Advertisement

The Theory of the Body

  • Richard M. Zaner
Chapter
  • 100 Downloads
Part of the Phaenomenologica book series (PHAE, volume 17)

Abstract

As we indicated,1 it is possible to see the centrality of the problem of the body for Merleau-Ponty in another manner. The body arises as a specific “problem” for him in the course of a critical exposition of traditional theories of sensuous perception. At every point in theories of this kind one is necessarily led to a theory of the nature of sensuousness in general. In different terms: traditional theories of sensuous perception were mainly theories of sensuous knowledge; studies of sense perception were directed towards the solution of questions concerning the conditions, possibility, and “sources,” of knowledge — one of these “stems” of knowledge (as, for instance, in Locke or Kant) being sensuousness (Sinnlichkeit). 2 Just in so far as this was the case, however, the nature of sensuousness was simply presupposed, not itself made thematic; and the presupposition, we have seen, was that sensuousness is fundamentally passive and receptive. To sense perceive is simply to suffer, to be receptive, and thus actually to be modified by the thing perceived in some manner. And, the theories of perception built on this presupposition followed the style of it.

Keywords

Traditional Theory Corporeal Scheme Reflex Activity Pathological Person Fundamental Phenomenon 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cf. above, pp. 134–35.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See, for example, Kant’s Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Section 1, B, p. 33.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thus, Kant (Ibid., idem) goes on to say the capacity by means of which we are affected by objects, i.e., Sinnlichkeit, is receptivity (Rezeptivität). Google Scholar
  4. 1.
    Descartes had already laid out the essential lines of this conception in his Rules for the Direction of the Mind. (Cf. Rule XII)Google Scholar
  5. 1.
    Cf. Part I, Chapter I, pp. 18–20.Google Scholar
  6. 1.
    By “le préjugé du monde,” Merleau-Ponty means what Husserl has called the “naturalization of consciousness.” Cf. Husserl, “Philosophy as a Strict Science,” Cross Currents, Vol. vi, No. 3 (Summer, 1956), pp. 230–37.Google Scholar
  7. 1.
    De Waelhens, op. cit., pp. 112–13.Google Scholar
  8. 2.
    Ibid., p. 114.Google Scholar
  9. 3.
    Ibid., p. 109.Google Scholar
  10. 1.
    Cf. Structure du Comportement, op. cit., pp. 148–49.Google Scholar
  11. 1.
    Ibid., pp. 47ff.Google Scholar
  12. 2.
    Jean Piaget, The Origins of Intelligence in Children, International Universities (New York, 1952), Chapter I.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 3.
    The Construction of Reality in the Child, Basic Books (New York, 1954), p. 89; also pp. 8–9, and 104–05.Google Scholar
  14. 4.
    Origins of Intelligence, pp. 38–39.Google Scholar
  15. 2.
    Ibid., pp. 390 and 405. See also, Gurwitsch, Théorie du Champ de la Conscience, op. cit., pp. 48–50.Google Scholar
  16. 1.
    De Waelhens, op. cit., p. 119.Google Scholar
  17. 2.
    Origins of Intelligence, op. cit., e.g. pp. 25–29.Google Scholar
  18. 1.
    De Waelhens, op. cit., p. 121.Google Scholar
  19. 1.
    Goldstein, Psychologische Analysen hirnpathologischer Fälle, Barth (Leipzig, 1920), pp. 167–213. (PP, 125)Google Scholar
  20. 1.
    Origins of Intelligence, op. cit., p. 25.Google Scholar
  21. 2.
    Ibid., p. 29.Google Scholar
  22. 3.
    Ibid., pp. 32, 42–43.Google Scholar
  23. 4.
    Ibid., pp. 34–35, 43.Google Scholar
  24. 5.
    Ibid., pp. 35–36.Google Scholar
  25. 6.
    Ibid., p. 135; cf. also, p. 128.Google Scholar
  26. 1.
    Ibid., p. 142. There are certain problems with his analysis which we cannot show in this place.Google Scholar
  27. 2.
    Ibid., p. 46.Google Scholar
  28. 3.
    Structure du Comportement, op. cit., p. 286.Google Scholar
  29. 1.
    Cartesian Meditations, op. cit., p. 39.Google Scholar
  30. 2.
    Ibid., pp. 41–42.Google Scholar
  31. 3.
    Ibid., p. 42.Google Scholar
  32. 4.
    Formale und transzendentale Logik, op. cit., p. 147.Google Scholar
  33. 1.
    Ibid., p. 185.Google Scholar
  34. 1.
    De Waelhens, op. cit., p. 117.Google Scholar
  35. 5.
    Cf., e.g., PP, 246 and 245. We return to this shortly.Google Scholar
  36. 1.
    Cf. de Waelhens, op. cit., pp. 140–41.Google Scholar
  37. 2.
    Cf. Cartesian Meditations, op. cit., §§ 17–18.Google Scholar
  38. 1.
    De Waelhens, op. cit., p. 175.Google Scholar
  39. 2.
    De Waelhens, op. cit., p. 181.Google Scholar
  40. 1.
    Cf. also de Waelhens, op. cit., p. 177.Google Scholar
  41. 2.
    Cf. de Waelhens, op. cit.; and PP, 150, and 161: “Consciousness is a being-at-the-thing by the intermediary of the body.”Google Scholar
  42. 3.
    De Waelhens, p. 139.Google Scholar
  43. 2.
    Cf. Metaphysical Journal, op. cit., 258–60, and above, Part I, Chapter II, pp. 38–41, and 43.Google Scholar
  44. 1.
    Merleau-Ponty refers here to the “noch-im-Griff-behalten” of Husserl: Erfahrung und Urteil, §§ 23a and 23b.Google Scholar
  45. 1.
    F. J. J. Buytendijk, “Femininity and Existential Psychology,” Perspectives in Personality (edited by David and von Bracken), New York (1957), p. 200.Google Scholar
  46. 1.
    Ibid., pp. 204–08; cf. also Buytendijk’s work, Attitudes et Mouvements, op. cit. Google Scholar
  47. 2.
    Max Scheler, The Nature of Sympathy, Yale University Press (New Haven, 1954), p. 10.Google Scholar
  48. 3.
    V. von Weizsacker, Der Gestaltkreis: Theorie einer Einheit von Wahrnehmen und Bewegen, Leipzig, 1943, p. 167. (Quoted by Buytendijk, Attitudes et Mouvement, op. cit., p. 59).Google Scholar
  49. 4.
    Buytendijk, Attitudes et Mouvement, op. cit., p. 59. Buytendijk, it is clear, flatly rejects Sartre’s position that I do not apprehend the Other as “subject.”Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1971

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard M. Zaner

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations