Max Schaefer

This paper examines the socio-political implications of Michel Henry’s phenomenology of life as immanent affectivity, in which life experiences itself from within and can grow weary from its own intrinsic movement. I argue that this form of tiredness has both destructive and emancipatory social and political consequences. First, it generates conditions for self-destructive politics. I draw on Henry’s phenomenological study of political and economic structures – democracy, totalitarianism, capitalism, and communism – to show how this self-destructive logic can manifest within each system. Yet Henry’s work also clarifies how tiredness can enable creativity, as proposed by Rollo May, and open subjects to more generous and solidaristic modes of relation, as discussed by Byung-Chul Han. These findings challenge the assumption that political structures can control life or lead humanity to ultimate harmony and happiness, highlighting the need for political and everyday practices that respect life’s vitality, vulnerability, and creativity.

Environmental philosophy in the Western world has shifted between two poles: one in which human beings are regarded as separate from nature, and another in which they are seen as part of it. This paper argues that Michel Henry’s phenomenology of life presents us with a third option that stands outside of these views, one in which nature is experienced as the absolute resistance to the effort of our originary bodily life. As I will try to make plain, this position provides us with another basis for assigning value to nature than those that have guided environmental philosophy to date. In the opening section of this paper, I lay out how environmental philosophy has thus far alternated between the two positions in question, and why neither of them provides a feasible foundation for an ethical relationship with nature. Following this, I will show that Henry presents us with a third option by detailing how nature is before all else experienced as an absolute resistance that defies intuition and presence, and thus as part of an originary community of life, which is causally and ontologically irreducible to our subjective biological life and the natural world to which it opens us. Finally, I demonstrate how this position goes some way toward addressing certain shortcomings of the alternatives in question, while also highlighting where Henry’s conclusions remain problematic.

This chapter highlights the impact of the work of French phenomenologist Michel Henry and Austrian psychoanalyst Otto Rank on psychoanalysis. I contend that Henry and Rank clarify the nature and role of mindfulness and creativity in psychoanalysis. To begin, I draw out the implications of Henry’s critique of Freudian psychoanalysis. In my view, Henry’s work reveals and untangles basic inconsistencies in Freud’s views on the unconscious, affective layer of the subject’s life, and establishes that the creativity of life’s immanent movement is essential to the development of the subject’s personality and to the acquisition and alleviation of neuroses. At the same time, I maintain that, while Henry’s work acknowledges a potential role for mindfulness in the development of life’s creativity, his account is problematic. At the end of the day, Henry’s conception of life as an immanent, self-enclosed reality fails to adequately account for the relation between life (creativity) and intentionality (mindfulness). As a result, it fails to sufficiently account for the intersubjective character of creativity and mindfulness. To address these issues, I bring Henry’s insights into these matters into dialogue with Rank’s psychology of difference, which similarly regards affectivity and creativity as central to human life and to psychoanalysis. By doing so, what comes forward is that mindfulness and creativity are relationships that can strengthen and weaken one another, and which always involve self-enclosure and openness towards others and the cosmos. Bearing this in mind, I maintain that mindfulness and creativity can play an important role in allowing psychoanalysis to realize its aim of improving the well-being of human beings.

It has been widely argued that Michel Henry dismisses the importance of the subject’s worldly and intentional mode of existence in his account of the well-being of life. However, through a careful analysis of Henry’s theory of life and his study of culture and barbarism, I will demonstrate that the prevailing position on this point is both correct and incorrect: (i) correct in that absolute life does not require a moral transformation of the world; and (ii) incorrect inasmuch as Henry’s philosophy does not, for all that, deny that, from the perspective of human beings, the subject’s existence in the world does indeed matter to the well-being of their life. In my view, Henry’s work harbours the implication that, from the perspective of the subject’s existence in the world, the creation of a moral world through the development of the correspondence between one’s inner life and the natural world is humanity’s most pressing task, to the point that his entire phenomenology is oriented toward the achievement of this end. I will highlight two of the ways in which the subject’s existence is vital to life’s well-being: (i) as an expression of life; and (ii) as more or less befitting of life’s current needs. As part of this study, I argue that some of Henry’s conclusions regarding theoretical knowledge and its part in the aforementioned correspondence between life and the natural world do not entirely agree with his own analyses and therefore need to be reformed.

This paper will address the concept of labor through a study of Karl Marx and Michel Henry. While Henry claims to uncover, against the tradition of Marxism itself, the truth of Marx’s philosophical conception of the human being as a laborer within a social context, I will argue that both Marx and Marxism (i.e., Étienne Balibar) can help rectify certain shortcomings in Henry’s view of the matter. Toward this end, I will begin by laying out Henry’s account of Marx’s theory of labor and demonstrate that it is central to Henry’s phenomenology of life. As part of this, I will show that a proper understanding of the concept of labor goes some way toward undermining the dominant view of Henry’s work as one that neglects the role of the human being’s engagement in the world in life’s transformations. For all that, as I will demonstrate, Henry’s work fails to do justice to the ways in which the living labor of human beings is determined by the world. By analyzing the work of Marx and Balibar, this paper will show that these figures provide insights into the inter-affective, even transindividual, character of labor and thereby help remedy these pitfalls and improve Henry’s account of the nature and function of living labor.

This paper addresses the views of R.G. Collingwood and Theodor Adorno on the role of amusement and art in what each of them saw as the crisis of contemporary Western civilization. We will begin by showing how the aesthetic theories of Collingwood and Adorno develop out of their shared concerns about the harmful effects of amusement and bad art on the consciousness of human beings. We will argue that a productive dialogue between these two figures clarifies that the value of art consists in its ability to remedy the corruption of the mental and emotional lives of human beings and in helping to fashion a different social and political order. As part of this, we will show how, despite appearances, Adorno's aesthetic cognitivism and Collingwood's expression theory of art agree with and complement one another in significant ways. In establishing this point, this work will leave us with an understanding of art that is more comprehensive and better equipped to address the crisis of contemporary Western society.

It has been widely argued that Michel Henry dismisses the importance of the subject's worldly and intentional mode of existence in his account of the well-being of life. However, through a careful analysis of Henry's theory of life and his study of culture and barbarism, I will demonstrate that the prevailing position on this point is both correct and incorrect: (i) correct in that absolute life does not require a moral transformation of the world; and (ii) incorrect inasmuch as Henry's philosophy does not, for all that, deny that, from the perspective of human beings, the subject's existence in the world does indeed matter to the well-being of their life. In my view, Henry's work harbours the implication that, from the perspective of the subject's existence in the world, the creation of a moral world through the development of the correspondence between one's inner life and the natural world is humanity's most pressing task, to the point that his entire phenomenology is oriented toward the achievement of this end. I will highlight two of the ways in which the subject's existence is vital to life's well-being: (i) as an expression of life; and (ii) as more or less befitting of life's current needs. As part of this study, I argue that some of Henry's conclusions regarding theoretical knowledge and its part in the aforementioned correspondence between life and the natural world do not entirely agree with his own analyses and therefore need to be reformed.

This work engages with Michel Henry’s phenomenological account of the imagination and its ability to further our understanding of the relation between human life and the natural world. I argue that Henry’s account of the imagination does in fact harbour the ability to positively contribute to a renewal of our understanding of the relation between human life and the natural world. It does so, for one, by showing how the forgetting of life’s imagination plays a significant role in opening the way for the natural and objectivist view of nature that currently prevails in modern Western civilization. More than that, Henry’s account of the imagination reveals that nature and human beings belong together in a community of life. As such, I maintain that his analyses reveal that nature is not merely natural but also cultural (i.e., it participates in the realms of aesthetics, ethics, and religion, among others) and that it is essential to the flourishing of cultural life. Consequently, I contend that the imagination plays a crucial role in revealing the importance of creating and adopting more sustainable environmental practices. In closing, I highlight certain shortcomings in Henry’s material phenomenology, and I suggest how these shortcomings can be put right without abandoning his insights into the imagination and the richer and more sustainable relations it engenders and sustains with nature.

This paper addresses the claim that the social orders of Western civilization operate on the basis of the law’s presumed sovereignty over life. I demonstrate how the respective works of Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben and French phenomenologist Michel Henry are joined in their concern over this issue, and in their shared belief that life can be made sovereign over the law through a communal life based upon habit. At the same time, I argue that their respective conceptions of this communal life are flawed, and that they would benefit from being brought into a productive dialogue with one another. More specifically, I show that Henry’s account of a Christian communal life based upon the habitual practice of love moves at least some way toward addressing Agamben’s account of a coming community that is decidedly abstract and lacking in a substantial ethic. However, I maintain that Henry’s own account of this community is founded upon a problematic conception of potentiality that would benefit from Agamben’s study of the matter. By bringing these two figures together and drawing out the lessons that can be learnt from each of them, this work provides a more concrete and substantial account of how a coming Christian community can play a role in making life sovereign over the force of the law.

This paper engages in a critical examination of Michel Henry’s (1922-2002) phenomenological study of the erotic relation. I argue that while Henry’s analysis sheds light on the nature of eros and how it might be renewed from the obscene objectivism to which it has largely been reduced in Western society today, his analysis of eros undermines his account of the phenomenological life of the subject as a radically immanent mode of appearing and calls for revision. I contend that it is by acknowledging life as a movement of transcendence toward the world that we can resolve this issue and further refine Henry’s insights into the nature of eros and how it might once again be renewed in contemporary Western civilization. I begin by laying out Henry’s account of how the forgetting of life results in a reduction of the erotic (i.e., inter-subjective) relation to a merely sexual (i.e., inter-objective) one, and how this lays the groundwork for what he regards as the destructive sadomasochistic practices of voyeurism and pornography. Following this, I outline Henry’s account of the nature and limits of the erotic relation, and I demonstrate how Henry’s work harbours the latent suggestion that the failure of eros can serve as a step toward a higher union with others in a love of God. In the closing section, I show how Henry’s analysis of the erotic relation calls for a re-conception of life as a movement of transcendence. I outline how this re-conception better accounts for the complex exchanges between the non-objectifying drives of life and the objectifying acts of consciousness, and I show how this allows us to retain some of Henry’s insights into eros and its renewal while forcing us to modify others.

This paper seeks to address whether human life harbours the possibility of a gratuitous or non-reciprocal form of trust. To address this issue, I take up Descartes’ account of the cogito as the essence of all appearing. With his interpretation of Descartes’ account of the cogito as an immanent and affective mode of appearing, I maintain that Henry provides the transcendental foundation for a non-reciprocal form of trust, which the history of Western philosophy has largely covered over by forgetting this aspect of Descartes’ thought. I demonstrate that Heidegger’s reading of Descartes serves as a preeminent example of this. Because Heidegger overlooks Descartes’ insight into the essence of appearing, and reduces this essence to the finite transcendence of the world, I maintain that Heidegger reduces trust to reciprocal relations of understanding between beings of shared contexts of significance.

This paper concerns the issue as to whether novelty plays a significant role in Husserl’s analysis of time. To address this matter, I show that horizontal and transverse intentionality constitute absolute consciousness as a process of self-differentiation, which enables the ego to anticipate its own renewal and yet to escape coinciding with this synthesising activity. I then further analyse time-constituting consciousness as a process of self-differentiation through a study of Husserl’s account of retention and protention. Addressing Husserl’s presumed neglect of protention, I demonstrate that Husserl reveals that retention and protention modify and motivate one another, and find that this provides a role for novelty within Husserl’s account of the continuity of time. I maintain that this novelty assumes two forms: one that is absolute or necessary, and another that is relative or accidental.

This article addresses the problematic relation between Michel Henry’s phenomenology of life and ethics. More specifically, it asks whether Henry’s account of the self’s transcendental birth in the immanent self-generation of life allows for a sense of individual responsibility. I begin by discussing Henry’s generation of the self and show how the historical essence of the self is structured according to the antinomy of affectivity. I then show how, for Henry, this history of life is full and yet incomplete. Accordingly, life is attracted to growth and this growth happens insofar as living beings proceed through a series of stages of despair. I develop these stages by looking at Henry’s analyses of anxiety, desire, and humility in relation to Kierkegaard. I argue that even though there is already an initial sense of responsibility at work in the earliest stirrings of anxiety, it is only in humility that the self comes to know who it truly is and how it ought to relate to others. Cet article se penche sur la relation problématique entre la phéno-ménologie de la vie et l’éthique de Michel Henry. Plus spécifiquement, nous nous demandons si l’explication de la naissance trans-cendantale du soi dans l’auto-génération immanente de la vie que propose Henry permet de rendre compte d’un sens de la responsabilité personnelle. Nous débutons avec une analyse de la génération du soi chez Henry et montrons comment l’essence historique du soi est structurée selon l’antinomie de l’affectivité. Nous montrons en-suite comment, pour Henry, cette histoire du soi est pleine bien qu’incomplète. En conséquence, la vie est attirée par la croissance, et cette croissance se produit dans la mesure où les êtres vivants passent à travers une série de stades du désespoir. Nous dévelop-pons ces divers stades en nous tournant vers les analyses que fait Henry de l’angoisse, du désir, et de l’humilité en relation avec Kierkegaard. Nous soutenons que même s’il y a déjà un sens initial de la responsabilité à l’oeuvre dans le premier éveil de l’angoisse, c’est seulement en atteignant le stade de l’humilité que le soi en vient à savoir qui il est vraiment et comment il doit se rapporter aux autres.