JYU DISSERTATIONS 53 Juho Hotanen Merleau-Ponty’s Reading of Descartes From Cartesian Duality to the New Ontological Structure JYU DISSERTATIONS 53 Juho Hotanen Merleau-Ponty’s Reading of Descartes From Cartesian Duality to the New Ontological Structure Esitetään Jyväskylän yliopiston humanistis-yhteiskuntatieteellisen tiedekunnan suostumuksella julkisesti tarkastettavaksi yliopiston vanhassa juhlasalissa S212 helmikuun 15. päivänä 2019 kello 14. Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by permission of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences of the University of Jyväskylä, in building Seminarium, auditorium S212, on February 15, 2019 at 14 o’clock. JYVÄSKYLÄ 2019 Editors Olli-Pekka Moisio Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä Ville Korkiakangas Open Science Centre, University of Jyväskylä Copyright © 2019, by University of Jyväskylä Permanent link to this publication: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-7672-9 ISBN 978-951-39-7672-9 (PDF) URN:ISBN:978-951-39-7672-9 ISSN 2489-9003 To my mother and my father ABSTRACT Hotanen, Juho Merleau-Ponty’s Reading of Descartes. From Cartesian Duality to the New Ontological Structure Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, 2019, 344 p. (JYU Dissertations ISSN 2489-9003; 53) ISBN 978-951-39-7672-9 (PDF) The duality between the mind and the body has been haunting a wide field of aca- demic discussions since René Descartes’ (1596–1650) philosophy. The problem not only concerns the inexplicable relation between immaterial and material substances, but also the relation between reflective thought and the unreflected experience: there are two fields of evidence which both have their own types of clarity, but which re- main obscure for each other. The lived and practical experience is opposed to the objective knowledge of the sciences. Cartesian philosophy is established on the re- fusal of the non-philosophical life, which, nevertheless, it cannot refuse. This work offers an investigation of Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s (1908–1961) in- terpretation of Descartes’ philosophy. Merleau-Ponty comments on Descartes’ ideas throughout his work. The most central problem for him is the relation between mind and body: Descartes demonstrates both the distinction and the union between them. In his early work Phenomenology of Perception (1945), Merleau-Ponty argues that Des- cartes’ philosophy consists of a contradiction between the distinct pure mind and the lived experience of the union. He reformulates this contradiction as the paradox of reflection: reflection reflects on the unreflected experience which nevertheless with- draws from reflection. In his later and unfinished work, The Visible and the Invisible (1964), Merleau-Ponty continues to elaborate the paradoxical relation of connection and difference as the new ontological structure. He designates the new ontological structure as a solution to the problem of the duality of Cartesian ontology: it is the differentiation of the sensible texture, the thickness of time, and the depth of history. The work consists of five chapters. Chapter One is a systematic study of Mer- leau-Ponty’s interpretation of Descartes in Phenomenology of Perception, and it expli- cates Merleau-Ponty’s understanding of the contradiction in Descartes’ philosophy. Chapter Two investigates the historical background of Merleau-Ponty’s work by studying the Cartesian tradition after Descartes. Chapter Three shows how Merleau- Ponty approaches the duality of Cartesian ontology, and how he begins his discus- sion on the new ontology in relation to it. Chapter Four is a systematic investigation of Merleau-Ponty’s ontology in The Visible and the Invisible, and it demonstrates how he answers the problem of Cartesian duality with his new ontological structure. Chapter Five adds perspectives from Merleau-Ponty’s later lectures on Descartes, and, at the end, studies Merleau-Ponty’s concept of freedom in relation to his idea of the ontological structure of connection and difference. Keywords: Merleau-Ponty, Descartes, ontology Author’s address Juho Hotanen Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy University of Jyväskylä [email protected] Supervisors Professor Sara Heinämaa Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy University of Jyväskylä Adjunct Professor Susanna Lindberg Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies University of Helsinki Reviewers Professor Ted Toadvine The Pennsylvania State University Professor David Morris Concordia University Opponent Professor Ted Toadvine The Pennsylvania State University TIIVISTELMÄ Hotanen, Juho Merleau-Pontyn Descartes-tulkinta. Kartesiolaisesta duaalisuudesta uuteen ontolo- giseen rakenteeseen Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, 2019, 344 p. (JYU Dissertations ISSN 2489-9003; 53) ISBN 978-951-39-7672-9 (PDF) Siitä lähtien, kun René Descartes kehitti filosofiassaan ajatuksen duaalisuudesta mie- len ja ruumiin välillä, tämä ajatus on kummitellut laajalla alueella akateemista kes- kustelua. Kysymys ei ole vain immateriaalisen ja materiaalisen substanssin välisestä selittämättömästä suhteesta vaan reflektiivisen ajattelun ja reflektoimattoman koke- muksen suhteesta: on olemassa kaksi evidenssin aluetta, joilla molemmilla on oma selvyyden tyyppinsä mutta jotka pysyvät hämärinä toisilleen. Eletty ja käytännölli- nen kokemus asettuu vasten tieteiden objektiivista tietoa. Kartesiolainen filosofia perustuu ei-filosofisen elämän torjumiselle, jota se ei kuitenkaan kykene torjumaan. Tässä työssä selvitetään Maurice Merleau-Pontyn tulkintaa Descartesin filoso- fiasta. Merleau-Ponty kommentoi Descartesin esittämiä ajatuksia läpi tuotantonsa. Hänelle keskeisin ongelma on mielen ja ruumiin välinen suhde: Descartes osoittaa sekä näiden välisen eron että liiton. Phénoménologie de la perception -teoksessa Merle- au-Ponty väittää, että Descartesin filosofiassa on keskeistä ristiriita mielen ja ruumiin eron ja yhteyden välillä, puhtaan mielen ja eletyn kokemuksen välillä. Hän muotoi- lee uudelleen tämän ristiriidan reflektion paradoksina: reflektio reflektoi reflektoima- tonta kokemusta joka kuitenkin aina vetäytyy reflektiolta. Myöhäisessä ja kesken- eräiseksi jääneessä Le visible et l’invisible -teoksessa Merleau-Ponty jatkaa yhteyden ja eron paradoksaalisen suhteen kehitettelyä esittämällä uuden ontologisen rakenteen. Hän hahmottaa uutta ontologista rakennetta vastauksena kartesiolaisen ontologian duaalisuuteen: kyse on aistittavan tekstuurin eriytymisestä, ajan tiheydestä ja histo- rian syvyydestä. Tämä teos koostuu viidestä luvusta. Ensimmäinen luku on systemaattinen tut- kimus Merleau-Pontyn Descartes-tulkinnasta Phénoménologie de la perception -teok- sessa, ja siinä eksplikoidaan Merleau-Pontyn ajatus Descartesin filosofian ristiriitai- suudesta. Toinen luku selvittää Merleau-Pontyn tulkinnan historiallista taustaa tut- kimalla Descartesin jälkeistä kartesiolaista perinnettä. Kolmas luku näyttää miten Merleau-Ponty lähestyy kartesiolaisen ontologian duaalisuutta, josta hän lähtee liik- keelle uuden ontologian projektissaan. Neljäs luku on systemaattinen tutkimus Mer- leau-Pontyn ontologiasta Le visible et l’invisible -teoksessa ja siinä osoitetaan miten hän vastaa kartesiolaisen duaalisuuden ongelmaan uudella ontologisella rakenteella. Viides luku laajentaa näkökulmaa Merleau-Pontyn myöhäisiin luentoihin Descarte- sista ja selvittää lopuksi Merleau-Pontyn vapaus-käsitystä ja sen suhdetta yhteyden ja eron ontologiseen rakenteeseen. Avainsanat: Merleau-Ponty, Descartes, ontologia ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS If I have learned anything in the process of this study, it is how hard it can be to work on something that requires a lot of concentration and takes a long time, and how important are positive and supporting surroundings in that process. They are not only important, they are the watershed between flourishing and decay, freedom of mind and being stuck, strength and weakness. Working on philosophical research, as with any creative project, needs an understanding of the not yet realized possibilities, of something virtual that is still searching its way towards articulation. Fortunately, for some this counts among the greatest joys of life. I have enjoyed the formidable luck to know philosophers, academic wor- kers, and political thinkers from many different circles and fields of interest in Finland: the phenomenologists first located in University of Helsinki and now, more or less, also in University of Jyväskylä; philosophers and other intellectu- als involved in Helsinki Lacan Circle; and the political theorists and researchers around Tutkijaliitto, the Researchers’ Union. It has been a real privilege to know all these people who, despite all their differences, have a lot in common. You certainly made this journey a very interesting one for me. I want to thank my Supervisor, Professor Sara Heinämaa, who has sup- ported and aided my research in numerous ways. We met already during my master studies, and she also supervised my master’s thesis. I chose to do my doctoral thesis on a subject that she had already studied in her articles, knowing very well that she has a strongly defended opinion on the matters that I was going to be working on. Therefore, the most amazing thing about her supervis- ing was how independently she allowed me to do my research, and letting me find my own way. She provided me with extremely precise and straightforward commentary on my progressing work when I needed a reality check, providing empowering meetings when I needed some motivation, and most of all re- mained patient and persistent through all