Actually, I don't think we can separate MP's ontology from his phenomenology. People often take ontology to mean something like "what _is_ in itself"; i.e. independent of human experience (in which case the ontological claim "there is no thing in itself" would be super-radical), but I would say MP's position is that "what is" just doesn't make sense without a perspective. The thing is always clothed, not because we are limited in our capacity to know it, but because the 'clothing' is part of what makes a thing a thing. Ontology, although not reducible to or the same as it, begins with experience. I'm not aware of MP ever calling his philosophy metaphysics (with the caveat that there is so much of MP's works that I haven't read), but I, for my part, would say it isn't metaphysical at all. Metaphysics, as I define it at least, goes beyond experience to try to piece together an account of how perspective/experience arises (evolves) in the first place. The primordial/fundamental nature of reality that metaphysics aims at, while it won't be a (ontological) thing, can't be nothing at all (as in void/pure emptiness)... and this is where Bergson takes over for me.

@@absurdbeing2219 Sure, the clothing is part of what makes a thing a thing. Are you saying MP essentially wants to reduce things to their phenomenality, or experience OF things?

@@absurdbeing2219 As you define it, metaphysics goes beyond experience, in order to account for the possibility of experience? This was certainly the view of Kant, and most metaphysicians before him as well, and therefore they necessarily sought to proceed only from inferences based upon knowledge (universal principles) a priori. After all, how could one ever constitute a solid metaphysics -- as the science of that which lies beyond the possibility of all experience -- by applying principles which must first themselves be drawn from experience!? They closed off the principle source of all knowledge (experience) by, perhaps unwittingly, assuming, from the outset, that metaphysics and knowledge a priori were one and the same. But aside from quoting some sorry explanation about the etymology of the word "metaphysics", they offered no proof that the material needed for solutions to the questions of metaphysics cannot be contained in the world itself. If metaphysics is to be successful at all, it must (according to the logic above) not aim to pass beyond the world of experience, but understand it more and more completely.

@@Haveuseenmyjetpack Interesting. I think there is a balance to strike here. If MP is reducing things to their phenomenality, then isn't ontology just collapsing into phenomenology? There has to be more to ontology than just our experience of things, or we haven't gone beyond Husserl. This 'more' is, I think, "flesh" as the milieu which is, by definition, not a part of experience; a passive, _invisible_ potentiality standing over against the active, _visible_ thing of our experiences.

@@absurdbeing2219 for Husserl this is “pure passivity”, “primal passivity”. Of course, it was Husserl who originally explored the topic of touching one’s hand etc

Thanks for that kind words, Daniel. I really appreciate that. Only three more videos to go...

Check out Barbaras' The Being of the Phenomenon: Merleau-Ponty's Ontology as well. Might be helpful. What are you planning to write about?

That's an interesting perspective. I must admit I didn't think of Laozi when I was preparing this video.

@@absurdbeing2219 Thank you. I‘m interested in the convergence in media and progress philosophy, and found this video and thought that today. I hope my opinion can serve as a different from Europeans’ view for a favor to you.

Nice. Thanks a lot for the comment. Very glad I could help clarify some of this very unclear book!

@@kadaganchivinod8003 Suny Press, Joan Stambaugh.

@@ParryStudios Hehe, thanks. Are you sure you sent the new cover to me? I didn't receive an email.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Always pleased to see new people getting into Bergson's philosophy!

Or was it in Essay On the Freedom of the Will?

70 pages a day. That is quick. Never fear. I have all your MP needs right here!

Thanks a lot! Glad you like it.

Congratulations. It's a big project for sure, but rewarding when you get to the end. It's my pleasure to have been able to join you on the trip, vicariously though it might have been, and I look forward to seeing you in the _VI_ series!

Great question. I did form my metaphysics prior to reading _D&R,_ so I ended up approaching it from a slightly different direction than Deleuze. Having said that, I definitely don't reject Deleuze's metaphysics. On the contrary, I find his ideas (and his notion of metaphysical "Ideas") very compelling. However, I feel Deleuze is somewhat more descriptive than explanatory. His descriptions of metaphysical Ideas (undetermined, determinable, determinate, actualisation, incarnation, intensity, etc.) are elucidating and clarifying, but not, I would say, particularly _explanatory,_ at least not in the way that I have approached metaphysics. I don't think what I've written disagrees with anything Deleuze says, I just come at it from a different angle. Of course, you can be the ultimate judge of that...

Brilliant! I love getting comments like this. You're most welcome.

Some literary/philosophy multi-tasking - I like it!

Thanks Norma. I hope you like it.

Thank you!

Thanks a lot. And you're welcome!

That's way, way down the list!! Although, there might (fingers crossed) be an interview discussing it at some point.

Thank you!

Thank you! I hope you enjoy it.

@@absurdbeing2219 I’ve been diving into the beginnings of it for the past ten minutes and I’m already loving it. Fantastic work.

Thanks a lot. I hope you enjoy the rest of the series.

Thank you so much!

"plowing through all the religious mumbo jumbo" - when I read that, I thought maybe I was accidentally reading an old comment I had written... I haven't read Tillich, so unfortunately I don't have an opinion on him yet, but I will definitely add him to the reading list after your remarks (despite Britannica.com describing him as "God-intoxicated"!!). Is _Systematic Theology_ the book to read? I am so pleased to hear that I turned you on to Bergson. He is so underrated, it's almost a crime. And how could I not have a great weekend after hearing that you find yourself coming back to my channel for more (even more of the same!)? Thank _you_ for the kind words!

Thanks. Yes, ultimately, Levinas is too religious for my tastes, but he nevertheless does have some very insightful ideas.

There's plenty of Freudian acknowledgement and discussion coming as we move through the first half of _D&R._

Yes, I have heard that, too. The reticence to acknowledge Heidegger given the Nazi connection certainly seems plausible.

Awesome! Thanks for sharing that great quote.

Welcome (Cicero, is it?). Glad to introduce you to NZ English. UK English, but with a twist! Always nice to meet a fellow Bergson/MP enthusiast. I hope you enjoy the rest of the series!

Thanks so much.