In French, the verb "to live" designates both being alive and the experience of something. This ambiguity has a philosophical meaning. The task of a phenomenology of life is to describe an originary sense of living from which the very distinction between life in the intransitive sense and life in the transitive, or intentional, sense proceeds. Hans Jonas is one of those rare authors who has tried to give an account of the specificity of life instead of reducing life to (...) categories that are foreign to it. However, the concept of metabolism, by which Jonas characterizes vital activity, attests to a presupposition as to life: life is conceived as self-preservation, that is, as negation of death, in such a way that life is, in the end, not thought on the basis of itself. The aim of this article is to show that life as such must be understood as movement in a radicalized sense, in which the living being is no more the subject than the product. All living beings are in effect characterized by a movement, which nothing can cause to cease, a movement that largely exceeds what is required by the satisfaction of needs and that, because of this, bears witness to an essential incompleteness. This incompleteness reveals that life is originarily bound to a world. Because the world to which the living being relates is essentially non-totalizable and unpresentable, living movement can not essentially complete itself. Thus, in the final analysis, life must be defined as desire, and in virtue of this view, life does not tend toward self-preservation, as we have almost always thought, but toward the manifestation of the world. (shrink)

L’analyse du pouvoir que propose Merleau-Ponty dans sa confrontation avec le Marxisme et le bolchévisme tente de penser ce paradoxe : le phénomène du pouvoir contient deux sous-phénomènes: premièrement, le pouvoir d’une entité politique (Prince, Etat, Parti etc.) est reconnu s’il est perçu comme donné (moment de reconnaissance) ; deuxièmement, le pouvoir de cette entité dépend de ladite reconnaissance (moment d’institution). Le premier moment constate le donné alors que l’autre le conteste. L’article se propose de comprendre, premièrement, dans quelle mesure (...) le pouvoir doit être compris comme l’union de la reconnaissance et de l’institution, et deuxièmement, dans quelle mesure cette unité doit être comprise comme une matrice productrice d’histoire. La première question sera résolue par appel à la notion de foi perceptive, qui est la version ontologique d’une telle unité ; et la seconde par appel à la notion politique de représentation héritée de Machiavel et développée dans les analyses critiques du thème de la représentation du prolétariat par le Parti. Le résultat est une reconfiguration des relations entre discours de vérité (dans ce cas, l’ontologie) et action politique ; une reconfiguration de la notion de pouvoir, et une hypothèse pour rendre compte de l’unité des travaux « théoriques » et « politiques » de Merleau-Ponty.The analysis of power that Merleau-Ponty proposes in his confrontation with Marxism and Bolshevism tries to think through the following paradox. The phenomenon of power is composed of two sub-phenomena. Firstly, the power of a political entity (Prince, State, Party, etc.) is recognized if it is perceived as given (moment of recognition). Secondly, the power of that entity depends on the said recognition (moment of institution). The first moment notices the given, while the other contests it. This article aims to elucidate, firstly, to what extent power must be understood as the union of recognition and institution, and secondly, to what extent that unity must be understood as a matrix productive of history. The first question will be resolved by appealing to the notion of the perceptual faith, which is the ontological version of such a unity; and the second, by appealing to the political notion of representation inherited from Machiavelli and developed in the critical analyses of the theme of the representation of the proletariat by the Party. The result is a reconfiguration of the relations between discourses of truth (in this case, ontology) and political action. It is a reconfiguration of the notion of power and a hypothesis that wants to account for the unity of Merleau-Ponty’s “theoretical” and “political” efforts.L’analisi del potere che Merleau-Ponty propone attraverso il confronto tra marxismo e bolscevismo tenta di pensare questo paradosso: il fenomeno del potere contiene due sotto-fenomeni: in primo luogo, il potere di un’entità politica (il Principe, lo Stato, il Partito, ecc.) è riconosciuto se è percepito come dato (momento di riconoscimento); in secondo luogo, il potere di questa entità dipende dal suddetto riconoscimento (momento di istituzione). Il primo momento constata ciò che è dato, mentre l’altro lo contesta. L’articolo si propone di comprendere, in primis, in quale misura il potere deve essere inteso come unione del riconoscimento e dell’istituzione, e in seconda battuta, in quale misura quest’unità deve essere compresa come una matrice produttrice di storia. La prima questione sarà risolta tramite il riferimento alla nozione politica di rappresentazione ereditata da Machiavelli e sviluppata nelle analisi critiche del tema della rappresentazione del proletariato attraverso il Partito. Il risultato è una riconfigurazione delle relazioni tra discorso di verità (in questo caso, l’ontologia) e azione politica; una riconfigurazione della nozione di potere, e un’ipotesi che renda conto dell’unità dei lavori “teorici” e “politici” di Merleau-Ponty. (shrink)

This paper explores the significance of Heraclitus’s fragment B45 for Husserl and Merleau-Ponty as it appears in the Crisis of the European Sciences and Merleau-Ponty’s lectures on this text in the late 1950s. I claim that at stake is a revision or mutation of the sense of transcendentality: by naming it psyche, the transcendental is no longer understood as a static set of a priori conditions but what I call, following Jean-Luc Nancy, “outsidedness.” I elaborate this idea in dialogue with (...) Nancy and Derrida in their texts “De l’âme” and On Touching: Jean-Luc Nancy. By identifying the sense of transcendentality with the psyche of Heraclitus, we see a transcendentality in the process of departing, and hence transcendentality is an event for which we always arrive late.Cet article explore la signification du fragment B45 de Héraclite pour Husserl et Merleau-Ponty telle qu’elle apparaît dans la Crise des Sciences Européennes et dans la lecture de ce texte par Merleau-Ponty à la fin des années 1950. Je postule qu’il en va de la révision ou de la mutation du sens de la « transcendantalité » : en l’appelant psyche, le transcendantal n’est plus compris comme un ensemble statique de conditions a priori mais comme ce que je nomme, suivant Jean-Luc Nancy, un « au-delà ». J’élabore cette idée en dialogue avec les textes de Nancy et de Derrida : « De l’âme » et Le Toucher, Jean-Luc Nancy. En identifiant le sens de la « transcendantalité » avec la psyche de Héraclite, nous remarquons une « transcendantalité » sur le départ, et donc la « transcendantalité » est un événement pour lequel nous arrivons toujours en retard. Questo saggio esplora il significato del frammento di Eraclito B45 per Husserl e Merleau-Ponty, per come appare nella Crisi delle scienze europee e nella lettura merleau-pontiana di questo testo verso la fine degli anni Cinquanta. Ci sembra di poter affermare che in gioco vi sia una rivisitazione, una mutazione, del senso del trascendentale: definendolo come psyche, il trascendentale non è più concepito come una serie statica di condizioni a priori, ma come ciò che, con Jean-Luc Nancy, chiamiamo “esteriorità”. Abbiamo elaborato questa idea in dialogo con Nancy e Derrida e i loro testi rispettivi Dell’anima e Toccare, Jean-Luc Nancy. Identificando il senso della trascendentalità con la psyche di Eraclito, possiamo vedere della trascendentalità nel processo del dipartirsi (partance), e quindi, proprio in questo senso, comprendere la trascendentalità come un evento rispetto al quale siamo sempre in ritardo. (shrink)