Maurice Merleau-Ponty - Phenomenology of Perception (Summary (with diagram))

[@absurdbeing2219]

*Contents* 03:37 The Phenomenal Field (The first reduction) 06:25 Sensing 08:24 Space 09:45 Body (Spatiality) 12:39 Body (Speech) 14:02 Body (Affectivity) 14:52 The Thing and the Natural World (Perceptual constants) 15:40 The Thing and the Natural World (The Intersensory thing itself) 18:23 The Thing and the Natural World (The natural world) 19:18 Others 23:29 Self (Subject and world) 24:57 Self (Acts of pure thought) 27:25 Self (Psychic facts) 28:23 Self (The Cogito) 29:07 The Problem of Transcendence 30:01 The Transcendental Field (The second reduction) 34:02 Temporality / Subjectivity 41:19 Temporality (Self/Body) 41:50 Temporality (World) 42:09 Temporality (Others) 44:07 The Problem of Transcendence (resolved) 45:04 Freedom

[@godvegito3686]

Is this suppose to be existentialism?

[@absurdbeing2219]

@@godvegito3686 MP is usually considered to be an existentialist, yes.

[@rigourless]

Just want to leave this comment to thank you for all the help you have given me with your phenomenology of perception series - without it, I would have failed my Merleau-Ponty class! Thanks to you I got a first. You do a great job explaining Merleau-Ponty! Thank you !!

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks a lot. I really appreciate the comment, and congratulations of acing your class!

[@shogun9450]

It just clicked that your explanations are incredibly well thought out but your voice is Asmr level calming to get me not to get overwhelmed with the content of your lectures. Thank you for helping me understand these subjects!

[@absurdbeing2219]

I never thought of my voice like that. Maybe ironically, I try to avoid listening to myself wherever possible! But I'm glad it has a positive effect. Thanks for taking the time to watch my videos, and I'm glad they helped.

[@Thegossipgirlxxoo]

Thank you so much, there is not much accessible content out there about this work by Marleau-Ponty, so this is such a valuable contribution!

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks Lou. Glad you liked it!

[@hughhandy3303]

just wanted to say thank you for making this series, youve explained everything so simply yet in such great detail. i would never have been able to pass my final exam without it bc my colege lecturer just simply cannot teach this stuff. cheers man

[@absurdbeing2219]

Happy to help!

[@legobros123]

Thank you so much for the great videos! This book was my first dive into philosophy and you made it easier to understand than going in cold. I’m not sure if you’ve heard of the architect Steven Holl, but he actually used Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology as a starting point for his career and has become (in my opinion) one the greatest architects of our time. There was actually a small cult of architects that were inspired by these thoughts and have gone on to write great books on the phenomenology of architecture.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks! Great to hear you finished the book. _PhP_ is definitely diving in at the deep end, too. I hadn't heard of Holl and don't know much about architecture, but it always amazes me how people from quite diverse fields seem to make use of some of these philosophers.

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

Does Merlau-Ponty’s phenomenological theory of perception more in accordance with direct realism (naive realism) or indirect realism (representationalism) in the philosophy of perception?

[@absurdbeing2219]

Hmm, really neither. With MP, it isn't really right to speak of us being (or not being) in direct contact with a world because the world isn't something out there external to us, nor is it something internal to our minds. This internal-external division is something MP is very much working to overcome. The world (or reality), in the only way that word makes sense, is constituted by us as active participants existing in the midst of it. There is no-thing prior to our perspective on it, but at the same time, we aren't making everything up.

[@TheCoin100]

3:40 I think I've left this comment on an earlier video, but I'm gonna put it here too for the other viewers: I understand where you're coming from when you say that Phenomenology of Perception isn't metaphysical but primarily phenomenological. However, his project was certainly metaphysical, and he was trying to uncover the true relation between consciousness and nature. He was trying to break free from dualist metaphysics and, through a radical phenomenological reflection, develop a non-dualist metaphysics. His theory of the lived body is an ontology - only, its ontological dimension is mainly left implicit in Phenomenology of Perception, and only comes out explicitly in his final work, The Visible and the Invisible.

[@TheCoin100]

But still a useful summary, thanks for the work!

[@TheCoin100]

I'm currently reading his Course Notes from the Collège de France lectures where he addresses precisely this point: he says that Phenomenology of Perception was at risk of being misunderstood due to its use of classical concepts (such as perception and consciousness): "[The reader] might think that the work was only a phenomenology - an introduction that left the question of being untouched, whereas I didn't differentiate between phenomenology and ontology"

[@absurdbeing2219]

@TheCoin100 Nice. First, I would just clarify that while you started out talking about metaphysics, somewhere along the way you switched to ontology, as if these were the same thing. Just to be clear, while I do maintain that MP wasn’t doing metaphysics, it has always been apparent to me that he was doing ontology. No problems on that front. So, on to metaphysics. I think this will turn out to be largely just a matter of semantics. When I use the word metaphysics I mean something like ‘the structure of reality itself’; i.e. reality independent of, or maybe even ‘prior to,’ experience. Under this definition, no matter how much phenomenology you do, you’ll never get to metaphysics because phenomenology starts with experience, thereby presupposing the very thing metaphysics (as I define it, at least) ought to be explaining. Of course, this doesn’t mean that phenomenology has nothing to say about the world; it surely does, but it is a world into which we have always already been thrown; a synthetic totality - being-in-the-world. I’m 100% with you that MP was trying to understand the relation between consciousness and nature _and_ break free from dualist metaphysics, but, as you point out, the most you get with a phenomenological pursuit is ontology, or the study of being, which, as I alluded to above, I consider to absolutely require an experiencing component. A metaphysical theory, then, would have to explain, not the relation between consciousness and nature (whether dualist or non-dualist), but what the fundamental nature of reality is _such that consciousness and nature can exist in the first place._ This is precisely what Bergson does, how his philosophy differs from all the big, post-Husserl phenomenologists (Heidegger, Sartre, _and_ MP), and why he, unlike them, explicitly and happily calls his philosophy metaphysics. Anyway, I don’t want to make a big deal out of this. I think I see where you’re coming from. I believe we’re just defining our terms a little differently, and perhaps seeing slightly different shades of meaning in MP based on that. I doubt we disagree on the substance; just on what label to put on it. Nevertheless, I thought it worth clarifying/defending my position since you raised the point.

[@TheCoin100]

​@@absurdbeing2219 Interesting, thanks for your elaborate response! I think this discussion can get really juicy. I also understand metaphysics as ‘the structure of reality itself’. However, I don't agree with the second definition you give: "reality independent of, or maybe even ‘prior to,’ experience". How I understand MP's later work is that, in developing a phenomenological ontology, his point is basically that experience is the structure of reality itself, that as living subjects we are the unfolding of what is truly real, and so the fabric of our experience is the fabric of reality. (This doesn't mean that reality is exclusively experience; only that experience is a part of fundamental reality). MP's view on metaphysics, as far as I understand, was something like this: Metaphysics has traditionally been exercised as a kind of thetic search for what is real, where we try to posit the true grounds of reality. However, since we as thinking, positing, living subjects are the very fabric of this reality, if we want to uncover what is truly real, we should not dive further into our positings but rather reveal the "background" upon which all this plays out. Like this, we reveal the truth of reality, not by trying to reconstruct it in our thoughts, but by "awakening to" how it truly plays out. This is what his radical reflection tries to accomplish. I can't remember the exact quote, but he says something like "metaphysics must move from a consciousness of figures to a consciousness of horizons" - as in, we must stop trying to posit reality as a figure and instead reveal the reality that we already participate in/are situated in. Any thoughts on this? Haven't read Bergson, so unfortunately I cannot comment on that, but I'm certainly interested in how he develops his point.

[@absurdbeing2219]

@TheCoin100 Oh, nice. There are some great ideas there. I have nothing to comment on regarding your second paragraph… because I love it and totally agree. Bergson says much the same thing: the metaphysical ‘truth’ of reality is in the whole. The parts are abstractions, which, while useful from a practical perspective, are metaphysical dead ends. The question is: Is phenomenology the right tool for this job? The central idea for me in your first paragraph is the claim that _experience is the structure of reality itself._ There is some ambiguity for me in the word ‘reality’ here. On the one hand, we have reality in a phenomenological/ontological, ‘being-in-the-world,’ sense. On this account if there is no experiencer, there is no reality. For example, a ‘thing’ is not a lump of matter floating in the void. Things get their ‘thingliness’ only from within a wider context of significations essentially built, as you indicated, on a background of experience (both past and future). Here, I agree, experience _is_ the structure of reality. On the other hand, we can talk about reality in a metaphysical sense, which addresses, not necessarily a deeper, but certainly a _different_ domain; namely, everything, the totality of existence, the whole of reality, the universe _as a whole._ This is what I see missing from your discussion, whatever term we give to it. (By the way, this isn’t a scientific question (e.g. a question for cosmology) because the tools of science work by breaking the whole into parts - the exact opposite of how one must proceed to understand wholes) One can’t appeal to ‘experience’ when discussing the whole of reality because experience obviously only arises in localised parts within that whole. Yes, there must be something about the structure of reality that makes experience possible, but that is very different from saying that structure _is_ experience (or even 'partially' experience). Likewise, “as living subjects we are the unfolding of what is truly real” - totally, 100%, absolutely agree (and very nicely put). I can even get on board with “the fabric of our experience is the fabric of reality” if we’re careful that this means that experience doesn’t happen in some magical, inner realm somehow estranged from the rest of the universe (a mythical “constituting consciousness,” for example), but we should be careful not to slide from this to the claim that experience is _metaphysical_ reality (in part or whole). To be honest, I don’t see how you can parse the claim that experience is a structure of reality without ending in positions like idealism or panpsychism. (Making experience only a 'part' of fundamental reality doesn't avoid this - you're just saddled with a 'partial' idealism in that case) Experience isn't a fundamental part of the structure of the whole. On the contrary, it arises in localised pockets _within_ the whole (e.g. conscious creatures). The job of metaphysics is to explain what reality _as a whole_ is like such that these localised pockets of experience can occur. I actually agree with you that MP had metaphysical ambitions. I just don’t believe this is possible through phenomenology or ontology, and this is precisely why his attempt in _PoP_ to ground the phenomenal field in temporality missed the mark for me; i.e. because his account of time was too closely intertwined with his account of subjectivity (this was the exact same problem Heidegger had). The result? He ended up making a (I think, profound) metaphysical claim (everything is grounded in time) without having done any actual metaphysics to support it. I haven’t read _The Visible_ closely enough yet to properly weigh in on his later position. I agree that a lot of what you outlined in your second paragraph was the outline of a metaphysical project, and I am open to the idea of MP turning metaphysician. I just think he will have to go beyond phenomenology to do this. If you have the time, I think you would enjoy Bergson.

[@dorivaldonascimento3110]

Wonderful lecture. Thank you.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thank you! Glad you liked it.

[@keikojing2112]

Nathan, on which page of PhP did MP write ‘temporality is an absolute flow that appears to itself perspectivally...’?

[@absurdbeing2219]

Pages 477-478.

[@keikojing2112]

@@absurdbeing2219 thanks!!

[@zeb358]

Good to see ya back bud!

[@absurdbeing2219]

Hiya Zeb. Just about forgot how to make these things!

[@lizag9780]

Brains and looks! Thank you for a great vid. I love phenomenology although I find Merleau-Ponty a bit tricky.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks Liza! MP is definitely a tricky read, but well worth it, in my opinion.

[@shaggyrandy1264]

Can you turn your volume up please ?

[@absurdbeing2219]

Sorry. This was a problem. From about the 3rd vid in the Bergson series, the volume should be fine.

[@calumelliot4934]

Thank you for this, really helpful (especial the diagrams on your website)

[@absurdbeing2219]

Glad you like it! Thanks, Calum.

[@violapedroni7758]

Yet I am trying to understand how Merleau-Ponty's philosophy aligned with the ecological theories in the Anthropocene dispute

[@absurdbeing2219]

That's an area I have absolutely no knowledge in. Let me know if you come up with any ideas!

[@Jonathanlhf]

Thank you, this was very, very helpful!

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks Jonathan. That's great to hear.

[@lotuslove-k1g]

Thank you! That was very helpful :)

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks! Glad it helped!

[@tages_matuna]

Good lecture. Can you make a video on Mary´s room please?

[@absurdbeing2219]

Oh, Frank Jackson's thought experiment. Actually, that is doable. Let me think about it, and try to get something done in the next couple of weeks.

[@tages_matuna]

​@@absurdbeing2219 Hi, thank you for answer. The reason I am asking about Mary´s room is because I think it regards (primarily) phenomenology of perception, don´t you think? I mean, the whole of the experiment was devised to confute Physicalism in favor of Dualism, but to me it touches the subjective experience of perception both Physical and Metaphysical (you cannot have an idea of colors unless you have seen them). I am more interested in the Metaphysical part of perception that, as you say in your review, Merleau-Ponty was so careful to avoid mentioning directly.

[@absurdbeing2219]

@@tages_matuna Ah ha. If you're interested in the metaphysics of perception, I recommend Henri Bergson's _Matter and Memory._ I have even made a video about it - Bergson (6).

[@keikojing2112]

🎉finallyyyyyyy

[@dubbelkastrull]

4:05 bookmark

[@dionysiandreams3634]

I think you're slightly overeating how influential Bergson was here, absolutely I see the parallels and he clearly read him and took a lot but the retention/protention and a lot of the other stuff you're talking about comes from Husserl's discussion of internal time consciousness and passive synthesis etc. Great video nonetheless thanks very much.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Definitely wouldn't disagree that Husserl had a massive impact on MP.

[@stevenf5902]

During the entire lecture all I could think of is Husserl! Can anyone help me understand where MP differs from Husserlian thought? Or are MP’s central theses a specialized development of a particular aspect of Husserlian phenomenology?

[@dionysiandreams3634]

@@stevenf5902 There's a huge amount of interpretive debate on Husserl's published and unpublished writings, I tend to side on the side that yes Husserl does remain somewhat of a cartesian at least de facto, with a transcendent constituting ego, although it's complex.

[@stevenf5902]

@@dionysiandreams3634 Thanks!

[@sandswanch]

ur a god, thank you

[@absurdbeing2219]

Ha~best comment ever. Glad it helped!

[@richardfairley9882]

👍👍👍

[@ondrejbocek156]

Nice

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks Ondrej.

[@kehindeonakunle7404]

The moustache and beard look good on yah

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks!