What do you think?
Rate this book
Le phénomène érotique
« L'amour, nous en parlons toujours, nous l'expérimentons souvent, mais nous n'y comprenons rien, ou presque. La preuve : nous ne pouvons plus en fixer un sens unique et le déchirons entre des contraires - eros et agapè, jouissance brute et charité abstraite, pornographie et sentimentalisme. Il en devient absurde ou insignifiant. Explication : la philosophie nous a persuadés de l'interpréter à partir de la conscience de soi (du cogito), comme une simple variante, dérivée et irrationnelle, de la claire pensée - il se rabaisse donc au rang de la « passion », maladive, irrationnelle, toujours douteuse. On conteste ici ce verdict. L'amour nous atteint infiniment plus sérieusement, plus originairement, il ne dérive pas de l'ego, mais le précède et le donne à lui-même. Bien avant la question des philosophes, « être ou ne pas être », ou la question des savants, « connaître certainement ou ignorer », une autre question m'obsède : « m'aime-t-on ? y-a-t-il quelqu'un pour m'aimer ? » Sans réponse à cette question, tout être et toute certitude tombent sous le coup de la vanité, qui leur demande « à quoi bon ? » Je me découvre alors en état de réduction érotique. On doit tenter de décrire les figures de la conscience, dans cette situation originaire : la nécessité absolue qu'on m'aime, et mon incapacité radicale à ne pas me haïr moi-même ; mon avancée unilatérale dans le rôle de l'amant ; le serment entre les amants qui fait surgir le phénomène érotique, unique et pourtant commun ; l'échange où chacun donne à l'autre la chair érotisée, que lui-même n'a pas, mais reçoit en retour ; l'acte sans fin, et pourtant toujours fini, de s'avancer chacun dans l'autre sans résistance ; la contradiction objective entre le temps court de jouir et le temps long de promettre, qui rend estimable la jalousie et raisonnable la perversion ; enfin, l'attente jusqu'à la fin des temps d'un tiers témoin, qui part et qui s'anticipe. L'amour, dans toutes ces figures, ne se dit et ne se fait qu'en un seul sens. Le même pour tous, Dieu compris. Car l'amour se déploie aussi logiquement que le plus rigoureux des concepts. Il précède tout et tout dépend de lui - les raisons des philosophes, les connaissances des savants et les choses du monde. Sans lui, tout est, mais tout est vain. Avec lui, tout devient possible, même et surtout l'impossible. » J.L.M.
344 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 19, 2003
67 people are currently reading
1190 people want to read
About the author
Jean-Luc Marion
114 books108 followersJean-Luc Marion est un philosophe et universitaire français.
Jean-Luc Marion is a French philosopher and academic.
Jean-Luc Marion is a French philosopher and academic.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews
February 22, 2015
هذا كتاب ضد السطحية المعطاة للحب كقيمة رومانسية تابعة,ماريون يمنح الحب مفهوما فلسفيا سابق للمعرفة ذاتها بل محفز لهافكيف لنا أن نعرف قبل أن نحب و كيف لنا ان ننطق عبارة انا أحبك قبل ان نفهم
December 12, 2021
if you like this review i now have website: www.michaelkamakana.com
140414: this is a later addition: i have upped the rating to a five, put it on my favoritephilosophy shelf, because it seems most immediately practical, that it is useful in ethical behaviour, i have recommended this to another who was reading kierkegaard, then have used this to understand my own motives, my fears, my doubts, when someone expresses apparently honest love for me. this is not skepticism of the other but of myself. this is a most conscious attempt to use philosophy to know real life. maybe this is the wrong situation, the wrong measure, or simply too intellectual. i read sections of this book attempting to understand, but it is the question of healthy emotional development that is perhaps not fully explored, the how rather than the that, which is engaged in emotional response. the 'question of being' that so absorbs heidegger, is here the 'question of love'...
first review: this is a four, as the entire experience of reading wildly ranges between 3 and 5, though indeed perhaps this changes more reading of this philosopher, more reading of this text. for i really doubted certain assertions through laying groundwork, psychological philosophy or philosophical psychology... that can be expressed in his style of rhetorical questions, even as the range of erotic phenomenon goes from self to other to child to god, and is characterized by moving from erotic reduction- recalling phenomenological reduction- of the chain of questions, from 'does anyone out there love me?', to the reversed claim of advancing 'i love you' first, to 'here i am', to denying self-hatred by learning 'another loves me more than i hate myself', but these seem to me based on shifting, uncertain, grounds of the way he defines 'ego'- is it impossible as he claims to love oneself? is the flesh of the other only activated through love? is it so very unusual to precede the other in saying 'i love you?'...
but this concept of 'erotic reduction', this idea that it is not 'i think therefore i am' but ‘i love therefore i am', is greatly explored in describing the varied sorts of love we humans can create, can experience, can only in this way know infinity through our finite selves, even if i do not know if this psychic exchange or advance is truly so independent of any 'economy' or transcends and/or ignores 'reason', even whether there is ultimately the need for a third view to validate our love, a child borne of love, a god who insists in loving us, but his exploration, his movement, from love to fidelity, of how it is always the lover and not the beloved who gains the most existentially, blindly, completely, suffering- this stuff is great. this makes the act of love, the advance, transcend all reciprocity and reason, all infidelity or lying, this is the way some of us love to believe love is the final, the ultimate, the eternal or infinite gift, we humans may know...
so do not be frustrated by the first fifty or sixty pages, do not worry that your answers conflict with his rhetorical questions, it does get better, or at least more understandable. this is an 'application' of phenomenology, that best works if you have read a few phenomenological philosophers, this is the style i like to think, this is encouraging me to think, this ends on a high point, even if i do not see it or just do not find it necessarily leading to belief in god... well yes we would all like to be affirmed, erotically assured, in our lives, but i think most of us sort of muddle through without the low points of hatred of one to another, of one to oneself, of all to all- or the high points of being because we love, are loved, exist eternally in love... i think we are all, usually, somewhere between these extremes...
final note: i suggest the use of 'flesh' in Marion's work is very different from Merleau-Ponty, in that it is not ontologically defined as what we and the world are both styled of, but this flesh is only activated, found, in human to human expression, interaction, and is clearly not simply of the world, of 'objects', hence there is subject/object, which is surpassed in his 'erotic reduction'...
140414: this is a later addition: i have upped the rating to a five, put it on my favoritephilosophy shelf, because it seems most immediately practical, that it is useful in ethical behaviour, i have recommended this to another who was reading kierkegaard, then have used this to understand my own motives, my fears, my doubts, when someone expresses apparently honest love for me. this is not skepticism of the other but of myself. this is a most conscious attempt to use philosophy to know real life. maybe this is the wrong situation, the wrong measure, or simply too intellectual. i read sections of this book attempting to understand, but it is the question of healthy emotional development that is perhaps not fully explored, the how rather than the that, which is engaged in emotional response. the 'question of being' that so absorbs heidegger, is here the 'question of love'...
first review: this is a four, as the entire experience of reading wildly ranges between 3 and 5, though indeed perhaps this changes more reading of this philosopher, more reading of this text. for i really doubted certain assertions through laying groundwork, psychological philosophy or philosophical psychology... that can be expressed in his style of rhetorical questions, even as the range of erotic phenomenon goes from self to other to child to god, and is characterized by moving from erotic reduction- recalling phenomenological reduction- of the chain of questions, from 'does anyone out there love me?', to the reversed claim of advancing 'i love you' first, to 'here i am', to denying self-hatred by learning 'another loves me more than i hate myself', but these seem to me based on shifting, uncertain, grounds of the way he defines 'ego'- is it impossible as he claims to love oneself? is the flesh of the other only activated through love? is it so very unusual to precede the other in saying 'i love you?'...
but this concept of 'erotic reduction', this idea that it is not 'i think therefore i am' but ‘i love therefore i am', is greatly explored in describing the varied sorts of love we humans can create, can experience, can only in this way know infinity through our finite selves, even if i do not know if this psychic exchange or advance is truly so independent of any 'economy' or transcends and/or ignores 'reason', even whether there is ultimately the need for a third view to validate our love, a child borne of love, a god who insists in loving us, but his exploration, his movement, from love to fidelity, of how it is always the lover and not the beloved who gains the most existentially, blindly, completely, suffering- this stuff is great. this makes the act of love, the advance, transcend all reciprocity and reason, all infidelity or lying, this is the way some of us love to believe love is the final, the ultimate, the eternal or infinite gift, we humans may know...
so do not be frustrated by the first fifty or sixty pages, do not worry that your answers conflict with his rhetorical questions, it does get better, or at least more understandable. this is an 'application' of phenomenology, that best works if you have read a few phenomenological philosophers, this is the style i like to think, this is encouraging me to think, this ends on a high point, even if i do not see it or just do not find it necessarily leading to belief in god... well yes we would all like to be affirmed, erotically assured, in our lives, but i think most of us sort of muddle through without the low points of hatred of one to another, of one to oneself, of all to all- or the high points of being because we love, are loved, exist eternally in love... i think we are all, usually, somewhere between these extremes...
final note: i suggest the use of 'flesh' in Marion's work is very different from Merleau-Ponty, in that it is not ontologically defined as what we and the world are both styled of, but this flesh is only activated, found, in human to human expression, interaction, and is clearly not simply of the world, of 'objects', hence there is subject/object, which is surpassed in his 'erotic reduction'...
Read
October 10, 2016لم انهيه ، الكتاب وضعته المنظمة تحت بند علوم انسانية واجتماعية وأجد نفسي بعد مقدمة طويلة جميلة اخوض حتى اذني في الفلسفة مع انها ليست شديدة التركيز وان كانت مثيرة للملل ..
August 30, 2015
Probably the hardest to read book about a simple fact in the history of literature. You can't be unless you love. I love, therefore I am. A very rich book. Hard. But rich.
Want to read
November 16, 2008St John the Theologian tells us -- twice in the fourth chapter of his first epistle (verses 8 and 16) that 'God is love.' Not 'God is loving,' nor 'God loves.' No, God simply is love. So it shouldn't be surprising if a priest or theologian says the same thing. But the most splendid explication of this from a philosophical perspective has recently been published -- Jean-Luc Marion's The Erotic Phenomenon (University of Chicago Press, 2007).
Marion is a Roman Catholic layman and arguably the leading philosopher in France today. Although he has written on a number of philosophical topics, including his important work on Descartes, he is best known in theological circles for his God Without Being: Hors-Texte (University of Chicago Press, 1995). In that work he argued that most philosophical and even theological discourse about God is irredeemably metaphysical, i.e., it speaks of God in the language of 'being.' As a result, much discourse about God is guilty of 'conceptual idolatry.' The proper name for God, Marion argues, is Love. His affinity to the apophatic tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy was immediately apparent upon reading his book, and he is, in my opinion, the most important living philosopher and the one whose work is most congruent with the Orthodox worldview.
Now, more than a decade later, Marion returns to his theme in an extended philosophical reflection upon and account of love in many forms -- but all, at root, as having to do with God. While the book is not a light read, it is a rewarding one, and I believe it is a timely one for Christians. As a reviewer for Le Monde wrote, 'In attempting to place love at the center of things, Jean-Luc Marion wishes to escape the reign of heartless reason.' While I don't have the time or space here to reprise the contested nature of reason today, particularly religious reason, I do want to give you a sample of Marion's work. Here is the better part of the work's last two paragraphs.
'When God loves (and indeed he never ceases to love), he simply loves infinitely better than we do. He loves to perfection, without a fault, without an error, from beginning to end. He loves first and last. He loves like no one else. In the end, I not only discover that another was loving me before I loved, and thus that this other already played the lover before me (§41), but above all I discover that this first lover, from the very beginning, is named God. God's highest transcendence, the only one that does not dishonor him, belongs not to power, not to wisdom, not even to infinity, but to love. For love alone is enough to put all infinity, all wisdom, and all power to work.
'God precedes and transcends us, but first and above all in the fact that he loves us infinitely better than we love, and than we love him. God surpasses us as the best lover.'
Marion is a Roman Catholic layman and arguably the leading philosopher in France today. Although he has written on a number of philosophical topics, including his important work on Descartes, he is best known in theological circles for his God Without Being: Hors-Texte (University of Chicago Press, 1995). In that work he argued that most philosophical and even theological discourse about God is irredeemably metaphysical, i.e., it speaks of God in the language of 'being.' As a result, much discourse about God is guilty of 'conceptual idolatry.' The proper name for God, Marion argues, is Love. His affinity to the apophatic tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy was immediately apparent upon reading his book, and he is, in my opinion, the most important living philosopher and the one whose work is most congruent with the Orthodox worldview.
Now, more than a decade later, Marion returns to his theme in an extended philosophical reflection upon and account of love in many forms -- but all, at root, as having to do with God. While the book is not a light read, it is a rewarding one, and I believe it is a timely one for Christians. As a reviewer for Le Monde wrote, 'In attempting to place love at the center of things, Jean-Luc Marion wishes to escape the reign of heartless reason.' While I don't have the time or space here to reprise the contested nature of reason today, particularly religious reason, I do want to give you a sample of Marion's work. Here is the better part of the work's last two paragraphs.
'When God loves (and indeed he never ceases to love), he simply loves infinitely better than we do. He loves to perfection, without a fault, without an error, from beginning to end. He loves first and last. He loves like no one else. In the end, I not only discover that another was loving me before I loved, and thus that this other already played the lover before me (§41), but above all I discover that this first lover, from the very beginning, is named God. God's highest transcendence, the only one that does not dishonor him, belongs not to power, not to wisdom, not even to infinity, but to love. For love alone is enough to put all infinity, all wisdom, and all power to work.
'God precedes and transcends us, but first and above all in the fact that he loves us infinitely better than we love, and than we love him. God surpasses us as the best lover.'
August 9, 2007
Jean-Luc Marion's new book "The Erotic Phenomenon" is not a phenomenology of human sexuality. The connotations to the translated title may be very misleading for the American audience. Readers should be aware of this.
At the University of Chicago, I was fortunate enough to hear Marion speak upon the topic of his new book. He argues that love cannot be explained with a metaphysics, therefore he pursues it phenomenologically. He lays out a wonderfully crafted juxtaposition on various accounts of love (e.g. augustine, hegel, keirkegaard, et al.) He claims that love is a defining characteristic of humanity. He refurbishes Descartes' famous "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am) into his own "Amo ergo sum" (I love therefore I am).
At the University of Chicago, I was fortunate enough to hear Marion speak upon the topic of his new book. He argues that love cannot be explained with a metaphysics, therefore he pursues it phenomenologically. He lays out a wonderfully crafted juxtaposition on various accounts of love (e.g. augustine, hegel, keirkegaard, et al.) He claims that love is a defining characteristic of humanity. He refurbishes Descartes' famous "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am) into his own "Amo ergo sum" (I love therefore I am).
September 16, 2018
"Γίνομαι ο εαυτός μου και με αναγνωρίζω στη μοναδικότητά μου όταν ανακαλύπτω και παραδέχομαι επιτέλους ποιον επιθυμώ. Αυτός και μόνο μου φανερώνει το πιο μυστικό μου κέντρο-αυτό που μου έλειπε και μου λείπει ακόμα, αυτό του οποίου η φωτεινή απουσία εστίαζε από μακρού τη σκοτεινή παρουσία μου στον εαυτό μου. Η επιθυμία μου μού λέει ποιος είμαι δείχνοντάς μου τι με ερεθίζει...τη στιγμή αυτή, ο άλλος μου γίνεται μια προσωπική υπόθεση και μου φαίνεται διαφορετικός από όλους τους άλλους, φυλαγμένος για μένα όπως εγώ γι' αυτόν. Με προορίζει για τον εαυτό του και με εξατομικεύει μέσω αυτού. Με αναθέτει στον εαυτό μου αναλαμβάνοντάς με. Αυτό που εξατομικεύει περαιτέρω τον εραστή είναι η αιωνιότητα ή, τουλάχιστον, η επιθυμία αιωνιότητας..."
April 7, 2015
لم أكمل الكتاب ..
تفاءلت بالكتاب بعد قراءة مقدمة المترجم الطويلة..
لكن أُصبت بالاحباط بعدما بدأت في متن الكتاب، ترجمة تعيسة جدا وتكاد تكون غير مفهومة في بعض الأجزاء :(
أستغرب هذه الترجمة السيئة من دار مثل المنظمة العربية للترجمة
تفاءلت بالكتاب بعد قراءة مقدمة المترجم الطويلة..
لكن أُصبت بالاحباط بعدما بدأت في متن الكتاب، ترجمة تعيسة جدا وتكاد تكون غير مفهومة في بعض الأجزاء :(
أستغرب هذه الترجمة السيئة من دار مثل المنظمة العربية للترجمة
tried-to-read
January 5, 2010Philosophy is hard.
June 17, 2016
مجنون وبائس
July 23, 2016
ترجمة بائسة جدا من يوسف تيبس من المنظمة العربية للترجمة
كانت مقدّمة المترجم، رغم ذلك، جميلة بل أكثر احتراماً للقارئ من كل ما تلاها
مؤسف
كانت مقدّمة المترجم، رغم ذلك، جميلة بل أكثر احتراماً للقارئ من كل ما تلاها
مؤسف
September 5, 2023
This is my favorite book. With Scripture as the sole exception, no other work has affected me quite this much and left such an impact upon me.
I doubt that I have the capacity to elaborate.
I doubt that I have the capacity to elaborate.
March 3, 2013
The first 60-70 pages or so of this book were torture, full of unjustified claims to 'obviousness' and circular arguments and such with no clear sense that there might eventually be a payoff. The ideological bias of his Christian thought is quite clear throughout the book, which is at times not much more than a thinly veiled attempt to offer a rationale for the dogma of his Church. That would be fine if the book wasn't presented as pure philosophy. Church dogma may be divinely inspired, mabye even 'true', but philosophy it isn't.
Eventually, however, some interesting ideas do start to take shape. They are still occassionally undermined by the ideological influence, but there is clearly some meat to his ideas, even some moving, poetic moments, though even these moments sometimes threaten to dissipate into sentimentality. I kept thinking while reading that he might have achieved more success if he had written it as poetry, condensing it from 222 pages into something closer to 10. In the end, I can't say that it was worth the considerable effort it took to sort out the meaningful from the meaningless.
Eventually, however, some interesting ideas do start to take shape. They are still occassionally undermined by the ideological influence, but there is clearly some meat to his ideas, even some moving, poetic moments, though even these moments sometimes threaten to dissipate into sentimentality. I kept thinking while reading that he might have achieved more success if he had written it as poetry, condensing it from 222 pages into something closer to 10. In the end, I can't say that it was worth the considerable effort it took to sort out the meaningful from the meaningless.
August 18, 2017
هذا الكتاب أجهدني وأخذ مني وقتًا طويلًا جدًا ,هذا الكتاب لا يريد منك أن تقرأه كشرح حالة او ظاهرة
يريدك أن تقرأه كسمفونية مكتوبة , كنت أقرأ الصفحة
و أنتظر بعدها أتأمل فيما قرأت ممكن أن أقرأ صفحة
واحدة طوال اليوم اذا كانت دسمة
هذا الكتاب سيكمله من يمتلك الصبر أو كل ما يريد هو
قراءة الحب بشكل مختلف.
كان جميل ..جميل جدا
..
تمت
يريدك أن تقرأه كسمفونية مكتوبة , كنت أقرأ الصفحة
و أنتظر بعدها أتأمل فيما قرأت ممكن أن أقرأ صفحة
واحدة طوال اليوم اذا كانت دسمة
هذا الكتاب سيكمله من يمتلك الصبر أو كل ما يريد هو
قراءة الحب بشكل مختلف.
كان جميل ..جميل جدا
..
تمت
December 21, 2009
Wow! Has anyone noticed how indebted Marion's discussion of the "flesh" in the second half of the book is to Michel Henry's notion of flesh? It is wierd that Marion does not footnote Henry at least once!
December 2, 2016
لم أنهي الكتاب بسبب رداءة الترجمة
لكن مقدمة المترجم وما ألتقطته من بين السطور كان جيد جداً.
لكن مقدمة المترجم وما ألتقطته من بين السطور كان جيد جداً.
February 29, 2020
الترجمة رديئة .. !
حاولت و لكنني لم أفلح ...
قاومت و لكنني استسلمت ..
حاولت و لكنني لم أفلح ...
قاومت و لكنني استسلمت ..
January 28, 2022
Don't let the cover fool you into thinking this is a Harlequin Romance Novel. This might be the most dense philosophy/theology book I've ever read . . . and I have a Bachelor's in philosophy, a MAR in the philosophy of religion and philosophical theology, and a PhD in systematic theology.
Marion argues that it is not being that is the primary category of our existence, but love, and that love is an action, and that only in loving can we understand ourselves (and receive ourselves), that love is by definition eternal, and that God loves us first and thus would have us all become better lovers.
I'm not going to write a dense explanation, so that single sentence summary will have to do. There's so much more to it, though. So much more. What a great book. Very thought-provoking.
Marion argues that it is not being that is the primary category of our existence, but love, and that love is an action, and that only in loving can we understand ourselves (and receive ourselves), that love is by definition eternal, and that God loves us first and thus would have us all become better lovers.
I'm not going to write a dense explanation, so that single sentence summary will have to do. There's so much more to it, though. So much more. What a great book. Very thought-provoking.
May 27, 2018
What an excellent work. It is incredibly rich, delving into jealousy, suspension, self-love and all the failures and difficulties of love, and on the other side hopeful with its examination of faithfulness, the oath, the third party and other rich concepts. Its also incredibly difficult....but worth it.
November 5, 2019
This book has had a significant impact on how I view and live my life. If you do not have a strong understanding of continental philosophy, I would suggest waiting until you do. At a minimum, I suggest Heidegger’s “Being and Time” and “on works of art”, Derrida’s “Of Grammatology”, Levinas’ “Ethics and Infinity”, and Marion’s previous works.
April 13, 2021
We will need to perform the "reduction" in the Husserlian sense in order to grasp how the author presents phenomena for analysis.
1. Epistemic reduction: the cogito is on its own, ipseity
2. Ontological reduction: the cogito discovers its existence
3. Erotic reduction: the cogito recognizes its desirability
Remember, "the greater the reduction, the greater the givenness" is our principle.
1. Epistemic reduction: the cogito is on its own, ipseity
2. Ontological reduction: the cogito discovers its existence
3. Erotic reduction: the cogito recognizes its desirability
Remember, "the greater the reduction, the greater the givenness" is our principle.
January 17, 2018
dense but thought-provoking
January 13, 2020
لم استطع ان انهيه فهو رتيب الا بعض الشئ ولكن لمحبي الفلسفة فهذا سيكون بمثابة الملاذ له
Read
July 16, 2020كتاب معقّد وترجمة سيئة
September 19, 2022
He kind of hand waves psychoanalysis away in the first chapter so it’s 2 stars from me.
April 14, 2025
tema les bêtes de phrase (pas hyper convaincue par tout mais pour de la phénoménologie ça pete de fou)
October 6, 2025
It’s a hard read, but taught me so much about loving another soul
February 24, 2016
ظاهرة الحب
أن الحب سلوك ثقافي قبل أن يكون شعوراً عاطفياً باطنياً وفردياً ، إننا نتعلم الحب قبل أن نحب ، يتشكل لدينا تصور فكري عبر التنشئة الاجتماعية عن الحب قبل أن يتحول إلى عمق وجودي ، إننا نفكر فيه ونتأمله قبل أن نعيشه . ودليل ذلك أن الحب قبل القرن العشرين كان عقلياً غايته الفضيلة والحكمة ، وهو بذلك يناقض الحب العاطفي الذي غايته الجسد فقط ، لذا مثل هذا النوع مسكوت الحضارات ، باستثناء بعض الحالات القليلة . وعندما دعت فلسفة الأنوار إلى تحرير العقول من جميع أشكال الوصاية في جميع مجالات الوجود البشري ، أدى ذلك إلى تحرير الجسد نفسه بكل ما يحمله من مشاعر وانفعالات وغرائز . أما في القرن التاسع عشر ، خاصة بعد النصف الأول منه بدأت الدعوة إلى تحرير الشعور من قبل الفلسفة الظاهراتية (إدموند هوسرل) ، وتحرير الجسد مع (موريس ميرلوبونتي) ؛ الأمر الذي فسح المجال أمام كل أنواع التعابير الجسدية كالرقص والموضة والرياضة والإشهار إلى حد تحولت معه إلى أنساق تتسم بالتنظيم الذاتي وتحقيق الأغراض الخاصة ، أي اللذة . هكذا تحول الحب إلى جنس ؛ ومن ثم ليس لهذه الأنساق غاية أخرى غير تحرير الجسد كي يكشف عن كل طاقاته اللذوية . ليس الرقص تناغم حركات وتناسق تعابير من أجل تبليغ رسالة تستجيب للذوق الجمالي وتحقق متعة فنية فحسب ، بل حركات موضوعية غايتها تحريك الغريزة ودغدغة المشاعر وإشعال فتيل الرغبة ، لذا أصبح من الضروري مزج الأغاني بالرقص ، فالعين تسمع أحياناً قبل الأذن كما هو حال الأغاني المصورة (الفيديو كليب) . إن العين سيدة الحواس وأكثرها إدراكاً ، فإذا اشتغلت غلبت على غيرها ، فلا السمع يقدر حينها على الإنصات وتذوق جمال الأغنية التي يفترض أن تسمع ونحن نراها .
أما الموضة فأغلب اللواتي يمارسنها ملكات جمال أو عارضات ، بمعنى أن الجسد يُجمل اللباس وليس العكس ، وتاريخ اللباس يشهد على ذلك . يخضع فعل تعرية الجسد ، سواء تعلق الأمر باليدين أم بالساقين أم بالظهر أم بالجسد برمته ، إلى لعبة الضوء والظل ، ذلك أن منطقة العراء هي التي تجمل اللباس . ((حاول كرستيان ديور ابتكار موجة موضة تقوم على قاعدة إظهار المناطق القبيحة في جسد المرأة ، ويقصد بذلك القفا والساق ، فيحولهما إلى أكثر المناطق إثارة ، وهو ما تم فعلاً عندما صمم ألبسة نسائية بلا ظهر ، وكذلك تنورات قصيرة)) . وطالما أن الرقص والموظة يتطلبان جسداً بمواصفات معينة ، فإنه يحتاج إلى الرياضة التي تعتمد على تمارين دقيقة وحميات صارمة ومضبوطة ، وهذه تعتمد علماً خاصاً بالتغذية وهكذا دوليك إلى أن نعود إلى الجسد من جديد . باختصار شديد : هذا زمن فرويد ، كل شيء فينا يحركه اللاشعور ، وهذا الأخير يستمد طاقته من الليبيدو ؛ لذا لم نعد نحب ، بل نمارس الحب ، أو الجنس صراحةً لا بمعنى الجماع وحده ، بل بمعنى تحقيق اللذة ، وإن كانت طرق الإشباع ملتوية .
وإذا كان هذا هو وضع الحب في الستينات فقد تمت بعد السبعينات العودة إلى الحب ، وإن صَعُبَ على الناس التخلص من الجسد . مما يعني أن الحب لم يتغير ، وحدها تشكلاته وملفوظاته تغيرت ، فإما أن يتبدل بحسب السياق الزمني أو النوع أو مراحل العمر . يعت��ر الحب المختلط القاعدة في العلاقات العاطفية ويكون بين المرأة والرجل (الفتى والفتاة) ، وقد يكون حباً عذرياً مثالياً ، أي شغفاً بلا وصال جسدي . وقد يكون حباً تهتكياً لذوياً غرضه الإباحة والإشباع الجسدي . فإذا خرج الحب عن العلاقة المختلطة اعتبر حباً شاذاً كالحب المثلي أو حب القاصرين والقاصرات .
أن الحب سلوك ثقافي قبل أن يكون شعوراً عاطفياً باطنياً وفردياً ، إننا نتعلم الحب قبل أن نحب ، يتشكل لدينا تصور فكري عبر التنشئة الاجتماعية عن الحب قبل أن يتحول إلى عمق وجودي ، إننا نفكر فيه ونتأمله قبل أن نعيشه . ودليل ذلك أن الحب قبل القرن العشرين كان عقلياً غايته الفضيلة والحكمة ، وهو بذلك يناقض الحب العاطفي الذي غايته الجسد فقط ، لذا مثل هذا النوع مسكوت الحضارات ، باستثناء بعض الحالات القليلة . وعندما دعت فلسفة الأنوار إلى تحرير العقول من جميع أشكال الوصاية في جميع مجالات الوجود البشري ، أدى ذلك إلى تحرير الجسد نفسه بكل ما يحمله من مشاعر وانفعالات وغرائز . أما في القرن التاسع عشر ، خاصة بعد النصف الأول منه بدأت الدعوة إلى تحرير الشعور من قبل الفلسفة الظاهراتية (إدموند هوسرل) ، وتحرير الجسد مع (موريس ميرلوبونتي) ؛ الأمر الذي فسح المجال أمام كل أنواع التعابير الجسدية كالرقص والموضة والرياضة والإشهار إلى حد تحولت معه إلى أنساق تتسم بالتنظيم الذاتي وتحقيق الأغراض الخاصة ، أي اللذة . هكذا تحول الحب إلى جنس ؛ ومن ثم ليس لهذه الأنساق غاية أخرى غير تحرير الجسد كي يكشف عن كل طاقاته اللذوية . ليس الرقص تناغم حركات وتناسق تعابير من أجل تبليغ رسالة تستجيب للذوق الجمالي وتحقق متعة فنية فحسب ، بل حركات موضوعية غايتها تحريك الغريزة ودغدغة المشاعر وإشعال فتيل الرغبة ، لذا أصبح من الضروري مزج الأغاني بالرقص ، فالعين تسمع أحياناً قبل الأذن كما هو حال الأغاني المصورة (الفيديو كليب) . إن العين سيدة الحواس وأكثرها إدراكاً ، فإذا اشتغلت غلبت على غيرها ، فلا السمع يقدر حينها على الإنصات وتذوق جمال الأغنية التي يفترض أن تسمع ونحن نراها .
أما الموضة فأغلب اللواتي يمارسنها ملكات جمال أو عارضات ، بمعنى أن الجسد يُجمل اللباس وليس العكس ، وتاريخ اللباس يشهد على ذلك . يخضع فعل تعرية الجسد ، سواء تعلق الأمر باليدين أم بالساقين أم بالظهر أم بالجسد برمته ، إلى لعبة الضوء والظل ، ذلك أن منطقة العراء هي التي تجمل اللباس . ((حاول كرستيان ديور ابتكار موجة موضة تقوم على قاعدة إظهار المناطق القبيحة في جسد المرأة ، ويقصد بذلك القفا والساق ، فيحولهما إلى أكثر المناطق إثارة ، وهو ما تم فعلاً عندما صمم ألبسة نسائية بلا ظهر ، وكذلك تنورات قصيرة)) . وطالما أن الرقص والموظة يتطلبان جسداً بمواصفات معينة ، فإنه يحتاج إلى الرياضة التي تعتمد على تمارين دقيقة وحميات صارمة ومضبوطة ، وهذه تعتمد علماً خاصاً بالتغذية وهكذا دوليك إلى أن نعود إلى الجسد من جديد . باختصار شديد : هذا زمن فرويد ، كل شيء فينا يحركه اللاشعور ، وهذا الأخير يستمد طاقته من الليبيدو ؛ لذا لم نعد نحب ، بل نمارس الحب ، أو الجنس صراحةً لا بمعنى الجماع وحده ، بل بمعنى تحقيق اللذة ، وإن كانت طرق الإشباع ملتوية .
وإذا كان هذا هو وضع الحب في الستينات فقد تمت بعد السبعينات العودة إلى الحب ، وإن صَعُبَ على الناس التخلص من الجسد . مما يعني أن الحب لم يتغير ، وحدها تشكلاته وملفوظاته تغيرت ، فإما أن يتبدل بحسب السياق الزمني أو النوع أو مراحل العمر . يعت��ر الحب المختلط القاعدة في العلاقات العاطفية ويكون بين المرأة والرجل (الفتى والفتاة) ، وقد يكون حباً عذرياً مثالياً ، أي شغفاً بلا وصال جسدي . وقد يكون حباً تهتكياً لذوياً غرضه الإباحة والإشباع الجسدي . فإذا خرج الحب عن العلاقة المختلطة اعتبر حباً شاذاً كالحب المثلي أو حب القاصرين والقاصرات .
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 9, 2016
Marion argues that using "am I?" as the originary philosophical question leads inevitably to a despairing cry of "what's the use?" The knowing subject is founded only on itself and thus cannot answer this question. Better to understand ourselves as primarily relational, asking the originary question "does anybody love me?" The erotic subject is not founded on itself only, but on the call "d'ailleurs" (from elsewhere) - the only way to avoid solipsistic despair.
So far, so excellent; but Marion's understanding of love is suuuuper heteronormative. His insistence on penetrating the flesh of the other is off-putting enough (§23), but it's his discussion of the child that sent me, raging, back to No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive.
For my money, Marion is generally the finest of the French phenomenological theologians, but this is definitely not my favorite of his works.
So far, so excellent; but Marion's understanding of love is suuuuper heteronormative. His insistence on penetrating the flesh of the other is off-putting enough (§23), but it's his discussion of the child that sent me, raging, back to No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive.
For my money, Marion is generally the finest of the French phenomenological theologians, but this is definitely not my favorite of his works.
April 10, 2017
Marion's treatment of the concepts of love and loving are well developed but can be confusing to those who do not appreciate the richness of philosophical expression and inquiry. 'Amo, ergo sum' has long been my personal philosophy of self. At first I thought it odd that I felt this way. As I continue reading Marion's work, I am happy to recognize that my depth of consciousness has roots beyond the catacombs of my own timeless spirit.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews