ABSTRACT In this article, I approach the idealistic perspective of the “Phenomenology of Perception” to show that in that work the experience of the body is described from a vision of the cogito. To explain this idealism, I asses the main voice given to the body in the beginning of the thought of Merleau-Ponty: the pathological voice. Schneider’s disturbances make explicit its symbolic powerlessness, and that powerlessness is in fact the body’s powerlessness. The sick is a being submitted to the immediate normativity of life, reason by which he can find out at every moment the finitude and fragility of existence. On the other hand, I evoke the course notes from Collège de France, of 1954-1955, about passivity, and the courses about Nature, of 1957-1958, when Merleau-Ponty analyses life and the birth in the sense from an entirely different perspective. Also, I analyze the reading of what he to “case Dora” to show that the philosopher finds in hysteria a very particular symbolic experience. This experience requires understanding the symbolic power of the body itself, the abandonment of the idealist position and the discovery of the power of the hysteric of narrating the experience of being.

RESUME Dans cet article, j’aborde la perspective idéaliste de la « Phénoménologie de la perception » pour montrer que, dans cet ouvrage, l’expérience du corps propre est décrite à partir de la vision du cogito. Pour expliciter cet idéalisme, j’analyse la principale voix donnée au corps au début de la pensée de Merleau-Ponty: la voix pathologique. Les troubles de Schneider rendent explicite son impuissance symbolique, et cette impuissance est vraiment l’impuissance du corps. Le sujet malade est un être soumis à la normativité immédiate de la vie, raison par laquelle il peut découvrir à chaque moment la finitude et la fragilité de l’existence. J’évoque par contre les notes du cours au Collège de France, de 1954-1955, sur la passivité et les cours sur la Nature, de 1957-1958, lorsque Merleau-Ponty examine la vie et la naissance du sens à partir d’une perspective tout à fait différente. J’analyse aussi la lecture qu’il a faite du « cas Dora » pour montrer que le philosophe trouve dans l’hystérie une expérience symbolique très particulière. Cette expérience exige la compréhension de la puissance symbolique du corps propre, l’abandon de la position idéaliste et la découverte du pouvoir de l’hystérique de narrer l’expérience de l’être.

RESUMO: Tendo como eixo organizador o debate acerca da noção de direitos do homem e do cidadão e a eficácia destes no que se refere à luta política por novos direitos, o artigo investiga o caráter inovador da democracia moderna. Em sua abordagem do tema, C. Lefort combate três teses: a de que a defesa de direitos humanos universais representaria um perigo à política vigorosa, instituída em Estados benevolentes; a de que esses direitos seriam a expressão mais acabada da ideologia do individualismo burguês e corresponderiam a formalidades vazias, cujo sentido seria apenas o de escamotear a violência social e sacralizar privilégios; e, por fim, a tese segundo a qual as instituições democráticas visariam somente a reproduzir as relações de propriedade e força vigentes no capitalismo e não permitiriam que as contradições sociais fossem expressas ou mesmo resolvidas no campo da política. Trata-se de retomar a filosofia política proposta por C. Lefort, a qual enfatiza o caráter inédito da democracia moderna, para então explicitar, contrariando tais críticas, a perspectiva histórica de luta por direitos aberta pela invenção democrática.

ABSTRACT: Having as the central theme the debate about the notion of human and citizen rights and the effectiveness of these in relation to the political struggle for new rights, this article investigates the innovative character of modern democracy. In his approach to the subject, C. Lefort argues three theses: the idea that the defense of universal human rights represents a danger to vigorous politics in benevolent States; the thesis which says that these rights would be the most complete expression of the ideology of bourgeois individualism and correspond to empty formalities whose meaning would be simply to hide social violence and enshrine privileges; and, finally, the argument that democratic institutions would aim to only reproduce the property relations and forces existing in capitalism and not allow the expression of social contradictions or their resolution in the field of politics. The article reviews the political philosophy proposed by Lefort, which emphasizes the unprecedented nature of representative democracy, and then explains the historical perspective of struggle for rights opened by the democratic invention.