Merleau–Ponty on the Body

TLDR

Merleau‑Ponty distinguishes two ways of visually apprehending an object: a cognitive intentional relation and a bodily motor intentional relation. The paper examines phenomenological, conceptual, and cognitive neuroscience evidence to clarify and defend the distinction between intentional and motor intentional activity, arguing that the latter has a distinct logical structure. It finds that the logical distinction between content and attitude that characterizes intentional states does not apply to motor intentional states.

Abstract

The French philosopher Maurice Merleau–Ponty claims that there are two distinct ways in which we can understand the place of an object when we are visually apprehending it. The first involves an intentional relation to the object that is essentially cognitive or can serve as the input to cognitive processes; the second irreducibly involves a bodily set or preparation to deal with the object. Because of its essential bodily component, Merleau–Ponty calls this second kind of understanding ‘motor intentional’. In this paper I consider some phenomenological, conceptual, and cognitive neuro–scientific results that help to elucidate and defend the distinction between intentional and motor intentional activity. I go on to argue that motor intentional activity has a logical structure that is essentially distinct from that of the more canonical kinds of intentional states. In particular, the characteristic logical distinction between the content and the attitude of an intentional state does not carry over to the motor intentional case.