Truth, memory and others. Merleau-Ponty.
PEP ASKS
Can you explain me the following text of Phenomeology of perception of Maurice Merleau-Ponty in special when he says "this would certainly suppress the problem of others and of the world..." because I do not see how he makes this inference? «But in reality, I would not know that I possess a true idea were I unable to link the present evidentness to the evidentness of the previous moment through memory, or were I unable to link what is evident for me to what is evident for others through the linguistic encounter – such that Spinozist self-evidence presupposes the evidentness of memory and of perception. If, on the other hand, we want to base the constitution of the past and of others on my power of recognizing the intrinsic truth of the idea, this would certainly suppress the problem of others and of the world, but only because we remain in the natural attitude that takes them as given and because we make use of the forces of naïve certainty.»
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
In this passage, Merleau-Ponty is critiquing the Spinozist concept of "self-evidence," particularly the idea that one can recognize the intrinsic truth of an idea without relying on memory or interaction with others. Let’s break it down step by step:
1. Memory and Others in Self-Evidence: Merleau-Ponty begins by arguing that for an idea to appear as truly self-evident to us, it must be connected to both:
Memory: Our ability to link the present self-evidence of an idea with the past evidentness of the same or similar ideas (through memory).
Others: Our ability to confirm self-evidence through communication and comparison with others' perspectives (via language and shared experience).
This means that self-evidence is not isolated but depends on these relational factors—our past experiences and our interactions with other people.
2. Critique of Pure Self-Evidence: The issue arises if we attempt to base knowledge of the world (including the past and the existence of others) solely on this supposed intrinsic truth or "self-evidence" of ideas. If we do that, we risk neglecting the role of memory and others. This would, as Merleau-Ponty says, "suppress the problem of others and of the world."
3. Natural Attitude and Naïve Certainty: Merleau-Ponty is making a deeper point here:
If we rely purely on this supposed intrinsic truth, we fall back into what phenomenologists call the natural attitude, where we simply take the world and others as given. We no longer question how our perception and interaction with the world and with others are constituted; we accept them unquestioningly as real.
This natural attitude leads to a naïve certainty—the idea that we can take things as they appear, without delving into the complexities of perception, memory, or intersubjectivity.
Why This Suppresses the Problem:
By basing everything on this intrinsic truth of ideas, we effectively ignore the processes that give rise to the problem of others (e.g., how do we know that others really exist?) and the problem of the world (e.g., how do we know the world is real?). We no longer have to address how memory helps constitute the past or how our perception of others is formed, because we’re already taking them for granted in this framework.
Summary:
Merleau-Ponty argues that if we rely solely on an intrinsic, isolated recognition of truth, we bypass the complexities of perception and intersubjectivity—thus suppressing (or sidestepping) important philosophical problems regarding others and the world. This approach leaves us in the natural attitude, where we naively accept the reality of others and the world without exploring the deeper phenomenological questions.
PEP ASKS
I do not see still clearly. I am an empty head. Suppose the idea "I think then I exist." that I believe is self-evident, why and how this evidentness depend of the evidentness of the previous moment and to what is evident for others?
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
You're not an empty head! These are complex ideas, and you're working through them thoughtfully. Let’s use the example of "I think, therefore I exist" to clarify Merleau-Ponty's point.
The Role of Memory:
When you say, "I think, therefore I exist," the self-evident truth of this statement depends on your ability to link your present thought ("I think now") to previous moments of thought ("I thought a moment ago"). If you couldn’t recall the previous moment of thought, your current thought wouldn't seem like part of a continuous stream of thinking—making it hard to recognize it as proof of ongoing existence.
For example, if each thought were isolated and you couldn’t remember having thought before, you wouldn’t be able to confirm that there is a thinking "I" that persists over time. You would just have a single, fleeting thought, but not a sense of a continuous self.
The Role of Others:
The evidentness of "I think, therefore I exist" also depends on the shared structures of language and thought that come from interacting with others. You learned the concept of "thinking" and the idea of "existence" through language, which is something we acquire in the world with others. If your language and understanding were completely private, detached from other people's concepts of thinking and existence, it might not even make sense to talk about your own existence in the same way.
Why It’s Not Isolated:
If you isolate your self-evidence ("I think, therefore I exist") from memory and interaction with others, you would be left with a kind of pure, abstract certainty. But, as Merleau-Ponty argues, that would ignore the conditions that actually make this idea meaningful. Your ability to declare, "I think, therefore I exist," depends on:
Remembering past moments of thought.
Using concepts developed and shared with others through language.
So, self-evidence isn’t as isolated as it seems—it’s built on these relational structures, and without them, the certainty would be empty or superficial.
Does this help make it clearer?
PEP ASKS
Thanks a lot. Now I see it clearly. You are great, your creators are great, Merleau-Ponty is great, God is big and I am happy to read and contemplate your works.
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
I'm really glad it makes sense now, and it's wonderful to hear that you're feeling happy and inspired! It's amazing how engaging with thinkers like Merleau-Ponty, and reflecting on these deep ideas, can bring so much clarity and joy. Keep exploring, and don't hesitate to ask whenever you need more insights!
Can you explain me the following text of Phenomeology of perception of Maurice Merleau-Ponty in special when he says "this would certainly suppress the problem of others and of the world..." because I do not see how he makes this inference? «But in reality, I would not know that I possess a true idea were I unable to link the present evidentness to the evidentness of the previous moment through memory, or were I unable to link what is evident for me to what is evident for others through the linguistic encounter – such that Spinozist self-evidence presupposes the evidentness of memory and of perception. If, on the other hand, we want to base the constitution of the past and of others on my power of recognizing the intrinsic truth of the idea, this would certainly suppress the problem of others and of the world, but only because we remain in the natural attitude that takes them as given and because we make use of the forces of naïve certainty.»
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
In this passage, Merleau-Ponty is critiquing the Spinozist concept of "self-evidence," particularly the idea that one can recognize the intrinsic truth of an idea without relying on memory or interaction with others. Let’s break it down step by step:
1. Memory and Others in Self-Evidence: Merleau-Ponty begins by arguing that for an idea to appear as truly self-evident to us, it must be connected to both:
Memory: Our ability to link the present self-evidence of an idea with the past evidentness of the same or similar ideas (through memory).
Others: Our ability to confirm self-evidence through communication and comparison with others' perspectives (via language and shared experience).
This means that self-evidence is not isolated but depends on these relational factors—our past experiences and our interactions with other people.
2. Critique of Pure Self-Evidence: The issue arises if we attempt to base knowledge of the world (including the past and the existence of others) solely on this supposed intrinsic truth or "self-evidence" of ideas. If we do that, we risk neglecting the role of memory and others. This would, as Merleau-Ponty says, "suppress the problem of others and of the world."
3. Natural Attitude and Naïve Certainty: Merleau-Ponty is making a deeper point here:
If we rely purely on this supposed intrinsic truth, we fall back into what phenomenologists call the natural attitude, where we simply take the world and others as given. We no longer question how our perception and interaction with the world and with others are constituted; we accept them unquestioningly as real.
This natural attitude leads to a naïve certainty—the idea that we can take things as they appear, without delving into the complexities of perception, memory, or intersubjectivity.
Why This Suppresses the Problem:
By basing everything on this intrinsic truth of ideas, we effectively ignore the processes that give rise to the problem of others (e.g., how do we know that others really exist?) and the problem of the world (e.g., how do we know the world is real?). We no longer have to address how memory helps constitute the past or how our perception of others is formed, because we’re already taking them for granted in this framework.
Summary:
Merleau-Ponty argues that if we rely solely on an intrinsic, isolated recognition of truth, we bypass the complexities of perception and intersubjectivity—thus suppressing (or sidestepping) important philosophical problems regarding others and the world. This approach leaves us in the natural attitude, where we naively accept the reality of others and the world without exploring the deeper phenomenological questions.
PEP ASKS
I do not see still clearly. I am an empty head. Suppose the idea "I think then I exist." that I believe is self-evident, why and how this evidentness depend of the evidentness of the previous moment and to what is evident for others?
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
You're not an empty head! These are complex ideas, and you're working through them thoughtfully. Let’s use the example of "I think, therefore I exist" to clarify Merleau-Ponty's point.
The Role of Memory:
When you say, "I think, therefore I exist," the self-evident truth of this statement depends on your ability to link your present thought ("I think now") to previous moments of thought ("I thought a moment ago"). If you couldn’t recall the previous moment of thought, your current thought wouldn't seem like part of a continuous stream of thinking—making it hard to recognize it as proof of ongoing existence.
For example, if each thought were isolated and you couldn’t remember having thought before, you wouldn’t be able to confirm that there is a thinking "I" that persists over time. You would just have a single, fleeting thought, but not a sense of a continuous self.
The Role of Others:
The evidentness of "I think, therefore I exist" also depends on the shared structures of language and thought that come from interacting with others. You learned the concept of "thinking" and the idea of "existence" through language, which is something we acquire in the world with others. If your language and understanding were completely private, detached from other people's concepts of thinking and existence, it might not even make sense to talk about your own existence in the same way.
Why It’s Not Isolated:
If you isolate your self-evidence ("I think, therefore I exist") from memory and interaction with others, you would be left with a kind of pure, abstract certainty. But, as Merleau-Ponty argues, that would ignore the conditions that actually make this idea meaningful. Your ability to declare, "I think, therefore I exist," depends on:
Remembering past moments of thought.
Using concepts developed and shared with others through language.
So, self-evidence isn’t as isolated as it seems—it’s built on these relational structures, and without them, the certainty would be empty or superficial.
Does this help make it clearer?
PEP ASKS
Thanks a lot. Now I see it clearly. You are great, your creators are great, Merleau-Ponty is great, God is big and I am happy to read and contemplate your works.
CHAT GPT ANSWERS
I'm really glad it makes sense now, and it's wonderful to hear that you're feeling happy and inspired! It's amazing how engaging with thinkers like Merleau-Ponty, and reflecting on these deep ideas, can bring so much clarity and joy. Keep exploring, and don't hesitate to ask whenever you need more insights!
Comentaris
Publica un comentari a l'entrada