Paul Ricoeur

A review of a collection of papers by Paul Ricoeur edited by Domenico Jervolino. The collection highlights Ricoeur's journey from the reflexive philosophy to analytic philosophy through hermeneutics.

This paper focuses on the rule of metaphor in Paul Ricoeur's philosophy of language. In his MultiDisciplinary Studies in the Creation of Meaning in Language (1975), the French philosopher shows the fundamental power of human language in constructing the world we perceive. He reveals the processes by which linguistic imagination creates and recreates meaning through metaphor. He develops a "linguistic philosophy of freedom," and a hermeneutics of the subject based on human capabilities. According to Ricoeur, to exist is to act: (...) speaking, doing, telling, and assuming responsibility for the act committed. The very "being" of human beings is to act and the effort to be. In this perspective, the human interiority is considered as dynamic production (enérgeia, conatus): it is a complex ontology of homo capax based on the human freedom and possibilities of language. Being as act and potentiality is the dominant meta-category that governs Ricoeur's philosophical anthropology, widely developed in the work Oneself as Another (1990). (shrink)

God is dead, but, contrary to Nietzsche’s diagnosis, ‘we’ didn’t kill him; he died of cancer. This perhaps crudely cold and off-putting opening does not refer to a naively metaphorically constituted transcendental abstraction, but to a spatio-temporally situated rock legend, Ronnie James Dio. This study aims at contributing to the burgeoning research field of memory and collective identity by providing a sociosemiotic account of the formation of collective narrative identity. By drawing on the three major categories whereby collective memory is (...) formed, that is artifacts, processes, places, as well as on the three key sociosemiotic metafunctions which are responsible for shaping a cultural event as sign system, the pursued interpretive route seeks to effectively contextualize how collective memory is fleshed out situationally in the context of Dio’s memorial. At the same time, by expanding the interpretive canvass to incorporate phenomenological perspectives on the mode of formation of collective memory, the offered analytic is intent on tracing invisible structures that point to operative mechanisms beyond the formal constraints of a sociosemiotic reading. Both phenomenological and sociosemiotic approaches are reinscribed within an overarching narrativity paradigm, wherein their relative merits in addressing the scrutinized phenomenon are discussed in an attempt to formulate a hybrid sociosemiotic phenomenological perspective of memorial events. (shrink)

Jean Grondin’s Hermeneutics is a historical introduction to hermeneutic theory. It introduces hermeneutics as a tradition and discuss its various aspects in contemporary philosophy. The book also tries to recognize and overcome prevailing misconceptions about hermeneutics. In this review, I provide a critique of the Persian translation of Jean Grondin’s book.

This article presents Paul Ricœur’s hermeneutic of the productive imagination as a methodological tool for understanding the innovative social function of texts that in exceeding their semantic meaning, iconically augment reality. Through the reasoning of Rastafari elder Mortimo Planno’s unpublished text, Rastafarian: The Earth’s Most Strangest Man, and the religious and biblical signification from the music of his most famous postulate, Bob Marley, this article applies Paul Ricœur’s schema of the religious productive imagination to conceptualize the metaphoric transfer from text (...) to life of verbal and iconic images of Rastafari’s hermeneutic of word, sound and power. This transformation is accomplished through what Ricœur terms the phenomenology of the iconic augmentation of reality. Understanding this semantic innovation is critical to understanding the capacity of the religious imagination to transform reality as a proclamation of hope in the midst of despair. (shrink)

With the advent of the digital age and new mediums of communication, it is becoming increasingly important for those interested in the interpretation of religious text to look beyond traditional ideas of text and textuality to find the sacred in unlikely places. Paul Ricoeur’s phenomenological reorientation of classical hermeneutics from romanticized notions of authorial intent and psychological divinations to a serious engagement with the “science of the text” is a hermeneutical tool that opens up an important dialogue between the interpreter, (...) the world of the text, and the contemporary world in front of the text. This article examines three significant insights that Paul Ricoeur contributes to our expanding understanding of text. First under scrutiny will be Ricoeur’s de-regionalization of classic hermeneutics culminating in his understanding of Dasein (Being) as “being-in-the-world,” allowing mean-ing to transcend the physical boundaries of the text. Next, Ricoeur’s three-fold under-standing of traditionality/Traditions/tradition as the “chain of interpretations” through which religious language transcends the tem-poral boundary of historicity will be explored. The final section will focus on Ricoeur’s understanding of the productive imagination and metaphoric truth as the under-appreciated yet key insight around which Ricoeur’s philosophical investigation into the metaphoric transfer from text to life revolves. (shrink)

Traditionally, the ideas of “intuitive” and “discursive” forms of understanding have been seen as near opposites. Whereas an intuitive understanding could have a direct grasp of something, a discursive understanding would always depend on what is given to it, as mediated by concepts. In this essay, I suggest that Paul Ricoeur’s conception of analogy presents a way of overcoming this opposition. For Ricoeur, an analogy works within discursive understanding, but it depends on an eventful insight that leads beyond what is (...) merely given in discourse. The analogy “gives more” for thought. Yet, as I argue, what analogy gives for thought is always explicable in conceptual terms: any intuitive understanding is commensurate with a discursive one. I illustrate Ricoeur’s mediation of discursive and intuitive understanding in particular with his conception of metaphor, which vividly depends on overcoming a discursive contradiction by analogical and intuitive means. Before introducing Ricoeur’s conception, I discuss the Kantian background of the intuitive/discursive distinction. In particular, I suggest how Goethe’s attempt to revitalize a notion of intuitive understanding can be compared to Ricoeur’s conception, though Ricoeur improves upon Goethe by grounding intuition in the specific phenomenon of analogy. (shrink)

يُقسم هذا الكتاب إلى ثلاثة أقسام. يضم الأول، وعنوانه إشكالية المنهج في هيرمينوطيقا الرموز والعلامات عند ريكور، ويتكون من ثلاثة فصول. -/- يوضح الفصل الأول إشكالية المنهج وتأسيس الفينومينولوجيا الهيرمينوطيقة: المنهج الريكوري الخاص مقاربة الهيرمينوطيقا الريكورية للرموز، عارضًا تمفصل الأبعاد التفكُّرية والفينومينولوجية والهيرمينوطيقية في فلسفة ريكور، وأسباب الانتقال من الفينومينولوجيا الماهوية إلى الفينومينولوجيا الهيرمينوطيقية، والمستويات الثلاثة لظهور الرموز وتحليلها القصدي، وأسباب الانتقال وكيفيته من رمزية الشر إلى الهيرمينوطيقا الفلسفية التفكُّرية للرموز، من منطلق الفهم التأويلي للرمز، ليبين أخيرًا صراع التأويلات والمراحل (...) الثلاث للطريق الطويلة لهيرمينوطيقا ريكور الفلسفية: الدلالية والتفكُّرية والوجودية. -/- يخصص المؤلف الفصل الثاني الصراع المنهجي في التحليل النفسي الفرويدي وانطلاقًا منه -تأويل وتفسير تيليولوجيا وأركيولوجيا لقراءة ريكور وتأويله للتحليل النفسي الفرويدي الارتيابي مقابل هيرمينوطيقا الإيمان، ولتقدير مدى اعتبار التحليل النفسي الفرويدي أركيولوجيا للذات معارضة لتيليولوجيا الذات التي تمثل الفينومينولوجيا الهيغلية مثالًا أنموذجيًا لها. كما يتناول هذا الفصل الجدل الذي حاول ريكور إقامته بين أركيولوجيا ضمنية وتيليولوجيا صريحة في الفينومينولوجيا الهيغلية، وبين أركيولوجيا صريحة وتيليولوجيا ضمنية في التحليل النفسي الفرويدي. -/- في الفصل الثالث الذي يحمل عنوان نحو هيرمينوطيقا عامة للرموز - صراع الأركيولوجيا والتيليولوجيا، ينبري المؤلف لتحديد الرمز تحديدًا متضافر العناصر ومتعدد الدلالات، ودراسة محاولة ريكور مَفْصَلة تأويل تيليولوجي مع تأويل أركيولوجي فرويدي لوعي الذات في المِلكية والسلطة والقيمة، ومناقشة مسألة أصالة منهج هيرمينوطيقا ريكور للرموز والعلامات، متسائلًا: إلى أي حد نجح ريكور في تأسيس علاقة جدلية بين المناهج الهيرمينوطيقية المتنافسة، وفي داخل كلٍّ منها؟ وإلى أي حد نجح ريكور في تحقيق المهمات الأساس التي ينبغي أن تؤديها الهيرمينوطيقا، على المستويين الإبستمولوجي والمنهجي؟ -/- يتألف القسم الثاني من الكتاب، وعنوانه إشكالية المنهج في هيرمينوطيقا ريكور للنص والسرد، من فصلين اثنين. الفصل الرابع إشكالية المنهج في هيرمينوطيقا النص عند ريكور وهو مخصص لمحاولة ريكور إقامة علاقة جدلية بين التفسير والفهم في نظريتي النص والاستعارة، وتبيّن كيفية انتقاله من هيرمينوطيقا الرموز إلى هيرمينوطيقا النصوص، وأسباب هذا الانتقال ونتائجه، مع إبداء تعريف للنص بوصفه خطابًا مكتوبًا، وتعريف السمات المؤسسة لهذا الخطاب، وإنجاز هذه السمات في اللغتين الشفهية والمكتوبة، باعتبار النص أنموذجًا إرشاديًا، ومناقشة إمكان اعتبار النص أنموذجًا هيرمينوطيقيًا يسمح بإقامة جدل بين الفهم والتفسير، وأخيرًا رسم المسارين الممكنين للجدل بين التفسير والفهم، في نظريتي النص والاستعارة: من الفهم إلى التفسير، ومن التفسير إلى الفهم. -/- في الفصل الخامس، من النص إلى السرد - إشكالية المنهج في نظرية السرد، يعالج درويش الجدل بين التفسير والفهم في نظرية السرد، منطلقًا من مناقشة اللحظات الثلاث لعملية المحاكاة في العمل السردي: لحظة الجدل بين الفهم المسبق للفعل وتصويره في عملية الحبك أو السرد؛ ولحظة الجدل بين فهمنا المسبق لماهية السرد والتفسير البنيوي للسرد؛ ولحظة الجدل بين فعل الحبك أو القصِّ أو السرد وتلقِّي القرَّاء ذلك. تؤلف هذه اللحظات مجتمعةً القوس الهيرمينوطيقي للتأويل عند ريكور، وهي مقدمات لمحاولاته التالية لحلِّ مشكلة علاقة التفسير بالفهم في المقاربتين الهيرمينوطيقية والعلمية للنص والسرد. -/- يحمل القسم الثالث من هذا الكتاب عنوان التوسُّعات المتتالية لهيرمينوطيقا النص الريكورية: الفهم والتفسير في العلوم الإنسانية والاجتماعية وفي هيرمينوطيقا الخطاب الشفهي، وهو مؤلّف من فصلين. -/- ففي الفصل السادس، إشكالية المنهج في العلوم الإنسانية والاجتماعية -امتداد الهيرمينوطيقا الريكورية إلى نظريّتي الفعل والتاريخ، يتناول دروش إشكالية المنهج في نظرية الفعل بين الدافع والحافز، وفي نظرية التاريخ بين التفسير والفهم، وبين الموضوعية العلمية والذاتية التأويلية، كما يوضح السمة الهيرمينوطيقية لعلم التاريخ بإبراز السمة التأويلية المحايثة للأوجه الثلاثة المكونة لعملية الكتابة التأريخية، عارضًا التقارب والصلة الوثيقة بين نظريات النص والفعل والتاريخ، والجدل بين العلة والسبب في نظرية الفعل، والمماثلة بين النص والفعل الحصيف بوصفه موضوع بحث العلوم الاجتماعية. -/- في الفصل السابع والأخير، وعنوانه نحو تأسيس هيرمينوطيقا للخطاب الشفهي والحوار انطلاقًا من الهيرمينوطيقا الريكورية، يتوسّع المؤلف في محاولة تأسيس هيرمينوطيقا للخطاب الشفهي عمومًا، وللحوار خصوصًا، انطلاقًا من هيرمينوطيقا ريكور للنص والفعل، فيناقش الأسباب وراء إقصاء ريكور الخطاب الشفهي من هيرمينوطيقاه، وإمكان - بل ضرورة - تأسيس هذه الهيرمينوطيقا استنادًا إلى الهيرمينوطيقا الريكورية نفسها. كما يقابل المؤلف بين بعض أنواع الخطاب الشفهي كالخطاب التلفزيوني والإذاعي والنص باعتباره أنموذجًا هيرمينوطيقيًا ويماثلهما، ليكشف عن سمات مميزة للنص في الخطاب التلفزيوني والإذاعي أيضًا. ويتطرق إلى ظاهرة عدم الفهم في تبادل الحديث الشفهي عمومًا، وفي الحوار خصوصًا، والعلاقات المعقَّدة بين الفهم والتأويل والتفسير في الحوار، باحثًا عن حلٍّ لظاهرة سوء الفهم أو عدمه في الحوار، انطلاقًا من أخلاق الحوار والفهم. وينهي الفصل هذا بالتطرق إلى الترجمة، بوصفها أنموذجًا إرشاديًّا للهيرمينوطيقا. (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)

Ricoeur’s application of phenomenology to the existential human condition brings us to an understanding of human freedom in the light of an embodied human existence that is acting or willing or choosing freely, voluntarily, and responsibly. Human will is not therefore a concept or an abstract manipulated by the powers of the intellectuals. Rather, it is about man’s action, his agency, his being a doer, the one willing, instead of being just the one thinking or loving. Likewise, Ricoeur’s recourse to (...) existentialism sheds light to our faulted condition. We could say of a negation of man as a willing being: while man is capable of willing, he wills with recognition of his limitations. He always wills within the bounds of his finitude. Indeed, there is always this tension yet there is also this fusion. Nonetheless, it is possible for man to live in this contradiction as contradictions. Man is harmonic in contradictions. His will is always his ability, not his in- or dis-ability. (shrink)

The paper aims to explain how Paul Ricœur’s phenomenological and hermeneutic approach offers an original theory of the self as self-attestation. Considering useful an approach that combines the psychological uses of the notion of self with a reflection on one’s capacity to design himself/herself as a person, the paper offers a thorough analysis of Ricœur’s work Soi-même comme un autre / Oneself as Another. The main purpose of this analysis is to highlight that, drawing a clear distinction between two forms (...) of identity (la mêmeté/sameness and l’ipséité/selfhood) and proposing a dialectic between the self and the other, Ricœur grounds his theory on a notion of self which includes one’s acceptance of the other. (shrink)

This paper argues that Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutical philosophy attempts to reopen the question of human transcendence in contemporary terms. While his conception of language as self-transcending is deeply Husserlian, Ricoeur also responds to the analytical challenge when he deploys a basic distinction in Fregean logic in order to clarify Heidegger’s phenomenology of world. Ricoeur’s commitment to a transcendental view is evident in his conception of narrative, which enables him to emphasize the role of the performative in literary reading. The meaning (...) of the self in time provides Ricoeur with a discursive basis for distinguishing his own position from that of Kant and other philosophers in the transcendental tradition. (shrink)

This review shows how Pierre Gisel's comments on Ricoeur are redundant; how Graham Ward gets Ricoeur's understanding of evil clearly; but then it goes on to show how both Gisel and Ward do not understand/mention the influence of St. Paul and Jürgen Moltmann on Ricoeur.

This work aims to spell out clear the tensions manifested by the meeting between the project of a reflexive philosophy and psychoanalysis, from a very specific event: the publication, in 1965, of the thesis De l'interprétation: essai sur Freud by Paul Ricoeur. Our question arises from the fact that psychoanalysis has introduced one of the greatest embarrassments to the philosophies of consciousness, as it established the unconscious psychic as foundation and array of subjectivity. In contrast, Paul Ricoeur strengthens its belonging (...) to the reflective tradition initiated by Husserl, but with a fundamental deviation: in your access to subjectivity, this reflexive philosophy must take the form of a hermeneutics that interprets the signs of man’s existence. Given this, the present study seeks to find out what difficulties, tensions and contributions the reading of Freud offers to hermeneutic project proposed by Ricoeur. The article aims to show how the philosophical reading of Freud allowed Ricoeur to arbitrate the different and sometimes conflicting hermeneutics approaches around the problem of symbol. (shrink)

This article shows that Paul Ricoeur and Carol Gilligan develop their theories of the self by borrowing critically from Freudian aesthetics, adding an ethical dimension missing in it. Ricoeur critiques, completes and endorses the Freudian interpretation of the Oedipus, while Gilligan rejects it, since she considers it distorted by patriarchal ideology. Both are reclaiming the Freudian theory of culture by focusing on what Freud called the «life drive» as opposed to the «death drive». But Ricoeur does not pay the same (...) attention as Gilligan to patriarchal ideology conveyed by Greek tragedies. Thus, his ethics remains deeply rooted in the language of the tragic conflict (Oedipus, Antigone), while Gilligan’s ethics seeks to renew the language of pleasure (Cupid and Psyche). -/- ----------- Cet article montre que Paul Ricœur et Carol Gilligan développent leurs théories du soi en puisant de manière critique à l’esthétique freudienne, y ajoutant la dimension éthique manquante. Si Ricœur critique, complète et entérine l’interprétation freudienne de l’Œdipe, Gilligan se distingue davantage de Freud, qu’elle juge biaisé par l’idéologie patriarcale. Tous deux se réapproprient la théorie freudienne de la culture en mettant l’accent sur ce que Freud appelait la «pulsion de vie» par opposition à la «pulsion de mort». Mais comme Ricœur n’accorde pas la même attention que Gilligan à l’idéologie patriarcale véhiculée par les tragédies grecques, son éthique reste profondément enracinée dans le langage du conflit tragique (Œdipe, Antigone), alors que celle de Gilligan cherche à renouveler le langage du plaisir (Cupidon et Psyché). (shrink)

In this essay, I will critically examine Collin Turbayne and Philip Wheelwright's approaches to the theory of metaphor. Through criticism of their views I will arrive at Paul Ricoeur's theory which I consider is the most comprehensive one. Ricoeur retains what is fruitful from the above mentioned theories and tries to make them part of a very ambitious project which is represented by his monumental work The Rule of Metaphor (1977). He manages to open a new dimension in the analysis (...) of metaphor by linking it through a special use of imagination to the phenomenal world, by according it the status of statement (redefining Frege's sense and reference polarity) and by pointing out the idea that metaphors have an emotional meaning as well. Thus, I will start with the two different views on this issue, first that of Collin Turbayne, who develops a theory of metaphor based on the "as if" prescription and thus brings the whole discussion on metaphor into the field of reflective judgment. Then there is Philip Weelwright's theory which considers that metaphorical language, through its fluidity and tensiveness, is closely connected to "what is", that is, to the real. Using these two theories as dialectical counterparts, I will try to bring them together in an act of synthesis, arriving finally at Paul Ricoeur's theory of metaphor. (shrink)

Reacting against the turn to transcendence that heavily characterized the medieval worldview, the modern worldview is fundamentally exemplified by a threefold turn to immanence, consisting of a subjective turn, a linguistic turn and an experiential turn. Language plays a pivotal role here since it mediates between the subjective and the experiential. Ricoeur’s treatment of metaphor, significantly laid out in his The Rule of Metaphor, is crucial in bringing about this linguistic turn that mediates the subject and its experience of the (...) world. Through an analysis of “seeing as” as a poietic reconfiguration of reality in the subject’s experience, language transforms and founds the world as a “being as.” What is disclosed in this interpretative transformation of reality is not simply an hermeneutical ontology but possibly—also through language—an hermeneutical axiology. (shrink)

El documento expone los antecedentes sugeridos por Paul Ricoeur sobre lo que podría denominarse “la polémica epistemológica en ciencias sociales”, referidos a la formulación de un método legítimo para la investigación en dichas ciencias que responda a las particularidades propias de su objeto de estudio. En este sentido, se rastrea la cuestión en la tradición hermenéutica romántica, concretamente en el pensamiento de Wilhelm Dilthey, pasando por la teoría estructural de estudio del texto escrito y la formulación de una teoría de (...) la acción anglosajona, para finalmente terminar en la ricoeurtiana consideración hermenéutica de la acción significativa, que asume al texto como paradigma y propuesta de superación de los escollos en torno a la referida polémica. (shrink)

The concept of ‘living metaphor’ receives a number of articulations within metaphor theory. A review of four key theories – Nietzsche, Ricoeur, Lakoff and Johnson, and Derrida – reveals a distinction between theories which identify a prior, speculative nature working on or with metaphor, and theories wherein metaphor is shown to be performatively always, already active in thought. The two cannot be left as alternatives because they exhibit opposing theses with regard to the ontology of metaphor, but neither can an (...) impartial philosophical appraisal of the most cogent or defensible theory be made, since the status and conduct of philosophy are part of the problem. Two responses to the predicament from within ‘living metaphor’ theory are considered: (1) Lakoff and Johnson’s ecological spirituality thesis which promises to make the contest redundant on the grounds that the origin of human concepts in our shared, embodied condition in the world removes all obstructions; (2) taking the lead from Nietzsche and Ricoeur, an approach based on the intersection of discourses, not as a resolution but as a gesture which allows the conflict to speak about ‘living metaphor’. (1) is shown to be unsuccessful, but (2) results in ‘living metaphor’ emerging as an attentiveness to questions of what does and does not belong, inspired by tensions between ‘is’ and ‘is not’, ‘from this perspective’ and ‘from that perspective’, and ‘is spoken about’ and ‘is spoken with’. (shrink)

What I would like to study is the presence of Cartesian manner of thinking in the Ricoeurian comprehension of subjectivity. I focus particularly on what is not saying expressis verbis in his argumentation. I do not say that the Ricoeurian conception of dialectical subject which is expressed as “oneself as another” places itself as continuation of the tradition of absolutization of cogito. By no means. Ricoeur’s investigation that pertains to subjectivity aims at elaborating its new formulation. Philosophy of Descartes might (...) be interpret in various ways not only as the synonym of “egology”. In my paper I indicate two formulas of ego which are included in Cartesian Meditations (ego cogito, ergo sum and ego sum, ego existo) that give rise to the different interpretations of ego. I analyse the Ricoeurian stance that relates to the consequences of introducing by Descartes the very formula ego sum, ego existo. In the second part I concentrate on issue on what sense rereading Meditations could be helpful in entering into discussion with structuralist critique of the subject. Also I get an approach to the theoretical framework of Ricoeurian argumentation which is established according to defend the subject. -/- W artykule staram się pokazać obecność elementów Kartezjańskiego sposobu rozumowania w Ricoeurowskim deklaratywnie „antykartezjańskim” ujęciu subiektywności. Nie twierdzę, że Ricoeur w proponowanej przez siebie koncepcji podmiotu dialektycznego wyrażonego jako "ten-który-jest-sobą-jak-i-innym" sytuuje sie po stronie tradycji absolutyzującej cogito. Moim celem jest przesledzenie tych momentów Ricoeurowskiej argumentacji prowadzonej na rzecz wypracowania nowej formuły podmiotowości, w których obecny jest (najczęściej implicite) wątek Kartezjański. W samej filozofii Kartezjusza obecna jest droga, która nie prowadzi do egologii. By pokazać dwie różne perspektywy odczytania Kartezjańskiego cogito, przywołuję dwie formuły: ego cogito ergo sum oraz ego sum, ego existo, by następnie poddac je analizie. W pierwszej cześci artykułu skupiam się na ukazaniu konsekwencji płynących z wykorzystania formuły ego sum, ego existo w dyskusji dotyczącej subiektywności. W drugiej cześci staram się dowieść, na jakiej drodze możliwe jest wykorzystanie Kartezjańskiej koncepcji podmiotu w konfrontacji ze strukturalistyczną krytyką podmiotu. (shrink)

English title: Ricoeur and Derrida — the Heritage of Death. In this article the author juxtaposes two different attempts of defending life against Heidegger’s horizon of death (Sein zum Tode) (the survie (survival) of Jacques Derrida and the “Living up to Death” of Paul Ricoeur). Their false proximity introduces a new insight into the discussion about the paradoxical positiveness of deconstruction. Ricoeur’s concept of life makes impossible the understanding of deconstruction as faithfulness to the other not in his identity, but (...) precisely in his otherness. (shrink)

This essay examines Paul Ricœur’s views on recognition in his book The Course of Recognition . It highlights those aspects that are in some sense surprising, in relation to his previous publications and the general debates on Hegelian Anerkennung and the politics of recognition. After an overview of Ricœur’s book, the paper examines the meaning of “recognition” in Ricœur’s own proposal, in the dictionaries Ricœur uses, and in the contemporary debates. Then it takes a closer look at the ideas of (...) recognition as identification and as “taking as true.” Then it turns to recognition (attestation) of oneself, in light of the distinction between human constants (and the question “What am I?”), and human variables (and the question “Who Am I?”). The last section concerns the dialectics of struggles for recognition and states of peace, and the internal relationship between the contents of a normative demand and what counts as satisfying the demand. . (shrink)

Martin Heidegger defines the world as ‘the ever non-objective to which we are subject as long as the paths of birth and death . . . keep us transported into Being’. He writes that the world is ‘not the mere collection of the countable or uncountable, familiar and unfamiliar things that are at hand . . . The world worlds’. Being able to fully and richly express how the world worlds is the task of the artist, whose artwork is the (...) crystallization of this ‘worlding’. For Heidegger it is especially the poet who is attuned to this ‘worlding’, for the poet’s work is focussed on and happens within language itself. The poet is a ‘world-maker’, but this ‘worlding’ is not directed at creating a fictional world; rather it is aimed at revealing the world itself, drawing to the foreground the ‘ever non-objective’ nature of the world, the world happening and unfolding through and with us. This paper, using T.S. Eliot’s poetry, particularly Four Quartets as an example, will delve into how the language of the poet is able to articulate this seemingly invisible boundary between the everyday world and that same world revealed as a mysterious potential that ‘worlds’. The ‘religious imagination’ is central in how this transformation of reality, through poetic language, can manifest. Paul Ricoeur’s work on the poetic and religious dimensions of imagination, particularly the notion of ‘hope’ provides the theoretical underpinnings to explain this transformation. (shrink)

I discuss Ricoeur's intriguing account of the phenomenology of the will, which focuses on deciding rather than desiring as the experientially paradigmatic exercise of the will.

In reaching his narrative view of the self in Oneself as Another, Paul Ricoeur argues that, while literature offers revealing insights into the nature of the self, the sort of fictions involving brain transplants, fission, and so on, that philosophers often take seriously do not (and cannot). My paper is a response to Ricoeur's charge, contending that the arguments Ricoeur rejects are not flawed in the way he suggests, and that his own arguments are sometimes guilty of the very charges (...) he lays at the door of his opponents. (shrink)