Has anybody else here read "The Phenomenology of Perception"

There's a small book called Causeries (= "small talks"), which is the text Merleau-Ponty read on the radio during some program, and it's the best "introduction" to his thought, by himself. You can find it online for free, the english translation is called "The world of perception".

Apart from that, some texts in other books (like "Signs") are easier to read than the Phenomenology of perception, but th'yre generally focused on a specific subject.

Er.. what are you having trouble with? It's pretty simple to be honest and I'm having trouble seeing how his examples could be considered opaque.

To be fair, he is the most dense of the phenomenologists.

>>9094452
I read it in my class for history of modern philosophy, after reading Husserl and Heidegger. I can see it being challenging if you have no background in philosophy whatsoever, but otherwise, nah.

>>9094452
rationalist cannot be phenomenogist. if you want to be a good phenomenogist, you meditate.

I've read 'The Prose of the World' and absolutely hated it. French philosophy after Descartes is mostly a meme. Merleu-Ponty looks to me like someone who just sits in front of a blank page with and says to himself 'ok, today I am going to write philosophy!' and starts writing shit with absolutely no structure and zero arguments.
Good philosophy is either Greek or German.

>>9094452
Descombes has a really good commentary on Ponty's philosophy in his work Le meme et l'autre. (yeah I know hahaha meme)

>>9094657
please don't tell me you pronounce them the same?

même, the french is "mem", and Dawkins' "meme" is "meem"

>>9094669
Both should be pronounced May-may

>>9094672
Well, not everyone has the phenomenological acumen to transcend Hume's is/ought problem, [s4s].

>>9094669
>Dawkins' "meme" is "meem"
false

>>9095138
One minute in
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRggkkAIC5A
>there are people on /lit/ who aren't even monolingual
it was bad enough when people could lie about French.

I think the problem is some combination of the translation, the context, and the continental style. I read a shitload of analytic philosophy and it's just fine. But the most similar thing I've ever read to M-P would have to be Descartes in my first year. He does this thing where he decides he's going to invent a new meaning for a word (or several at the same time) and doesn't tell you he's doing it, and then just hits you with a paragraph from his newly-invented constantly-evolving secret code language. Like reading the (second?) chapter and he starts discussing horizons in the perceived object and makes no effort to clue you in to what that actually means

I'm going to check out "The World of Perception" though, so thanks for the tip :)

>>9095829
I dunno, dude, MP really reminds me of Witty. The whole LOOK AT THE RED section is really like the whole WHICH HAND bit of On Certainty. I found it kind of funny to be honest. Does the version you're reading have diagrams? There should be diagrams by where you're at, iirc. That might be fucking you up if he's talking about a diagram that isn't there. Which translation?