Por meio de uma apresentação sucinta da ontologia de Merleau-Ponty, a qual é de certo modo retomadapela concepção simondoniana de individuação, o artigo analisa as estratégias teóricas utilizadas por Simondonem Deux leçons sur l’animal et l’homme. Trata-se de fornecer ao leitor uma chave de leitura dessa obra por meio desua vinculação com os debates empreendidos por Merleau-Ponty quando este investiga o conceito de naturezaem sua ontologia tardia. Nos dois casos, não se concebe nem a natureza nem o humano por meio (...) de substâncias,o que resulta na possibilidade de pensar uma comunicação entre estes diferentes níveis de individuação. Porém,diferentemente de Merleau-Ponty, Simondon não escreve uma ontologia, mas sim uma ontogênese. (shrink)

The goal of our article is to review the widespread anthropological figure, according to which we can achieve a better understanding of humans by contrasting them with animals. This originally Herderian approach was elaborated by Arnold Gehlen, who characterized humans as “deficient beings” who become complete through culture. According to Gehlen, humans, who are insufficiently equipped by instincts, indirectly stabilize their existence by creating institutions, i.e., complexes of habitual actions. On the other hand, Maurice Merleau-Ponty shows that corporeal relationship to (...) the world is already indirect because it is based on preestablished and readjusted “standards” or “norms” of interaction with the environment. Merleau-Ponty then calls these norms “institutions” and views culture as readjustment of institutions which operate already on the level of corporeal existence. The anthropological figure of confronting humans and animals thus cannot produce, as in Gehlen, a contrast between an allegedly “direct” relationship to the world in animals and a supposedly “indirect” relationship to the world in humans. The Herderian approach can be meaningfully retained only if interpreted as an invitation to confront the norms of indirect interaction with the world in animals and in people, that is, if viewed as a comparison of their respective institutions. (shrink)

For Merleau-Ponty, the question of phenomenological method was always connected to the problem of expression, in that the results of successful expression can for him amount to a catching of the world “in its nascent state”. In other words, elucidating the phenomena as they show themselves demands a certain amount of creativity to come through. But even though creative expression is without doubt of chief importance for Merleau-Ponty, it is not so easy to determine what exactly it consists in. Minimally, (...) it is more demanding than simply repeating an already formulated expression. On the other hand, it cannot start from nothing – we must begin within an existing tradition, with its acquired expressions, that we somehow take up and transform. A recurrent image of creative expression comes from Malraux, who claimed that it is a “coherent deformation” of what is given in the world. In this paper, I will use Saussure’s principle of analogy to throw light upon the notion of coherent deformation and of creativity. Although Merleau-Ponty merely mentions this principle in passing, I argue that it can clarify the productivity of language that he saw as crucial also for Saussure’s linguistics. (shrink)

Hyppolite stresses his proximity to Merleau-Ponty, but the received interpretation of his “anti-humanist” reading of Hegel suggests a greater distance between their projects. This paper focuses on an under-explored dimension of their philosophical relationship. I argue that Merleau-Ponty and Hyppolite are both committed to formulating a mode of philosophical expression that can avoid the pitfalls of purely formal or literal and purely aesthetic or creative modes of expression. Merleau-Ponty’s attempt to navigate this dichotomy, I suggest, closely resembles Hyppolite’s interpretation of (...) Hegel’s “speculative” mode of expression. In particular, his emphasis on the “mediating” character of philosophical language, which moves between descriptive and creative expression, suggests a debt to Hyppolite. This reading provides more evidence to think that Hyppolite cannot be straightforwardly understood as an anti-humanist or post-phenomenological thinker, and paves the way for a _rapprochement_ between his work and the broader phenomenological tradition. (shrink)

Resumen: El objetivo del siguiente trabajo es explicar cómo la elaboración de una ontología de la naturaleza por parte de Merleau-Ponty se circunscribe en el intento de elaborar un pensamiento del ser que no haga de éste un elemento del pensamiento abstracto, sino que dé cuenta de la experiencia concreta del ser en el mundo. En este sentido, son fundamentales los conceptos de intercorporalidad, negatividad y dialéctica.: The aim of the following work is to explain how the elaboration of an (...) ontology of nature by Merleau-Ponty belongs to an attempt of developing a thought of being which does not reduce it to an element of the abstract thought, but takes into account the concrete experience of being in the world. In this respect, the concepts of intercorporeality, negativity, and dialectics are fundamental. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that Merleau-Ponty reformulates traditional transcendental philosophy in the sense of showing that the a priori conditions of experience cannot be separated from the concrete experiences. In the first section, I revisit Kant and Husserl, to show how these authors delimit the transcendental conditions as a formal domain independent from any concrete experience. Then I reconstruct the argumentative move through which Merleau-Ponty rejects this formal delimitation of the transcendental sphere and reintroduces it as inseparable from empirical (...) domain, initially in The Structure of Behavior and later in Phenomenology of Perception. (shrink)