Article révisé par les pairs
Résumé : Le but de cet article est de cerner au plus près l’enjeu de la « querelle onto¬logique » entre énactivisme et internalisme, à partir de deux types de questionnement, l’un métaphysique et l’autre clinique. Pour ce qui concerne le volet métaphysique, notre propos est de comprendre la portée des distinctions conceptuelles à partir des positionnements ontologiques fondamentaux en jeu. Nous en avons délimité deux : d’une part la question ontologique peut être considérée « décidable » à partir du schéma conceptuel, d’autre part la question ontologique exige une clarification et une explicitation de la nature et la signification de « ce qui est » à partir des conditions de possibilité (i.e. processus de différentiation, de constitution) considérées comme per¬tinentes. Nous avons situé l’énactivisme plus proche de ce dernier point de vue, plus proche aussi des soucis de constitution caractéristiques de la philosophie critique.
Enactivism and internalism: from ontology to clinics. The aim of this article is to delineate as clearly as possible the upshot of the ontological quarrel between enactivism and internalism, on the basis of two types of questioning, the one metaphysical and the other clinical. The metaphysical side en¬visages to understand the range of the conceptual distinctions on the basis of the fun¬damental ontological positions at stake. Two positions are being distinguished: on the one hand ontology is seen to be “decidable” on the basis of the conceptual schema alone, on the other hand it is seen to require a clarification and an explicitation of the nature and the meaning of “what there is” starting from the conditions of possibility (e.g. processes of differentiation, of constitution) considered as relevant. Enactivism is situated closer to the latter point of view, closer also to the constitutional concerns characteristic of critical philosophy. The clinical side proposes to analyse in a more practical way what can be the meaning of constitution in relation to perception on the basis of three clinical cases. The first case illustrates a surprising resonance between the systematicity of the behavior of the patient and the experimental design discussed by Lenay — in particular in relation to what is called by the author “balayage”. The second case offers a solution with regard to the critique Jacob addresses to enactivism: whereas his criticism denounces the incompatibility between the enactivist model and the structural attenuation of the sensorial return, the case study illustrates how that at¬tenuation could, on the contrary, be essential to the normal constitution of percep¬tion. A third clinical case allows grasping the constitutive role of those two dynamics of con¬stitution, e.g. the “balayage” and the attenuation, at the level of the perception of lan¬guage.