Ted Toadvine

Merleau-Ponty's Reading of Husserl explores the relationship between two of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century: Edmund Husserl, the father of modern phenomenology, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, considered by many to be his greatest philosophical heir. While Merleau-Ponty's influence on the dissemination and reception of Husserl's thought is indisputable, unresolved questions remain concerning the philosophical projects of these two thinkers: Does phenomenology first reach its true potential in Merleau-Ponty's hands, guided by his appreciation of the tacit goals underlying Husserl's philosophical project? Or is Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology a creative but ultimately misdirected appropriation of Husserl's work? In this volume, the first devoted to a comparison of the work of these two philosophers, ten leading scholars draw on the latest research and newly available manuscripts to offer novel insights into Merleau-Ponty's reading of Husserl - with implications for our understanding of phenomenology's significance, its method, and the future of philosophy.

This dissertation reconstructs the development of Maurice Merleau-Ponty's position on intersubjectivity and argues that the faults of his earlier formulations are eliminated in the final, viable account of the experience of others. ;During the Phenomenology of Perception period, Merleau-Ponty treats the experience of others as a "transcendental contradiction," a finite and precarious synthesis between the contradictory requirements that the other be presented to consciousness yet escape the constituting power of consciousness. While at the Sorbonne, drawing on analyses of language acquisition and linguistics, he reconceives the self as a power of expression in contact with others by means of a corporeal mediation termed "encroachment." Finally, Merleau-Ponty's last writings while at the College de France develop an ontology to account for both his previous phenomenology and the essential resistance of the prereflective to reflection. "Flesh," the medium of this ontology, constitutes a diacritical nexus within which each subject forms a "fold," a concretion point at which inside and outside meet. The deferral of the identity of each point throughout the whole entails both a kinship and a differentiation between subjects. The self-mediation--the folding--of Flesh subtends a contact between subjects which does not eliminate difference. ;Merleau-Ponty's final account advances over his earlier views in two related ways: by eliminating the polarity between prereflective experience and reflection, and by reconceiving the role of negation. Merleau-Ponty's earlier position attempts to mediate between pre-theoretical life and reflective understanding using Husserl's relation of Fundierung and the "tacit cogito" inspired by Sartre. The fundamental bipolarity introduced by these models of mediation belies Merleau-Ponty's own analyses of dialogue between the prereflective and reflection, and between other and self. Merleau-Ponty's final position moves beyond the earlier antitheses by locating negation in the self-mediation of Flesh, the paradigm instantiation of which is the reflexivity of a body touching itself. On the basis of this corporeal self-reflexivity, subjects can form a "chiasm:" homologous with visual synopsis, perspectives merge without the loss of individuation or difference. The dissertation concludes by arguing that a viable account of intersubjective experience can be founded on the relation of "chiasm."

Phenomenology’s attention to the theme of animality has focused not on animal life in general but rather on the animal dimension of the human and its contested relation with humanity as such. Phenomenology thereby reproduces Agamben’s “anthropological machine” by which humanity is constructed through the “inclusive exclusion” of its animality. The alternative to this “inclusive exclusion” is not a return to kinship or commonality but rather an intensification of the constitutive paradox of our own inner animality, understood in terms of the anonymous, corporeal subject of perception that lives a different temporality than that of first-person consciousness. Consequently, non-human others speak through our own voices and gaze out through our own eyes. We first consider the proximity of Merleau-Ponty’s early work with that of Max Scheler, who paradigmatically reduces human animality to bare life. Merleau-Ponty differentiates himself from Scheler, in The Structure of Behavior, by insisting that life cannot be integrated into spirit without remainder. Merleau-Ponty’s later work thinks this remainder as the ineliminable gap and delay in the auto-affection of the body and as a chiasmic exchange that anticipates Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of “becoming animal.” This remainder of life within consciousness is the immemorial past of one’s own animality. It follows that our “inner animality” is neither singular nor plural but a kind of pack that speaks through the voice that I take to be mine. Furthermore, in the exchange of looks between myself and a non-human other, the crossing of glances occurs at an animal level that withdraws from my own reflective consciousness

In a 1951 debate that marked the beginnings of the analytic-continental divide, Maurice Merleau-Ponty sided with Georges Bataille in rejecting A. J. Ayer’s claim that “the sun existed before human beings.” This rejection is already anticipated in a controversial passage from Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception, where he claims that “there is no world without an Existence that bears its structure.” I defend Merleau-Ponty’s counterintuitive position against naturalistic and anti-subjectivist critics by arguing that the world emerges in the exchange between perceiver and perceived. A deeper challenge is posed, however, by Quentin Meillassoux, who argues that the “correlationism” of contemporary philosophy rules out any account of the “ancestral” time that antedates all subjectivity. Against Meillassoux, and taking an encounter with fossils as my guide, I hold that the past prior to subjectivity can only be approached phenomenologically. The paradoxical character of this immemorial past, as a memory of the world rather than of the subject, opens the way toward a phenomenology of the “elemental” past. Drawing on Merleau-Ponty’s descriptions of the absolute past of nature and the anonymity of the body, as well as Levinas’ account of the elements at the end of the world, I argue that our own materiality and organic lives participate in the differential rhythms of the elements, opening us to a memory of the world that binds the cosmic past and the apocalyptic future.

Apocalyptic fictions abound in contemporary culture, multiplying end-of-the-world fantasies of environmental collapse. Meanwhile, efforts toward global sustainability extrapolate from deep-past trends to predict and manage deep-future scenarios. These narratives converge in “eco-eschatologies,” which work as phantasms that construct our identities, our understanding of the world, and our sense of responsibility in the present. I critique ecoeschatology’s reliance on an interpretation of deep time that treats every temporal moment as interchangeable and projects the future as a chronological extension of the past. This enacts what Jean-Luc Nancy calls the “catastrophe of equivalence” by domesticating the future and obscuring the incommensurability of what resists substitution, conversion, or exchange. By contrast, the renewal of our responsibility toward the future, without apocalypse or apotheosis, requires an intuition of deep time that respects the singular anachronicity of the present and refuses the framing of existence against a background of annihilation.

To what extent can meaning be attributed to nature, and what is the relationship between such “natural sense” and the meaning of linguistic and artistic expressions? To shed light on such questions, this essay lays the groundwork for an “ontology of sense” drawing on the insights of phenomenology and Merleau-Ponty’s theory of expression. We argue that the ontological continuity of organic life with the perceived world of nature requires situating sense at a level that is more fundamental than has traditionally been recognized. Accounting for the genesis of this primordial sense and the teleology of expressive forms requires the development of an ontology of being as interrogation, as suggested by Merleau-Ponty’s later investigations

In our time, Ted Toadvine observes, the philosophical question of nature is almost entirely forgotten—obscured in part by a myopic focus on solving "environmental problems" without asking how these problems are framed. But an "environmental crisis," existing as it does in the human world of value and significance, is at heart a philosophical crisis. In this book, Toadvine demonstrates how Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology has a special power to address such a crisis—a philosophical power far better suited to the questions than other modern approaches, with their over-reliance on assumptions drawn from the natural sciences. The book examines key moments in the development of Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy of nature while roughly following the historical sequence of his major works. Toadvine begins by setting out an ontology of nature proposed in Merleau-Ponty’s first book, _The Structure of Behavior. _He takes up the theme of the expressive role of reflection in _Phenomenology of Perception, _as it negotiates the area between nature’s own "self-unfolding" and human subjectivity. Merleau-Ponty’s notion of "intertwining" and his account of space provide a transition to Toadvine’s study of the philosopher’s later work—in which the concept of "chiasm," the crossing or intertwining of sense and the sensible, forms the key to Merleau-Ponty’s mature ontology—and ultimately to the relationship between humans and nature