In this paper, I consider the significance and limitations of Merleau-Ponty’s literary philosophy. In his philosophical discussions taken as a whole, the subject of literature cannot be ignored. In his early writings, literature, as one of the “expressions,” that is, something that tries to convey something to others, shows the true nature of language. Merleau-Ponty claimed that what is essential for “expression” is to have both the universality to be understood by others and the uniqueness to impress. In that respect, literature, like painting, was regarded as an “expression” and their universality and uniqueness caused him to think about history. This is one significant aspect of literature. Merleau-Ponty also points out a difference between literature and painting: literature needs history, but painting does not require it. Merleau-Ponty believed literature could not be understood without language in the universality of history, or the “Langue.” On the other hand, he emphasized the “Parole” aspect of language, that is, individual use, which creates uniqueness. Therefore, for him, literature does not fully emphasize the aspect of originality compared to painting, and this property of literature led to Merleau- Ponty’s reduced discussion of literature in later thought.
