evolution, development and cognition, united in one perspective, are instruments of are-writing of the vocabulary and the categories of biological reflection, independently of the paralyzing alternative be “bad” vitalism and mechanism.
33. Chiasmi International: Volume > 24
Rajiv Kaushik Review of Helen A. Fielding’s Cultivating Perception through Artworks: Phenomenological Enactments of Ethics, Politics, and Culture
34. Chiasmi International: Volume > 24
Bryan Smyth Review of Galen A. Johnson, Mauro Carbone, and Emmanuel De Saint Aubert. Merleau-Ponty’s Poetic of the World: Philosophy and Literature
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. Chiasmi International: Volume > 22
Keith Whitmoyer Review of Mauro Carbone, Philosophy-Screens: From Cinema to the Digital Revolution
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
In this text, my aim is to provide a reading of Mauro Carbone’s Philosophy Screens: From Cinema to the Digital Revolution in the context of his other writings. My claim is that in this most recent work, Carbone makes a decisive step from being an original interpreter of the work of Merleau-Ponty and Proust to making an original contribution to what I describe, following Merleau-Ponty and Carbone, the history of “a-philosophy”: an historical attempt to reverse the “official philosophy” that has been with us since at least Plato. This reversal is staged through a series of concepts, created by Carbone, that I take up here viz à viz Plato’s allegory of the cave: the archescreen, the sensible idea, the screen, and philosophy-cinema (a concept borrowed from Deleuze). Together, these concepts illustrate what I call, borrowing a phrase from Jean-Luc Nancy, a philosophical partance: for Carbone, the work of “philosophizing” should no longer be conceptualized in accordance with Platonic imagery of ascent, illumination, conversion, and importantly, grasping and seizing upon the είδη but as “departure”: allowing the objects of thought their transcendence, a liquidity by which they slip through our grasp.
38. Chiasmi International: Volume > 25
Prisca Amoroso Recensione di Gianluca De Fazio, Avversità e margini di gioco. Studio sulla soggettività in Merleau-Ponty
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Gianluca De Fazio’s book Avversità e margini di gioco. Studio sulla soggettività in Merleau-Ponty presents precise and original research along several nodes of great importance in Merleau-Ponty’s philosophical production, such as subjectivity, expression, passivity, nature, history. By focusing on, without limiting himself to, the 1950’s period, the author declares that he aims at a denaturalization of nature and a dehistoricization of history: an overcoming of dichotomies which, though faithfully following the Merleau-Pontian path, does not fail to have a Deleuzian overtones. The issues of the book are also, and above all, political, shown in the considerations of the task of philosophy.
39. Chiasmi International: Volume > 25
Galen A. Johnson Review of David Michael Kleinberg-Levin, Critical Studies on Heidegger: The Emerging Body of Understanding
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
The present paper is a review of Critical Studies on Heidegger: The Emerging Body of Understanding (SUNY, 2023), by David Michael Kleinberg-Levin, who argues we can find a phenomenology of perception in Heidegger ultimately no different than that of Merleau-Ponty. The concept of “the emerging body of understanding” means the growth or “perfection” of human capabilities in perception – touch, vision, and hearing – that are attentive to our interconnectedness with others and nature as presented by the Fourfold. The conclusion of the review offers some evaluations regarding questions of influence and recently available course notes by Merleau-Ponty about Heidegger’s philosophy.
40. Chiasmi International: Volume > 25
Glen A. Mazis Review of Petri Berndtson, Phenomenological Ontology of Breathing
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Petri Berndtson’s Phenomenological Ontology of Breathing points to the largely unexplored dimension of our being breathing beings. Berndtson draws upon the ontology of the flesh, as well as several comments of Merleau-Ponty about breathing and Being. The primordial perceptual faith in the being of the world as a field of all fields (the “barbaric conviction”) is seen as a primordial sense of breathing in the world (“respiratory faith”). Drawing upon Merleau-Ponty’s reference to Claudel’s call to listen to the ear of Sigé, the Abyss, Berndtson relates silence in the encounter with Being to an encounter with silence of breath and its abyssal or chasmological (“yawning”) quality. He asserts that this level of breathing is a level of being-in-the-world deeper than the primacy of perception. At this point, the review questions the author’s assertion that this dimension is more primordial than perception, that Merleau-Ponty has a positivistic framing of perception, the author’s literal sense of silence and the lack of appreciation of the power of the poetic in flesh ontology, the role of reversibility and the import of the invisible of the visible. Rather than the ontological primacy of breath, the review suggests that breathing is a way of taking in the world and being open to an aerial dimension of inchoate sense that is equiprimordial with the other avenues of perceiving the world.