Abstract

This article (in German) presents a sustained critique of Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht's conceptual dichotomy of linguistic meaning and bodily or perceptual presence (as developed in his "Production of Presence: What Meaning Cannot Convey" and other writings). It is argued that Gumbrecht's fear of a "loss of presence" in contemporary philosophical reflection is based on a certain formalist-structuralist view of language that is, although predominant in some quarters during the 20th century, ultimately untenable. The right way to make room for a contemplation of presence in Gumbrecht's sense is not to accept this mistaken view of language and then introduce presence as language's other, but rather to follow philosophers like Gadamer, later Wittgenstein, and McDowell in developing a post-formalist view of embodied language, according to which perceptual presence is essentially meaningful and linguistic meaning is essentially phenomenologically present.