MP's PbP differs from Heidegger by granting *linguistique* (the empirical science of language) ontological pertinence — even though MP holds linguistique studies "une parole ontique" not "la parole de l'être"; the difference is Heidegger forecloses linguistic-scientific work on ontology, MP keeps the door open
ID: linguistique-ontological-pertinence-contra-heidegger Title: MP's PbP differs from Heidegger by granting linguistique (the empirical science of language) ontological pertinence — even though MP holds linguistique studies "une parole ontique" not "la parole de l'être"; the difference is Heidegger forecloses linguistic-scientific work on ontology, MP keeps the door open Status: candidate Confidence: medium Claim type: corrective Created: 2026-05-16 Updated: 2026-05-16 Sources: merleau-ponty-2020-probleme-de-la-parole, franck-robert, martin-heidegger Wiki homes: franck-robert, martin-heidegger, ferdinand-de-saussure
Claim
Heidegger's later philosophy of language (Unterwegs zur Sprache) explicitly forecloses the ontological pertinence of empirical linguistic science: linguistics studies die gesprochene Sprache not das Sprechen des Seins. MP's PbP (1953-54) consistently treats linguistique — particularly Saussure's retour au sujet parlant and Goldstein's neuropsychological grammar — as ontologically relevant work. Robert's postface §2 (p. 242) makes this explicit: "Merleau-Ponty ne refuse pas à la linguistique la pertinence ontologique que Heidegger lui refuse." MP's position is more discriminating than Heidegger's: MP grants that linguistique studies "une parole ontique" not "la parole de l'être" (PbP 9–[14v(16)] passim), but he refuses Heidegger's foreclosure of ontology-from-linguistique. Robert: "la linguistique, malgré sa position d'extériorité et d'observation, laisse voir cette dimension productrice, créatrice de la parole. C'est ainsi à partir de la linguistique elle-même que Merleau-Ponty pense découvrir une 'parole pure'" (postface p. 242). This is a positioning thesis: PbP is among the texts where MP most clearly diverges from Heidegger on the question of whether the human sciences can do ontological work.
Evidence
- merleau-ponty-2020-probleme-de-la-parole — direct anchor. PbP 15: MP describes Saussure's project as "objectivation du langage qui nous fasse 'apercevoir la facticité de la parole naïve, - et retrouver parole pure'". The phrase "parole pure" is MP's term for what Heidegger would call Sprache des Seins; MP arrives at it through linguistique, not against linguistique. PbP [18v(24)]: "L'ultra objectivisme reconduit à la découverte d'un intérieur = la parole" — the radically objectivist scientific position itself reveals the parole. This is the structural opposite of Heidegger's foreclosure.
- franck-robert — postface §2 to PbP (pp. 240-242). Robert makes the divergence-from-Heidegger thesis explicit; the editorial reading is artifact-anchoring.
- martin-heidegger — Unterwegs zur Sprache (1959), §"Aus einem Gespräch von der Sprache" especially. Heidegger forecloses empirical linguistic science from ontology. Wiki page records the foreclosure.
- merleau-ponty-1968-visible-and-invisible — V&I has scattered references to Heidegger on language. MP softens but does not retract the PbP-era position: linguistique remains for him a partner of phenomenology, not a target of phenomenological critique.
Counterpressure / Limits
- Heidegger's foreclosure is more nuanced than the claim allows. Heidegger does not deny linguistique any cognitive role; he denies it ontological primacy. MP would agree with Heidegger on primacy-denial. The difference is whether linguistique can contribute at all to ontological work — a finer-grained question than the claim states.
- MP's view evolves. By 1960 MP is reading Unterwegs zur Sprache directly (he attempts a translation; see merleau-ponty-2002-husserl-limits) and his position becomes more Heideggerian than in 1953-54. The candidate claim's PbP-anchor is therefore a snapshot of MP's 1953-54 position, not a settled MP-vs-Heidegger thesis.
- Robert is a partisan reader. As editor of both PbP and the 1960 Origin of Geometry course, Robert has interest in showing MP's continuity-with-himself across the 1953-1960 period; the divergence-from-Heidegger thesis fits that interest.
- The wiki's martin-heidegger page already records MP-Heidegger differences. The PbP-specific element added by this claim is the linguistique element; the more general MP-Heidegger divergence is already documented elsewhere (claims#mp-heidegger-reception-archivally-thin is supported on a related point).
Payoff
If supportable, the claim adds a substantive MP-Heidegger divergence point that is PbP-specific: not a general "MP read Heidegger sparingly" point, but a "MP took linguistic-scientific work as ontologically relevant in a way Heidegger denied" point. This sharpens the wiki's ferdinand-de-saussure page (Saussure becomes more ontologically loaded), the wiki's martin-heidegger page (a new specific contrast point), and Robert's franck-robert entity page (one of his most substantive interpretive moves is documented as a wiki claim). For Paper A or for any MP-Heidegger comparative paper, the PbP-anchor for the divergence is now in the wiki's claim register.
Status History
- 2026-05-16 — created as
candidateduring the PbP ingest addendum (treating Robert postface as a scholarly text in its own right). 3-test gate evaluation: (1) Contestable: yes — the rival Heideggerian-orthodox reading would deny that MP's PbP-era linguistic-science engagement has real ontological weight. (2) Evidence anchored: yes — direct PbP 15 and [18v(24)] anchors, Robert postface §2, Heidegger Unterwegs zur Sprache. (3) Counterpressure: Heidegger-nuance caveat, MP-evolution caveat, Robert-partisan caveat, prior-claim-redundancy caveat. Recommendation: hold ascandidate; consider promotion toliveafter Heidegger-MP secondary scholarship review.