Leonard Lawlor

This book concerns contemporary debates in the philosophy of mind. Therefore, McCulloch starts with Descartes. On the basis of well-known argumentation, McCulloch develops what he calls “the demonic dilemma”. The dilemma is that we cannot explain or understand intentionality, consciousness being directed at the world, on the basis of “the ontological Real Distinction.” The “ontological Real Distinction” is the belief that there are two independent substances, mind and matter, really distinct from one another. Intentionality then has to be either on the mind side or on the world side, but not on both sides, since if it were on both sides, the Distinction would no longer be Real. The first horn of the dilemma would be that the mind possesses its property of being intentional without the world being there, even if, in other words, there is an evil genius or a scientist manipulating input into our brain in a vat. But, if this is the case, then the mind really exists in indifference to the world. Connected to this first horn is what McCulloch calls “the Idea idea,” that is, that the mind possesses ideas or mental representations that are intrinsically contentful or intentional. The second horn would be that the world possesses intentionality. But, if that is the case, then, if we are a brain in a vat, the world does not exist, and the mind again has no intentionality. For McCulloch, clearly, what is really interesting about the ontological Real distinction is not the apparent skepticism it results in about our knowledge of the world, but that it makes intentionality the central issue.

In this paper I examine how well Merleau-Ponty's philosophy can respond to Deleuze's challenge to phenomenology. The Deleuzian challenge is double, that of immanence and that of difference; in other words, the double challenge is what Deleuze calls the paradox of expression. I bring together, in particular, Deleuze's 1969 The Logic of Sense and Merleau-Ponty's 1945 the Phenomenology of Perception, and am able to discover a lot of similarities mainly centered around the notion of a past that has never been present. However, this comparison is not decisive; what alone can decide is an interpretation of expression in Merleau-Ponty's final, unfinished The Visible and the Invisible.

After Husserl, the study of phenomenology took off in different directions. The ambiguity inherent in phenomenology - between conscious experience and structural conditions - lent itself to a range of interpretations. Many existentialists developed phenomenology as conscious experience to analyse ethics and religion. Other phenomenologists developed notions of structural conditions to explore questions of science, mathematics, and conceptualization. "Phenomenology: Responses and Developments" covers all the major innovators in phenomenology - notably Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, and the later Heidegger - and the major schools and issues. The volume also shows how phenomenological thinking encounters a limit, a limit most apparent in the aesthetical and hermeneutical development of phenomenology. The volume closes with an examination of the furthering of the division between analytic and continental philosophy

The most basic idea behind this essay is the reversal of Platonism in which the difference between the real world and this world becomes blurred. The reversal results in time being conceived as without beginning and without end. In other words, the blurred world is equivalent to what Husserl calls temporalization. According to Husserl, the structure of temporalization implies the limit between temporal phases cannot be determined. Therefore, the limit cannot be closed, and the temporal phases necessarily pass into one another and contaminate one another. Since the limit between the phases cannot be closed, the limit is always violated. Temporalization therefore involves irreducible violence. The question is: how to react to this fundamental violence? If one reacts by attempting to repress the violence completely, that reaction seems to be worse than the original violence, the worst violence; it would amount to the complete elimination of life. The reaction of letting the violence be, while still violent, seems to be less violent than the complete repression reaction.

Derrida wrote extensively on "the question of the animal." In particular, he challenged Heidegger's, Husserl's, and other philosophers' work on the subject, questioning their phenomenological criteria for distinguishing humans from animals. Examining a range of Derrida's writings, including his most recent _L'animal que donc je suis_, as well as _Aporias_, _Of Spirit_, _Rams_, and _Rogues_, Leonard Lawlor reconstructs a portrait of Derrida's views on animality and their intimate connection to his thinking on ethics, names and singularity, sovereignty, and the notion of a common world. Derrida believed that humans and animals cannot be substantially separated, yet neither do they form a continuous species. Instead, in his "staggered analogy," Derrida asserts that all living beings are weak and therefore capable of suffering. This controversial claim both refuted the notion that humans and animals possess autonomy and contradicted the assumption that they possess the trait of machinery. However, it does offer the foundation for an argument-which Lawlor brilliantly and passionately defines in his book-in which humans are able to will this weakness into a kind of unconditional hospitality. Humans are not strong enough to keep themselves separate from animals. In other words, we are too weak to keep animals from entering into our sphere. Lawlor's argument is a bold approach to remedying "the problem of the worst," or the complete extermination of life, which is fast becoming a reality

This essay is part of an attempt to determine a new mode of existence, an ethics, for humans. It consists in reversing the idea of the worst, which is unconditional “impassage”: “don’t let anyone in; don’t let anyone out!” As a reversal, the new mode of existence turns us into friends of passage, a people who love the world so much that they will let everyone without exception enter and let everyone without exception exit. They say, “Let’s tear down all the wall and open all the doors!” The reversal comes about by focusing on the transcendental experience of powerlessness