Maurice Merleau-Ponty Congress

By -
It has been recently brought to my attention that a congress will be held next week at Sofia University (Bulgaria) to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Maurice Merleau-Ponty's birth. Merleau-Ponty was a French phenomenologist in the school of Husserl, was an associate of Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, and had affinities with Heidegger as well.

If you are in interested in learning more about the congress, you can check out its website, which includes a schedule. You might also be interested in checking out the university's website.

Thanks to my frequent commentator "Luke" for alerting me to this congress. He is presenting a paper there, and perhaps he would be willing to share briefly with us the argument that he will make.

Comments

Luke said…
Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961) was the first who systematically studied the papers of Husserl in Louvain. He produced a pair of excellent works (La structure du comportement and Phénoménologie de la Perception) that today are still interesting books. Unfortunately, his work is hidden behind that of Sartre or Heidegger, and is not very well known outside the French environment. Recently, American philosophers feel a great interest for him and interpret his work in an interesting way, although different of that of the French philosophers. Among his followers highlights the Belgian philosopher Alphonse De Waelhens, who was professor of my professors in Louvain.

If you check the schedule, my real name is Sergi Avilés (“Luke” is the name of my son). Here is briefly my argument.

Epistemology and Metaphysics are two deeply interconnected disciplines. Their relationship is so powerful that even the possibility of producing a responsible speech on the latter depends on the response previously given to the first one. I will defend that a cogent metaphysical speech is possible and that it mainly consists in the explicitation and clarification of the epistemological presuppositions implied in human behaviour. Besides I will defend that the philosophy of Merleau-Ponty offers excellent grounds for such an attempt.

First I will sketch how ordinary consciousness understands and tries to solve the problem. I will show the significant contradictions involved in it. Then, I will focus on Heidegger. I will try to demonstrate why the solution offered by the German thinker is not satisfactory, given his limited conception of the subject-object relationship. Heidegger does not develop the implications of human behaviour. Finally, I will show how the philosophy of Merleau-Ponty does develop these latter implications and offers a correct platform for a realistic (attached to things) and responsible metaphysical speech (considering the human mode of being). I will move around the central problem of all philosophy of incarnation: to demonstrate how it is possible that an existential attitude becomes the sense of a physiological fact.

In the last part, I will evaluate the scope of the French thinker. I will try to show his relevance for metaphysics but also show his limitations and offer possible ways for a further development.
March 05, 2008 8:12 AM
Shane said…
Who did you work with at Leuven?

shane
March 05, 2008 9:08 PM
Luke said…
In Louvain, my professors Andreu Marquès and Josep M. Via Taltavull, learnt under A. De Waelhens, Ferdinand Van Stenbergen, L. De Raeyemaker, J. Ladrière, Van Breda.
Their class fellows were Jacques Taminiaux and Joseph Gevaert.
That was in the last 60s.
March 06, 2008 3:38 AM
Shane said…
Ah, well before my time there.

I just returned from Leuven this past year. I did get to take a few classes from Rudolph Bernet, Rudi Visker and Paul Moyaert, but I suppose they must have been still doctoral students or perhaps relatively new professors at that point.
March 06, 2008 6:04 AM
Luke said…
Tell me, what is the current intellectual situation at Leuven?

They told me hegelianism is the predominant trend now.
March 06, 2008 6:36 AM
Shane said…
I didn't meet many people who were all that interested in Hegel. I think there was one class offered on Hegel by William Desmond, who is not sympathetic at all. It seemed to me that the dominant thing going around was Heideggerianism.

The biggest news I know of at Leuven is that Burnet is retiring as head of the Husserl Archiv and Ulrich Melle will be taking over for him. I think the Husserl Archiv has also now ceased to put out new volumes of the Husserliana, so the center will remain open, but in a greatly diminished importance.
March 07, 2008 7:19 AM
Post a Comment

Popular Posts

So, You Want To Read Karl Barth?

By -
Image
Every now and then I am asked for advice about studying Karl Barth. So, I thought that I would share some of my standard advice here. But, before I do that, let me just say that I am by no means a Barth expert as compared to the people whose books I will mention below. I would be thrilled to find myself in their league one day, but as of yet that remains a distant dream. Still, I have been reading Barth for long enough, and under the supervision of a number of the scholars that I will mention below, that I think I can provide a decent orientation. I have never read Karl Barth before. Which of his books should I read first? Barth’s most famous work is the monumental 13-volume Church Dogmatics . Reading the CD with understanding is not an easy thing, so you definitely do NOT want to start here. Luckily, there are two smaller works by Barth that serve as helpful introductions to his work. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction - Based on the lectures that Barth delivered duri
Keep reading

So You Want to Read….Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

By -
Image
"I fear that Christians who stand with only one leg upon earth also stand with only one leg in heaven." "The exclusion of the weak and insignificant, the seemingly useless people, from everyday Christian life in community…may actually mean the exclusion of Christ; for in the poor sister or brother, Christ is knocking at the door." "Since ethical thinking in terms of realms is overcome by faith in the revelation of the ultimate reality in Jesus Christ . . . there is no real Christian existence outside the reality of the world." "People who reject their bodies reject their existence before God the Creator." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer Prelude Andreas Steinhoff [Attribution], via Wikimedia Commons I envisioned having a lot of time for blogging this summer, but that simply has not been the case - the last month has been a crazy one, to say the least. For two weeks, I was working at a theology summer camp of sorts, the Duke Youth Academy, and s
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 1, Day 5

By -
“You Wonder Where the Spirit Went”: Jenson and Barth on the Hiddenness of God By Peter Kline I am entering into a conversation that Jenson has already begun with Barth. In a constructive essay on the hiddenness of God (Jenson 2000), Jenson considers Barth’s position on the matter only to find it lacking. I want to explore why Jenson has problems with Barth on this issue, as well think critically about his constructive alternative. I will suggest that Jenson is only partly right in his diagnosis of Barth; he in fact overlooks the heart of Barth’s teaching on divine hiddenness. The reason is that he looks in the wrong place for Barth’s pneumatology. Jenson can’t find the Spirit in Barth not because the Spirit isn’t there, but because the Spirit is hidden . These considerations will open out into a comparison of Barth and Jenson on the logic of revelation. By “logic” I mean: what is discourse about God’s revealedness and hiddenness supposed to accomplish? Part I Jenson focuses his a
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 3, Day 1

By -
On the Monstrosity of Christ : Karl Barth in Conversation with Slavoj Žižek & John Milbank By Paul Dafydd Jones For a while, I hoped to frame this conversation in terms of a dramatic interchange – something along the lines of “A Slovenian philosopher, a British theologian, and a Swiss dogmatician walk into a bar…” Alongside an eye-wateringly hip assemblage of cinematic references, literary allusions, and comedic scenes – my early favorites being when Barth imagines a young adult novel, entitled Are you there God? It’s me, Žižek , and when Milbank waxes poetic about the Twilight movies – I wanted to engage some topics that would likely receive attention, were the authors to meet for drinks. Primarily, I envisioned an intense discussion of the logos asarkos and the logos ensarkos , with Milbank talking up the former category, Barth emphasizing the latter, and Žižek asking whether recent debates are but symptoms of secret puzzle, embedded in the Church Dogmatics – a puzzle that
Keep reading

Karl Barth on Hell, the Devil, Demons, and Universalism – A Florilegium

By -
Image
You know, all the most interesting topics. Although Barth often confessed that he didn’t find these questions particularly interesting. At best they might draw sideways glances, as it were, as one travels the theological road. But I found a number of places in the records of Barth’s later conversations that I thought folks might find interesting, so I’ve collected them here. And if you aren’t familiar with the term “florilegium,” here you go ! All these texts are from the first volume of Barth in Conversation , with pages numbers given in parentheses along the way. As usual, italics are in the text and bold is mine. Hell “Now we come to hell. You shouldn’t laugh! There is nothing to laugh at! What does hell mean? I think hell means to be in the place where you are once fore all damned and lost without ceasing to exist, without losing the image of God, being what you are but being damned and lost, separated from God, whose creature you are, separated also from your neighbor, from
Keep reading