Paul Ricoeur

[Presented at the 52nd Annual Conference of the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy (SPEP), University of Oregon, 24-26 October. Part of the panel Events, Actions and the Problem of Agency in the Wake of Deleuze’s Logic of Sense, organized in collaboration with Sean Bowden and James Williams.] In this paper I will bring the positions of Gilles Deleuze and Paul Ricoeur into proximity with each other in order to draw out points of conflict. I do not aim to solve (...) these conflicts, nor to develop them into a full clash. Rather, I will show that both Ricoeur and Deleuze develop a theory of novelty that can be characterized as a reversal of Platonism. These theories are not opposed per se, but they differ in orientation. Deleuze situates novelty in the virtual event. This virtual event can be understood as a singular point of transition that transforms one system into another. Or to catch the event in a somewhat more concrete image, it is a kind of metamorphosis (in Kafka’s sense). In contrast, Ricoeur situates novelty in human actions that are played out as a fruitful tension between two poles. This tension opens up a field of potentiality in which new ideas and novel meanings can emerge. Ricoeur has analysed this tension on many levels. Its most basic structure can be found in what Ricoeur calls a living metaphor. This living metaphor is itself something ‘in action’; it brings two opposed semantic fields into a fruitful tension with each other. This tension reveals a previously unnoticed proximity between these two semantic fields, without destroying their distance. In this way a new, third semantic field is opened up that is only given in potential. Ricoeur argues that it is within tensions like this that generative differences arise, resulting in new ideas and novel meanings. The main point of divergence between Deleuze and Ricoeur can therefore be framed in two contrasting pairs: virtual event versus human action; point of transition versus tension (or: metamorphosis versus metaphor). (shrink)

How can personal identity be determined in such a way that developments, experiences and other dynamic and context-dependent aspects of that identity can be taken into account? For several decades now, the narrative, the story, has often been referred to in answering this question as a cognitive instrument that can adequately deal with those aspects. The monologue thus appears to present itself as a medium in which personal or autobiographical identity is formed. However, what happens when we place the identity (...) narrative in a dialogue: when two people with very diverse backgrounds have a dialogue that touches on their identity? Does this perhaps provide an entirely new challenge and enrichment of that narrative, which can have a major impact on both the individual and the relationship? I want to explore these questions in this article, motivated by both the philosophical perspective and my experiences as co-initiator of the "Keti Koti Table", in which such a dialogue plays a central role. To this end, I will first discuss the dynamic aspects of the narrative, in which the phenomenon of "refiguration" as presented by Ricoeur is key. This is then discussed in the context of the dialogue. In § 4 I discuss the specific dialogue method that we have developed for the Keti Koti Table. Subsequently, in § 5, some experiences of participants are discussed, whose identity refigurations are analyzed under the influence of the dialogue in § 6. It is concluded with a brief conclusion about the special significance of the dialogue for the narrative self-constitution in a diverse society. (shrink)

The aim of this thesis is to show that a familiar hermeneutical movement from suspicion to affirmation of rational meaning, as a reader reflects on a narrative, is, in part, grounded in the narrative's rhythmic structure which mediates a sonorous condition of being appropriated by the reader. This hermeneutical process involves the reader in appropriating the temporal perspective which creates a 'space' for reflection in which a provisional conceptual unity is made possible, but subject to continuing movement from suspicion to (...) affirmation. It is shown that this relationship between Self and Other is dialectical, and mediated by the textual modes of metaphor and narrative. Particular examples of poetry and prose are examined, and the story of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac in the 'Authorised Version' of the Bible is analyzed in detail in an attempt to show how the reader, imaginatively inhabiting the world of the text, is involved in a process in which there is an 'instant' of letting go Self reflection; and there is affirmation of reasonable hope that the narrative may be rationally understood. In an attempt to address the critical issue of validation of rational meaning to show that affirmation may be given reasonable hope, the analogy of juridical legality is examined, particularly with respect to Aristotle's notion of phronesis. The analysis draws upon the hermeneutical philosophy of Paul Ricoeur with particular regard to his theories of metaphor and narrative, and the role of the creative imagination. It also makes use of Maurice Merleau-Ponty's understanding of the lived body in terms of a dialectical relationship between its material objectivity and its phenomenological aspects, especially, with respect to sonorous being and corporeal intentionality. From the discipline of literary criticism, Northrop Frye's notion of prose rhythm in his Anatomy of Criticism is employed to identity this key mediatory characteristic. (shrink)

The following essay evaluates the concept of the trace within extended mind (EM) theory. It begins by differentiating Andy Clark’s complementarity from several competing models. Second, it demonstrates how an undeveloped concept of the trace arises in Clark’s debate with internalist critics. In response, I introduce Paul Ricoeur’s metaphor of the imprint in Memory, History, Forgetting. Fourth, the recent debate about the plastic trace will be applied in this context. In so doing, the legacy of Jacques Derrida will be rehabilitated. (...) I conclude with EM’s renewed promise to model deliberations between religiously diverse people. (shrink)

In twentieth-century France, the word “metaphysics” had connotations of closed systems which claimed certainty for themselves. As a result, few dared to engage in metaphysical speculation. Ricœur, however, rejected this prevalent definition because he believed it came from Heidegger’s procrustean reading of the history of philosophy. While agreeing that certainty and closure were neither desirable nor possible, Ricœur did make metaphysical claims. Following Jaspers’s revival of pre-modern apophatic metaphysics for which transcendence cannot be comprehended, Ricœur, in his early work, argued (...) for “critical realism” against neo-Kantian idealism, “original affirmation” against Sartrean negativity, and the “metaphysical choice” of human freedom’s consent to the unchosen features of reality. (shrink)

It is about analyzing the connection between just memory, narration and art, using an approach that mixes philosophy and visual arts. We will start from the perspective of the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur on fair memory, presented in his work Memory, History, Oblivion (2000), according to which there is an institutionalized ideologization of memory in which narrations are silenced or distorted by the so-called official history. In the process of recovering fair memory, these narratives need to be heard, recognized and (...) valued, deconstructing abusive mechanisms that silence them with the aim of producing oblivion or that manipulate them involve distorting the facts to benefit hegemonic discourses. Next, we will discuss how the myth of Brazilian racial democracy is an example of institutionalized ideologization of memory, considering mainly the reflections of Brazilian philosophy Sueli Carneiro in Device of raciality (2023). Finally, we will show how Elian Almeida's pictorial counter-narratives, especially the Vogue series (2020), work to strengthen and disseminate unofficial narratives about Brazil that have been suffocated by official history. (shrink)

El propósito del trabajo es comparar las trayectorias filosóficas de Paul Ricoeur y Mario Presas. Se sostiene que una adecuada comprensión del giro de la fenomenología a la hermenéutica, en el cual ubicamos a ambos, implica poner en relieve su pertenencia inicial a la fenomenología existencial francesa de la primera mitad del siglo XX. Se precisará la denominación fenomenología existencial y el impacto que tuvo en la concepción de la hermenéutica que fue desarrollada a partir de ella. Para concluir, proponemos (...) una periodización de la producción de Presas en relación con su lectura de la obra de Ricoeur. (shrink)

Recent literature regarding how Ricoeur’s work relates to the philosophy of technology appears prima facie to be contradictory. In one established interpretation, Ricoeur’s contributions are merely indirect as he did not engage with the empirical turn of the discipline in the 1980s and maintained a suspicious view of technology based on a profound concern with the distinction between persons and things. In this view, Ricoeur’s work does not add anything new to the discipline but is still valuable to the philosophy (...) of technology through other features of his corpus, such as his critical hermeneutics and narrative theory. In another interpretative approach, some argue Ricoeur adds to the field by directly thematizing technology when studying ethics and human capability–he cannot be thought of as merely ignoring the complex relationship between the social sphere and technology. The present paper offers a dialectical analysis of these interpretative approaches and argues that these positions are not mutually exclusive, but rather capture complementary aspects about the nature of Ricoeur’s hermeneutic and political projects. At one level, Ricoeur engages with core themes of philosophy of technology by exploring the ambiguity of specific technologies and techniques and their implications to social, cultural, and political spheres; in doing so, Ricoeur contributes directly to the field by avoiding the reduction of meaning into merely technical questions. On the other hand, it is also true that Ricoeur, particularly in the main thematic areas of his great works since the 1970s, has not been directly involved with specific questions of how different recent technologies are intertwined with social, political, and ethical aspects, and his emphasis against a reductionist type of technical mentality distanced him from a closer engagement with specific technological issues. In this sense, most of his contributions to the philosophy of technology are indirect. Nevertheless, this paper wants to emphasize that this dialectic analysis invites us to recognize the richness and potential of Ricoeur’s thought to understand how technologies are shaping our experiences in the world. The recently published volume Interpreting Technology, edited by Wessel Reijers, Alberto Romele, and Mark Coeckelbergh, is a powerful example of such potential. (shrink)

Cet article reformule et approfondit la distinction de Ricœur entre douleur et souffrance dans les termes de la philosophie de l’esprit contemporaine pour qu’elle puisse ultérieurement y être discutée dans le débat existant sur la douleur. Douleur et souffrance sont distinguées, par leurs dimensions évaluatives respectives, donc en termes d’intentionnalité, ainsi que par leurs fonctions, à partir de la façon dont Ricœur caractérise les effets propres de la souffrance sur l’activité mentale et la conduite. Notre lecture suggère que la douleur (...) évalue le caractère dommageable d’un état corporel ou d’une situation, tandis que la souffrance évalue le caractère à première vue injustifiable du mal subi. La première a une fonction pratique, nous motiver à nous préserver de ce qui nous porte atteinte, tandis que la seconde a une fonction épistémique, nous motiver à nous interroger sur l’imputation morale du mal subi et sur les raisons qui pourraient le justifier. (shrink)

Le Quichotte de Cervantès occupe une place singulière dans l’histoire de la traduction littéraire en langue française, au moins parce qu’il a fait l’objet d’incessantes retraductions. Mais l’ouvrage retient l’attention parce que la traduction y est thématisée pour elle-même en deux endroits. Cervantès, en jouant avec les codes du roman de chevalerie, pose le cadre général d’une réflexion théorique sur la traduction dont on cherchera ici à souligner les principales tensions constitutives. En intériorisant ses propres origines fictives et traductives, dans (...) un intermède à cheval entre les chapitres viii et ix, le Quichotte évoque à la fois l’idée d’une traduction impossible, mais aussi celle de la traduction comme une modalité particulière de lecture où s’origine la littérature moderne comme quasi-monde (Ricœur) propice aux échanges textuels. Il s’agira finalement de montrer que, ce faisant, Cervantès fait signe à la fois vers le structuralisme et la tradition herméneutique, et leur articulation problématique. (shrink)

The following article investigates the hybridity of narrative identity. It explores how idem-identity and the ipse-identity interrelate through time and otherness and illustrates the process of self’s reflexive re-cognition via others. It posits that narrative identity encompasses both private and public dimensions, requiring a co-authorship that integrates collective identities. This article argues for an ethical dimension to this identity, emphasizing the reciprocal movement between self and other. It introduces the concept of followability, which involves reconstructing narratives in a resonance relationship, (...) fostering narrative hospitality and mutual transformation. The study concludes by proposing an eschatological perspective as a horizon for followability, enhancing narrative refiguration through future-oriented imagination. (shrink)

Contextualizing Ricœur’s lecture “Suffering is Not Pain” alongside his other peripheral works on the matter uncovers a “practical philosophy,” that could provide new perspectives for clinicians faced with suffering. The analysis unfolds in four stages. First, it examines Ricœur’s interest in dialoguing with psychiatry to nourish his philosophical work. Second, it highlights Ricœur’s contributions as a third party to help psychiatrists overcome some major issues at that time. Third, it contextualizes the topic of suffering within the prevailing medical views at (...) that time, and their corresponding issues in clinical practice. Finally, it delineates three principles for an applied ethics of suffering; namely, the need to dissociate suffering from any moral justification, approaching the therapeutic relationship as an alliance, and a minimal recognition that patients endure despite the damages suffering inflict on the self-other axis, to preserve their dignity. (shrink)

In 1992, Ricœur delivered his lecture, "Suffering is Not Pain," at a psychiatry colloquium, addressing clinicians eager to explore this profound human experience, which is notably absent from the traditional psychiatric corpus. Ricœur examined the semiology of suffering through three moments: the specific relationship between oneself and the other, the characterization of a diminution in the power to act, and, finally, a hermeneutic reflection on suffering as an enigma that has something to teach—both at the level of self-reflection on one’s (...) own existence and in the context of relationships with others. It thus appears that suffering can open the way to a hermeneutic of the symbols of human existence, whose meaningful manifestations can also be clinical. However, this text does not belong to Ricœur’s systematic work. To understand its significance this annotated translation accompanied by its explanatory introduction, allows for a detailed reading that considers the intertextual references and the meanings implied by Ricœur’s expressions. By integrating clinical and philosophical language, this translation acknowledges the importance of multi- and interdisciplinary approaches to the study of suffering. (shrink)

Dans la pensée de Paul Ricœur, la souffrance est principalement abordée sous son aspect existentiel et phénoménologique, comme l’illustre le texte de la conférence « La souffrance n’est pas la douleur », présentée devant un public de psychiatres. Dans ce numéro thématique, nous proposons la toute première traduction anglaise de ce texte. Les contributions des différents auteurs examinent la définition de la souffrance chez Ricœur ainsi que le dialogue qu’il établit entre l’approche philosophique et l’approche clinique. En retraçant la généalogie (...) de la souffrance dans l’œuvre systématique de Ricœur, cette introduction met en lumière les inflexions conceptuelles issues des changements méthodologiques, marqués notamment par une transition de la phénoménologie eidétique à une phénoménologie herméneutique aux implications ontologiques, ainsi que la pluralité de ses motivations et intérêts (psychanalytiques, théologiques). La souffrance, négativité de l’existence, bien qu’exposée au risque d’un affect solipsiste, déploie une sémiologie propre, dans une ouverture à l’autre, que Ricœur explore dans « La souffrance n’est pas la douleur ». (shrink)

In Paul Ricœur's thought, suffering is primarily addressed from an existential and phenomenological perspective, as illustrated in the text of the lecture "Suffering is not Pain," delivered to an audience of psychiatrists. In this thematic issue, we present the very first English translation of this text. The contributions of the various authors explore Ricœur's definition of suffering as well as the dialogue he establishes between the philosophical and clinical approaches. By tracing the genealogy of suffering in Ricœur's systematic work, this (...) introduction highlights the conceptual shifts resulting from methodological changes, notably the transition from eidetic phenomenology to a hermeneutic phenomenology with ontological implications, along with the plurality of his motivations and interests (psychoanalytic, theological). Suffering, as the negativity of existence, while exposed to the risk of a solipsistic affect, nonetheless unfolds a unique semiology, in an openness to the other, which Ricœur inquires in "Suffering is not Pain.". (shrink)

El presente estudio apunta a abordar la relación entre ágape y justicia en la problematización del reconocimiento llevada a cabo por Paul Ricoeur. Partiendo de que se trata de lógicas no sólo diferentes, sino que hasta podría decirse que contrapuestas, nuestra intención es indagar la posibilidad de una dialéctica que articule a ambas. En este sentido, resulta importante destacar que dicha dialéctica es una dialéctica del orden de la acción y no una dialéctica de carácter teórico especulativa.

In this contribution, I focus on three key questions that arise when engaging with Ricœur’s lecture, “Suffering is Not Pain.” The first is the methodological issue concerning the philosopher’s role, particularly in taxonomizing. I will examine mental taxonomy, as well as taxonomy more broadly, before turning to pain and suffering more specifically. I then move to Ricœur’s characterization and contrast of suffering and pain throughout the lecture. Following this, I expand on Ricœur’s definition of suffering as a diminution of the (...) power to act by incorporating my own account of suffering as a significant disruption to agency. I explore how this expanded view can contribute to a deeper investigation of Ricœur’s agentive hypothesis of suffering within each of his three identified “moments” of suffering, thus enhancing our understanding of the specific agentive challenge that suffering represents. (shrink)

Este livro apresenta um estudo sobre Identidade e Relação em Paul Ricoeur, tendo como referência o si e como propósito a exploração de seu estatuto ontológico. A exposição se inicia com uma caracterização geral da filosofia do si e, em seguida, passa-se a identificar, individualizar e reconhecer o si, demostrando que o si é pessoal, singularizado pela ação e reconhecido em suas capacidades, não obstante suas vulnerabilidades. Assim, tem-se um si reflexivo e prático, cuja forma de identidade narrativa e pessoal (...) melhor se expressa em termos de ipseidade que, dada à sua natureza relacional, têm muito em conta a alteridade e a socialidade, numa esfera comum de eticidade. Ao longo do percurso, procura-se sinalizar as incidências ontológicas da filosofia do si até que se alcance a função meta do pensar, quando então se passa à abordagem propriamente ontológica das metacategorias Identidade e Relação. Para completar, trata ainda do caráter alético do si como reivindicação necessária de verdade sobre o tipo de ser que ele é. Chega-se então à afirmação de que o si é figura do cogito, mediada pela linguagem e pela ação, cuja identidade é relacional, que mostra no agir um modo fundamental de ser. Por conseguinte, a ontologia do si é polissêmica, relacional e da atualidade, cujas manifestações se dão num horizonte existencial. (shrink)

Cet article propose une lecture de Temps et récit II de Paul Ricœur. Ce livre qui porte sur l’idée de configuration du temps dans le récit afin d’assurer la continuité entre la préfiguration du récit et sa refiguration, et qui cherche à comprendre la spécificité du récit de fiction par rapport au récit historique, est un discours à trois dimensions : philosophie, théories du récit et œuvres majeures de la littérature. Il pose un certain nombre de problèmes théoriques qui seront (...) envisagés ici dans leur rapport au champ théorico-littéraire au cours d’une réflexion critique nourrie par la lecture du roman Mrs Dalloway de Virginia Woolf. (shrink)

This article aims to clarify the sharp contrast between the “short path” of Heideggerian ontology and the “long path” adopted by Ricoeur as a representation of the many necessary mediations in the constitution of his philosophical anthropology. Heidegger breaks into contemporary thought with the publication of his treatise “Being and Time” (1927) as a kind of direct settlement in the field of ontology. In contrast, Ricoeur is seen - and sees himself - as a thinker of conceptual mediations in his (...) long itinerary, since adherence to Husserlian phenomenology and subsequent hermeneutic inflection, passing through confrontations with Freudian psychoanalysis, structuralism and analytical philosophy, to the creation of the book “Oneself as Another” (1990). However, the two philosophers built their works on the common horizon of hermeneutics; therefore, are there possible points of convergence between them? And how could we interpret the relevance of this possible interlocution? These questions cannot be answered without a thorough comparative reading. This text does not intend to answer them, but only to suggest elements for further investigations. (shrink)

Cet article s’efforce de relever la place originale, parfois discrète, parfois non reconnue par l’auteur lui-même, qui est dévolue à l’expérience clinique psychiatrique par Paul Ricœur dans sa conférence « La souffrance n’est pas la douleur ». En effet, celle-ci semble de prime abord nettement séparer discours médical et discours philosophique phénoménologique, qui auraient deux objets et méthodes bien distincts. Pour autant, en bien des points, pour certains décisifs, Ricœur est amené à puiser dans l’expérience clinique pour alimenter sa phénoménologie (...) de la souffrance. Il nous semble ainsi esquisser la nécessité d’une authentique philosophie clinique, attentive in fine à la place essentielle de la douleur dans toute souffrance. (shrink)

The paper explores the difference between semiology and hermeneutics of pain and suffering by focusing on narrativity and the body. First, it recapitulates some historical distinctions between explaining and understanding in the context of psychopathology. It shows how the hermeneutic method culminates in the idea of the cohesion of life, constituted through biography and narrative. The second section deals with the relationship between narrativity and selfhood in stories of suffering. The third part addresses the problem of the lived body and (...) the ante-predicative embodiment of suffering and pain, which fuse with the ambiance, coloring the lifeworld. (shrink)

The first part of this article presents Ricœur's hermeneutics as a method, a style of writing and a particular philosophy. As a method, Ricœur revisits the notion of traditions and interpretations, in order to keep them open to debts from the past, to unexplored sources, to creative imagination and to the critical search for meaning. It is a style of writing, constantly put in dialogue with the history of philosophy which aims at unpacking a diversity of meanings. It is also (...) a philosophy in itself, a phenomenological hermeneutics of the self who is capable and suffering, although the Cogito is shattered and cannot pretend to immediacy and thus needs mediations. Such an hermeneutics is also tied to a new interpretation of ontology of being as capacity and actualization. The meanings of the other are discussed, as well as the notion of narrative identity for Ricœur's hermeneutics. In the second part of the article, the author highlights how this hermeneutics remains tied to the search for the originary and for universals, and is animated by the constant ethical demand of respect of the singularity of each person. This is why the notion of trust plays a particular role, as well as the dialogue with Levinas. The author thus revisits the important aspects of Ricœur's Little Ethics, and its distanciation from Sartre's voluntarist existential project. It is shown that beyond interpretations, a critique of ideologies remains necessary, as well as the demand for an ethics, a morality, and a judgment in situation. (shrink)

This article explores the application of Paul Ricœur’s model of suffering to negative experiences (termed here “para-suffering”), such as a hint of disappointment or a slight envy, which are not named suffering in everyday language, since the term is reserved for worse experiences. The analysis of a para-suffering example shows that a para-suffering experience can unfold within several of Ricœur’s figures of suffering. The implications of what should be regarded, at the very least, as significant commonalities between para-suffering and suffering (...) are then examined: caution is necessary in using Ricœur’s definition of suffering, suffering benefits from being analyzed in comparison with para-suffering, and para-suffering deserves greater philosophical attention. Although it is neither physical pain nor suffering, it remains a crucial part of human negative experiences. (shrink)

The first objective of this paper is to recognize the role of emotion and feeling in Ricœur’s “little ethics” and what they can further add to it, then to explore in more detail how solicitude as a virtue, and affective disposition more broadly, can contribute to a modern ethics of technology. Ultimately, emotions help us to understand technologies and technological ways of being today; Ricœur’s “little ethics”, along with his narrative theory, provide a framework for understanding the ethically salient aspects (...) of technical practice, especially through the openness to the other demanded by solicitude, and essentially by emphasising emotion or feeling as a way of being in the world, and a mode of existence: one which is done with, if not sometimes because of, technology and technical practice. (shrink)

This paper elucidates Ricoeur’s use of genetic phenomenology in his analysis of ideology and utopia, and how genetic phenomenology contributes to ideology critique. I argue that Ricoeur’s analysis, examined through the lens of genetic phenomenology, unveils the genesis of the experience of ideology. I propose a model of ideology critique emphasizing the liberation of individuals from ideological delusion without proclaiming an ideology-free position. Additionally, I explore the strategic use of utopian imagination to incite liberating experiences. In conclusion, I underscore the (...) role of social identity constitution as an implicit counterforce to ideology critique. (shrink)

This article will explore the role of what Ricoeur calls ‘archaism’ in his work on the third aporia of time in Time and Narrative. Presented in some detail in the conclusion of the third volume, the concept remains undeveloped. In this article we will identify the three characteristics, two forms and three dispositional states (praise, lamentation and hope) that help us to understand it, specifically in the Augustinian context. We have two main goals. We need to see whether there is (...) a problem of origins in the Aristotelian cosmological conception of time as movement and succession and in the Augustinian psychological conception of time in respect of past, present and future against the limit of the Eternal. (shrink)

This article engages the considerations of imagination in Kierkegaard and Ricoeur to argue for a moral dimension of the imagination and its objects. Imaginary objects are taken to be mental representations in images and narratives of people or courses of action that are not real in the sense that they are not actual, or have not yet happened. Three claims are made in the article. First, by drawing on the category of possibility, a conceptual distinction is established between imagination and (...) fantasy, (1) I claim that imagination has a moral dimension because it is engaged in considering real-life possibilities. Second, (2) drawing on Kierkegaard and Ricoeur, it is argued that mental representations of selfhood in imagination have a moral dimension because they essentially allow people to understand the development of agency in human selfhood by means of representations of would-be selves and narrative figurations of the self. Third, (3) mental representations of human selves have a moral dimension because they form important points of reference for moral orientations in the field of human praxis (moral pointers). (shrink)

L’article explore l’interprétation critique que Ricœur propose de la théorie de la justice sociale de Rawls. Bien que Ricœur ait une conception dialectique de la justice (selon laquelle le « bon » englobe le « juste »), contrastant avec l’approche procédurale de Rawls (selon laquelle le juste est défini indépendamment du bon), Ricœur exprime un intérêt marqué pour les idées de Rawls. Il rapporte le projet rawlsien à l’un des moments de la dialectique du juste : le moment moral. La (...) dialectique prend sa source dans le contenu aporétique du juste et elle se manifeste, dans la vie éthique, à travers trois paradoxes : politique, juridique et socio-économique. Alors que l’approche rawlsienne bute sur ces paradoxes, il sont le ressort de l’approche ricoeurienne de la justice et en révèlent la puissance. (shrink)

The nomenclature of the Anthropocene for this geological epoch marks in a novel way the global impact of human activity on the world. Consequently, it creatively raises the alarm bell of global environmental devastation. However, the narrative implicit in the Anthropocene presents challenges to use it as a departure point for developing an ethics of responsibility, as it contains morally relevant but ambiguous etiologies, phenomenological challenges to discrete human agency, and the potential erasure of both causes and victims of global (...) environmental degradation. This challenge compounds the challenges to traditional models of responsibility-as-imputation by global forms of environmental degradation signaled in the Anthropocene. Our new epoch demands new models of responsibility. This article draws upon neglected work by Paul Ricoeur to reconstruct a twofold model of responsibility: (1) responsibility-as-imputation and (2) responsibility for the fragile other and the domains that amplify fragility. It shows that a twofold model can more completely respond to harms elicited by anthropogenic environmental degradation by maintaining the benefits of traditional models of responsibility-as-accountability while dramatically expanding the subject and objects of responsibility through attention to the fragile and thus better serving us as we navigate responsibility in the Anthropocene. (shrink)

In this article we will show the process that allowed Ricœur to apply the Aristotelian ontology of actuality and potentiality to his hermeneutics, and how this development ended up providing him with a speculative solution to the aporetics of time. We will distinguish two alternative solutions: the poetic solution, given in Time and Narrative and the speculative one, developed in Memory, History, Forgetting. Despite the importance of the existential analytic, we believe that the introduction of the Spinozian conatus was decisive (...) for Ricoeur’s change of perspective. (shrink)

Après avoir distingué la souffrance, toujours subjective, réflexive et narrative, de la douleur, toujours localisée dans le corps, Ricœur aborde la souffrance selon deux axes : d’un côté comme une altération du rapport à soi et du rapport à autrui, et de l’autre comme une diminution de la puissance d’agir. À partir de là, cette étude tentera de montrer que la souffrance est une question de pouvoir. Un être souffrant est un être vivant qui peut souffrir. Le sujet est un (...) être qui peut souffrir ses souffrances, les tolérer, les supporter. Or, souffrir, c’est éprouver une diminution de son pouvoir d’agir et de penser. C’est perdre sa puissance, jusqu’à ne plus pouvoir souffrir ou tolérer ses souffrances. (shrink)

En deux textes importants Paul Ricœur présente sa pensée éthique : en premier lieu, dans les études 7, 8 et 9 de Soi-même comme un autre (1990) et, onze ans après (2001), dans l’article « De la morale à l’éthique et aux éthiques » dans Le juste 2. Comme on le sait, la discussion dans Soi-même comme un autrepasse de l'éthique à la morale et à la sagesse pratique. Le présent article met l'accent sur les implications de la refonte de (...) cette relation par Ricœur dans sa présentation de 2001. Ricœur y inverse son ordre, en commençant par la morale du devoir, dont l’origine doit être pensée avant l’éthique de la vie bonne, devenue entre-temps « éthique antérieure ». Deux problèmes se posent alors : quel est le fondement du devoir et de l’obligation? Quelle est la relation entre sagesse pratique et les « éthiques postérieures », nouveau titre donné à « la sagesse pratique »? Nous incorporons enfin une donnée essentielle que Ricœur développe dans son écrit Amour et justice, en vue de compléter son plus récent panorama de l’éthique. (shrink)

Ricoeur’s theory of productive imagination in previously unpublished lectures. The eminent philosopher Paul Ricoeur was devoted to the imagination. These previously unpublished lectures offer Ricoeur’s most significant and sustained reflections on creativity as he builds a new theory of imagination through close examination, moving from Aristotle, Pascal, Spinoza, Hume, and Kant to Ryle, Price, Wittgenstein, Husserl, and Sartre. These thinkers, he contends, underestimate humanity’s creative capacity. While the Western tradition generally views imagination as derived from the reproductive example of the (...) image, Ricoeur develops a theory about the mind’s power to produce new realities. Modeled most clearly in fiction, this productive imagination, Ricoeur argues, is available across conceptual domains. His theory provocatively suggests that we are not constrained by existing political, social, and scientific structures. Rather, our imaginations have the power to break through our conceptual horizons and remake the world. (shrink)

When Paul Ricoeur died in 2005, the New York Times described him as "one of the most eminent philosophers of the twentieth century." In his lifetime, Ricoeur published influential works on language, memory, identity, and history, creating an innovative blend of hermeneutics and phenomenology. Despite his major interest in the imagination, however, he never wrote a complete text on the topic. The present volume, Lectures on Imagination, fills this gap, providing an indispensable resource for philosophically inclined readers from all backgrounds. (...) Over the course of these lectures, Ricoeur examines classical and contemporary philosophical theories of imagination, ranging from thinkers such as Aristotle, Pascal, Spinoza, Hume, and Kant to Husserl, Wittgenstein, Sartre, and Ryle. He argues that, with few exceptions, Western philosophy has focused on reproductive rather than productive imagination, thus diminishing the creative capacity of the human mind. For Ricoeur, productive imagination is a form of fiction-a new dimension of reality generated by the human mind. His theory has far-reaching implications. In all domains, we are not restricted by existing structures or institutions, because the productive imagination has the power to break through and transform our sense of our own horizons. (shrink)

“Discourse, Metaphysics,and Hermeneutics of the Self” deals with the connection between the hermeneutics of the self, as constituted in the ethical-anthropological framework of _Oneself as Another_ (1990), and Ricoeur’s conception of a metaphysics of human agency as developed within this period of his work. It relates to his inquiries in the fields of ontology and metaphysics, from the lectures entitled _Être, essence et substance chez Platon et Aristote_ (1953-1954) – translated as _Being, Essence and Substance in Plato and Aristotle_ (2013)—, (...) up to “De la métaphysique à la morale” (1993) published in the _Revue de métaphysique et de morale _– translated into English as “From Metaphysics to Moral Philosophy” (1996)—, via the article “Ontologie” (1972) for _Encyclopaedia Universalis_, the last chapter of _The Rule of Metaphor_ (1975), and the first section of the conclusions to the third volume of _Time and Narrative_ (1985). Ricœur aims at determining a specific kind of philosophical discourse as a common ground for the perspectives stemming from a hermeneutic phenomenology and from a more speculative ontological-metaphysical research. (shrink)

“Discourse, Metaphysics and Hermeneutics of the Self” deals with the connection between the hermeneutics of the self, as constituted in the ethical-anthropological framework of _Oneself as Another_ (1990), and Ricoeur’s conception of a metaphysics of human agency as developed within this period of his work. It relates to his inquiries in the fields of ontology and metaphysics, from the lectures entitled _Être, essence et substance chez Platon et Aristote_ (1953-1954) – translated as _Being, Essence and Substance in Plato and Aristotle_ (...) (2013) –, up to “De la métaphysique à la morale” (1993) published in the _Revue de métaphysique et de morale _– translated into English as “From Metaphysics to Moral Philosophy” (1996) –, via the article “Ontologie” (1972) for _Encyclopaedia Universalis_, the last chapter of _The Rule of Metaphor_ (1975), and the first section of the conclusions to the third volume of _Time and Narrative_ (1985). Ricœur aims at determining a specific kind of philosophical discourse as a common ground for the perspectives stemming from a hermeneutic phenomenology and from a more speculative ontological-metaphysical research. (shrink)

This paper assesses the possibility of interpreting Ricœur’s notion of representation as a form of Darstellung in the Kantian sense of exhibition (presentation). The aim is to emphasize the ontological significance of representation as Darstellung, through the consideration of the paradigmatic case of historical representations. Indeed, the necessity to adequately interpret the relationship between representation and the represented becomes more compelling when dealing with the representation of history. On the one hand, history becomes objective insofar as it is depicted in (...) historical representations, but on the other, this depiction remains the presentation of an underlying reality that demands to be spoken of. The notion of Darstellung thus helps ensure the demand of historical representations to stand for past reality, without being reduced to mere copies of a supposedly pre-given original. This allows for a transition from the epistemological reflection upon historical representations to the ontological consideration of historicity as such. (shrink)

La notion d’identité narrative place la possibilité de l’identité à soi (ou identité-idem) avec celle du changement. Mais a-t-on besoin d’une médiation « dialectique », comme la désigne Ricœur, entre identité et changement? Seulement si l’identité est supposée exclure le changement. Or, tel n’est pas le cas de l’identité au sens le plus fondamental du terme, l’identité numérique. La seconde difficulté tient à ce que Ricœur paraît souvent rabattre l’une sur l’autre les notions d’histoire et de narration. Nous sommes des (...) êtres historiques, cela n’est guère discutable, mais est-ce à dire que notre identité dépend de la narration que nous faisons de notre histoire? Enfin, la troisième aporie réside dans la place primordiale accordée par Ricœur à la fiction dans sa détermination de l’identité narrative. Or il n’est pas du tout évident que les personnages de fiction jouissent d’une identité véritable en un quelconque sens. Des théoriciens contemporains de la référence, tels Saul Kripke ou David Kaplan, ont au contraire insisté sur le fait que les personnages romanesques ne possédaient qu’une apparence d’identité. Comment dès lors faire de ce semblant d’identité, qui se réduit à un faisceau de caractéristiques plus ou moins stables, le modèle pour penser nos identités réelles. (shrink)