Paul RicoeurFebruary 27, 1913–May 20, 2005It is with great sorrow that I note the death of Paul Ricoeur, Honorary Member of the International Institute for Hermeneutics.

Responding to the interlocutors, Ricoeur, utilizing Kantian aesthetic theory, addresses the nature of the work of art, its universality and communicability, and explores its temporality — its ‘transhistoricity’ — by utilizing concepts derived from medieval philosophy, including ‘sempiternality’ and ‘monstration’. He expands on hermeneutics, defends it against charges of relativism, expatiates on the danger of aestheticism, and explains the value of mimesis in art. He explores the different art forms, focusing with Merleau-Ponty on Cézanne as a model of the (...) ‘ipseity’ of the artist; and he dwells particularly on the singularity of music and its ‘pathic’ moods. A discussion of literature culminates in an emphasis on the special importance of Holocaust texts. (shrink)

The amplitude and the diversity of Ricoeur’s philosophical production is astonishing. Three factors shed light upon this fact. First, his philosophical career covers seventy years wherein he witnessed the rise and the decline of tlve philosophical -isms. Further, he is a typical dialogical thinker: in conversation with the great classical and modern philosophers, and eager to listen to the methods and results of human an linguistics sciences. A third reason, particularly of differentiation, stems from his double conviction and commitment. (...) On the one hand, he wants to be a rigorous philosopher, even keeping on a methodic agnosticism. On the other hand, however, he is a convinced Christian, and so he also likes to think critically – a rigorous philosophizing here is inappropriate – on religion, belief, and biblical language and topics. Nevertheless, it is only since 2000 that he is getting fully aware of the disintegrated impression many readers have from his publications. In his opinion, this impression is perfectly understandable: a reading public and myself are on completely different wavelengths. From reading my books people spontaneously nurture their own expectation with regard to coming publications, whereas my concern always was: am I answering your questions? So, in four recent articles Ricoeur speaks of his technical philosophy composed of eleven books: from The voluntary and the Involontary to the Course of Recognition . He argues that the continuity of his basic philosophical writings is, each time, determined by a residue, a question the preceding publication left open. But, where to situate then his twenty-two other books into a global and consistent picture? All these other works are explorations of specific philosophical issues, and reflections and topics as prophecy, tragedy and religion bordering philosophy. For this matter, a fully rigorous philosophical discourse is not always possible. These writings, however, find their setting around the hard core of his philosophy. Ricoeur himself only mentions two genres: volumes of articles for a larger audience as History and Truth and university lectures as Lectures on Ideology and Utopia . But other headings need to be added to umbrella other publications: historical and autobiographic writings, collection of articles on political topics, on the sacred and biblical language, on philosophy of law, and on medical ethical issues. On a more remote distance from the heart of his philosophy are located hundred of articles and interviews on philosophical topics, reflections on actual themes, an even some homilies. To amazement of many, two eminent Ricoeur commentators recently characterized his philosophy as “An Ontology of Life”. This is not as strange as it looks! Already in The voluntary and the Involontary. Ricoeur offers a phenomenology of “life, to be in life and birth”. To him, life also is a lived and hard-won value. In fact, belief in life is related to his main category of “originative affirmation” and of “hope”. Hope, however, is never a knowledge but only the regulative idea of my metaphysical thinking, and it remains inextricably bound up with the anguish for a senseless totality. “Nothing is closer to the anguish of nonsense than timid hope.”. (shrink)

Ricoeur’s philosophical project can be broadly termed as a philosophical anthropology. Within this context, a main role is given to the issue of imagination through the resources of phenomenology, hermeneutics, and reflexive philosophy. The issue of picture, however, remains quite unknown and has not been much questioned; it might even be undermined by being reduced to the context of reproductive imagination as opposed to that of productive imagination within Ricoeur’s anthropology, and due to the emphasis on the linguistic (...) relationship to sense or meaning. Yet, instead of opposing the plane of picture to the plane of sense or meaning, an articulated connection between those two planes should be sought. The issue of symbolism opened by Ricoeur in his Philosophie de la volonté provides the starting point for our investigation. From that early hermeneutics on to La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli, via De l’interprétation. Essai sur Freud, La Métaphore vive, and Temps et récit, one could also consider that picture makes us think. But the issue of symbolism cannot be distinguished from that of imagination. One also has to link two paths of Ricoeur’s philosophy through the issue of symbolism, one that is orientated in the path of hermeneutics – the progression to the standpoint set by Du texte à l’action –, another that links the project of a philosophical anthropology to the fields of art and aesthetics. The research is thus structured around four parts. A first part is focused on the articulated connection between Ricoeur’s philosophy of imagination and philosophical aesthetics by addressing the hermeneutical prospect as the condition for the effectiveness of this connection. Extending this hermeneutical stance, a second part seeks to establish a bond between Ricoeur’s notion of a critical hermeneutics and the issue of picture. A third part, concurrent with the context of a critical hermeneutics, aims to consider imagination as mediating the plane of art and the plane of experience by referring to Ricoeur’s reading of analytic philosophy and, more specifically, analytic philosophy of art. Relying on the previous parts, a fourth part finally addresses the field of film, articulating ontological, narrative, and social layers to a philosophical hermeneutics. (shrink)

The 4th volume of “Manuscripts and Speeches” by the prominent contemporary thinker Paul Ricoeur (1913‑2005) contains works discussing one of his central themes — the problem of a common existence of men considered from the point of view of politics, economics, power, law, culture, morality, and ethics. At the same time, the French thinker specifically highlights and discusses such burning problems of modern life as mutual recognition, the fragility of human existence and earthly civilization in general, (...) tolerance, care, justice, responsibility for the future of humanity, for the very idea of man. In a number of works, Ricoeur expresses his views on the possible future of Europe — on its new ethos overcoming the boundaries and structures of national states, on the combination of their “identity” and “otherness” at the global level. Translation from one language to another as a kind of a priori communication, exchange of memory as a preliminary transfer to a different cultural environment, forgiveness that stems from the suffering of others and raises the question of the burden of debt, — all this is being considered as a models of integration. Originally presented at philosophical congresses and symposia, as well as qua journal publications, the highlighted problems were fundamentally studied by the philosopher in his works “History and Truth” (1955), “Oneself as Another” (1990), “Ethics and Responsibility” (1994), “The Just” (vols. 1, 2 — 1995, 2001), “Ideology and Utopia” (1997), “Memory, History, Oblivion” (2000), “The Way of Recognition” (2004). The book “Paul Ricoeur. Politics, Economics and Society. Manuscripts and Speeches 4” is addressed to philosophers, cultural and political scientists and scholars representing different branches of humanitarian studies, as well as to readers interested in contemporary philosophy. (shrink)

Trata-se de traçar uma aproximação comparativa entre dois autores oriundos de campos distintos do saber e da cultura e visualizar a mútua contribuição decorrente dessa aproximação, a saber, entre a filosofia de Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005) e o romance de Milan Kundera (1929-). Na medida em que tanto a filosofia de Ricoeur quanto a prosa ficcional de Kundera refletem sobre a constituição da subjetividade na modernidade, a presente contribuição visa estabelecer paralelos entre suas concepções de subjetividade (...) e suas reflexões sobre os destinos da prática da narração ficcional na virada do século. Tendo isso em vista, pretendo realizar uma interpretação comparativa entre as teses de Ricoeur, especialmente apresentadas em Tempo e narrativa e O si-mesmo como outro e as de Kundera, expostas tanto em seus ensaios quanto apresentadas de forma esparsa em digressões reflexivas que permeiam sua prosa romanesca. Meu intuito será mostrar como se diferenciam de forma discreta mas se sintonizam de forma robusta no que concerne a relação entre a constituição da subjetividade, o papel do romance na existência e a imersão desta em enredos historicamente considerados. (shrink)

Την 9η Μαρτίου του 1985 ο Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005) και ο Κορνήλιος Καστοριάδης (1922-1997) συναντήθηκαν στο στούντιο της ραδιοφωνικής εκπομπής «Le bon plaisir» της France Culture, την οποία παρουσίαζε ο πρώτος. Ο Ρικέρ βλέπει τον ανθρώπινο κόσμο, αν όχι ως πλήρως καθορισμένο, τουλάχιστον ως ετερο-καθορίσιμο, ερμηνευτή ενός νοήματος που προσφέρεται μεν από τη δομή του κόσμου, είναι δε ανοιχτό σε άπειρες διαφορετικές επανερμηνείες. Η ανθρώπινη χρονικότητα για τον Ρικέρ είναι αφηγηματική, γιατί και το φαντασιακό είναι, τελικά, (...) ερμηνευτικό. Ο Καστοριάδης, από την άλλη, αμφισβήτησε την ερμηνευτική μέθοδο, υπογραμμίζοντας τα προτερήματά της μόνον όσον αφορά «μεμονωμένα έργα στο πλαίσιο μίας παράδοσης.» (Καστοριάδης, 2007: 86). Δεν θεωρεί, ωστόσο, ότι επαρκεί για να διαυγάσουμε το φαινόμενο της δημιουργίας, ούτε στην ευρύτερη οντολογία του Είναι-ως-Χρόνος, ούτε στην ανθρωπολογία του κοινωνικο-ιστορικού κόσμου. Αυτή η δημιουργία είναι δημιουργία απερίσταλτων, αυθαίρετων κοινωνικών φαντασιακών σημασιών, κοινωνιογένεση και ανθρωπογένεση. Ο Ρικέρ δεν ήθελε να δεχτεί μία τόσο ριζική άποψη ούτε του ανθρώπινου φαντασιακού, ούτε του περιβάλλοντος κόσμου. Ωστόσο, ο διάλογος μεταξύ Καστοριάδη και Ρικέρ κατά μία έννοια συνεχίζεται στις φιλοσοφικές αναζητήσεις του καιρού μας. Παρ’ όλες τις διαφωνίες τους, οι θεωρητικές συγκλίσεις των δύο στοχαστών στα θέματα του φαντασιακού και της χρονικότητας υπήρξαν σημαντικές και η προσωπική τους σχέση, μια σχέση, θα λέγαμε, αμοιβαίας αναγνώρισης. (shrink)

Trata-se de um estudo comparativo entre as ideias do filósofo Paul Ricoeur (1913 – 2005) e do romancista Milan Kundera (1929-) sobre as experiências do tempo e da memória. Parte-se de uma comparação inicial das ideias de ambos os pensadores acerca dos temas da ipseidade, da História e da experiência do tempo. Em um segundo momento, o pensamento de ambos os autores é colocado em confrontação crítica, em especial no que concerne aos seus respectivos entendimentos sobre (...) a natureza da experiência humana do tempo e os limites da memória. Em seguida, passa-se ao exame das ideias e hipóteses de Kundera sob a luz da hermenêutica filosófica de Ricoeur, com o intento de mostrar que essa é onde essa hermenêutica é mais intensamente desafiada que melhor mostra suas valências filosóficas. Em um último momento, pretende-se mostrar que dessa confrontação crítica resultam interessantes convergências por meio das quais ambos os pensadores oferecem perspectivas similares e complementares para fins do cultivo de uma memória feliz e de uma experiência viva do tempo. (shrink)

L’herméneutique de la compréhension développée dans Être et temps, et plus particulièrement dans ses §§ 31-32, est l’un des chapitres les plus importants et les plus marquants de la philosophie de Heidegger. Elle est importante par la perspective inouïe qu’elle développe sur le phénomène du comprendre, mais aussi parce que tout le projet de Heidegger est lui-même centré sur la compréhension de l’être 0Seinsverständnis), que son ouvrage propose d’élucider en un effort d’interprétation-explicitation (Auslegung) dont le § 32 de Sein und (...) Zeit consacré à Y Auslegung présentera la théorie. Si ces analyses sont célèbres, c’est parce qu’elles ont connu un écho retentissant, notamment dans la réflexion théologique de Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976), qui en a tiré l’inspiration de son exégèse existentiale du Nouveau Testament (Bultmann 1950) et la philosophie herméneutique défendue par Hans- Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) et Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005). On peut dire que sans l’herméneutique du comprendre de Heidegger, cette philosophie herméneutique n’aurait probablement jamais vu le jour. (shrink)

This essay deals with two poetics of distinctly different traditions that arrived at the same concept of literary art, one in which the reader of, or listener to, a poem shares in the creative process with the poet. The first tradition I will examine is the that of the pre-Hispanic Mexican poets of the Cantares mexicanos and the 20th- century appropriation of their work by two of Mexico's most distinguished poets, Octavio Paz (1914–1998) and ]ose Emilio Pacheco (1939–2014), both awarded (...) the Premio Cervantes, and Paz, the Nobel Prize. The second part of this essay examines the contemporary Continental tradition of philosophical hermeneutics that began with Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) and Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900–2001) and culminated in the work of Paul Ricoeur (1913– 2005). Although Heidegger is now well known among philosophers throughout the world, it should be noted that ]ose Gaos of the National University of Mexico, an exile from Spain, completed the first translation of Heidegger's Sein und Zeit in 1951, more than a decade before the English and French translations appeared. (shrink)

With reference to the work of Gabriel Marcel (1889–1973), this paper illustrates how, in spite of its general neglect in philosophical contexts, narrativeform can be significant in philosophical writing. This, in turn, highlights an aspect of Marcel’s specificity that has been overlooked: recognition of narrative’s structural importance in Marcel reveals the extent to which the form and content of his investigations into the nature of Being are indissociable; and this sheds light on his particular phenomenological method, which, like that of (...) Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), takes an indirect approach to ontology—specifically through itsuse of first-person narratives. For this reason, I argue, parallels can also be drawn between Marcel’s philosophy and that of Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005)—especiallywith his discussions of narrative identity. (shrink)

The main theme of volume 6 of Eco-ethica is "Ethics and Justice" which focuses on the idea of "justice" in a metaphysical, social, and personal sense. Justice is considered as a balance between opposite ambitions in interdependent persons, and as equity in legislation, but not as blind justice. Today it is valuable not only on the national, but also on the cosmopolitan level. Before it became personal justice, the idea of justice was considered metaphysical and social, both in European and (...) Chinese culture. However, in modern times, it is often reduced to a moral duty without meta-ethical responsibility. The last section considers the importance of the philosophy of Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005) for clarifying the idea of justice. (Series: Eco-Ethica, Vol. 6) [Subject: Philosophy, Ethics]. (shrink)

With reference to the work of Gabriel Marcel (1889–1973), this paper illustrates how, in spite of its general neglect in philosophical contexts, narrativeform can be significant in philosophical writing. This, in turn, highlights an aspect of Marcel’s specificity that has been overlooked: recognition of narrative’s structural importance in Marcel reveals the extent to which the form and content of his investigations into the nature of Being are indissociable; and this sheds light on his particular phenomenological method, which, like that of (...) Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), takes an indirect approach to ontology—specifically through itsuse of first-person narratives. For this reason, I argue, parallels can also be drawn between Marcel’s philosophy and that of Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005)—especiallywith his discussions of narrative identity. (shrink)