Customer Reviews

Merleau-Ponty's Ontology, 2nd Edition

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Dillon gives an illuminating discussion of the 'philosophical dualism' - e.g. in Descartes, Hume, Kant and Sartre - against which Merleau-Ponty is arguing. Dillon's treatment of Merleau-Ponty's central concepts is at once lucid and fair. I think this book would be ideal either as an introduction or as a supplement to MP's thought (Dillon offers some persuasive criticisms of MP as well). My only criticism is that Dillon's picture of 'poststructualism', of which Derrida is taken to be the 'whipping boy', is perhaps a bit unfair -- but the few oversimplifications are just as informative as Dillon's many accute insights into the "postmodern fervor." Anyone interested in MP should certainly check this mama out.

Pay no heed to the pretentiousness of what one reviewer decried as "bipolar" (good guys vs. bad guys) philosophy, this is the greatest secondary philosophical text I have ever read, and perhaps what really irritated the previous reviewer wasn't Dillon's "no real understanding of Husserl," or the "[tired] postmodernism-bashing [that] shows no real understanding of the positions under discussion", but rather was Dillon's own palatable disdain for such intellectual pretentiousness reverberating throughout his text. Rather than writing in ego-gratifying but incomprehensible prose, Dillon authors a wonderfully open and accessible philosophical text that clearly and cogently explains the complex issues under discussion, a feat that is ultimately more difficult than the all to common obscure and esoteric ramblings of modern philosophy.

Far from being a "bipolar" text, this book offers an intricate examination of the historical progression and ultimate failure of bipolar/reductionist thought in the western tradition, be it mind vs. body dualism, immanence vs. transcendence, or linguistic realism vs. conventionalism. Dillon demonstrates convincingly how polarizing (and ultimately second-order) constructions of reality ultimately betray the underlying ontological reality which they were designed to explain by rendering truth and judgment valuation impossible. He then goes on to explain why he believes that the thought of Merleau-Ponty, grounded on the ontological primacy of the phenomena, avoids this reifying of second-order abstractions that create ontological polarization and collapse reality into exclusive spheres of immanence or transcendence.

Moreover, contrary to what was said in the past review, Merleau-Ponty is never deified in the book as someone who "fell from the sky one day to solve all of our philosophical problems". Dillon has obvious disagreements with aspects of Merleau-Ponty's philosophy (read "The Body In Its Sexual Being" from M-P's Phenomenology of Perception and then Dillon's Beyond Romance for one example) that are not presented in this work due to its nature as a secondary text on Merleau-Ponty's ontology, published at a time when such a topic was rarely discussed. Still, this book never even approaches presenting Merleau-Ponty in such a god-like portrait; rather Dillon simply but methodically presents the case that Merleau-Ponty, unlike Sartre among others, offers a true phenomenological ontology grounded on the primacy of the phenomena that (if considered seriously) presents a real and unavoidable challenge to polarizing/reductionist ontological theories, including those that came to the fore after Merleau-Ponty's death in the "linguistic turn".

As the reviewer from the Moon says: "if good philosophy is what you want, it's rarely so bipolar."

Dillon puts Merleau-Ponty in an historical persepctive and his thesis is that Merleau-Ponty's ontology is the first non-dualistic in western philosophy. Were Husserl failed becuse of his cartesian constraints Merelau-Ponty succedes. Dillon's masterful understanding of western philosophy and its limitations leads him to see Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology as the only true alternative to traditional thought. He now want us to understand this, and when we do continue in Merleau-Pontys direction and evolve philosophy from the constraints av tradtional dualistic thought.

Sure, Dillon's book is probably the most popular thing on Merleau-Ponty in English, but is that really justified? Throughout the book, Dillon claims to elucidate Merleau-Ponty's position by contrasting his work with a completely unrecognizeable caricature of Husserl. Not only does Dillon show no real understanding of Husserl, but he also ignores the fact that Merleau-Ponty consistently praises Husserl, from the beginning to the end of his career (see the new Merleau-Ponty, _Husserl at the Limits of Phenomenology_). The postmodernism-bashing is also very tired and shows no real understanding of the positions under discussion.

Simply put, to believe Dillon's presentation of Merleau-Ponty, you'd have to believe he just fell from the sky one day to solve all of our philosophical problems--no relation to his predecessors nor to his successors. Not only is this bad history of philosophy, but it ignores Merleau-Ponty's own far more subtle and penetrating method of reading those who preceded him in the history of philosophy. If it's all such a simple little problem of overcoming the evils of Cartesianism, why is Merleau-Ponty's reading of Descartes (see the 1960-1961 course in _Notes de cours, 1959-1961_) so much more complex and interesting than Dillon's?

Perhaps the biggest advantage of Dillon's book is that it makes everything so neat and tidy, the good guys and the bad guys. Some people need this kind of orderly arrangement in their lives. If that's you, go for it. But if good philosophy is what you want, it's rarely so bipolar.