Phenomenology of Perception PDF/EPUB ½ Phenomenology ↠ MOBI multi

Together with Sartre Merleau Ponty was the foremost French philosopher of the post war period and Phenomenology of Perception first published in 1945 is his masterpiece What makes this work so important is that it returned the body to the forefront of philosophy for the first time since Plato

10 thoughts on “Phenomenology of Perception

  1. says:

    All hitherto existing models of perception are false From the outset empiricism would do violence by mis describing its most basic datum the act of perceiving Idealism would come about to try and correct the absurdities that arise when empiricism is taken as doctrine However by failing to provide an alternate account of perception idealism left the crucial point unchallenged There are no atoms of perception Perception is already a whole That I think is the crucial point and from there Most profound far reaching book of philosophy in the past hundred years or so Anyway it's my favorite I want to call it an abyss in the sense that it's infinite and unfathomable but it's a joyous abyss a teeming abyss And there are arguments too It's at once an extremely rigorous treatise and a long tracking shot by Andrei Tarkovsky This is one of those books that makes GR's star system seem pretty ridiculous sorry

  2. says:

    I have to suspect that this is probably the most thrilling and exciting book I have ever read in any genre in any format on any subject matter Just an astounding book Electrifying On fire Makes you want to race around the room and scramble up the walls like a lab mouse on stimulants Why? Because after this blazing introduction to phenomenology you suddenly realize that so much of the topics we typically preoccupy ourselves with are hardly even apprehended correctly by our own senses All the ideas in our brains are based on fragments; on false impressions It is not just that we 'glance' at things 'half hear' what is spoken to us; or that we only give our environments a distracted smidgen of our attention No not merely this many other authors have written on such matters Instead Merleau Ponty proves that even when we are gazing directly at what's before us we never truly see it There is no 'pure thought' The world is not Schopenhauer's idea nor Descarte's objective nor Sartre's subjective but a 'phantom limb' like that which haunted the disabled soldiers Merleau Ponty studied It is sensory it is 'approximation'In the course of our daily routines we're accustomed to skip right over skeptical hesitation which would make us pause But this makes us fools We should all countenance much deeper graver mistrust of our faculties The truth is that we never perceive anything fully or correctly through our senses Perception the crux of everything of course The most fundamental step towards ratiocination we fail We can't even congratulate ourselves on handling this species task accurately Merleau Ponty really shows up the rich and false self conceit we possess in our own powers How do we 'know' anything how can we 'trust' anything when we can't even validate the functioning of the faculties upon which we judge the world? How can we agreedisagree between ourselves on any topic when each of us is wrapped in fog? The 'internal world' versus the 'external world'this book reveals that neither exists in any definable mode All such uestions like 'is this thing part of this other thing?' and 'are you seeing the same thing I am seeing?' come under scrutiny by this man Merleau Ponty and are definitively settled by this great thinker Gentlemen we've all been sleepwalking Anyway TPoP is certainly all that I could have asked for or desired Immediate 5 star rating I'm placing it in the very highest tier in my ratings the most distinctive singular ranking I offer any book in my shelves A select position where it will rub shoulders with maybe only 4 5 other books those being my top picks from the entire field of philosophy I close this narrow hierarchy to all but a distinct few To be included a philosophical treatise must contain what I feel is the most salient and relevant wisdom to offer our lives today 'Phenomenology' certainly does that Here are the othersBeing and Nothingness JP SartreBeing and Time HeideggerThe Discourses EpictetusPhenomenology of Perception MerleauPontyMetaphysics AristotleElite company indeed If only every child in North America could read these accompanied by some wonderful work of vernacular empiricism such as Robert Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy before the age of eighteen if only the 'USSA of Amerika' jingoistic hokum in our woeful K 12 school system could be eliminated and replaced by grand works such as thesewhat a different country we might have It'd be a different world

  3. says:

    In some ways this may be the most phenomenal philosophy book that I have ever read In it Merleau Ponty attempts to present a description of how human beings perceive the world in which they live He is often surprisingly successful The evidence for me came in a startling manner While reading the section about perceiving the body I had an experience for which I have no words but that perhaps comes closest to what certain mystics would call enlightenment But it was a completely bodily enlightenment a full consciousness of myself as a specific uniue bodily being For several moments I didn't want to read or touch my coffee because I wanted to fully digest this feeling The feeling stayed with me to a noticeable degree for two weeks thereafter The main reason this book loses a star down to a mere four is because in the later chapters when Merleau Ponty goes into human perception of the social he lets his marxian sympathies get in the way of his phenomenological method and this weakens his arguments on these uestions considerably

  4. says:

    A slow read Lots of conceptual learning involved What is empiricism etc I never was highly philosophical Enjoying it precisely because it’s so unlike my usual fare Sarah Bakewell speaks highly of it in her At The Existentialist Café Freedom Being and Apricot Cocktails —a very worthy book and far readable than the present textFrom Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “Merleau Ponty’s constant points of historical reference are Descartes Kant Hegel and Marx The characteristic approach of Merleau Ponty’s theoretical work is his effort to identify an alternative to intellectualism or idealism on the one hand and empiricism is or realism on the other by critiuing their common presupposition of a ready made world and failure to account for the historical and embodied character of experience”

  5. says:

    From what I comprehended of the Phenomenology of Perception it is a stunning absolutely stunning work of philosophy rigorous and scientific while at the same time very aware of the limits of human knowledge radical without devolving into cant deeply humanistic and unsurprisingly exceptionally perceptiveFor Merleau Ponty novices our minds are nested within our bodies which are nested within the world and any attempts to reduce the world to an idealist or materialist conception rely on the same false assumptions about the nature of knowledge This book is a seriously steep climb laden as it is with multi page arguments and reports of neurological research but that climb delivers the reader to a very high Alpine meadow of intellect

  6. says:

    Merleau Ponty is for me the best writer in phenomenology since Husserl who created the damned thing While Phenomenology of Perception is clearly a product of its time and the available psychology the amount of interesting work that Merleau Ponty is able to do in what is essentially proto cognitive science is very impressive His work is carried forward in the writing of Alva Noë and others and I do think that the ways that Merleau Ponty gets updated and the ways that he or less stays the same are pretty important to the reading of history of philosophy of mindOne of the things that really struck me in reading Merleau Ponty was the realization of how extensive his impact is on what is easily just written off as an analytic philosophy of mind Many of the case studies that he discusses are a major part of the writing of Dan Dennett and the arguments that he lays out against neuro centric views of mind are basically the same as the views that contemporary neuro centrists are still arguing against Writers who focus on the debates in philosophy of mind are still unable to shake the influence of Merleau Ponty and as someone very interested in that discussion it was pretty incredible to look at what has stayed the same in many ways in contemporary studyThere are a lot of good ways to enter into this book as a reader If you're new to philosophy of mind but not to continental philosophy it will give a nice preface to early philosophy of mind and discussions of consciousness If you're experienced in philosophy of mind but just starting off in continental philosophy this gives a nice bridge that maintains a good portion of the data that you're familiar with and shows how the data can be assessed through the processes of phenomenology If you're engaged with both this makes a great read as a point of interest in the history of philosophical traditions I strongly strongly recommend the readI do think that the most important thing to attend to as a reader of the book is Merleau Ponty's lengthy footnotes The most interesting one for me is the extensive discussion of dialectical materialism and the way that phenomenologists who aren't sympathetic to Marx understand the metaphysics of that approach Merleau Ponty is very philosophically dense so this really isn't good for those who are just entering philosophy I do think that it is useful to have a background in some phenomenology even if it is just a passing familiarity with Husserl or Heidegger

  7. says:

    When we want to analyze perception we transport these objects into consciousness We commit what psychologists call “the experience error” that is we immediately assume that what we know to exist among things is also in our consciousness of them We build perception out of the perceived And since the perceived is obviously only accessible through perception in the end we understand neither What begins as an exploration of perception one which interjects the body between consciousness and the world and institutes it as both Subject and Object simultaneously and through much of part two restructures the way one views their interaction with the world and their relation with the world eventually attempts to encompass the complication of the perceptive Other which mostly closes part two Part three then goes on to incorporate the first two parts into a restatement of the cogito The fundamental truth is certainly that “I think” but only on condition of understanding by this that “I belong to myself in being in the world and to reorient ourselves and our perception in a temporal flow yes M P attempts to redefine time and then eventually closing on a truly triumphant noteI'll admit some of the stuff M P tackled towards the end of part two and the beginning of part three went over my head; that's okay I always aim to take what I can away from these texts and hopefully revisit them renewed some later day to gain from them Some of that later stuff I felt was reaching but I reserve that judgment based on my own imperfect understandingIn its own way this book has altered the way in which I at least think about my interaction with and my interaction in the world I suppose that's all I ask unrated as I have no idea how to rate something like this If the synthesis could be actual if my experience formed a closed system if the thing and the world could be defined once and for all if spatio temporal horizons could even ideally be made explicit and if the world could be conceived from nowhere then nothing would exist I would survey the world from above and far from all places and times suddenly becoming real they would in fact cease to be real because I would not inhabit any of them and I would be nowhere engaged If I am always and everywhere then I am never and nowhereThus there is no choice between the incompleteness of the world and its existence between the engagement and the ubiuity of consciousness or between transcendence and immanence since each of these terms when it is affirmed by itself makes its contradiction appear What must be understood is that for the same reason I am present here and now and present elsewhere and always or absent from here and now and absent from every place and from every time This ambiguity is not an imperfection of consciousness or of existence it is their very definition

  8. says:

    First I must admit it took me many months to read this book Frankly I can only handle one chapter at time But like many such books the work pays off as one slowly reflects on the slow detailed exposition of a philosophy In some ways I see this book as a seuel to Schopenhauer's World of Will and Representation a book that takes even longer to read Merleau Ponty takes the world of representation or perception and deeply explores how consciousness arises not as a thing itself but within the world Most importantly for me Merleau Ponty is revising the Cartesian subjectivity which is the foundation for much of Western philosophy science and comparative work and also the root of many ideologies and problems we've struggled with for several centuries As the world becomes globalized and interrelated it will be important that new approaches to science theory and cultural studies start with this revised Cartesian subject In short Merleau Ponty shows that our consciousness can not exist in and of itself; the very core of consciousness is intersubjectivity This may seem like a small point but it completely revolutionizes how we think and act in the world particularly as academics and scientists What many religions have asserted for a very long time Merleau Ponty gives philosophical and methodological weight

  9. says:

    Coming to Merleau Ponty through Heidegger was a kind if shock to my system I was not prepared for the deeply rational language of MP's study Still he brought to Heidegger's inherence or being in the world a very full embodied discussion of our indissoluble link to that world via our own bodies In most respects MP's conception of being in the world follows Heidegger's original yet there are three starkly divergent thoughts I can identify from a first read1 Merleau Ponty wanted phenomenology to take centre stage as the main focus whereas Heidegger turned towards ontology with phenomenology as his method This creates a difference between philosophical motives2 Merleau Ponty beueaths us our thoughts on embodiment which does not come into Heidegger This makes MP feel much reflective about biological concerns without compromising his stand with regards to either scientific or objectivist methods For MP the phenomenal body is an experience from the inside that rises towards the world to create meaning The body for MP is a natural subject and expresses the existence of being in the world3 Pre reflective states Our being in the world is not a dualistic relation between an objective body and disembodied consciousness; rather it is a pre objective perspective The intertwining between consciousness and nature I as body mind am both open toward the and am part of the worldAll in all I certainly have a robust understanding of phenomenology ala Merleau Ponty In particular a big lightbulb went on when I finally read the words all consciousness is consciousness of something Intentionality transformed in that moment from some exercise goal in yoga to a lived embodied and meaningful world that allows me understand my experience without feeling that I'm forever constituting or appropriating it through intellectual actsJust first thoughts

  10. says:

    This work is together with Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil and Heidegger's Being and Time a perfect cure for anyone who has overdosed on abstract thinking Its message has yet to be heard by a wider audience and is bound to gain new appreciation as the currently dominant mode of thinking begins to falter A thorough background in philosophy might be reuired to understand much of what Merleau Ponty writes but then again if you have not already spent a substantial amount of time in the realm of rational thinking then it is unlikely that you reuire the relief that this work can bring