This chapter explores Michel Foucault's contribution to a critical assessment of modern and contemporary psychiatric practice. It focuses firstly on the History of Madness : the social, political, cultural, epistemological construction of the object "psychiatric patient" and "psychiatric pathology"; the gradual historical shift from "madness" to "psychiatric pathology" and its social and epistemological consequences; the horizons and limits of the romantic task Foucault assumes on this basis ; the critique Jacques Derrida formulated about this project, and particularly about Foucault's reading (...) of Descartes. Secondly, it examines Foucault's course on Psychiatric Power, focusing on the sociopolitical consequences of this medicalization process: i.e., the construction of the object "psychiatric patient" as "disciplinated bodies", and the general context of this anthropological metamorphosis Foucault studied in his books Discipline and Punish, The Will to Knowledge, and in his course Naissance de la biopolitique. (shrink)

A meditation on specularity as paradigms of a theory of experience which informs every field of philosophy and human sciences, including contemporary neurosciences. And a meditation, starting from neurosciences and mirror neurons, on the different readings of this paradigm of specularity and specularization. In particular, on that “second” reading of specularization, which suggests that the mirror is not an instrument of representation but of expression, not a device of adaquation but of creation. It is an hypothesis that Merleau-Ponty, facing the (...) very same problems contemporary neurosciences are confonted to, reactivates in an increasingly systematic way in his later years, drawing from a tradition which we try here to reconstruct. From Merleau-Ponty to Bergson, from Bergson to Leibniz, this second reading of specularity contains a possibility which is still fruitful and which neurosciences themselves could adopt in order to reconsider in a new perspective the evidences they have considered until now from the point of view of a first reading of specularity. This second reading of specularity suggests that it is not so much necessary to explain how one subject comprehends the other, but how both subjects are comprehended within the transcendental space of what we could call an event. Empathy is not so much a syntonization among subjects, but subjects are a partial and local desyntonization of that empathic system we should place as the beginining and not at the end of the process. Consciousness does not represent the other consciousness, but they express in a simultaneous and specular diffraction the fundamental unity of an event which is every time unique and impersonal. (shrink)

A meditation on specularity as paradigms of a theory of experience which informs every field of philosophy and human sciences, including contemporary neurosciences. And a meditation, starting from neurosciences and mirror neurons, on the different readings of this paradigm of specularity and specularization. In particular, on that “second” reading of specularization, which suggests that the mirror is not an instrument of representation but of expression, not a device of adaquation but of creation. It is an hypothesis that Merleau-Ponty, facing the (...) very same problems contemporary neurosciences are confonted to, reactivates in an increasingly systematic way in his later years, drawing from a tradition which we try here to reconstruct. From Merleau-Ponty to Bergson, from Bergson to Leibniz, this second reading of specularity contains a possibility which is still fruitful and which neurosciences themselves could adopt in order to reconsider in a new perspective the evidences they have considered until now from the point of view of a first reading of specularity. This second reading of specularity suggests that it is not so much necessary to explain how one subject comprehends the other, but how both subjects are comprehended within the transcendental space of what we could call an event. Empathy is not so much a syntonization among subjects, but subjects are a partial and local desyntonization of that empathic system we should place as the beginining and not at the end of the process. Consciousness does not represent the other consciousness, but they express in a simultaneous and specular diffraction the fundamental unity of an event which is every time unique and impersonal. (shrink)

Il saggio intende sviluppare una fenomenologia della violenza, a partire dagli Scritti di Franco Basaglia, che ha studiato il problema della violenza nell’istituzione psichiatrica e ha riflettuto sulla questione in una prospettiva fenomenologica. La sua tesi fondamentale è stata che la violenza dell’istituzione consista in una sostituzione e in un’alienazione. Il corpo vissuto, l’identità originaria di una persona, le sue esperienze e i suoi pensieri sarebbero rimpiazzati da quelli dell’istituzione, che diverrebbe così il ‘corpo’ di quella persona. La fenomenologia di (...) Basaglia traccia quindi, al seguito di Husserl, un’opposizione netta tra esperienza vissuta e istituzione, soggettività e segno sociale, identità privata e marca culturale. Possiamo tuttavia accogliere questa opposizione tanto semplice e trasparente? E in caso negativo, se la violenza non potesse essere descritta come la semplice irruzione dell’istituzione nello spazio del soggetto, se questa irruzione dell’Altro fosse anzi costitutiva del soggetto stesso, come pensare la violenza? Come definire una ‘politica’ di questa violenza originaria?This essay tries to develop a phenomenology of violence. Its approach is based on the Writings of Franco Basaglia, who studied the phaenomenon of violence in the psychiatric institutions and reflected on this issue from a phenomenological point of view. His main theses was that institutional violence means substitution and alienation. The lived body, the originary identity of a person, his experiences and thoughts are replaced by those of the institution. The institution itself becomes the ‘body’ of that person. Basaglia’s phenomenology thus traces, with Husserl, a neat opposition between lived experience and institution, subjectivity and social sign, private identity and cultural mark. Can we trust this simple and transparent opposition? And if violence cannot be described as an irruption of the institution in the subject’s space, if this irruption of the Other is constitutive of the subject itself, how to define violence? And how to define a ‘politics’ of this originary violence? (shrink)

A meditation on specularity as paradigms of a theory of experience which informs every field of philosophy and human sciences, including contemporary neurosciences. And a meditation, starting from neurosciences and mirror neurons, on the different readings of this paradigm of specularity and specularization. In particular, on that “second” reading of specularization, which suggests that the mirror is not an instrument of representation but of expression, not a device of adaquation but of creation. It is an hypothesis that Merleau-Ponty, facing the (...) very same problems contemporary neurosciences are confonted to, reactivates in an increasingly systematic way in his later years, drawing from a tradition which we try here to reconstruct. From Merleau-Ponty to Bergson, from Bergson to Leibniz, this second reading of specularity contains a possibility which is still fruitful and which neurosciences themselves could adopt in order to reconsider in a new perspective the evidences they have considered until now from the point of view of a first reading of specularity. This second reading of specularity suggests that it is not so much necessary to explain how one subject comprehends the other, but how both subjects are comprehended within the transcendental space of what we could call an event. Empathy is not so much a syntonization among subjects, but subjects are a partial and local desyntonization of that empathic system we should place as the beginining and not at the end of the process. Consciousness does not represent the other consciousness, but they express in a simultaneous and specular diffraction the fundamental unity of an event which is every time unique and impersonal. (shrink)

The Cogito and the Mexican Salamander.Philosophy and the Rest of Sciences in the late Merleau-Ponty The article examines Merleau-Ponty’s almost parallel reading – in his last courses at the Collège de France – of the Cartesian cogito and the development of the Axolotl, the salamander studied by American biologist Coghill. My hypothesis is that the metaphysics of the cogito and the biology of the Axolotl represented for Merleau-Ponty two ways of access to the same discovery. Descartes came up against a (...) phenomenon, the cogito, which required the reshaping of metaphysics as a sort of (impossible) psychology of the event or the absolute. Within the field of anatomy, Coghill came up against a phenomenon, the embryogenesis of the Axolotl, which similarly required a sort of conversion of anatomy into embryology. Therefore, bios and psyché, “embryonality” and the cogito, would be nothing but the denomination of the objects that psychology and biology meet along their borders, names for what we could refer to as “event,” “continuum,” “becoming” or, according to an old but still suitable definition, “absolute.” This has countless consequences on the relationship between the so-called human sciences and the so-called natural sciences, their eternally missed dialogue, their false complementarity and the illusion that the famous “two cultures” do actually exist.Il Cogito e la lucertola messicana.La filosofia e il resto delle scienze nell’ultimo Merleau-Ponty L’articolo prende in esame la lettura quasi parallela che Merleau-Ponty svolge, negli ultimi corsi di lezione al Collège de France, del cogito cartesiano e dello sviluppo dell’Axolotl, la lucertola studiata dal biologo americano Coghill. La nostra ipotesi è che la metafisica del cogito, e la biologia dell’Axolotl, rappresentino agli occhi di Merleau-Ponty due modi d’accesso a una stessa scoperta. Dall’interno della metafisica, Descartes si imbatte in un fenomeno, il cogito appunto, che esige che la metafisica si istituisca come una sorta di (impossibile) psicologia dell’eventoo dell’assoluto. Tutta la metafisica sarebbe psicologia, cioè indicazione del luogo assoluto nel quale è inscritto ogni luogo. Dall’interno dell’anatomia, Coghill siimbatte in un fenomeno, lo sviluppo dell’embrione dell’Axolotl, che esige analogamente che tutta l’anatomia si risolva in embriologia. Il vivente sarebbe allora in generale questa condizione di gemmazione e autoorganizzazione, e l’embriologia sarebbe la scienza (impossibile) di questo divenire perfettamenteanoggettuale. Bios e psyché, “embrionalità” e cogito non sarebbero che i nomi di ciò che la psicologia e la biologia incontrano al loro confine, nomi di ciò che infilosofia si chiama evento, continuum, divenire, o, con un vecchio e adattissimo termine, assoluto. Il che comporta innumerevoli conseguenze circa il rapporto trale cosiddette scienze umane e le cosiddette scienze naturali, sul loro dialogo eternamente mancato, sulla loro falsa complementarietà, sull’illusione che si diano davvero le celebri “due culture”. (shrink)

A meditation on specularity as paradigms of a theory of experience which informs every field of philosophy and human sciences, including contemporary neurosciences. And a meditation, starting from neurosciences and mirror neurons, on the different readings of this paradigm of specularity and specularization. In particular, on that “second” reading of specularization, which suggests that the mirror is not an instrument of representation but of expression, not a device of adaquation but of creation. It is an hypothesis that Merleau-Ponty, facing the (...) very same problems contemporary neurosciences are confonted to, reactivates in an increasingly systematic way in his later years, drawing from a tradition which we try here to reconstruct. From Merleau-Ponty to Bergson, from Bergson to Leibniz, this second reading of specularity contains a possibility which is still fruitful and which neurosciences themselves could adopt in order to reconsider in a new perspective the evidences they have considered until now from the point of view of a first reading of specularity. This second reading of specularity suggests that it is not so much necessary to explain how one subject comprehends the other, but how both subjects are comprehended within the transcendental space of what we could call an event. Empathy is not so much a syntonization among subjects, but subjects are a partial and local desyntonization of that empathic system we should place as the beginining and not at the end of the process. Consciousness does not represent the other consciousness, but they express in a simultaneous and specular diffraction the fundamental unity of an event which is every time unique and impersonal. (shrink)

International book reviews Content Type Journal Article DOI 10.1007/s11007-010-9162-5 Authors Federico Leoni, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy Journal Continental Philosophy Review Online ISSN 1573-1103 Print ISSN 1387-2842.

This article examines Merleau-Ponty’s idea of an “ontological psychoanalysis” and extends it in a close dialogue both internal to Merleau-Ponty and external to Merleau-Ponty: on the one hand, with Lacan and his Seminar X ; and, on the other hand, with the Bergson of Matter and Memory and with the Bergsonian idea of philosophical gesture. The guiding idea is that a psychoanalytic process is an experimental ontology: experimentation with being and of being, and with a being that is the result (...) of its own staging [mise en expérience], in its own becoming through experience and experimentations, in its own future as divergence and its own movement of diverging. And the idea is also that philosophy, or at least a certain idea of philosophy, that of Merleau-Ponty’s Praise, proceeds in the same direction.L’article interroge l’idée merleau-pontienne d’une « psychanalyse ontologique » et la prolonge dans un dialogue serré interne à Merleau-Ponty et externe à Merleau-Ponty : d’un côté avec Lacan et son Séminaire X ; de l’autre côté avec le Bergson de Matière et mémoire et avec l’idée bergsonienne de geste philosophique ed esterno a Merleau-Ponty: da un lato con Lacan e con il suo Seminario X ; dall’altro con il Bergson di Materia e memoria e con l’idea bergsoniana di gesto filosofico. L’idea guida è che un percorso psicoanalitico sia un’ontologia sperimentale: un esperimento con l’essere e dell’essere, e con un essere o di un essere risolto nel suo proprio sperimentarsi, nel suo proprio divenire per esperienze ed esperimenti, nel suo proprio accadere come scarto e nel suo proprio scartarsi. E che la filosofia, o almeno una certa idea di filosofia, quella dell’Elogio merleau-pontyano, proceda in analoga direzione. (shrink)

Questo articolo riflette sul posto della letteratura nel complesso della ricerca di Merleau-Ponty, assimilando la funzione che essa svolge nell’economia del suo pensiero alla funzione in esso svolta da altre pratiche e saperi come la biologia o la psicoanalisi. Ciascuno di questi discorsi, chiamiamoli così, offrirebbe a Merleau-Ponty un accesso a qualcosa come una comune sostanza fantasmatica, una comune consistenza metamorfica dell’essere, che tanto il biologo quanto il letterato o lo psicoanalista lavorerebbero con le scritture e le categorie loro proprie. (...) Ma qui si apre anche un grande interrogativo. Quanto Proust arriva a corrispondere alla sfida che Merleau-Ponty lo vede vincere, quanto il suo linguaggio si rivela all’altezza dell’impresa di scrivere il fantasma? In che modo i limiti del suo linguaggio, che sono forse i limiti del linguaggio stesso, fanno invece ostacolo al suo progetto? E che cosa consente talvolta alle scienze di inoltrarsi su quella strada con successo più sicuro? Se fosse proprio la struttura della metafora, a impedire a Proust di scrivere davvero l’empiètement, e la dimensione della metonimia fosse invece quella in cui un certo discorso scientifico arriva a installarsi d’emblée? Se, infine e piuttosto, la metonimia fosse il cuore stesso della metafora, ora più ora meno felicemente lambito da questa o quella scrittura “regionale” del fantasma?Cet article examine la place de la littérature dans l’ensemble de la recherche de Merleau-Ponty, en assimilant la fonction qu’elle remplit dans l’économie de sa pensée au rôle que jouent en elle d’autres pratiques et d’autres savoirs tels que la biologie ou la psychanalyse. Chacun de ces « discours » offrirait à Merleau-Ponty un accès à quelque chose comparable à une substance fantasmatique commune, une commune consistance métamorphique de l’être, que le biologiste tout comme l’homme de lettres ou le psychanalyste travailleraient par les écritures et les catégories qui leur sont propres. Mais ici émerge aussi une question majeure. Jusqu’à quel point le langage de Proust se révèle-t-il à la hauteur de l’entreprise d’écrire le fantasme, jusqu’à quel point arrive-t-il à repondre à ce défi, que Merleau-Ponty le voit gagner? De quelle manière les limites de son langage, qui sont peut-être les limites du langage même, sont-ils un obstacle à son projet? Et qu’est-ce qui permet parfois aux sciences de s’engager dans cette voie en obtenant un succès plus sûr? Si c’était précisément la structure de la métaphore qui empêchait Proust d’écrire vraiment l’empiètement, et la dimension de la métonymie était au contraire celle dans laquelle un certain discours scientifique arrive à s’installer d’emblée? Si, finalement et plutôt, la métonymie était le coeur même de la métaphore, effleuré, avec plus ou moins de succès, par l’une ou l’autre des écritures « régionales » du fantasme?This article examines the place of literature in the ensemble of Merleau-Ponty’s research, comparing the function it fills in the economy of his thought to the role other practices and other disciplines such as biology and psychology play in his philosophy. Each of these “discourses” offered Merleau-Ponty access to something comparable to a common phantasmatic substance, a common metaphorical stability of Being, that the biologist, the writer, and the psychoanalyst work on, each in their own writings and categories. But here emerges also a major question. To what extent does the language of Proust reveal itself up to the task of writing the phantasm, to what extent does it respond to this challenge? In what manner are the limits of his language, which are perhaps the limits of language itself, an obstacle to his project? And what is it that permits, at times, the sciences to obtain greater success in engaging in this way? Was it precisely the structure of metaphor that hindered Proust in truly writing encroachment, and the dimension of metonymy was, on the contrary, that in which a certain scientific discourse succeeded at setting itself up on the first try? If, finally and especially, metonymy was the very heart of metaphor, with more or less success touched by one or the other of the “regional” writings of the phantasm? (shrink)

The Cogito and the Mexican Salamander.Philosophy and the Rest of Sciences in the late Merleau-Ponty The article examines Merleau-Ponty’s almost parallel reading – in his last courses at the Collège de France – of the Cartesian cogito and the development of the Axolotl, the salamander studied by American biologist Coghill. My hypothesis is that the metaphysics of the cogito and the biology of the Axolotl represented for Merleau-Ponty two ways of access to the same discovery. Descartes came up against a (...) phenomenon, the cogito, which required the reshaping of metaphysics as a sort of psychology of the event or the absolute. Within the field of anatomy, Coghill came up against a phenomenon, the embryogenesis of the Axolotl, which similarly required a sort of conversion of anatomy into embryology. Therefore, bios and psyché, “embryonality” and the cogito, would be nothing but the denomination of the objects that psychology and biology meet along their borders, names for what we could refer to as “event,” “continuum,” “becoming” or, according to an old but still suitable definition, “absolute.” This has countless consequences on the relationship between the so-called human sciences and the so-called natural sciences, their eternally missed dialogue, their false complementarity and the illusion that the famous “two cultures” do actually exist.Il Cogito e la lucertola messicana.La filosofia e il resto delle scienze nell’ultimo Merleau-Ponty L’articolo prende in esame la lettura quasi parallela che Merleau-Ponty svolge, negli ultimi corsi di lezione al Collège de France, del cogito cartesiano e dello sviluppo dell’Axolotl, la lucertola studiata dal biologo americano Coghill. La nostra ipotesi è che la metafisica del cogito, e la biologia dell’Axolotl, rappresentino agli occhi di Merleau-Ponty due modi d’accesso a una stessa scoperta. Dall’interno della metafisica, Descartes si imbatte in un fenomeno, il cogito appunto, che esige che la metafisica si istituisca come una sorta di psicologia dell’eventoo dell’assoluto. Tutta la metafisica sarebbe psicologia, cioè indicazione del luogo assoluto nel quale è inscritto ogni luogo. Dall’interno dell’anatomia, Coghill siimbatte in un fenomeno, lo sviluppo dell’embrione dell’Axolotl, che esige analogamente che tutta l’anatomia si risolva in embriologia. Il vivente sarebbe allora in generale questa condizione di gemmazione e autoorganizzazione, e l’embriologia sarebbe la scienza di questo divenire perfettamenteanoggettuale. Bios e psyché, “embrionalità” e cogito non sarebbero che i nomi di ciò che la psicologia e la biologia incontrano al loro confine, nomi di ciò che infilosofia si chiama evento, continuum, divenire, o, con un vecchio e adattissimo termine, assoluto. Il che comporta innumerevoli conseguenze circa il rapporto trale cosiddette scienze umane e le cosiddette scienze naturali, sul loro dialogo eternamente mancato, sulla loro falsa complementarietà, sull’illusione che si diano davvero le celebri “due culture”. (shrink)

This article examines Merleau-Ponty’s idea of an “ontological psychoanalysis” and extends it in a close dialogue both internal to Merleau-Ponty and external to Merleau-Ponty: on the one hand, with Lacan and his Seminar X ; and, on the other hand, with the Bergson of Matter and Memory and with the Bergsonian idea of philosophical gesture. The guiding idea is that a psychoanalytic process is an experimental ontology: experimentation with being and of being, and with a being that is the result (...) of its own staging [mise en expérience], in its own becoming through experience and experimentations, in its own future as divergence and its own movement of diverging. And the idea is also that philosophy, or at least a certain idea of philosophy, that of Merleau-Ponty’s Praise, proceeds in the same direction.L’article interroge l’idée merleau-pontienne d’une « psychanalyse ontologique » et la prolonge dans un dialogue serré interne à Merleau-Ponty et externe à Merleau-Ponty : d’un côté avec Lacan et son Séminaire X ; de l’autre côté avec le Bergson de Matière et mémoire et avec l’idée bergsonienne de geste philosophique ed esterno a Merleau-Ponty: da un lato con Lacan e con il suo Seminario X ; dall’altro con il Bergson di Materia e memoria e con l’idea bergsoniana di gesto filosofico. L’idea guida è che un percorso psicoanalitico sia un’ontologia sperimentale: un esperimento con l’essere e dell’essere, e con un essere o di un essere risolto nel suo proprio sperimentarsi, nel suo proprio divenire per esperienze ed esperimenti, nel suo proprio accadere come scarto e nel suo proprio scartarsi. E che la filosofia, o almeno una certa idea di filosofia, quella dell’Elogio merleau-pontyano, proceda in analoga direzione. (shrink)

This article examines Merleau-Ponty’s idea of an “ontological psychoanalysis” and extends it in a close dialogue both internal to Merleau-Ponty and external to Merleau-Ponty: on the one hand, with Lacan and his Seminar X ; and, on the other hand, with the Bergson of Matter and Memory and with the Bergsonian idea of philosophical gesture. The guiding idea is that a psychoanalytic process is an experimental ontology: experimentation with being and of being, and with a being that is the result (...) of its own staging [mise en expérience], in its own becoming through experience and experimentations, in its own future as divergence and its own movement of diverging. And the idea is also that philosophy, or at least a certain idea of philosophy, that of Merleau-Ponty’s Praise, proceeds in the same direction.L’article interroge l’idée merleau-pontienne d’une « psychanalyse ontologique » et la prolonge dans un dialogue serré interne à Merleau-Ponty et externe à Merleau-Ponty : d’un côté avec Lacan et son Séminaire X ; de l’autre côté avec le Bergson de Matière et mémoire et avec l’idée bergsonienne de geste philosophique ed esterno a Merleau-Ponty: da un lato con Lacan e con il suo Seminario X ; dall’altro con il Bergson di Materia e memoria e con l’idea bergsoniana di gesto filosofico. L’idea guida è che un percorso psicoanalitico sia un’ontologia sperimentale: un esperimento con l’essere e dell’essere, e con un essere o di un essere risolto nel suo proprio sperimentarsi, nel suo proprio divenire per esperienze ed esperimenti, nel suo proprio accadere come scarto e nel suo proprio scartarsi. E che la filosofia, o almeno una certa idea di filosofia, quella dell’Elogio merleau-pontyano, proceda in analoga direzione. (shrink)

This article examines Merleau-Ponty’s idea of an “ontological psychoanalysis” and extends it in a close dialogue both internal to Merleau-Ponty and external to Merleau-Ponty: on the one hand, with Lacan and his Seminar X ; and, on the other hand, with the Bergson of Matter and Memory and with the Bergsonian idea of philosophical gesture. The guiding idea is that a psychoanalytic process is an experimental ontology: experimentation with being and of being, and with a being that is the result (...) of its own staging [mise en expérience], in its own becoming through experience and experimentations, in its own future as divergence and its own movement of diverging. And the idea is also that philosophy, or at least a certain idea of philosophy, that of Merleau-Ponty’s Praise, proceeds in the same direction.L’article interroge l’idée merleau-pontienne d’une « psychanalyse ontologique » et la prolonge dans un dialogue serré interne à Merleau-Ponty et externe à Merleau-Ponty : d’un côté avec Lacan et son Séminaire X ; de l’autre côté avec le Bergson de Matière et mémoire et avec l’idée bergsonienne de geste philosophique ed esterno a Merleau-Ponty: da un lato con Lacan e con il suo Seminario X ; dall’altro con il Bergson di Materia e memoria e con l’idea bergsoniana di gesto filosofico. L’idea guida è che un percorso psicoanalitico sia un’ontologia sperimentale: un esperimento con l’essere e dell’essere, e con un essere o di un essere risolto nel suo proprio sperimentarsi, nel suo proprio divenire per esperienze ed esperimenti, nel suo proprio accadere come scarto e nel suo proprio scartarsi. E che la filosofia, o almeno una certa idea di filosofia, quella dell’Elogio merleau-pontyano, proceda in analoga direzione. (shrink)