Building upon the phenomenological tradition, the thought of Michel Henry

does not only depart from the Greek tradition via

its transcendental paradigm but also from phenomenology. What is the specificity of
Henry�s phenomenology within the phenomenological
field? It aims first of all at distancing itself from the hard core of historical
phenomenology, intentionality, judged as being unable
to account for the essence of phenomenality. Yet, if the cornerstone of Husserlian
phenomenology is forsaken by Henry, why would he insist
upon anchoring his work in the phenomenological tradition? While it is true that
material phenomenology does indeed distance itself from
historical phenomenology, one must nevertheless draw a careful distinction between
what Henry disqualifies and what he validates so as to
properly characterize his own phenomenology.
What is the specificity of the philosophy of Michel Henry within the
landscape of French contemporary philosophy? The Zeitgeist of the
1960�s is marked by the flourishing of a radical critique of the subject. Indeed,
if there is a dominant pattern common to the majority of philosophical
elaborations which are contemporary to the philosophical activity of Henry, it is
the fragmentation of the subject. Sartre�s transcendence of the ego,
Foucault�s death of the subject, Derrida�s critique of presence, Althusser�s anti-
humanism , Deleuze�s notion of difference: these are all projects that
denounced the inadequacy of the paradigm of the rational subject as defined in the
course of the classical age, especially by Descartes. Henry
acknowledges certain facets of this dismissal of the subject, and is acutely aware
of the implications of the post-modern critique of the subject,
at least of the necessity of rethinking subjectivity. However, by calling into
question the rational sovereignty of the subject , Henry
alternatively aspires to liberate the space for a living subjectivity, a
philosophical gesture which implies a sharp reaffirmation of ipseity
rather than its mere dismissal. Here is how Henry addresses the contemporary
deconstruction of the subject: �Contemporary philosophy has directed
a radical critique against the philosophy of the subject and the ego-subject. But,
it has forgotten that the philosophy of the subject itself
produces this critique, its own self-destructing. Hence, the contemporary critique
is only an unconscious restatement of it� . Indeed,
Henry often reminds us that the philosophy of Kant, cornerstone of modern
philosophy, has contributed, through the denunciation of
paralogisms in the Critique of Pure Reason, to deconstruct human subjectivity.
Hegel's philosophy and its avatars only bring to
fruition this Kantian deconstruction of subjectivity within the narrative of
historicism. In this regard, is not the specificity
of the philosophical position of Michel Henry, unlike the French anti-hegelianism
of the 1960s, to be found in the rehabilitation,
directed against Hegel, of individual subjectivity? Henry�s long-standing anti-
Hegelian thread takes form in the Essence of
manifestation (1963), runs through the book on Marx (1976) which develops the
notion of praxis and extends to I am the truth
(1996). Paul Audi even goes as far as to make the war with Hegel the intellectual
starting point of the Essence of manifestation.