Does the Reversibility Thesis Deliver All That Merleau-Ponty Claims It Can?
Files in This Item:
|Does_the_Reversibility_Thesis_deliver_all_that_Merleau_EJP.pdf||527.92 kB||Adobe PDF||Download|
|Title:||Does the Reversibility Thesis Deliver All That Merleau-Ponty Claims It Can?||Authors:||Daly, Anya||Permanent link:||http://hdl.handle.net/10197/8204||Date:||25-Mar-2014||Abstract:||Merleau-Ponty's reversibility thesis argues that self, other and world are inherently relational, interdependent at the level of ontology. What is at stake in the reversibility thesis is whether it overcomes skeptical objections in both assuring real communication and avoiding solipsism in assuring real difference; the Other must be a genuine, irreducible Other. It is objected that across the domains of reversibility, symmetry and reciprocity are not guaranteed. I argue that this is a non-problem; rather the potentialities for asymmetry and non reciprocity in fact guarantee the irreducibility of the Other; reversibility needs to be appreciated as dialectical or aesthetic, not as a literal or 'mechanistic' reversal. A further criticism targets the viability of ontology itself, whether alterity is ever compatible with ontology. This paper considers these objections from two of Merleau-Ponty's contemporaries—Claude Lefort and Emmanuel Levinas. Levinas developed a philosophy which while intersecting with Merleau-Ponty's at important junctures, nonetheless arrived at an entirely different destination. I argue alongside Martin Dillon against the objections of Lefort, and alongside Dan Zahavi against the objections of Levinas. Both of these interpreters, I propose remain faithful to the core directions and spirit of Merleau-Ponty's endeavours without becoming diverted by the less significant inconsistencies.||Type of material:||Journal Article||Publisher:||Wiley||Copyright (published version):||2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd||Keywords:||Merleau-Ponty;Reversibility;Non-dualism;Levinas;Le fort;Ontology||DOI:||10.1111/ejop.12086||Language:||en||Status of Item:||Peer reviewed|
|Appears in Collections:||Philosophy Research Collection|
Show full item record
This item is available under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland. No item may be reproduced for commercial purposes. For other possible restrictions on use please refer to the publisher's URL where this is made available, or to notes contained in the item itself. Other terms may apply.