Thinking between Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty
()
About this ebook
Thinking between Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty is the first book-length examination of the relation between these two major thinkers of the twentieth century. Questioning the dominant view that the two have little of substance in common, Judith Wambacq brings them into a compelling dialogue to reveal a shared, historically grounded concern with the transcendental conditions of thought. Both Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze propose an immanent ontology, differing more in style than in substance. Wambacq’s synthetic treatment is nevertheless critical; she identifies the limitations of each thinker’s approach to immanent transcendental philosophy and traces its implications—through their respective relationships with Bergson, Proust, Cézanne, and Saussure—for ontology, language, artistic expression, and the thinking of difference. Drawing on primary texts alongside current scholarship in both French and English, Thinking between Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty is comprehensive and rigorous while remaining clear, accessible, and lively. It is certain to become the standard text for future scholarly discussion of these two major influences on contemporary thought.
Judith Wambacq
Judith Wambacq is a visiting professor in the School of Arts at University College Ghent. She has written extensively on poststructuralism and phenomenology, art, and French culture and has translated several texts by the French philosopher Bernard Stiegler into Dutch.
Related to Thinking between Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty
Titles in the series (21)
Between You and I: Dialogical Phenomenology Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsProphetic Politics: Emmanuel Levinas and the Sanctification of Suffering Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDead Letters to Nietzsche, or the Necromantic Art of Reading Philosophy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPlacing Aesthetics: Reflections on the Philosophic Tradition Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Intentional Spectrum and Intersubjectivity: Phenomenology and the Pittsburgh Neo-Hegelians Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Tenets of Cognitive Existentialism Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Memory of Place: A Phenomenology of the Uncanny Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsTime, Memory, Institution: Merleau-Ponty's New Ontology of Self Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsNature’s Suit: Husserl’s Phenomenological Philosophy of the Physical Sciences Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFrom Mastery to Mystery: A Phenomenological Foundation for an Environmental Ethic Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Phenomenology of Pain Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Madness of Vision: On Baroque Aesthetics Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Merleau-Ponty: Space, Place, Architecture Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Golden Age of Phenomenology at the New School for Social Research, 1954–1973 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Crisis of Meaning and the Life-World: Husserl, Heidegger, Arendt, Patočka Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBecoming a Place of Unrest: Environmental Crisis and Ecophenomenological Praxis Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMotivation and the Primacy of Perception: Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Knowledge Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThinking between Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Birth of Sense: Generative Passivity in Merleau-Ponty’s Philosophy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWilfrid Sellars and Phenomenology: Intersections, Encounters, Oppositions Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Affection in Between: From Common Sense to Sensing in Common Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Related ebooks
Merleau-Ponty: Space, Place, Architecture Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Logos of the Sensible World: Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenological Philosophy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsEarly Twentieth-Century Continental Philosophy Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Thinking through French Philosophy: The Being of the Question Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Motivation and the Primacy of Perception: Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Knowledge Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Birth of Sense: Generative Passivity in Merleau-Ponty’s Philosophy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsTime, Memory, Institution: Merleau-Ponty's New Ontology of Self Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFaith in Life: John Dewey's Early Philosophy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBetween You and I: Dialogical Phenomenology Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPhenomenology Explained: From Experience to Insight Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Merleau-Ponty's Poetic of the World: Philosophy and Literature Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsReconsidering Difference: Nancy, Derrida, Levinas, Deleuze Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Death of Philosophy: Reference and Self-reference in Contemporary Thought Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFrom Mastery to Mystery: A Phenomenological Foundation for an Environmental Ethic Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSpeaking Hermeneutically: Understanding in the Conduct of a Life Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsProphetic Politics: Emmanuel Levinas and the Sanctification of Suffering Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Rigor of a Certain Inhumanity: Toward a Wider Suffrage Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsEncounters and Reflections: Conversations with Seth Benardete Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Dead Letters to Nietzsche, or the Necromantic Art of Reading Philosophy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDeleuzian Concepts: Philosophy, Colonization, Politics Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Political Logic of Experience: Expression in Phenomenology Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPhenomenology and Human Experience Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Affection in Between: From Common Sense to Sensing in Common Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsGilles Deleuze: Vitalism and Multiplicity Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Introducing Semiotic: Its History and Doctrine Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Wilfrid Sellars and Phenomenology: Intersections, Encounters, Oppositions Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Face of the Other & the Trace of God: Essays on the Philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Intentional Spectrum and Intersubjectivity: Phenomenology and the Pittsburgh Neo-Hegelians Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Tenets of Cognitive Existentialism Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSophistical Practice: Toward a Consistent Relativism Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Philosophy For You
Sun Tzu's The Art of War: Bilingual Edition Complete Chinese and English Text Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar...: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Art of War Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Republic by Plato Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Meditations: Complete and Unabridged Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Courage to Be Happy: Discover the Power of Positive Psychology and Choose Happiness Every Day Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How to Be Perfect: The Correct Answer to Every Moral Question Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Four Loves Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Art of Loving Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Human Condition Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Beyond Good and Evil Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Daily Stoic: A Daily Journal On Meditation, Stoicism, Wisdom and Philosophy to Improve Your Life Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Denial of Death Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Experiencing God (2021 Edition): Knowing and Doing the Will of God Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Plato's Republic Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Complete Papyrus of Ani Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Tao Te Ching: A New English Version Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Bhagavad Gita - The Song of God Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Be Here Now Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Inward Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Little Book of Stoicism: Timeless Wisdom to Gain Resilience, Confidence, and Calmness Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Bhagavad Gita (in English): The Authentic English Translation for Accurate and Unbiased Understanding Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Lying Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5History of Western Philosophy Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Fear: Essential Wisdom for Getting Through the Storm Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Reviews for Thinking between Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
Thinking between Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty - Judith Wambacq
Thinking between Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty
SERIES IN CONTINENTAL THOUGHT
Editorial Board
Ted Toadvine, Chairman, University of Oregon
Michael Barber, Saint Louis University
Elizabeth A. Behnke, Study Project in Phenomenology of the Body
David Carr, Emory University
James Dodd, New School University
Lester Embree, Florida Atlantic University†
Sara Heinämaa, University of Jyväskylä, University of Helsinki
José Huertas-Jourda, Wilfrid Laurier University†
Joseph J. Kockelmans, Pennsylvania State University†
William R. McKenna, Miami University
Algis Mickunas, Ohio University
J. N. Mohanty, Temple University
Dermot Moran, University College Dublin
Thomas Nenon, University of Memphis
Rosemary Rizo-Patron de Lerner, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima
Thomas M. Seebohm, Johannes Gutenberg Universität, Mainz†
Gail Soffer, Rome, Italy
Elizabeth Ströker, Universität Köln†
Nicolas de Warren, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Richard M. Zaner, Vanderbilt University
International Advisory Board
Suzanne Bachelard, Université de Paris†
Rudolf Boehm, Rijksuniversiteit Gent
Albert Borgmann, University of Montana
Amedeo Giorgi, Saybrook Institute
Richard Grathoff, Universität Bielefeld
Samuel Ijsseling, Husserl-Archief te Leuven
Alphonso Lingis, Pennsylvania State University
Werner Marx, Albert-Ludwigs Universität, Freiburg†
David Rasmussen, Boston College
John Sallis, Boston College
John Scanlon, Duquesne University
Hugh J. Silverman, State University of New York, Stony Brook†
Carlo Sini, Università di Milano
Jacques Taminiaux, Louvain-la-Neuve
D. Lawrence Wieder†
Dallas Willard, University of Southern California†
Thinking between Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty
JUDITH WAMBACQ
OHIO UNIVERSITY PRESS
ATHENS
Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio 45701
ohioswallow.com
© 2017 by Ohio University Press
All rights reserved
To obtain permission to quote, reprint, or otherwise reproduce or distribute material from Ohio University Press publications, please contact our rights and permissions department at (740) 593-1154 or (740) 593-4536 (fax).
The author would like to thank the publishers for permission to reprint from the following previously published material, which the author has reworked for this book:
"Proust’s Artistic Ontology: A Comparison of Merleau-Ponty’s and Deleuze’s Readings of Proust’s Recherche." Relief 7, no. 2 (2013): 139–48.
Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s Criticism of Bergson’s Theory of Time Seen through the Work of Gilles Deleuze.
Studia Phaenomenologica 11 (2011): 309–25.
Depth and Time in Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze.
Chiasmi International 13 (2011): 327–48.
Het differentiële gehalte van Merleau-Ponty’s ontologie.
Tijdschrift voor filosofie 70, no. 3 (2008): 479–508.
The author has acquired permission for quoting from the following books:
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Visible and the Invisible. Originally published in French under the title Le visible et l’invisible. Copyright © 1964 by Gallimard, Paris. English translation copyright © 1968 by Northwestern University Press. First printing 1968. All rights reserved.
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception. Originally published in French under the title Phénoménologie de la perception. Copyright © 1945 by Gallimard, Paris. English translation copyright © 1962 by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., now Taylor & Francis Group. First printing 1962. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Ohio University Press books are printed on acid-free paper ™
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 5 4 3 2 1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Wambacq, Judith, author.
Title: Thinking between Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty / Judith Wambacq.
Description: Athens, Ohio : Ohio University Press, 2017. | Series: Series in Continental thought ; No. 51 | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017043822| ISBN 9780821422878 (hc : alk. paper) | ISBN 9780821446126 (pdf)
Subjects: LCSH: Deleuze, Gilles, 1925-1995. | Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 1908-1961.
Classification: LCC B2430.D454 W36 2017 | DDC 194--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017043822
Voor Dirk, mijn bevrijder
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
Introduction
A DIFFICULT UNDERTAKING
A PROMISING UNDERTAKING
A NECESSARY UNDERTAKING
STRUCTURE
WHAT I HAVE NOT DONE
1. The Arepresentational Conception of Thinking Thought in Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze
MERLEAU-PONTY’S CRITICISM OF REPRESENTATIONAL THOUGHT
Empiricist and Intellectualist Accounts of Perception
Merleau-Ponty’s Account of Perception
Merleau-Ponty’s Account of Thought
DELEUZE’S CRITICISM OF REPRESENTATIONAL THOUGHT
Thinking Thought as the Attempt to Unravel the Sense of a Sign (First Postulate)
The Sense of a Sign Is Not Situated in the Object or the Subject, but in the Essence as Absolute Difference (Fourth and Third Postulates)
Thinking Thought as a Discordant Play among the Different Faculties (Second Postulate)
Art as the Privileged Domain to Unravel the Essence? (Sixth Postulate)
Thinking Thought as Learning How to Create Problems (Eighth and Seventh Postulates)
Stupidity as the Highest Finality of Thinking Thought (Fifth Postulate)
COMPARISON OF MERLEAU-PONTY’S AND DELEUZE’S CONCEPTIONS OF THOUGHT
2. Ontology in Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze
MERLEAU-PONTY’S ENDO-ONTOLOGY
First Dimension: The Differential Nature of the Flesh
Second Dimension: The Open Nature of the Flesh
Third Dimension: The Constitutive Nature of the Flesh
DELEUZE’S DIFFERENTIAL ONTOLOGY
First Dimension: Virtual Being as a Noninternal Multiplicity
Second Dimension: ?-Being
Third Dimension: The Constitutive Character of the Virtual
COMPARISON OF MERLEAU-PONTY’S AND DELEUZE’S ONTOLOGIES
3. Deleuze’s and Merleau-Ponty’s Transcendental Projects
DELEUZE’S TRANSCENDENTAL PROJECT
Introduction
Differences in Kant’s and Deleuze’s Approaches to the Transcendental
Differential Moments in Kant’s Transcendental Philosophy
The Spinozistic and Maimonian/Leibnizian Inspiration for Deleuze’s Transcendental Philosophy
Husserl in Deleuze’s Transcendental Philosophy
MERLEAU-PONTY’S TRANSCENDENTAL PROJECT
Introduction
Merleau-Ponty’s Immanent Interest in Husserl
The Differential Interest in Merleau-Ponty’s Criticism of Husserl
COMPARISON OF MERLEAU-PONTY’S AND DELEUZE’S TRANSCENDENTAL PROJECTS
4. Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze, Readers of Bergson
MERLEAU-PONTY’S AND DELEUZE’S BERGSONIAN UNDERSTANDINGS OF TIME
Merleau-Ponty’s Early Reading of Bergson, Seen through a Deleuzean Lens
Merleau-Ponty’s Late Reading of Bergson, Seen through a Deleuzean Lens
MERLEAU-PONTY’S AND DELEUZE’S UNDERSTANDINGS OF DEPTH
Merleau-Ponty’s Account of Depth
Deleuze’s Account of Depth
COMPARISON OF MERLEAU-PONTY’S AND DELEUZE’S CONCEPTIONS OF DEPTH AND TIME
5. Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty, Readers of Proust
THE SEARCH AS A SEARCH FOR A NON-PLATONIC TRUTH
ARTISTIC ESSENCES IN THE SEARCH
The Little Phrase
La Berma
Leibniz and Elstir
The Time of Half-Sleep
DIVERGENCES BETWEEN MERLEAU-PONTY’S AND DELEUZE’S READINGS OF PROUST
6. Cézanne in Deleuze’s and Merleau-Ponty’s Philosophies of Art
PAINTING IS NOT ABOUT REPRESENTATION
PAINTING IS ABOUT THE EXPRESSION OF SENSATIONS
THE CREATION OF AN ARTISTIC EXPRESSION
The Deformation of Relations
A Collaboration of Body and Mind
THE NATURE OF ARTISTIC EXPRESSION
WHAT IS EXPRESSED BY THE ARTISTIC EXPRESSION?
COLORISM
DELEUZE’S CRITIQUE OF PHENOMENOLOGICAL AESTHETICS
7. Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty, Readers of Saussure
SAUSSURE IN THE EARLY DELEUZE
SAUSSURE IN MERLEAU-PONTY
SAUSSURE IN DELEUZE AND GUATTARI
COMPARISON OF MERLEAU-PONTY’S AND DELEUZE’S READINGS OF SAUSSURE
Conclusion
A DIFFERENT MERLEAU-PONTY AND A DIFFERENT DELEUZE
Notes
References
Index
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Emiliano Battista for his detailed feedback and help with the language; Filip Mattens for his useful comments on the Husserl passages; Herman Parret, Eric Schliesser, the late lamented Hugh Silverman, Bart Verschaffel, and Mauro Carbone for the opportunities they gave me; my colleagues from room 201 for their friendship; the Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences of Ghent University for its institutional and financial support; Marijke de Waal for her dietary suggestions that allowed me to get through the last phase of writing the book; my family (Dirk, Dido, Felix, Johan, Jeanine, Freek, Peggy, Roza, and Lambert); and my friends (Ellen especially) for their moral support and love.
ABBREVIATIONS
DELEUZE
MERLEAU-PONTY
INTRODUCTION
A DIFFICULT UNDERTAKING
Those familiar with the work of Gilles Deleuze probably know of Michel Foucault’s claim that Deleuze’s Logic of Sense "can be read as the most alien book imaginable from Phenomenology of Perception" (1994, 79). If Foucault is right, then the philosophies of Deleuze and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, at least as expressed in those two books, are radically opposed. This book sets out to question that thesis by looking for and at the resonances between both thinkers. The task is far from self-evident, not least because it goes not only against Foucault’s interpretation, but also against how Deleuze himself has characterized his relationship to Merleau-Ponty in particular, and to phenomenology in general. Indeed, he rarely discusses Merleau-Ponty: in all of his books, there are about a dozen, mostly negative, references. This may suggest that Deleuze has no (positive) interest in Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology. What is more, despite the fact that Deleuze published his first text on Bergson in Les philosophes célèbres, edited by Merleau-Ponty, there never was, as far as anyone knows, any other significant contact or exchange of ideas between the two thinkers.
Another issue often raised against any possible resonance between their work is the different backgrounds against which they developed their theories. Deleuze belongs to a generation of thinkers who were inspired by Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud. Merleau-Ponty’s frame of reference, on the other hand, was Hegel’s dialectics and Husserl’s phenomenology. Which is not to say that Deleuze was unfamiliar with Hegel or Husserl. Quite the contrary; while he was a student, between 1943 and 1948, the study of the three Hs
(Hegel, Heidegger, and Husserl) was the dominant focus of philosophical instruction at French universities (Descombes 1979, 13, 21; Dosse 2007, 137). Deleuze’s supervisors were Jean Hyppolite and Jean Beaufret, Hegel and Heidegger specialists, respectively.¹ But Deleuze did not find in these thinkers his main source of inspiration, as did the thinkers at the center of the philosophical stage in France around 1945, namely, Merleau-Ponty and Sartre. Merleau-Ponty explicitly presents himself as a Husserl disciple, and the title of one of Sartre’s books, Critique of Dialectical Reason (1960), is an explicit reference to Hegel and Kant.
A PROMISING UNDERTAKING
Still, it is possible to invoke another philosophical authority to suggest that there is a resonance between both thinkers. In one of the interviews in A Winter’s Journey, Paul Virilio (1997, 42) comments that Deleuze greatly appreciated Merleau-Ponty’s last book, The Visible and the Invisible. And there is also a counterargument for the different backgrounds thesis: it is true that Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud were a great inspiration to those who in the Anglophone world are called the critical thinkers,
Deleuze, Derrida, and Foucault. But they looked to Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud in their efforts to find answers to problems raised, among others, by phenomenologists. As such, these critical thinkers can be said to have been inspired by phenomenology. I would not go as far as Alain Beaulieu (2004, 11), who claims that phenomenology is the background against which all Deleuzean concepts are intelligible. It seems to me that this background is more diverse than that, and includes Neoplatonism, Leibniz, and Kant at least—but phenomenology is most certainly a part of it.
The most important argument in favor of the resonance between both thinkers must be philosophical. What would such an argument be? In general, I believe both thinkers can be brought together around the same shared transcendental project. Both thinkers examine the conditions of thought, which is to say that they are not motivated by a strictly epistemological question. Moreover, their primary interests are not the empirical causes of thought: they do not spend much time discussing, for example, the rules according to which thought functions, or should function, if it is to attain truth. To the extent that the question is raised at all, it is as part and parcel of the examination of the implications of their transcendental projects. Their central question turns on what must be presupposed in order for such a phenomenon as thinking to be possible.
These two transcendental projects share the fact that they situate the condition of thought in the empirical: their transcendental projects are both guided by immanence. One ontological consequence of this is that if the condition is to be situated within the conditioned, the condition cannot belong to a being that is fundamentally different from the being of the conditioned. Thus, Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty reject the classical conception of the transcendental condition and the dualism inherent to it: the condition can no longer be associated with the perfect, the infinite, the unchangeable, or the original; nor can it continue to be pitted against the imperfect, finite, changeable, and secondary character of the conditioned. Both thinkers exchange this dualism in favor of one immanent being, a being without hierarchy and fundamental differences, that is, differences in being.
Moreover, both understand the relation between the condition and the conditioned as a relation of expression: the essence, which is how the condition is often understood, is expressed by or in the conditioned. As we will see, this suggests that the ontological primacy of the condition is complemented by the epistemological primacy of the conditioned, and also that the ontological power is distributed over the condition and the conditioned.
Neither Deleuze nor Merleau-Ponty sees this immanence of being as entailing the annihilation of difference. This is well-known in Deleuze’s case—he is, after all, the thinker of difference—but it applies just as much, I hope to show, to Merleau-Ponty. Much of this book is in fact devoted to an examination of how Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty each try to explain how this immanence is not in contradiction with difference. That examination will take us through their differential understanding of the condition as well as through their descriptions of how differently conditioned things are generated from the condition.
A NECESSARY UNDERTAKING
I am very aware that investigating the resonances between two different systems of thought can be risky. One might be all too quickly tempted to see analogies that, on a deeper level, do not necessarily hold. I have tried to avoid this trap by being especially careful not to describe the theories of the one philosopher in the idiom of the other, as that would evidently suggest a false analogy. In addition, I pay particular attention to the irreconcilable elements in their systems. There is no denying, for example, that Merleau-Ponty’s ontology focuses more on immanence than, as is the case with Deleuze, on difference. Their styles are also quite different: Merleau-Ponty’s writing is soft and poetic, especially when compared to Deleuze’s more dry and polemical prose. It remains to be seen, though, whether such differences in focus and style encompass also a more substantive difference. Last, I try to avoid the trap set by the superficial analogies by comparing the problems to which Deleuze’s and Merleau-Ponty’s philosophies are an answer.
Risky as the examination of how these two theories communicate may be, the undertaking is nevertheless necessary, for this is the only way to shed new light on the reach and scope of these theories. How does a reading of Merleau-Ponty through a Deleuzean lens, and vice versa, offer new perspectives on both theories? If we take Deleuze’s requirements for a good transcendental philosophy, namely, immanence and difference, as a starting point for a reading of Merleau-Ponty, we are immediately led away from the standard presentation of Merleau-Ponty as the phenomenologist of the body. Merleau-Ponty’s account of perception and of the central role of the body therein can, in this way, be seen as propaedeutic for the theory he will develop toward the end of his life. The subject, decentralized in Phenomenology of Perception, is dissolved in The Visible and the Invisible. That is one reason why the late Merleau-Ponty must be situated at the limits of phenomenology (see Barbaras 1999), and why that period of his work is better described as being concerned with ontology.
By the same token, by approaching Deleuze through the similarities that can be discovered between his account of the conditions of thought and Merleau-Ponty’s, we can formulate an alternative to the characterization of his philosophy as the "Nietzschean anarcho-desiring machine fighting reactive forces of ressentiment and bad conscience" (Bryant 2008, xi). More specifically, it can show us that—and here I side with Levi Bryant—the labels usually associated with Deleuze’s work (antiestablishment, amoral, aphilosophical, etc.) can reveal their full meaning only if they are understood through the transcendental and ontological project from which they issue. It is a partial and superficial understanding to reduce Deleuze’s work to a collection of anarchic statements about politics, ethics, thought, the subject, and so on. Deleuze is primarily a metaphysician.
The challenge ahead is to find the proper balance between the respect for the singularity of Deleuze’s thought and Merleau-Ponty’s thought, and the approximation necessary to open up their theories and the shared lines running through them. If we are successful, then we will be in a position to offer a new image of the history of philosophy to which these theories belong. An age-old metaphysical problem dealt with in this book is that of the relation between thinking and being. And that problem brings with it a host of related problems: How are we to understand the difference between abstract being and concrete being? Between determined being and indeterminate being? Between conceptual thinking and artistic thinking? And so on. By grounding my search for resonances on a comparison between the ways Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty have read authors such as Kant, Husserl, Bergson, Saussure, Maldiney, Sartre, and Simondon, I am not only compensating for the lack of direct references to Merleau-Ponty in the work of Deleuze, I am also anchoring the resonances in their work to the history of philosophy. More specifically, I give an alternative image of the philosophical alliances in French academia over the last two centuries.
In other words, this book is not addressed only to the Merleau-Ponty scholars who would like to know how far ahead of his time Merleau-Ponty was, or only to the Deleuze scholars interested in learning about his predecessors. Its value extends beyond these specialized interests because it illustrates how every (good) philosopher develops concepts as answers to the problems, and answers to these problems, posed by other philosophers.
STRUCTURE
In the first two chapters, I present the resonances and divergences that stand out when one juxtaposes those texts by Deleuze and by Merleau-Ponty that deal with the question of the nature, and the condition, of original thought (chapter 1), as well as with the ontology that underlies the two accounts of thought (chapter 2). In what concerns the first chapter, I can already mention that both Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty refuse to conceive original thinking—which is to be distinguished from merely repeating or continuing what one has learned—in representational terms, which of course does not mean that they deny representational thinking! I will explain Merleau-Ponty’s position by referring to his theory of perception and to his reversal of Cartesianism, and Deleuze’s by combining an analysis of the famous Image of Thought
chapter in Difference and Repetition with a reading of Proust and Signs.
The question of the nature, and the condition, of original thought requires an examination of its subject and object, and this in turn obliges us to delve into Merleau-Ponty’s and Deleuze’s ontologies. The second chapter looks at how their refusal to account for original thought through the thinking subject and the thought object goes hand in hand with (1) a conception of being as fundamentally one, even if constituted by differences; and (2) a conception of being as indetermination, as built around an emptiness that cannot be filled up, because the emptiness is constitutive.
In chapter 3, we will examine the general philosophical problem at the root of the epistemological
and ontological arguments examined in the first two chapters. While the latter compile an extensive list of similar or kindred philosophical concepts and ideas, the third chapter indicates why Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty found it necessary to create these concepts in the first place. The answer to this question has to do with a general view of what philosophy is, or what it should do. Both thinkers, in fact, believe that philosophy should tackle the problem of the condition of phenomena, which is, moreover, to be situated within the empirical. In order to reveal what is specific to the approaches favored by Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty, we will examine how they differ from Kant and Husserl.
If we are to get a handle on what this transcendental empiricism entails for both thinkers, and if we are to know whether they can really be paired, we need to push our investigation of their unorthodox account of the relation between the condition and the conditioned still further. And so, in chapter 4, I concentrate on what Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty both call the simultaneity
of the condition and the conditioned. My goal there is to determine the degree of resonance in their accounts of this simultaneity by examining how they treat the thinker who was their direct source of inspiration in this respect: Henri Bergson. We will pay particular attention to how Bergon figures in their accounts of depth.
Chapters 5 and 6 focus on the notion of expression,
which, as already mentioned, is central to Deleuze’s and Merleau-Ponty’s descriptions of the relation between the condition and the conditioned. In chapter 5, I set out to detect the specificity of this ontological notion by zooming in on literary expressions, and more specifically on the relation between literary expressions and what they express. Since both Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty have extensively written about Marcel Proust, their references to the latter offer an ideal place for examining the correspondences between their accounts of literary expression. The fact that Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty both give a special place in their thought for Paul Cézanne, whose paintings can be described as visual expressions, was a reason for dedicating chapter 6 to their discussions of Cézanne. These two chapters reveal that expression names a relation grounded on a paradox: the actual (literary or visual) expressions ground the expressed, from which they nevertheless issue forth.
While chapters 4, 5, and 6 explore how Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty try to ensure the immanence or unity of the condition and the conditioned, the last chapter examines how Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty explain the differentiality of the condition and the difference between the condition and the conditioned. More specifically, I claim that a solid immanence requires a differential theory of how the condition generates the conditioned (which nevertheless determines it). Since structuralism represents one of the first attempts at working out a differential account of the condition and of the process of individuation, and since both Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty discuss Ferdinand de Saussure’s structural linguistics extensively, I base the comparison of this differential aspect in their systems on their treatment of Saussure.
The figures that link Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty are not restricted to Husserl, Bergson, Proust, Cézanne, and Saussure. I refer also to Jean-Paul Sartre, Henri Maldiney, and Gilbert Simondon. However, as the common references to these thinkers were not extensive enough to justify a separate chapter, my discussion of them is incorporated into chapters 3, 6, and the conclusion, respectively.
The conclusion brings together all the resonances and divergences discovered and discussed in the body of the book to see whether we should consider Merleau-Ponty a Deleuzean avant la lettre, or whether there are elements that attest to some fundamental differences between the two theories. In this context, I linger on Deleuze’s criticism of Merleau-Ponty in What Is Philosophy? and Foucault. Is Deleuze right in claiming that Merleau-Ponty corrupts immanence (What Is Philosophy?) and annihilates differences (Foucault)? How should we understand this charge?
WHAT I HAVE NOT DONE
It is perhaps prudent to say a few words about what I have not done here. I do not deal extensively with the books Deleuze wrote in collaboration with Félix Guattari. Rather, my focus is almost exclusively on the early Deleuze. The reason for this is that Deleuze’s transcendental project is clearest in his early writings. When I discuss concepts or theories by Deleuze and Guattari, I do so primarily in order to investigate whether or not we can find seeds of the pragmatic dimension of the coauthored works in the early Deleuze and, if so, if there is an equivalent in Merleau-Ponty.
My reasons for concentrating on the late Merleau-Ponty are similar. Since Merleau-Ponty’s project becomes a fully fledged transcendental project only at the end of his life, The Visible and the Invisible is my primary source for the argument of this book. As already mentioned, I also discuss Phenomenology of Perception, but as propaedeutic for the ontology Merleau-Ponty will develop in The Visible and the Invisible.
That explains why I do not examine the resonances and divergences between Merleau-Ponty’s and Deleuze’s theories of perception. Unlike Merleau-Ponty’s, Deleuze’s theory of perception (developed in The Fold and Cinema 1: The Movement-Image) is directly situated not against an epistemological
or ontological horizon, but against a pragmatic or ethical
horizon, as Deleuze puts it. Its frame is the question not of being but of the affective power of machinations and how to increase it. Deleuze’s theory of perception and of the body is an experimentation with intensities and forces. Hence, it is more meaningful to compare Merleau-Ponty’s theory of perception not with Deleuze’s theory of perception, but with the epistemological
and ontological claims of the early Deleuze.
CHAPTER ONE
THE AREPRESENTATIONAL CONCEPTION OF THINKING THOUGHT IN MERLEAU-PONTY AND DELEUZE
One of the first things one notices when reading Deleuze and Merleau-Ponty side by side is that both distinguish between an original and a nonoriginal form of thought: the latter limits itself merely to repeating or applying acquired ideas and argumentations, while the former is truly creative. The concepts and lines of argumentation of original thought cannot be considered secondary with respect to what they express, the preceding ideas, because it is in and through the search for concepts and connections between concepts that the ideas take a new shape. And so, just as Merleau-Ponty distinguishes between speaking speech (parole parlante) and spoken speech (parole parlée), we can formulate this difference as a difference between thinking thought
and thought thought
; or, in Deleuzean terms, between thought
or learning
and knowledge
(DR, 204–6). Needless to say, Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze believe that only what we are calling thinking thought
merits the title of philosophy. True or proper philosophy cannot limit itself to offering a survey of already existing ideas, or simply to rearranging them, or changing a detail here, another there.
In what follows I will examine how both authors develop this difference between two kinds of thought. It will become clear that both consider thought thought
to be grounded upon representation. Thought thought
is nonoriginal because it understands its activity as representing an already existing (ideal or concrete) reality. Deleuze, for example, introduces eight postulates to describe thought thought,
the central one being the postulate of representation. He also claims that the history of the long error is the history of representation
(DR, 374).¹ Although Merleau-Ponty never explicitly mentions representation as the object of his criticism, he repeatedly stresses that the object
of his philosophy, indeed, of (true) philosophy in general, cannot be represented: What I want to do is restore the world as a meaning of Being absolutely different from the ‘represented,’ that is, as the vertical Being which none of the ‘representations’ exhaust and which all ‘reach,’ the wild Being
(VI, 253).
The idea that thinking thought is not about representing reality goes hand in hand with the idea that the access to reality—traditionally said to happen through perception and thought—cannot happen via representations. In the following sections, we will see how both authors explain this access, and thus what their alternatives for representational thought are. Since this criticism of thought thought,
or representational thought,
as I will call it from now on, also implies an attack on a specific conception of philosophy, we should see this chapter as a chapter on the nature of philosophical thought according to Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze. However, for an expanded discussion of this topic, I refer the reader to the third chapter, where I situate their views of philosophical thought in the broader history of philosophy.
MERLEAU-PONTY’S CRITICISM OF REPRESENTATIONAL THOUGHT
In order to describe Merleau-Ponty’s theory of thought, we can take his early theory of perception as our point of departure, since knowledge and the communication with others
continue our perceptual life even while transforming it
(PriP, 7). Moreover, Merleau-Ponty holds that perception cannot be considered simply a condition of possibility of the act of thinking, since for him perception and thinking share the same basic structure: perception is an "originating knowledge" (PP, 43).²
A central question of Merleau-Ponty’s theory of perception turns on how to explain the existence of perceptual constants. We perceive the surrounding world as a collection of determinate entities, continuous over space and time. However, the functioning of the senses with which we perceive these entities is not continuous: the eyes make saccadic movements; we blink; the head and body move up and down to the rhythm of our breathing, and so on. Moreover, we always perceive from one specific point of view, determined by the position of our body. How, then, are we to determine which viewpoint reveals the true nature of an object? How are constant perceptual qualities to be explained when de facto there is only a multitude of different sensations? Are these perceptual constants constructions or are they immanent to the perceived world? In other words, is perception a mediated process, or not?
Before delving into these questions, it should be noted that Merleau-Ponty is not interested in the question of whether or not we have access to the world in itself. As this question cannot be answered—it is impossible to say something about the world beyond our experiences—he limits his examination to studying the nature and the condition of our perceptual interaction with the world as we live it, the so-called lived world.
As an introduction to Merleau-Ponty’s account of perception, it is helpful to give a sketch of the theories from which he distances himself.
Empiricist and Intellectualist Accounts of Perception
Empiricists reduce perception to the possession of sensual qualities impressed upon the body by neutral stimuli. In this view, a perceived object is naught more than the sum of sensual qualities, and perception the function of the senses. However, empiricism explains the fact that we often perceive things or aspects of things for which there is no stimulus available—the back of a vase, for example—by appealing to attention and memory to complement the senses. In the case of an absent stimulus, the actual sensation is associated with a remembered sensation on the basis of resemblance. For example, the vase I see in front of me now is perceived as being similar to the one I saw from behind yesterday, and so I supplement the lacking sensation with the sensation from my memory.
Merleau-Ponty argues that this explanation cannot be correct because, for a sensation to be perceived as similar to a remembered one, the sensation already needs to make sense. In principle, any sensation can be compared to any other in one respect or another. But for it to be compared with the right
property, meaning the property that will allow us to identify it, the sensation already needs to have a particular sense. Hence, empiricism does not explain how we can perceive meaningful things but presupposes meaning or sense.
It is fair to say that the intellectualist account of perception thrives on empiricism’s failure to explain perceptual illusions.
The fact that we sometimes perceive aspects of things for which there are no physical stimuli indicates that perception is a matter not of the senses, but of the mind, of judgment. Perceiving something as a square, for example, would require deciding which of the different perspectives on the geometric figure is the correct one, the frontal view, or the rotated view, in which it appears as a diamond. In the intellectualist account, this unconscious decision is the outcome of an algorithmic processing of the information about how the position of our body transforms the spectacle in front of us. It is important to note that intellectualism recognizes that in order for one perspective to be connected with another—the frontal and the rotated view of the geometric