This article situates The Course of Recognition in the context of Ricœurian philosophy and contemporary debates on mutual recognition. This article reconstructs the debate between Ricœur and mainstream recognition scholars, as well as with the other figures, such as Boltanski, Thévenot and Hénaff, who had a direct influence in the way Ricœur fleshed out his alternative conception of recognition. By connecting recognition with Ricœur’s notions of ideology and utopia, we are able to uncover a major blind spot in the standard (...) model of recognition,and to undo ideological and reified forms of recognition. Honneth and Ricœur both aim at societies whose members are duly recognized, but they do so in radically different manners. Whereas Honneth’s model must be politicized in order to become relevant to social change, Ricœur evisages social change in a pure ethics of recognition. (shrink)
Paul Ricoeur's Search for a New Foundation of Human Rights and Dignity by Means of the Capabilities and his Application of phronesis The aim of the following article is to reconstruct Paul Ricoeur's concepts of human rights and human dignity by exploring some little-known texts, and to exemplify how these concepts are connected to a specific philosophical conception of human being, which is grounded in a Dialectics between transcendence and incarnation, freedom and dependence, identity and difference, capability and (...) fallibility. In doing so, I will argue that Ricœur interprets human dignity, which he has never explicitly defined, through the prism of human capabilities, especially of the capability of being responsible. This interpretation allows him to take a differentiated position in the current bioethical debates on the rights of "potential persons" and to illustrate how the Aristotelian phronèsis can be used in ethical cases where decisions are difficult to take. (shrink)
In this paper I consider Ricœur’s negotiation of the boundary or relationship between philosophy and religion in light of the larger debate in contemporary French philosophy. I suggest that contrasting his way of dealing with the intersection of the two discourses to that of two other French thinkers (Jean-Luc Marion and Michel Henry) illuminates his stance more fully. I begin with a brief outline of Ricœur’s claims about the distinction or relation between the discourses, then reflect on those of Marion (...) and Henry, who although they do not relate them in the same way still together form a significant contrast to Ricœur’s perspective, and conclude with a fuller consideration of Ricœur’s methodology in light of this comparison. I suggest that it is in particular his hermeneutic commitments that lead him both to more rigorous distinctions between discourses and ironically to greater mediation. (shrink)
Il est désormais connu que Michel Foucault s’est intéressé à la fin de sa vie à l’ ”herméneutique du sujet.” Mais cette histoire de la constitution du sujet (ou de la subjectivité) fait étrangement l’économie d’une réflexion sur le rôle de la compréhension, alors que Foucault qualifie son travail d’ ”ontologie historique de nous-mêmes.” C'est sur ce point précis qu’est ici mis à l'épreuve le caractère médiateur de l’œuvre de Paul Ricœur, dont l’herméneutique du soi prend en charge une (...) ontologie de la compréhension. Suite à ces considérations, la seconde partie de l’article cherche à démontrer que la théorie de l’agir de Ricœur peut favoriser le passage d’une reconnaissance de type objectale à une reconnaissance des capacités du sujet à se tenir pour responsable. Ce passage sera opéré directement sur le modèle d’analyse du “dernier Foucault,” c’est-à-dire son concept-clé de “processus de subjectivation.” In his later work, Michel Foucault manifested a strong interest for the “hermeneutics of the subject.” Yet this history of the constitution of the subject (or subjectivity) does without any reflection on the role of understanding, even though Foucault characterizes his project as a historical ontology of ourselves . The power of mediation emphasized in the work of Paul Ricœur may help us redefine an ontology of understanding through a hermeneutics of the self. Following this, the second part of the article aims to show that Ricœur’s theory of action can facilitate a transition from the recognition of the self, first described as “objectivation,” to a recognition of the subject’s capacity to be held responsible. This passage will draw on the model of analysis in the later Foucault, specifically, on his key concept of the subjectivation process . . (shrink)
Deux ans après le décès du philosophe fut publié en 2007, son dernier livre inachevé, Vivant jusqu'à la mort, venant clore une oeuvre riche et variée, dans laquelle un fil conducteur se fait jour : le thème de la capacité et la philosophie de l'action qui prennent le pas sur la faillibilité. Plusieurs philosophes présentent cette thématique de l'homme capable, leurs études abordent sous des angles variés, la question du soi éthique et de son rapport à l'autre, du soi politique (...) et de l'identité collective, du soi herméneutique et du soi langagier, un être capable de dépasser les ruptures entre les langues et les cultures. Ils nous montrent l'originalité de la pensée de Ricoeur. (shrink)
Dominique Janicaud considered Paul Ricœur an ally in the dispute with those who, like Emmanuel Lévinas and Jean-Luc Marion, allegedly failed to keep phenomenology within its proper methodological limits. Janicaud also claimed to have been guided by Ricœur when it came to developing positive proposals for the future direction of phenomenology. This paper argues, however, that Janicaud misinterpreted key passages in works by Ricœur that address phenomenological issues. It also offers alternative readings which take account of the wider context. (...) Thus, for example, Ricœur’s comments on Lévinasian phenomenology are shown to be appreciative rather than polemical. The paper also discusses Ricœur’s rarely commented upon oblique and indirect response to Janicaud, which establishes that Ricœur chose to align himself with phenomenologists who had taken “the theological turn.”. (shrink)
Thinking with Paul Ricœur is a great pleasure and an even greater challenge. The more we seem to understand his life project, the more perplexed we are when facing the inescapability of the incompleteness, incomprehensibility, and impenetrability of what calls for thinking. Ricœur remains a faithful companion on the way to understanding oneself and reaching the inaccessible, despite the unprecedented progress of psychology, psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, and religion.
This article aims to analyze the constitution of a subject of right capable of respect and esteem through the concept of capacity elaborated by Paul Ricœur. It intends to evaluate the capable, emancipated human being, the self that has an ethical and moral dimension and that is susceptible of ethical and juridical imputation, as it is explained in “Who is the Subject of Rights?” in The Just . There is an erratum for this article located here . .
For Paul Ricœur, human action was a central preoccupation already present in his early work and deepening over time, benefitting from a long engagement with hermeneutical and narrative analyses. It is the concern to locate, through obligatory moral norms, the ethical dimension of desire that guides and motivates action that first makes use of a hermeneutic of signs, symbols, and texts in which the desire of the subject has been expressed. But narratives become essential in order to describe action (...) in such a way that the actor’s responsibility can be evaluated at the level of his narrative identity. To this responsibility, interpreted and taught by means of cultural narratives, the concepts of memory and promise add the dimension of the struggle for recognition and point to an ontology of the historical condition at the foundation of an ethic that rests open to a religious dimension of an original goodness. (shrink)
What is the task – rather than the contribution – of philosophy with regards to language? In this article, we revisit Paul Ricœur’s answer to this question in his text “Philosophie et langage.” Ricœur sets forth as the task of philosophy the recovery of a triple linguistic mediation: from language to the world, from language to the subject, and from language to the human community. Starting from the concrete experience of speaking subjects, Ricœur opposes the systemic closure presupposed by (...) the structuralistic view on language, which suspends the function of reference in the relation of meaning between two ideas. Provided with an enlarged conception of reference, one that includes the poetic function of language, the philosopher extricates from the notion of “the world of the text” the constitutive ontological dimension of language, since in its poetic function the latter reveals the multiple possibilities of our mode of existence. We point towards the connection between the reopening of that triple linguistic mediation and the call to an elaboration of a new ontology, one that Ricœur accomplishes through the notion of attestation. (shrink)
This essay explores the work of both Paul Ricoeur and Luce Irigaray particularly in regard to their appeal to imagination and imaginary constructs as ways of introducing change in thought and action. While metaphor is at the heart of Ricoeur’s theory, Irigaray eschews metaphor – at least consciously. Nevertheless, there are a number of fruitful ways that their work can be compared and contrasted, especially on the question of the other, and the concept of recognition.
Chacun des livres de Paul Ricœur est structuré comme un récit ; il naît d’un problème résiduel, et résistant, qui a échappé aux précédents, et qui constitue comme leur zone d’ombre ; de telle sorte qu’ils se présentent tous comme limités parce que la question à laquelle ils sont confrontés est délimitée. Mais, en se déplaçant sur le terrain de l’involontaire,...
In his The Symbolism of Evil Ricœur explores the dynamics of human consciousness of evil in different cultures and times. Consciousness of evil is examined by looking at the different prevailing symbols wherein human beings confess their experience with evil. Although appeared in 1960, this study is still cited in recent publications in psychology, cultural anthropology and religion. In this article I describe the context of The Symbolism of Evil as the last part of Ricœur’s study of the will and (...) give a summary of its relevant content. (shrink)
In Time and narrative then in Oneself as another Paul Ricœur proposes a philosophy of personal and collective identity, through research on time and narrative. According to these books, emplotment would synthesize and reconcile the temporal discordance, experienced by the selfhood. The subject’s fragmentation by the otherness of time could then define vulnerability. Our aim is to question this triad time-vulnerability-narrative thanks to the opposite positions of Emmanuel Levinas. Unlike Ricœur, Levinas severely criticizes the idea of memory and narrative (...) in order to respect the vulnerability of the other. Yet, the Ricœurian analysis of the responsibility affirms the need for a capable and not dispossessed Self. From this point of view, Ricœur helps us to question the limits set by Levinas to narrative and leads us to wonder if the ethical plot for the vulnerability of others does not need memory and narrative. (shrink)
L'excellent Document de la Commission biblique pontificale " L'interprétation de la Bible en Église " (1994) mentionne le philosophe protestant Paul Ricœur au rang des penseurs herméneutiques indispensables à l'intelligence de l ...
Les commentateurs s’accordent pour constater une évolution dans la pensée politique de Ricœur conduisant d’un radicalisme à un réformisme. Par-delà ces variations, on se propose plutôt de mettre en évidence la continuité d’un projet. Non seulement la critique du capitalisme se poursuit jusqu’au bout, mais la perspective du socialisme semble très tôt tenue pour improbable. Dans les deux cas, la préoccupation centrale porte sur la nécessité de raviver les traditions et de faire émerger l’élan initial sous la doctrine “ossifiée ” (...) en les situant en tension critique entre elles pour qu’elles se corrigent mutuellement. Le projet politique de Ricœur consiste à établir en vis-à-vis libéralisme et socialisme. (shrink)
L’auteur revisite certains textes de Paul Ricœur publiés entre 1960 et 1992, afin d’exposer le rapport de cette philosophie avec la théologie chrétienne. Il interroge le statut de la théologie spéculative, dévolu par cette pensée, qui accorde un certain privilège à la théologie herméneutique et à la théologie politique.
L’auteur revisite certains textes de Paul Ricœur publiés entre 1960 et 1992, afin d’exposer le rapport de cette philosophie avec la théologie chrétienne. Il interroge le statut de la théologie spéculative, dévolu par cette pensée, qui accorde un certain privilège à la théologie herméneutique et à la théologie politique.
Cette recherche se concentre sur la problématique de la méthode dans l’herméneutique ricœurienne et sa relation étroite avec les sciences humaines et sociales. Cette problématique concerne aussi bien l’herméneutique ricœurienne des symboles et des signes, que les théories du texte, de l’action et de l’histoire. Notre recherche vise premièrement à analyser la dialectique que Ricœur s’efforce d’établir, aussi bien dans l’herméneutique que dans les sciences humaines et sociales, entre des approches explicatives et des approches compréhensives, entre l’herméneutique du soupçon et (...) l’herméneutique de la foi, entre l’archéologie et la téléologie, et particulièrement entre la compréhension et l’explication. Deuxièmement, tout en analysant la relation entre la compréhension, l'explication et l'interprétation, la recherche propose une herméneutique du discours oral, en général, et du dialogue, en particulier. L'herméneutique proposée dans cette recherche dépasse relativement l'herméneutique de Ricœur qui exclut explicitement le discours oral de son herméneutique. Toutefois, elle est également considérée comme une extension de l'herméneutique ricœurienne, car elle est fondée sur son paradigme du texte et celui de la traduction. La recherche suggère que le paradigme ricœurien de la traduction peut être considéré, à la fois, comme le paradigme principal de l'herméneutique proposée du discours oral, d’un côté, et comme le troisième paradigme de l'herméneutique ricœurienne, de l’autre côté, tout en sachant que le paradigme du symbole et celui du texte sont considérés respectivement comme le premier et le second paradigme de cette herméneutique. ..................... This thesis focuses on the problem of method in the hermeneutics of Paul Ricœur and its close relationship with the human and social sciences. The problem of method is discussed in Ricœur’s hermeneutics of symbols and signs and his hermeneutics of text and of action. The thesis analyses Ricœur’s dialectics between explanatory method and comprehensive method, the hermeneutics of suspicion and the hermeneutics of faith, archaeology and teleology, and particularly between understanding and explanation. This dialectic was established by Ricœur in his work on the different theories of symbol, text, metaphor, action and history. While discussing the relationship between understanding, explanation and interpretation, the thesis proposes a hermeneutics of oral discourse in general and of dialogue in particular. The hermeneutics proposed in this thesis go beyond Ricœur’s hermeneutics which explicitly excludes spoken discourse. However, it is also considered as an extension of the hermeneutics of Ricœur since it is based on Ricœur’s paradigm of text and translation. Thus, in addition to Ricœur’s hermeneutic paradigm of symbol and of text, this thesis suggests that Ricœur’s paradigm of translation is the main paradigm of the proposed hermeneutics of oral discourse and can be considered as the third paradigm of Ricœur’s hermeneutics. (shrink)
This major volume assembles leading scholars to address and explain the significance of Paul Ricoeur's extraordinary body of work. Ricoeur's work is of seminal importance to the development of hermeneutics, phenomenology, and ideology critique in the human sciences. Opening with three key essays from Ricoeur himself--on Europe, fragility and responsibility, and love and justice--this fascinating volume offers a tour of his work ranging across topics such as the hermeneutics of action, narrative force, and the other and deconstruction, while discussing (...) his work in the context of such contemporary thinkers as Heidegger, Levinas, Arendt, and Gadamer. Offering a very useful overview of Paul Ricoeur's enormous contribution to modern thought, Paul Ricoeur will be invaluable for students and academics across the social and human sciences and philosophy. (shrink)
“Moi, les collectifs, les proches”: Ricœur désigne par-là les sujets d’attribution du souvenir pour clore le parcours de la première partie de son œuvre, La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli, publiée en 2000. Ricœur, lecteur des sciences sociales, évoque dans ce chapitre le travail d’Alfred Schütz et la sociologie phénoménologique. L’exploration d’un plan intermédiaire de la mémoire dans la relation aux proches sera l’occasion d’un détour herméneutique vers ce lien social de la proximité. “Sur quel trajet d’attribution de la mémoire se situent (...) les proches?” se demande Ricœur. C’est dans un dialogue instructif avec Schütz que nous tenterons de poser des jalons. En effet, les proches sont l’occasion de penser la reconnaissance par le chemin du souvenir. Dans cette exploration de l’attribution des souvenirs s’ouvre la connexion de la mémoire à la reconnaissance à une échelle particulière du lien social, celle de la proximité. (shrink)
Ce texte vise à explorer la contribution de Paul Ric?ur à une réflexion phénoménologique sur le vivant. Il s?agit notamment, à partir du débat avec Jean-Pierre Changeux, de faire ressortir l?insistance avec laquelle il s?efforce de distinguer l?approche phénoménologique du vécu de l?approche objectivante des sciences du vivant, de façon à soutenir la thèse d?un dualisme sémantique entre les deux ordres de discours. Tout le travail de Ric?ur est alors d?ouvrir le discours philosophique à l?apport des sciences de la (...) vie, sans soumettre le projet phénoménologique à une naturalisation. Contrairement à Jean-Luc Petit, qui voit dans la phénoménologie eidétique de la volonté du jeune Ric?ur ce qu?il y a de plus prometteur pour aborder la question du vivant, nous soutenons plutôt que la position originale de Ric?ur sur le vivant se laisse comprendre à partir de sa triple allégeance à la phénoménologie, à l?herméneutique et à la philosophie réflexive. (shrink)
Human experience has a symbolic structure. By focusing on the symbolism of human action, this essay considers the reciprocal influences and the essential differences between Paul Ricœur’s hermeneutics and Clifford Geertz’s cultural anthropology. Through reference to Ricœur’s Lectures on Ideology and Utopia, the section on “Ideology, Utopia, and Politics” in From Text to Action, and Geertz’s 1973 book The Interpretation of Cultures, this paper aims at reconstructing the dialogue between these thinkers. I begin with a broad framing of the (...) encounter between Ricœur and Geertz, and then turn to the notion of the symbolic mediation of action, considering it as the shared key concept between these authors. These reflections will lead to an examination of the semiotic conception of culture, opening up the discussion of a nonpejorative dimension of ideology. (shrink)
Every reader of Ricœur knows that hermeneutics endeavors to answer the aporiae of historical phenomenology. Hence arises the need to return to those aporiae and those answers. On the one hand, phenomenology, born with the maxim of going “directly to things themselves,” is confronted with the incessant evasion of the thing itself and with its dreams of presence being thereby shattered. This reversal should not be blamed on the failings of this or that thinker, but attributed to the very destiny (...) of phenomenology itself. On the other hand, Ricœurian hermeneutics takes note of a gap, and of a necessary return. Thus, there is nothing for thought itself to grieve over with respect to this enterprise. However, while the phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty, faced with the same difficulties, orients itself towards political philosophy, the hermeneutics of Ricœur rather seeks to lead us to a philosophy of religion. This article hypothesizes that, in spite of the formula of a “philosophy without an absolute,” the thought of Ricœur heads in fair measure towards the Absolute, and that ontology is not the only name of the Promised Land. (shrink)
Il s’agit dans cet article d’analyser le travail de désingularisation relative de l’événement que Ricœur opère par couplage avec le récit dans Temps et récit au début des années 1980, puis la reprise de la question de la singularité et de l’unicité de l’événement dans La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli dans le cadre théorique recomposé de la représentation historienne mise à l’épreuve de “l’événement aux limites” qu’est la Shoah. Dans Temps et récit Ricœur entend dépasser, par l’entrecroisement entre histoire et fiction (...) appliqué à des événements fondateurs d’identité collective comme la Shoah, l’aporie épistémologique de la dichotomie entre une histoire qui dissout l’événement dans l’explication et une attitude purement émotionnelle face aux événements à intensité éthique considérable. Cette narrativisation de l’événement se heurte cependant à la puissance traumatique de l’extra-textuel radical de l’événement-Shoah qui constitue ainsi un défi pour la représentation historienne du passé. C’est cette question que Ricœur reprend dans La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli, mais cette fois-ci cet examen a été largement reconfiguré par la dialectique de la mémoire et de l’histoire contribuant à la représentation du passé. Tout en distinguant l’incomparabilité absolue au plan moral de la Shoah et l’incomparabilité relative sur le plan historiographique, Ricœur maintient que l’enchevêtrement entre jugement historiographique et jugement moral est inévitable, ouvrant ainsi sur la grande question de la responsabilité sociale, politique et éthique de l’historien. (shrink)
The aim of this article is to examine how Ricœur’s critique of Husserl’s and Levinas’s notions of intersubjectivity informs his own alternative conceptualization of the intra- and interpersonal as a complex intertwining of moral selfhood and a just community. My first assumption is that law, as a prescriptive intervention in the social structure of our communal life, presupposes a phenomenology of our “being with others”. My second assumption is that Ricœur’s entire philosophical anthropology, and specifically his ideas on ethics, legality (...) and justice, can be read as a prolonged response to Husserl’s solipsistic deadlock in the famous Fifth Cartesian Meditation. Taken together these two assumptions connect Ricœur’s early analysis of phenomenology with his complex reconceptualization of moral selfhood in Oneself as Another, culminating in the ethical maxim of “a good life with and for others in just institutions.”. (shrink)
The aim of this article is to show that the “attestation of evil and testimony of hope” are characterized by the genitive that accompanies them. This places them both, each no less than the other, in two different horizons: while the horizon of attestation is Heideggerian, the horizon of testimony is a legacy of Jean Nabert. Both of these horizons are present in the thought of Ricœur, and characterize the entire spectrum of his work. However, we are not dealing here (...) with a syncretism resulting from the co-presence of a hermeneutic source and of the philosophy of reflection. On the contrary, I attempt to show that the co-presence of attestation and testimony results from the fact that Ricœur never stopped “walking on two legs,” given what he writes in a conversation published in the Critique and Conviction, and that this presence is rooted in Ricœur’s formation, which is at the same time philosophical, literary and biblical, as he never renounced either the former one, or the latter ones. (shrink)
Ce texte de Bernhard Waldenfels est issu de la seconde partie de son livre Socialité et altérité – modes de l’expérience sociale, 363-85), où l’auteur met à l’épreuve et approfondit sa théorie de la responsivité à travers une série de débats avec Husserl, Schütz et Gurwitsch, Searle, Castoriadis, Foucault et Ricœur. Dans sa discussion avec ce dernier, il insiste sur les thèmes du souvenir et de l’oubli, en prenant pour base Temps et récit et La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli. Le texte (...) se compose de quatre sections. Dans les deux premières, Waldenfels retrace les arguments de Ricœur en insistant notamment sur le manque d’importance accordé à l’oubli dans le récit par Ricœur. Dans les deux dernières, l’auteur propose une révision de la philosophie ricoeurienne de l’oubli sous le signe d’une phénoménologie responsive. À la fois à partir de Ricœur et aussi contre lui, Waldenfels considère l’oubli comme un pathos face auquel nous n’avons pas d’autre choix que répondre. (shrink)
Po II wojnie światowej Paul Ricoeur podjął sie nauczania filozofii w Collège Cévenol w wiosce Chambon-sur-Lignon, gdzie napisał swój doktorat poświęcony fenomenologicznej analizie woli. Przejęte od Milana Kundery paradoksalne pojęcie „mądrości niepewności”, zastosowane do dzieła Ricoeura jako całości naświetla specyfikę jego wkładu w rozwój hermeneutyki filozoficznej XX wieku.
Anticipated by several thinkers of the Western philosophical tradition over a long period of time, the theory of narrative identity was ultimately put forward in the 1980s by philosophers like Alasdair MacIntyre, Paul Ricoeur, Charles Taylor, David Carr and others. In the present paper, an attempt is made to give a survey of the process in which this theory was integrated into contemporary philosophy during the last two and a half decades. It is pointed out that, even in analytic (...) philosophy, the narrative conception of the self came to a certain break-through, but it is equally shown how it increasingly became the target of fundamental objections and how it led to most instructive controverses. The main thesis that underlies the entire survey is that the present state of discussion concerning the narrative view of the self bestows a new actuality upon the Ricoeurian version of the theory. (shrink)
