Dans cet article, nous nous proposons d’aborder quelques pistes permettant d’éclairer la portée phénoménologique de l’acosmisme chez Michel Henry, telle qu’elle se déploie jusque dans son dernier ouvrage, Paroles du Christ. La question du monde y apparaît en effet particulièrement délicate, en raison de l’ambivalence qu’elle revêt dans la pensée henrienne ; selon la duplicité de l’apparaître, le monde se trouve, d’un côté, relégué au rang de l’irréalité, tandis que, de l’autre, il se laisse entrevoir comme porteur d’une certaine signification phénoménologique, en tant que monde de la vie. Repenser la signification ultime du monde à l’horizon de la pensée tardive de Henry constitue ainsi une tâche nécessaire. Nous montrons d’abord comment la duplicité de l’apparaître fonde une réalité acosmique où seule la vie constitue le domaine originaire de la vérité. Nous examinons ensuite la résonance de cette opposition dans la théologie chrétienne, où le Christ, identifié au Verbe et à la Vie absolue, révèle une existence irréductible au monde. Nous en venons alors à repenser l’homme comme ipse homo invisible, engendré dans l’Ipséité originelle de la chair, ce qui permet d’élucider le sens de l’Incarnation comme auto-révélation immanente de la vie plutôt que comme extériorisation dans le monde. Nous abordons enfin la question du salut, entendu chez Henry non comme un accomplissement conscient, mais comme un retour de l’existence humaine vers son fondement immanent. Nous concluons ainsi que l’acosmisme henrien n’implique pas un rejet du monde, mais appelle à repenser sa signification à partir de l’immanence affective irréductible qui lie la vie et l’existence humaine incarnée.

抄録全体を表示

  Michel Henry (1922–2002) developed his phenomenology under the decisive influence of Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), yet his theory of community ultimately diverges in fundamental ways from Husserl’s. This paper seeks to clarify the turning point between their respective accounts by focusing primarily on Henry’s Phénoménologie matérielle (1990) and Husserl’s Cartesianische Meditationen (1931). First, chapter 1 identifies a shared foundation underlying both theories of community: namely, the claim that affections and objects play a crucial role in the experience of the other, and that diverse forms of community are constituted within this experience. Then, chapter 2 explains why their theories ultimately move in different directions, tracing this divergence to their respective approaches to the problem of experiencing others. Whereas Husserl maintains that the alterity of the other is given only appresentatively—that is, not in an originary (originär) manner—Henry attempts to access my life with the other by returning to the originary (originel) ego. Finally, chapter 3 highlights the contrast between the two theories through the concept of “expression. ” Husserl argues that the external dimension of experience has no direct or necessary connection to the internal dimension. Henry, by contrast, emphasizes that inner life—such as affectivity—bears a necessary and intrinsic relation to its artistic expression, drawing in part on Wassily Kandinsky’s theory of painting. This fundamental difference is reflected in their respective attitudes toward expressionism.

抄録全体を表示

  The present study seeks to situate Michel Henry’s phenomenology of life within the history of phenomenology by comparing and examining the concepts of “culture” and its “propagation” and “transmission” in the works of Edmund Husserl and Michel Henry. Specifically, it delineates the structural affinities and fundamental divergences between Henry’s Barbarism and Husserl’s Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. The proximity between these two thinkers lies in their shared observation that the “propagation” of culture had fallen into a state of dysfunction by the 20th century. Both philosophers trace the ultimate cause of this failure back to the “mathematization of nature” initiated by Galileo. Despite sharing this foundational thesis, their respective definitions of “culture” and its constitutive content differ significantly. This discrepancy stems from their differing understandings of truth. While the concept of truth as a veridical description of the “world” has long guided the Western philosophical tradition (including Husserl) and the culture built upon it, Henry asserts that the “culture of life” is formed by the truth of subjectivity—the immanent reality inherent in “self-affection” and its “pathos”. By clarifying their respective concepts of “crisis” and “barbarism”, this study illuminates the fifty-year historical and philosophical gap between the two works. Ultimately, this research not only highlights how Henry’s phenomenology redefines culture and its propagation by shifting the focus from a world-oriented conception of truth to the radical immanence of life itself, but also offers a preliminary evaluation of the implications of this conception in the context of the end of both philosophy and its meta-narratives.

抄録全体を表示

  This paper reassesses Michel Henry’s critique of classical phenomenology by re-situating it within the internal development of Husserl’s analyses of time-consciousness. Henry argues that Husserl’s account of inner time-consciousness deprives impression of its own self-givenness by subordinating it to an ecstatically mediated structure, thereby missing the “invisible” mode of appearing that characterizes life’s radical immanence. While acknowledging the philosophical force of Henry’s demand for a non-objectifying self-appearance, the paper contends that Henry underestimates resources already operative in Husserl’s early lectures and further transformed in the later manuscript work.
  Reading Husserl’s time-analyses from the early framework through the middle and late manuscript strata, the paper highlights a sustained movement toward a more radical reduction and toward motifs such as pre-reflective self-awareness, self-affection, and the “living present. ” This trajectory complicates Henry’s sweeping negative verdict on Husserl’s manuscripts. More precisely, it suggests that Henry’s verdict is driven less by merely archival contingencies than by his principled commitment to purifying self-appearance as non-horizonal and non-ecstatic—an ambition articulated in his opposition between hyletic phenomenology and material phenomenology and in his insistence on the primacy of impressional self-givenness.
  The concluding section proposes that Husserl’s later analyses retain a crucial continuity between self-appearance and world-experience, including the transition toward reflective thematization, thereby offering a way to articulate a duality of modes of appearing without collapsing one into the other. In this sense, Husserl’s later work can be read as preserving an opening for the invisible within phenomenality, while resisting the costs of isolating immanence from the world.

抄録全体を表示