L'anthropologie de Merleau-Ponty déplace la question de l'humanité en direction d'un questionnement de type ontologique, ayant vocation à redéfinir les catégories de l'expérience, et d'une philosophie de la nature qui seule peut rendre compte du phénomène humain.

Ya-t-il une vie après Merleau-Ponty? Peut-on considérer l'œuvre du phénoménologue français, non pas comme un objet d'exégèse, mais plutôt comme une matrice philosophique encore féconde aujourd'hui? Faut-il prendre au sérieux la synthèse attendue de l'empirique et du transcendantal, la réconciliation programmée de la philosophie et de la science, bref le géométral de l'ambiguïté? C'est le pari que lance cet ouvrage : confrontant Merleau-Ponty à d'autres qui vinrent après lui, et chez qui sa pensée mène une vie seconde, il tente de (...) montrer que le paysage conceptuel merleau-pontien est encore le nôtre, et qu'il n'a rien perdu de son relief. Merleau-Ponty et Foucault, Merleau-Ponty et Bourdieu, Merleau-Ponty et les neurones miroirs... : autant de dialogues fictifs, engageant l'essentiel d'une pensée dans des prolongements inattendus, lui posant des questions qu'elle ne se posait pas forcément, la poussant sur des chemins nouveaux pour elle. Où l'on verra que l'étonnante torsion que Merleau-Ponty avait imprimée à la phénoménologie husserlienne, la subjectivité transcendantale réformée depuis les pouvoirs du corps propre, et par là délestée de ses tentations absolutisantes, représentent une véritable proposition philosophique: une proposition riche de virtualités inexplorées, et qui a tout son avenir devant elle. (shrink)

Today, two forces combine to produce a systematic transformation in all that is given. First, the economic force of the global market is propelled by a series of techno-scientific advances that continually reinvent that market. Second, the political force of modern democracies, in spite of their different actualizations, centers individual autonomy as the ultimate norm that would create each individual’s future. The human body, in virtue of its intrinsic plasticity and because it is always the body of a particular individual, (...) lends itself to this process of unlimited transformation in a privileged way. As such, the human body is the promise of enhancement without end. The following questions thus arise: Does the human body possess normative aspects that would bound or enclose its future transformations when considered from the modern frame of the autonomous individual? Could Merleau-Ponty’s notion of le corps propre point us in the direction of an answer? Is there a bodily given that authorizes self-experience, apart from any external or theological frame? Or, is the bodily given only a myth that obscures the human body’s actual capacity for unlimited transformation?Aujourd’hui, deux forces se combinent pour produire une transformation systématique sur tout ce qui est donné. Premièrement, la force économique du marché mondial est mue par une série de progrès techno-scientifiques qui le réinvente continuellement. Deuxièmement, la force politique des démocraties modernes, en dépit de leurs différentes actualisations, centre l’autonomie individuelle en tant que norme ultime qui pourrait créer le futur de chaque individu. Le corps humain, en vertu de sa plasticité intrinsèque et parce qu’il est toujours le corps d’un individu particulier, se prête lui-même à ce processus de transformation illimitée d’une manière privilégiée. Ainsi, le corps humain est la promesse d’une amélioration sans fin. Émergent alors les questions suivantes : le corps humain possède-t-il des aspects normatifs qui lieraient ou enfermeraient ses transformations futures lorsqu’il est considéré à partir du cadre moderne de l’autonomie individuelle? La notion merleau-pontienne de corps propre peut-elle nous donner une réponse? Y a-t-il un corporellement donné qui autorise une expérience de soi, en dehors de tout cadre extérieur ou théologique? Ou bien, le corporellement donné n’est-il qu’un mythe qui obscurcit la capacité actuelle de transformation illimitée du corps humain?Oggi, due forze contribuiscono a produrre una trasformazione sistematica di tutto ciò che è dato. In primo luogo, la forza economica del mercato globale, alimentata da una serie di progressi tecnologici che continuano a reinventare il mercato. In secondo luogo, la forza politica delle moderne democrazie, che, nonostante le loro differenti attualizzazioni, indicano l’autonomia individuale come norma ultima, in grado di garantire il futuro del singolo. Il corpo umano, in virtù della sua plasticità intrinseca e dal momento in cui esso è sempre il corpo di uno specifico individuo, si presta in modo privilegiato a questo processo di continua trasformazione. In quanto tale, il corpo umano è la promessa di un potenziamento illimitato. Il chè suscita le seguenti domande: vi sono degli aspetti normativi che verrebbero a limitare o vincolare le future trasformazioni del corpo umano, considerato nella prospettiva moderna dell’individuo autonomo? La nozione di corpo proprio elaborata da Merleau-Ponty può metterci sulle tracce di una risposta? Esiste un “corpo dato” che autorizzi un’esperienza di sé, a prescindere da ogni orizzonte esterno o teleologico? Oppure il “corpo dato” è puramente un mito che verrebbe a oscurare le illimitate capacità di trasformazione del corpo umano? (shrink)

L’association systématique des sciences humaines au discours philosophique s’accomplit, dans l’œuvre de Merleau-Ponty, selon un dispositif original. Philosophie et sciences humaines se rencontrent ici autour du caractère problématique de l’humain, tel que Descartes l’avait défini. Le problème de l’union de l’âme et du corps revient alors à la philosophie sous la forme d’une antinomie, opposant le point de vue subjectif de la réflexion et le point de vue objectif du savoir empirique, et y induit un questionnement de type ontologique. Mais (...) ce même problème traverse les sciences humaines, et y prend la forme d’une crise qui les affecte de l’intérieur : parce qu’elles visent un être qui est à la fois l’objet d’un savoir positif, et le sujet fondateur de ce savoir, ces sciences sont vouées à une instabilité et à une critique perpétuelle de leurs propres principes. À l’ontologie interrogative répond ainsi l’autocritique du scientifique, selon une configuration à laquelle l’œuvre de Foucault nous aura rendu familiers. Mais alors que Les mots et les choses décident finalement, sous le chef de la « mort de l’homme », d’en finir avec un dispositif jugé stérile, le même dispositif trouve chez Merleau-Ponty à s’enraciner dans l’être, et à s’attester phénoménologiquement à travers une pensée de l’avènement. (shrink)

L’anthropologie philosophique allemande fait depuis quelques années en France l’objet d’un commentaire fourni. On découvre ou redécouvre un ensemble de penseurs qui, de Scheler à Gehlen, de Plessner à Portmann, tentèrent héroïquement de concevoir, à l’aune d’un fait évolutif récemment établi, la « position singulière » (Sonderstellung) de l’homme dans la nature. Or le phénomène se trouve en grande partie infléchi par la réception française au même moment de l’oeuvre de Hans Blumenberg, et plu...

En son appellation précise, « l’attention conjointe » (joint attention) est un thème de réflexion nouveau pour la philosophie. Elle fait son apparition en 1975, mais il faut attendre les années 1990 pour la voir intéresser, aussi bien les psychologues de l’enfant, que les éthologues, qu’enfin les philosophes, essentiellement du côté de ce qu’il est convenu d’appeler la « philosophie de l’esprit » anglo-saxonne (philosophy of mind). Les uns et les autres reconnaissent en elle un seuil, quand c...

What is it Like to See as a Human Being ?We will ask here “what is it like to see as a human being?” Such a question is difficult, for taking a step back from perception and considering that it might not be what it is, this question goes against what is commonly called the “natural attitude”. Merleau-Ponty orchestrates this relativization of human seeing and itsspontaneous realism in two different ways. First, there is what might be called the “way of (...) finitude.” This consists in taking the point of view from nowhere on perception, the point of view of a mind without worldly attachments. We would then say, as Merleau-Ponty never stopped saying, that perceiving is not seeing from nowhere, and that we always perceive from somewhere, in a finite body, and not from the point of view of god. Our animal origin, however, offers a second, quite different way of frustrating the dogmatism of the perceptual faith. This is the way that Merleau-Ponty adopts in The Structure of Behavior, where he is, in a very natural manner, brought to interrogate that which distinguishes animal perception from human perception. His answer here is valuable: to see as a human is to be capable of “perspectival multiplicity.” To catch sight of such a concept, to see human seeing as plural and excessive, is only possible for someone who has abandoned the point of view of nowhere and who has decided to philosophize starting from the animal.Che effetto fa vedere come un essere umano?Noi ci chiederemo qui che cosa significa «vedere come un essere umano». La questione è difficile, poiché, nell’assumere un distacco rispetto alla percezione e nel supporre che questa possa non essere ciò che è, va contro ciò che comunemente si definisce «atteggiamento naturale». Merleau-Ponty orchestrerà in due modi diversi questa relativizzazione del vedere umano, e del suo realismo spontaneo. Vi è prima di tutto ciò che si potrebbe chiamare la « via della finitezza ». Questa consiste nel prendere nei confronti della percezione il punto di vista assoluto, il punto di vista di uno spirito privo di legami mondani; diremo allora, come Merleau-Ponty non cessa di ripetere, che percepire non è vedere da nessun luogo, che percepiamo sempre da qualche luogo, in un corpo finito, e non dal punto di vista di dio. La nostra origine animale si offre tuttavia come una seconda modalità, ben diversa, di svelare il dogmatismo della fede percettiva. È la via che Merleau-Ponty fa propria ne La Struttura del comportamento, in cui egli è naturalmente portato ad interrogarsi su ciò che distingue le percezioni animali ed umane. Da qui questa risposta, per noi preziosa: vedere come un essere umano significa essere capaci di una « molteplicità prospettica ». Intravedere un tale concetto, vedere il vedere umano come plurale ed eccessivo, è ciò di cui è capace solamente chi ha abbandonato un punto di vista assoluto ed ha deciso difilosofare a partire dall’animale. (shrink)

La sociologie bourdieusienne du sens pratique apparaît comme un prolongement fidèle de la philosophie merleau-pontienne du corps percevant; du coup cette dernière tombe sous l’objection, fréquemment adressée à Bourdieu, d’un nouveau sociologisme. On verra qu’une définition plus fine de la chair, et la notion de rôle qui y est inscrite, répondent à l’objection, libérant la possibilité d’une véritable pratique réflexive.

Perguntaremos aqui "como seria ver como um ser humano". Tal questão é difícil, pois recuando um passo em relação à percepção e considerando que ela pode não ser o que é, essa questão vai de encontro àquilo que é comumente considerado como a "atitude natural". Merleau-Ponty articulou esta relativização da visão humana e seu realismo espontâneo de duas maneiras diferentes. Em primeiro lugar, há o que poderia ser chamado a "via da finitude". Ela consiste em assumir o ponto de vista (...) de parte alguma para a percepção, o ponto de vista de um espírito sem ligações mundanas. Poder-se-ia dizer então, como Merleau-Ponty não pára de dizer, que perceber não é ver de parte alguma, eque sempre percebemos a partir de algum lugar, em um corpo finito, e não do ponto de vista de deus. Nossa origem animal, contudo, oferece uma segunda maneira completamente diferente de frustar o dogmatismo da fé perceptiva. Essa é a via adotada por Merleau-Ponty em A estrutura do comportamento, onde muito naturalmente ele é levado a interrogar o que distingue a percepção animal da percepção humana. Sua resposta é valiosa: ver como um ser humano significa ser capaz de "multiplicidade perspectiva". Apreender tal conceito e encarar a visão humana como plural e como excesso, apenas é possível para quem abandonou o ponto de vista de parte alguma e decidiu filosofar começando pelo animal.Percepção. Origem animal. Ser humano. Atitude natural. Multiplicidade.We will ask here “what is it like to see as a human”. Such a question is difficult, for in taking a step back from perception and in considering that it might not be what it is, this question goes against what is commonly called the “natural attitude”. Merleau-Ponty will have orchestrated this relativization of human seeing and its spontaneous realism in two different ways. First, there is what might be called the “way of finitude.” This consists in taking the point of view from nowhere on perception, the point of view of a mind without worldly attachments. We would then say, as Merleau-Ponty never stopped saying, that perceiving is not seeing from nowhere, and that we always perceive from somewhere, in a finite body, and not from the point of view of god. Our animal origin, however, offers a second, quite different way of frustrating the dogmatism of the perceptual faith. This is the way that Merleau-Ponty adopts in The Structure of Behavior, where he is, in a very natural manner, brought to interrogate that which distinguishes animal perception from human perception. His answer here is valuable: to see as a human is to be capable of “perspectival multiplicity.” To catch sight of such a concept, to see human seeing as plural and excessive, is only possible for someone who has abandoned the point of view of nowhere and who has decided to philosophize starting from the animal.Perception. Animal Origin. Human being. Natural attitude. Perspectival multiplicity. (shrink)

In this article I reconsider the question of anthropological difference. I demonstrate that at least three motives prevent us from facing up to the originality of human behavior: science, morals, and also philosophy want us to believe that this question is a thing of the past. I come back to these three motives so as to criticize them and to reveal their flimsiness. And I try to show that one may advocate, in a naturalistic way and without metaphysics, the idea (...) that there remains something that is “proper to humankind.”. (shrink)

One cannot consider the future of continental philosophy without accounting for its specific “hermeneutic situation.” It seems to us that the state of continental philosophy today returns us to metaphysics and to the possibility of truly having done with it. Continental philosophy, in reality, does not cease to live metaphysically, because by asserting the end of metaphysics, it still continues to think according to the topos of the here-and-now and the beyond: that which seeks the ruin of the heavens continues (...) to obsess over the heavens; the cult of immanence can only understand itself in opposition to the other world, therefore in constant reference to it; insufficiently radical, the critique, in the words of Karl-Otto Apel, is but an “inverted metaphysics.” Our inversions of the for and against (the sensible vs. the intelligible, the body vs. the soul, the empirical vs. the transcendental, and more recently, the multiple vs. the one) still belong to the landscape of metaphysics.How do we imagine what comes after metaphysics? Can philosophy think according to a topos other than the one of the world above and the world below? Can it respatialize itself in a new way? Put more precisely, can we accept what science tells us about the world and about humanity in any other way than as the deposing of the other world? Can science provide us with anything other than weapons against metaphysics; in other words, can science give us anything other than metaphysics? As a response to these questions, we imagine an alternative scenario tied to the (scientifically attested) fact of our animal origin. Our animal origin can be, for philosophy and more specifically for phenomenology, the chance for a new beginning. But it can do so only on the condition that it does not follow the current method of evolutionary psychology. If it is true that we can be metaphysicians while being reductionistic, because we thus preserve the “old schema,” then evolutionary psychology is today, in virtue of its very reductionism, one of the more metaphysical currents of thought. Conversely, if phenomenology decides to face the fact of evolution and to confront its estrangement, we think that it possesses all the resources to invent a new intellectual landscape. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Decentering the Brain: Embodied Cognition and the Critique of Neurocentrism and Narrow-Minded Philosophy of Mind” by Shaun Gallagher.: In this commentary I suggest that the “E-approaches” advocated by Gallagher should move a step further, beyond the negative critiques that they address to the classical framework in cognitive science. If these approaches do not want to look like a “decapitated program,” neglecting the rational dimension of our experience, more should be said about our higher-level capacities (...) and their perceptual and pragmatic foundation. (shrink)

« L?homme ne peut jamais être un animal » : aussi surprenant que cela puisse paraître, la formule est de Merleau-Ponty lui-même, dans La Structure du comportement . Nous montrons ici qu?une telle formule non seulement est viable, mais qu?elle illustre un dispositif anthropologique parfaitement cohérent, mis en place dans le premier ouvrage de Merleau-Ponty et opératoire jusqu?à la fin de son ?uvre. La phénoménologie merleau-pontienne de la perception, comme son ontologie du sensible, explicitent un acte (la perception) ou un (...) mode d?être (le sensible) qui, jusque dans leur dimension la plus « sauvage » (la plus désintellectualisée), ne peuvent appartenir qu?à l?homme, c?est-à-dire à un être symbolique ou parlant. (shrink)

What is it Like to See as a Human Being?We will ask here “what is it like to see as a human being?” Such a question is difficult, for taking a step back from perception and considering that it might not be what it is, this question goes against what is commonly called the “natural attitude”. Merleau-Ponty orchestrates this relativization of human seeing and itsspontaneous realism in two different ways. First, there is what might be called the “way of finitude.” (...) This consists in taking the point of view from nowhere on perception, the point of view of a mind without worldly attachments. We would then say, as Merleau-Ponty never stopped saying, that perceiving is not seeing from nowhere, and that we always perceive from somewhere, in a finite body, and not from the point of view of god. Our animal origin, however, offers a second, quite different way of frustrating the dogmatism of the perceptual faith. This is the way that Merleau-Ponty adopts in The Structure of Behavior, where he is, in a very natural manner, brought to interrogate that which distinguishes animal perception from human perception. His answer here is valuable: to see as a human is to be capable of “perspectival multiplicity.” To catch sight of such a concept, to see human seeing as plural and excessive, is only possible for someone who has abandoned the point of view of nowhere and who has decided to philosophize starting from the animal.Che effetto fa vedere come un essere umano?Noi ci chiederemo qui che cosa significa «vedere come un essere umano». La questione è difficile, poiché, nell’assumere un distacco rispetto alla percezione e nel supporre che questa possa non essere ciò che è, va contro ciò che comunemente si definisce «atteggiamento naturale». Merleau-Ponty orchestrerà in due modi diversi questa relativizzazione del vedere umano, e del suo realismo spontaneo. Vi è prima di tutto ciò che si potrebbe chiamare la « via della finitezza ». Questa consiste nel prendere nei confronti della percezione il punto di vista assoluto, il punto di vista di uno spirito privo di legami mondani; diremo allora, come Merleau-Ponty non cessa di ripetere, che percepire non è vedere da nessun luogo, che percepiamo sempre da qualche luogo, in un corpo finito, e non dal punto di vista di dio. La nostra origine animale si offre tuttavia come una seconda modalità, ben diversa, di svelare il dogmatismo della fede percettiva. È la via che Merleau-Ponty fa propria ne La Struttura del comportamento, in cui egli è naturalmente portato ad interrogarsi su ciò che distingue le percezioni animali ed umane. Da qui questa risposta, per noi preziosa: vedere come un essere umano significa essere capaci di una « molteplicità prospettica ». Intravedere un tale concetto, vedere il vedere umano come plurale ed eccessivo, è ciò di cui è capace solamente chi ha abbandonato un punto di vista assoluto ed ha deciso difilosofare a partire dall’animale. (shrink)

Quelque chose a changé dans notre rapport aux animaux. La " cause animale " est à l'ordre du jour, et le vivant humain est désormais plus essentiellement animal qu'humain. Cela s'appelle un zoocentrisme : au centre de notre humanité, l'animalité. En apparence, nous avons tout à gagner à cette nouvelle image de l'homme. Elle nous vient de la biologie de l'évolution, qui nous a situés, quelque part dans l'ordre des primates, en bonne compagnie avec nos cousins les grands singes. Elle (...) est aussi un appel à réformer et à moraliser nos relations avec les animaux que nous exploitons : on respecte d'autant mieux qui nous ressemble. Enfin l'animalité humaine fait de nous des esprits forts, qui ont su en finir avec les dualismes et les grands partages métaphysiques d'antan. Bref : c'est à tous égards une pensée progressiste, car ouverte à la science, généreuse envers les animaux, et philosophiquement éclairée. Il se pourrait pourtant que ces raisons d'en finir avec la différence homme-animal ne soient qu'un ensemble de pensées bancales qui, entre oubli des sciences humaines, réduction de la vie humaine à sa seule vulnérabilité et déni de ce que nous vivons en première personne, composent finalement le portrait idéologique d'un progressisme stérile. Pouvons-nous échapper au " complexe des trois singes ", ces trois façons de méconnaître ce que nous vivons et faisons comme vivants humains? Et pouvons-nous imaginer un progressisme de vérité conscient de tout ce que nous devons aux animaux sans pour autant renier ce que nous sommes? Etienne Bimbenet est professeur de philosophie contemporaine à l'université Bordeaux Montaigne. Il est notamment l'auteur de L'Animal que je ne suis plus (Gallimard, 2011), et de L'Invention du réalisme (Cerf, 2015). (shrink)

In his last book, Le complexe des trois singes. Essai sur l’animalité humaine (2017), the French philosopher Étienne Bimbenet accuses “sensocentric” (« pathocentristes ») animal ethics of committing a performative contradiction: according to Bimbenet, these theories of animal rights — among which he focuses on the case of Zoopolis (2011) by Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka — would undermine themselves by means of declaring reason a “non-essential” feature of human beings, while at the same time those theories (...) themselves can only be understood as a highly rational human endeavour. As we will try to point out, the alleged performative contradiction does not actually take place. First of all, Donaldson and Kymlicka only describe reason as “non essential” when it comes to describing moral patients, not moral agents, and particularly not moral theoreticians. In the second place, Zoopolis presents itself explicitly as an effort in “articulating moral reasons” — not as a renouncement of reason as such. (shrink)

Kant’s discussion of the highest good is subject to continuous disagreement between the proponents of two interpretations of this concept. According to the secular interpretation, Kant conceived of the highest good as a political ideal which can be realized through human agency alone, albeit only from the Critique of the Power of Judgement onwards. By way of contrast, proponents of the theological interpretation find Kant’s treatment of the highest good in his later works to be wholly coherent with the discussions (...) of this concept found in the second Critique. In their view, however, Kant never conceived of the highest good as a political ideal, and some go as far as to argue that it is the work of God alone. In this article, I defend a theologico-political account of the highest good that avoids the pitfalls of both readings. (shrink)

Western European liberal democracies have recently enacted laws that prohibit the diffusion of fake news on social media. Yet, many consider that such laws are incompatible with freedom of expression. In this paper, I argue that democratic governments have strong pro tanto reasons to prohibit fake news, and that doing so is compatible with free speech. First, I show that fake news disrupts a mutually beneficial form of epistemic dependence in which members of the public are engaged with journalists. Second, (...) I contend that laws against fake news enhance rather than thwart personal autonomy. If these suggestions are plausible, then the same considerations about truth and autonomy that underpin the value of free speech give us reasons to prohibit fake news. (shrink)

The important work, exquisitely translated by Mark Wauck, brings the essential elements of philosophy into view as a cohesive, readily understandable, and erudite structure, and does so rigorously in the best tradition of St. Thomas.