It is no coincidence that the relationship between Paul Ricoeur and Michel Foucault has been principally discussed in research carried out by specialists in one of these two thinkers. Although active at the same time, the scholar can easily get the impression that they worked in two parallel philosophical universes. This paper will argue, however, that a comparative reading is nonetheless possible. Taking identity and the subject as key areas of discussion, as well as the methodology used to deal with (...) these themes, this paper will highlight the continuities between both the philosophers’ world views. A reading of their post-1980 works makes it clear that both of them, each in his respective way, can enrich a reading of the other and that, more than just being contemporaries, they share several important points in common. (shrink)

It is no coincidence that the relationship between Paul Ricoeur and Michel Foucault has been principally discussed in research carried out by specialists in one of these two thinkers. Although active at the same time, the scholar can easily get the impression that they worked in two parallel philosophical universes. This paper will argue, however, that a comparative reading is nonetheless possible. Taking identity and the subject as key areas of discussion, as well as the methodology used to deal with (...) these themes, this paper will highlight the continuities between both the philosophers’ world views. A reading of their post-1980 works makes it clear that both of them, each in his respective way, can enrich a reading of the other and that, more than just being contemporaries, they share several important points in common. (shrink)

This paper uses the critical reflections of Jeffrey Barash on the matter of the symbol in the works of Paul Ricœur. The interpreter, interested mostly in the locus of collective memory that can be found in Memory, History, Forgetting, considers the urge of abandoning Husserl’s concept of analogy, used by Ricœur. For this purpose, he draws our attention to the concept of symbol that Ricœur avoids developing in the context of the discussion on memory. Consequently, he researches the background of (...) the matter in Freud and Philosophy and Time and Narrative. In this paper, I will try to show that the course imparted in Chicago in 1975, Lectures on Ideology and Utopia, is the appropriate work to answer from the perspective of symbolism to the problems of the constitution of collective memory through the contribution made by Ricœur in his work on ideology. (shrink)

It is no coincidence that the relationship between Paul Ricoeur and Michel Foucault has been principally discussed in research carried out by specialists in one of these two thinkers. Although active at the same time, the scholar can easily get the impression that they worked in two parallel philosophical universes. This paper will argue, however, that a comparative reading is nonetheless possible. Taking identity and the subject as key areas of discussion, as well as the methodology used to deal with (...) these themes, this paper will highlight the continuities between both the philosophers’ world views. A reading of their post-1980 works makes it clear that both of them, each in his respective way, can enrich a reading of the other and that, more than just being contemporaries, they share several important points in common. (shrink)