Wednesday, January 24, 2007

I feel and I think

Marion argues that the I feel is more originary than the I think (Being Given, pp. 249-251) and in this way his idea of the witness to the paradox will explain the givenness of the subject–not the I think, but rather the givenness of the me, the I feel, for this splitting of the subject brings Marion to say that "what exercizes the transcendental function can never and should never give itself" (p. 256). Marion's reasoning on this point is not perfectly clear to me. It is clear to me that for Marion the problem with the I think is that it forces the subject to appear in the same mode as objects. For me the problem with Marion's solution is to imagine a subject whose givenness flows from phenomenality without there already having been given a subject capable of experience.

Labels: , ,

posted by Fido the Yak at 10:56 AM.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think" one of the problems is that the so called transcendental funtion is completely 'impersonal' - like no really cadacualtec person you've ever met.
And all these transcendental analyses ultimately copy from the empirical (deleuze)....the subject is given even if it's an 'I feel'
who feels?
but who knows? philosophy might be an endless digression - (deleuze/guattari) in What is Philosophy?

January 25, 2007 12:57 AM  
Blogger Fido the Yak said...

Hi, Paul. That's an interesting comment about the impersonality of the transcendental function.

By my reading Marion holds that the subject is only given as an I feel, or better, an "I felt that." I think he would resist Deleuze--but I won't. I'll be starting on Difference and Repetition this weekend.

I picked up Cavarero's For More than One Voice yesterday. It appeals to me because she's a more rigorous Arendtian than Arendt, and the topic of the voice interests me.

January 25, 2007 9:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, Difference and Repetition, good luck!
It's apparently the equivalent of a ph.d thesis written when d. was in mid life. This was much more common at that time.
D. saw it as his first attempt at doing philosophy on his own - rather than writing commentaries on other thinkers (from Hume to Kant to Foucault - by way of Bergson). And then he met Guattauri...
good luck

January 25, 2007 11:13 PM  
Blogger Fido the Yak said...

You're scaring me. I'm a little nervous about blogging Difference and Repetition because so many others have already analyzed Deleuze six ways to Sunday. My limitations as a reader will be on full display. Oh well.

January 26, 2007 9:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't be shy!
there is one recent bk length commentary on DR which received some good reviews (can't remember the author - I must check it out).

Just been alerted to a massive Deleuze conf. in S. Carolina(!) in April - just about everyone who's anyone is going - except yours truly...
As I've already said DR is not easy for me - and that's an understatement (not enough hist of phil)
I think it will be great to see what you find of interest there - I'm sure your inquiring mind will find a few titbits.

January 26, 2007 11:29 AM  

Post a Comment

Fido the Yak front page