This paper is focused on the possibility of a dialogue between Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) and phenomenology, a dialogue concerning the problem of objects and relations. In the first part, the author shows what is interesting in OOO from a phenomenological perspective and why it should be considered as a challenge for contemporary philosophy. The second part develops the phenomenological perspective of the author, a perspective based on Merleau-Ponty’s “carnal” phenomenology, as well as some suggestions coming from the Italian school of (...) Gaetano Kanizsa. The third part is dedicated to the objections of the author to the OOO view regarding the separation between objects and relations: a separation which leads to Harman’s quadruple object. In the concluding portion, the author shows that, despite evident differences between phenomenological and OOO’s views of relations, OOO offers new starting points for phenomenological reflections, thanks to its specific focus on objects and its pluralistic view of reality. (shrink)

The paper discusses a posthuman reading of Merleau-Ponty’s later works and an application of the concept of flesh to the digital dimension. Whereas, in the Phenomenology of Perception, the world and other beings are seen from an egological and human perspective, in The Visible and the Invisible this perspective is reshaped. Human body is made of the same stuff of other bodies, and they constitute a common being, the flesh of the world. Merleau-Ponty sets out a path through flat ontology (...) and posthumanism, opposing human perspective as a privileged one. His posthuman turn passes through the concepts of reversibility and divergence. Humans are made of the same stuff as non-humans, so they reverse into one another, but, on the other hand, they are not reduced to an undifferentiated entity, because of their divergence. Merleau-Ponty’s problematizing perspective is here actualized and applied to the hybridization between human bodies and digital protheses. (shrink)

The paper is focused on the concept of perceptual relation according to experimental phenomenology, belonging to Gestaltist and ecological traditions. First of all, it will be shown the meaning of “relation” in the perceptual domain, including a specific definition of object and subject. For this purpose, the paper will present the difference with the representationalist perspective, which challenges immediate experience and the perception of unified objects. Secondly, the concept of “perceptual relation” will be compared to the idea of Gestalttheorie’s “intrinsic (...) relation”. It will be sustained that perceptual relations do not concern only connections between the parts and the whole of a configuration, but they extend to otherness, namely perceptual object, other subjects, and the Umwelt. For this purpose, the paper will provide some examples of ambiguity of the relation ground-figure, especially reversible and bistable figures. (shrink)

This paper aims to find, in Merleau-Ponty’s late thinking, a definition of the virtual which aligns with the latest advancements in digital technology while avoiding a reduction to the digital realm or a stark opposition to reality. The virtual is considered as a crucial characteristic in Merleau-Ponty’s late ontology, especially in The Visible and the Invisible, where a “virtual focus” or “virtual center” of the flesh is introduced. The argument posits that Merleau-Ponty’s monism of the flesh results in a dynamic (...) view of virtuality, with significant ontological implications that reshape the relationship between the digital and the analogue. Merleau-Ponty’s concept of the virtual is defined by several key features: it applies to a monist perspective on reality, to a dynamic relationality between dialectic poles, and to the fabric of reality. This interpretation of the virtual implies a divergence from the digital, as virtuality belongs to the whole spectrum of reality. (shrink)

This paper draws on previous research carried out by the author on the educative relationship between teacher and student in schools and universities, in order to enrich it with further studies and considerations on distance learning. The author uses the phenomenological method, assuming the point of view of both members of the relationship (student and teacher). The general characteristics of the relationship (reciprocity, asymmetry, and verticality) and the differences between the two parties involved (age and/or developmental stage, educational role, mastery (...) of the discipline, and institutional role) remain, but are articulated differently: this mainly happens, because in distance learning the perception of the body of the other person is partial or absent, hindering the phenomena of pairing and empathy. It is thus shown that distance learning cannot replace face-to-face teaching, however, it is able to support and supplement it. (shrink)

Kierkegaard and Levinas are both philosophers of singularity. The latter, in Difficult Freedom and Proper Names, strongly criticizes the former, accusing him of subjectivism, violence and underestimation of ethics. However, the distance separating the two is very short, especially if one reads carefully Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript. In this article it is argued that both thinkers refuse impersonal totality, conceive Infinity as irreducible, ethics as directed towards the other person and suffering as necessary during lifetime. Above all, both Kierkegaard and (...) Levinas think of subjectivity as originally addressed beyond itself, towards Infinity. (shrink)

This paper discusses the possibility of the phenomenon of empathy between humans and robots, starting from what happens during their eye contact. First, it is shown, through the most relevant results of HRI studies on this matter, what are the most important effects of the robot gaze on human emotions and behaviour. Secondly, these effects are compared to what happens during the phenomenon of empathy between humans, taking inspiration from the studies of Edmund Husserl and Edith Stein. Finally, similarities and (...) differences between human-human and human-robot empathy are conceptualized through Merleau-Ponty’s idea of flesh, which is the extended bodily element of the world. If there is a common concept of body, including both machine-bodies and living bodies, then a transcorporeal analogy takes place, thus explaining why the phenomenon of empathy occurs both in human-human and human-robot interactions. (shrink)

This paper focuses on Levinas’ concept of ipseity and on its change between the 1960’s and the 1970’s, arguing that this change implies the undoing of the subject. In Totality and Infinity (1961), ipseity is considered as the deep core of the I, whereas, in Otherwise Than Being (1974), it is the other person inside the self. Levinas also theorizes another kind of other-in-the-same, which is illeity, the trace of God inside the human soul. It is shown that illeity is (...) not problematic for the subject, since it does not cause its undoing. Furthermore, it is argued that ipseity, in Otherwise Than Being, is not a mere opening to alterity, but a source of alienation. Finally, it is shown that Levinas starts to change his mind on ipseity in 1968 (“Substitution”), however this modification becomes clear only in 1970 (“No Identity”). (shrink)

In this paper, a phenomenological perspective on capitalism is given: it is considered as the economic expression of onto-theology. Capitalism is based on egotism, whose principles are private ownership (correlative of intentionality) and free market (correlative of liberty). The current crisis is the symptom of a disease, that is a lack of ethics, an indiscriminate pursuit of egotism. A moral revolution is here proposed as a remedy. The aim is not to destroy capitalism, but to save it with the introduction (...) of an ethical attitude, based on original responsibility and uniqueness (Levinas), as well as on bi-directional respect (Ricoeur). (shrink)

The paper aims at connecting the concepts of beauty and possession, traditionally coupled with the male gaze, with eros as felt by women, by homosexuals, and by those who do not identify with a defined gender. First, I will outline the concepts of beauty and possession according to “male thinking”, well formulated by Freud, Plato, Levinas, and Sartre. I will show that, in Western tradition, beauty is seen from a masculine perspective, as a set of charms arousing the subject and (...) stimulating his will to possess. The erotic relationship is consequently considered in a dualistic way: the subject is masculine and active, and desires his “object”, who can be either a man or a woman. However, the mentioned authors also highlight a crucial point: desire is doomed to be unfulfilled, because the transcendence of the other person is ungraspable. I will argue that, despite the latter point, such authors bring forward a reductionist view of eros and relationships between genders. I will suggest a solution to this reductionism, taking inspiration from the concepts of gender performativity, theorized by Butler, and queer orientation, developed by Ahmed. I will also propose to rely on Merleau-Ponty’s idea of the flesh, especially as it concerns its features of reversibility and divergence, in order to give account of every gender identity, including non-binary ones. The concepts of beauty and possession, together with the impossibility to grasp the transcendence of the other person, will not be rejected, but reconfigured through a different way of conceiving subjectivity. (shrink)

From the Introduction: "William James and Gilles Deleuze gave two specific definitions of their own ways of thinking: James used the expression “radical empiricism”, whereas Deleuze wrote about “transcendental empiricism”. In both cases, empiricism is brought out as the main feature of their perspective on reality. I will show that both authors share an empiricist background, regarding especially the concept of “pure experience”. [...] Furthermore, I will bring out that Deleuze, even if he shares the same starting point of James’s (...) philosophy, shifts the axis of repetition according to difference: he develops his perspective on pure experience through a redefinition of the transcendental.". (shrink)

Nel presente scritto, l’attività di insegnamento filosofico viene sottoposta ad interrogativi riguardanti gli elementi che la caratterizzano, ovvero ciò che viene insegnato, chi insegna e a chi si insegna. Nasce così una riflessione teoretica su tre concetti basilari, ovvero la filosofia, il soggetto e l’altro. Attraverso le suggestioni di grandi pensatori, in primis l’Heidegger di Essere e Tempo, ma anche Platone, Aristotele, Cartesio, Deleuze e Levinas, vengono proposte possibili definizioni dei concetti suddetti. La filosofia viene così considerata in senso statico, (...) come sentiero diretto al sapere, e dinamico, come prassi sempre rinnovantesi. Per quanto riguarda il “chi”, una volta stabilito che, per natura o necessità ontica, ogni uomo tende al sapere, viene definito il soggetto in grado di insegnare la filosofia ad altri. Questi può essere sia il semplice studioso di filosofia, che il filosofo vero e proprio. La differenza tra i due si configura come segue: il primo si occupa solo della conoscenza di sentieri già tracciati, il secondo ne traccia anche di nuovi. Il destinatario dell’insegnamento filosofico si configura, invece, come alterità a cui la soggettività docente deve relazionarsi. Si giunge pure qui ad una definizione duplice, ovvero dell’allievo come semplice conoscente, la cui componente attiva è limitata alla ricezione dei contenuti, e dell’allievo come praticante, che sperimenta vari metodi e si mette in gioco nella teoresi. Vengono infine delineate possibili configurazioni in base a queste tre coppie di concetti, configurazioni che, a propria volta, diventano molteplici nelle realtà singolari. (shrink)