The Gap of Presence: Challenges in Describing Perceptual Phenomena

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found this to be an excellent contribution to scholarship and a worthy article for inclusion in this special issue. The strategy of reading Phenomenology of Perception in relation to the reception of it by Bréhier and others at the session on his work at the Société Française de Philosophie, and through his engagement with Husserl on temporality, looking back from his later work, is highly effective and contributes some very good points and original insights to scholarship.

 

I find myself largely convinced of the position, and absolutely convinced that it is an important and plausible point to make re PhP. Admittedly, I am biased, since I do think time is a key underlying theme and problem of PhP and all his subsequent work as well, in agreement with, e.g., Barbaras’s identification of time as key theme, in his groundbreaking ontology book.

 

I do think there is some room for improvement, e.g., clarifying what is meant by “transposing,” the sense of “infinite” on line 498. Also, I think corps propre is best left untranslated, after an initial introduction of possible translations, I don’t think the translations here quite work and Landes gives a nice discussion of the challenges in his recent translation; for an article for this issue, I think it could be left untranslated for the audience.

 

The one other substantive comment is noting the rather limited set of scholarship quoted, there is lots more in French and English, but in this case I think the article is robust and precise enough to work as it is and I note, on the other hand, that the article is highly valuable in introduced scholars working in Portuguese that are likely not well known to English speaking scholars, but part of the constellation of scholarship on Merleau-Ponty in Portugal and via Brazil, other Latin American countries, so I think this is a valuable contribution to an issue on re-reading PhP.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is very clear and easy to follow and is well presented.

I am guessing the author is writing in a third or fourth language, there are some smaller edits and corrections to be made to improve the writing at points, as well as a need to add italics to book titles and to quotation or use of words in French or English.

 

As well, there are a few places where I suggest reconsidering word choices in the English, for reasons of idiom and diction—and one place where I wonder if the chosen word “presentation” fits with the author’s point, line 392.

 

I am attaching a PDF of my notations. Highlighted passages in yellow or with comments are points that I thought were philosophical important or where some philosophical questions could be address.

 

Text highlighted in red is for editorial comments, underlined text indicates missing italics.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your feedback. It is greatly appreciated and a pleasure for me to benefit from your careful reading and insights.

I have incorporated all suggestions, which undoubtedly enhance the text. Regarding the translation of Landes, indeed "one’s own body" is an excellent choice. However, I will follow your suggestion and retain the term untranslated, as this edition focuses on Merleau-Ponty's work and its readers.

Regarding the two quotes from Php, 485 (original text), while they may appear similar, they are actually found in different parts of the same page.
Also some expressions didn't fit well in the language, so I changed them improve the text (such as "transposing" and "two sides of the same coin")

Please feel free to write if you have any further questions or suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the article The Gap of Presence: Challenges in Describing Perceptual Phenomena the ideas of M. Merleau-Ponty are revealed. The notion of transcendence based in bodily experience, and the challenge is to develop a notion of logos. This logos of perception can only be achieved through temporality. It is because "nothing exists and that everything is temporalized" that things and the subjectivity that apprehends them manifest as temporal moments. To do this, the author considers such concepts as “field of presence” and “presentation” that focus on the body. Through motility and perception, precisely, the proper body as a perceptive subject gathers meaning already motivated by passive syntheses in the environment. The world is a positive transcendence by the bodily subject. Therefore, the intentionalization of lived forms (gestalten) coexists here with a gestaltization of intentionality. Despite the high appreciation of the work done, it should be noted that in order to improve the quality of the article, it is desirable to make the conclusions to it more clear and definite so that the logic of the author’s research is visible in them.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your feedback. It is greatly appreciated and a pleasure for me to benefit from your careful reading and insights.

I changed some translations and terms that don't work well in English. As you suggested in your assessment, I added and revised some passages of the conclusion to make it clearer. 

Please feel free to write if you have any further questions or suggestions.

Best regards