Claude Romano

This paper tries to explore the legitimacy of applying the phenomenological approach to poems, novels, to all that we classify, too conveniently, under the term “literature.” Such an approach is grounded in one claim: the literary text opens up to a world that is its “thing itself”. The thing of the text is not the text as a thing, in its linguistic and formal properties, no more than the thing of the painting is the canvas coated with pigments. However, what is the status of such a “world”? Is this “opening of a world” only a metaphor? Is the world of the literary work only an imaginary one? In order to answer these questions, it is necessary, first of all, to understand the limits of the structuralist claim that the object of literature is only literature as an object, that is as a linguistic construction and, secondly, to be aware of what is specific to the phenomenological account of the imaginary, in contrast with alternative accounts, such as the one grounded in the theory of speech acts and developed, among others, by Searle.

Taking the problem of perception and illusion as a leading clue, this article presents a new phenomenological approach to perception and the world: holism of experience. It challenges not only Husserl’s transcendentalism, but also what remains of it in Heidegger’s early thought, on the grounds that it is committed to the skeptical inference: Since we can always doubt any perception, we can always doubt perception as a whole. The rejection of such an implicit inference leads to a relational paradigm of Being-in-the-World that differs from Heidegger’s on many points

Husserl saw the Cartesian critique of scepticism as one of the eternal merits of Descartes’ philosophy. In doing so, he accepted the legitimacy of the very idea of a universal doubt, and sought to present as an alternative to it a renewed, specifically phenomenological concept of self-evidence, making it possible to obtain an unshakable foundation for the edifice of knowledge. This acceptance of the skeptical problem underlies his entire conceptual framework, both before and after the transcendental turn, and especially the immanence/transcendence distinction, i.e., the very basis of intentionality. In taking as its starting point an analysis of perception, the article puts forth a certain number of phenomenological arguments in order to put into question the validity of the skeptical problem and, therefore, of the Husserlian conceptual framework; it defends, in the first place, a disjunctive conception of perception and, in the second place, a holism of experience

In this interview, Claude Romano discusses his phenomenological project of the event in relation to hermeneutics, reason, realism, and some other fundamental problems of phenomenology. He explains common themes in his phenomenological project and elucidates why he considers it important to leave behind the transcendental perspective in phenomenology. He distinguishes his descriptive realism from other realist movements in contemporary French philosophy. The interview also questions the Eurocentric orientation of many phenomenological authors and considers the possibility of going beyond such assumptions in phenomenology.

Il n’y a pas de question plus urgente, pour la phénoménologie, que la question du « corps propre », comme il est convenu de l’appeler depuis Husserl. Mais il n’y a pas non plus de question qui ait été davantage négligée par les phénoménologues contemporains. À première vue, cette affirmation se heurte à l’évidence d’une production littéraire quasi exponentielle autour de cette notion depuis plus d’une trentaine d’années, aussi bien en histoire de la philosophie que dans des travaux qui se sont efforcés de croiser la perspective phénoménologique avec les apports des sciences du cerveau et de la cognition. L’ennui est que cette ample littérature ne pose aucune des questions préjudicielles à l’adoption du concept de corps propre ou de chair ( Leib ) en phénoménologie ; pour l’essentiel, elle fait comme si ce concept allait de soi et se borne à se demander de quelle manière il pourrait « féconder » des approches scientifiques plus positives. La légitimité du concept même de Leib et de ses prolongements à l’intérieur du courant phénoménologique n’y est jamais questionnée en tant que telle. Non seulement on ne se demande pas si les descriptions de cette « chair » au fil conducteur de l’expérience du toucher redoublé est tenable, mais on ne soulève même pas la question de savoir si l’adoption de ce concept chez Husserl et ses successeurs n’est pas conditionnée par des présupposés discutables et, en vérité, par tout un cadre théorique, de sorte que la mise en question de certains aspects centraux de ce cadre devrait conduire inévitablement à une révision en profondeur de ce concept. C’est cette question que nous voudrions aborder dans ces pages. Compte-tenu de l’ampleur du sujet, notre but sera uniquement d’indiquer un certain nombre de directions que pourrait – ou devrait – emprunter la réflexion

Le but de cet article est de réévaluer la cohérence de l’un des concepts les plus importants – bien que souvent négligé – de l’ontologie fondamentale heideggérienne, le concept d’ipséité ( Selbstheit ). En insistant sur l’importance de l’affirmation selon laquelle l’ipséité se réfère à un mode d’être de Dasein, par contraste avec un autre, la perte de soi-même dans le On, et à rien d’autre qu’à cela (à aucune espèce d’étant ou d’entité), nous en tirons les conséquences pour la compréhension de l’économie de ce concept, en particulier en relation aux critiques qui ont été formulées à l’encontre de l’ipséité heideggérienne par Vincent Descombes dans une optique wittgensteinienne. La dernière section de ce texte constitue une tentative pour reformuler ce concept d’ipséité en cherchant à la fois à rendre justice aux intuitions de départ de Heidegger et à éviter les « perplexités » grammaticales qu’elles sont susceptibles d’éveiller.

In this article, Claude Romano challenges one of the more widespread assumptions in the phenomenological school, and especially in Husserl and his disciples, that of the intentional character of perception. Not denying that perception could have some aspects that are intentional, he claims that perception is not an intentional relation to the world. Indeed, intentionality is a basic feature of mind that remains connected to a form of representationalism. Now, as Heidegger has suggested with his concept of In-der-Welt-sein, and as Erwin Straus and Maurice Merleau-Ponty also emphasized, perception is rather an innerently bodily relation to world itself, that is, to the world as it exists independently of the mind and beyond all representations. Only such an approach can do justice to our ordinary and philosophical intuitions about the perceived world, and lead us to a genuine variety of phenomenological realism.

La question soulevée par cet article est celle de la légitimité d’un des concepts qui semble le mieux établi dans le lexique philosophique contemporain, celui du moi. Ce concept qui, à sa création, répond à des problèmes bien définis, a revêtu un sens de plus en plus vague au fur et à mesure de sa diffusion, au point qu’il est devenu souvent difficile de dire ce qu’il signifie au juste chez la plupart des philosophes qui l’emploient. En revenant à la source de cette notion, le présent article s’efforce d’examiner quelques-uns des problèmes qu’elle soulève. Il s’attache plus particulièrement à montrer que la thèse selon laquelle le moi possède une identité en première personne, distincte de l’identité en troisième personne de l’individu dans le monde, soulève des problèmes insolubles. Or cette thèse repose nécessairement au fondement de toute conception qui prétend distinguer le moi de l’être humain individuel.

What does the ostensibly innocuous phrase “das Selbst” exactly mean in Heidegger’s fundamental ontology? Does Heidegger really have a “theory of the self ” in the same way as, say, Descartes, Locke or Husserl? This is what has been often concluded by many interpreters of Being and Time, and it is that view that the current paper attempts to challenge. Heidegger not only rejects the supposition of a substantial ego, along the lines of Descartes’ conception, but he also repudiates any “self ” understood as a present-at-hand being, an inner core of Dasein, and he insists on the intrinsic connection between the “egologies,” from Descartes to Husserl, and “traditional ontology”. What seems to be at stake in the fundamental-ontological approach of Sebstheit and Selbstsein, Being-oneself, is rather a complete paradigm-shift, since both concepts refer to “ways of being” or “ways of existing” of Dasein, and no longer at all to a self-identical being of a condition of its self-identity. In trying to investigate the economy of the related existential concepts of Jemeinigkeit, Selbstheit and Man-selbst, this article makes the claim that Heidegger’s break with egology is much deeper that it has been often thought, and that the phenomenologist raises a completely new question, rather than trying to give a new response to older ones.

Cet article cherche à cerner la manière dont Charles Taylor approfondit sa distinction entre deux grands paradigmes, désignatif et expressif, pour l’approche du langage, dans son ouvrage récent, The language animal. En prenant position en faveur des conceptions expressivistes du langage, d’inspiration romantique, qui prennent pour modèle l’idéalisme transcendantal kantien et l’idée selon laquelle toute langue particulière donne forme à notre expérience du monde, Taylor peut-il encore défendre le réalisme épistémologique qu’il avance dans Retrieving realism? Comment peut-on penser chez lui l’articulation entre ces deux affirmations?

The aim of this paper is to circumscribe the nature of the ideal of authenticity, so widespread in our culture and our contemporary societies. First of all, does not authenticity play a similar role, by its amplitude and its tendency to be applied to life as a whole, of the ideal of wisdom for Antiquity? On the other hand, is it possible to define authenticity only as a complete sincerity? Is it not closer to the virtue of integrity? This article attempts to show the insufficiency of the two major approaches to that notion : the expressivist conceptions of authenticity, issued from Romanticism, and the voluntarist conceptions that take shape in the wake of Existentialism : neither of these approaches is really able to answer to what we called « the hard problem » of authenticity.

The aim of this paper is to discuss the phenomenological nature of gratitude. Nevertheless, gratitude would be an affective response triggered by a certain action or object, it has to be considered not properly “intentional” as it seems to be rather a Stimmung. Accordingly, I distinguish two accounts of gratitude and then, I argue that it may be considered a mood only if it is addressed toward the life itself in a way that allows to cover the entire phenomena of someone’s existence. Finally, I argue that Epicureanism is the main philosophical approach that fully recognizes the role of utmost importance played by gratitude toward life, to the extent that it positively accepts its finite nature.