Abstract
Philosophical debates on habit often emphasize its ambivalent character: once habitualized, voluntary activity becomes natural. Consequently, the ambiguity of habit is the ambiguity of freedom and nature.
This view was recently criticized by Claude Romano for its lack of conceptual clarity. Focusing on the phenomenology of habit as developed by Ricoeur and Merleau-Ponty, and in response to Romano, this article shows not only that habit cannot be stripped of its ambiguity but also how this ambiguity affects our understanding of subject and freedom.