In het personalisme staat de menselijke persoon centraal. Niet het individu en zijn enge eigenbelang, maar de mensen in verbondenheid met elkaar, hun leefwereld en idealen. De personalistische filosofie heeft haar stempel gedrukt op onze samenleving. Tot op vandaag functioneert ze als inspiratiebron voor maatschappelijke projecten. 0Misschien juist omwille van die sterke impact in het verleden heeft het personalisme vandaag een wat stoffig imago. Dit boek maakt daar komaf mee. Denkers en doeners van diverse pluimage stellen zich de vraag wat (...) een hedendaags personalisme kan inhouden. Welke impulsen kan het personalisme geven aan de samenleving van morgen? Hoe kunnen we dat concretiseren, in diverse domeinen, van economie tot ecologie, van psychologie tot politiek? 0Zo blijkt dat personalisten nog steeds tegen de stroom in zwemmen. Tegenover de materialistische en individualistische reflex van onze samenleving houden ze een warm pleidooi voor het relationele en het spirituele. Met oog voor concrete initiatieven en ruimte om de personalistische traditie kritisch te bekijken, zet dit boek de toon voor een breed maatschappelijk debat. Dit is leesvoer voor iedereen die met een open geest wil nadenken over een betere samenleving. (shrink)

Paul Ricœur shared Emmanuel Mounier’s personalist and communitarian ideal of a universal community, which ensures that every human being has access to the conditions for self-development as a person. Whereas Mounier talks about communication as the structure of personhood that summons us towards the gradual enlargement of the community, Ricœur’s reflections on translation provide a missing link by referring, not just to the human capacity to communicate, but more specifically, to our capacity to translate and the implied ethics of linguistic (...) hospitality. This allowed him to show that what enables us to enlarge the circle of brotherhood is the capacity to gradually settle in the world of the other and to welcome the other into one’s own world. (shrink)

This article shows that the work of Jacques Maritain and Emmanuel Mounier contains a distinct political theory. Despite the differences in the foundations of their thought, Maritain and Mounier were both Catholic philosophers looking for the task of man in society. They both came to the conclusion that the vocation of man necessarily implies a social and political aspect. The integral development of the human person requires a societal framework, which is the common good that politics is supposed to realize. (...) However, both Maritain and Mounier point to the intrinsic dangers of the required exercise of political power. Alert and active citizens are necessary to keep political authorities from going astray. A lot of personalists' concrete ideas on the organization of democracy are no longer viable, but the core of their political theory is a particular vision on individual political responsibility. What personalism makes clear is that politics concerns each one of us. This is not the case because politics would be a distinguished occupation in the Aristotelian sense, since the personalists focus on the dark side of politics; the power struggle, the façade of democracy, the tendency towards oppression and totalitarianism. Politics is, however, a necessary means to build and protect the framework that allows us to develop ourselves as human beings. The only way to ensure that politics lives up to this task is when citizens take political responsibility. This call for a generally vigilant and active citizenry remains an important warning with regard to a liberal concept of man and society. (shrink)

Ricoeur interpreted the work of compromise as a creative process to imagine a new world by projecting ourselves into other people. The challenge of compromise is to learn to tell our own story differently within the contours of a broader collective narrative, in compliance with the paradigm of translation. As such, Ricoeur’s political ethics of compromise is at risk of highlighting the element of creation, which refers to the social imagination of a shared vision of a better society, at the (...) cost of recognition of the element of renunciation, which refers to the reciprocal shelving of ideas and desires that the other side considers to be truly intolerable. However, I argue that we can read a delicate connection between forgetting, forgoing and forgiving in Ricoeur’s thought. It is, then, the model of forgiveness, as part of the paradigm of translation, that gives due respect to the importance of renunciation through the emphasis on the unjustifiable, for which renunciation even cannot suffice. The ‘poetics of pardon’ brings creation and renunciation together and, by doing so, it highlights that compromise always remains an object of hope. (shrink)

Philosophy & Social Criticism, Volume 48, Issue 6, Page 813-832, July 2022. Ricoeur interpreted the work of compromise as a creative process to imagine a new world by projecting ourselves into other people. The challenge of compromise is to learn to tell our own story differently within the contours of a broader collective narrative, in compliance with the paradigm of translation. As such, Ricoeur’s political ethics of compromise is at risk of highlighting the element of creation, which refers to the (...) social imagination of a shared vision of a better society, at the cost of recognition of the element of renunciation, which refers to the reciprocal shelving of ideas and desires that the other side considers to be truly intolerable. However, I argue that we can read a delicate connection between forgetting, forgoing and forgiving in Ricoeur’s thought. It is, then, the model of forgiveness, as part of the paradigm of translation, that gives due respect to the importance of renunciation through the emphasis on the unjustifiable, for which renunciation even cannot suffice. The ‘poetics of pardon’ brings creation and renunciation together and, by doing so, it highlights that compromise always remains an object of hope. (shrink)

It is a common conviction that Ricoeur’s main contribution to Anglo-American political philosophy is to be found in the dialogue he tried to establish between liberalism and communitarianism. I argue that the depth of Ricoeur’s political philosophy is better served by situating it not only with regard to liberalism and communitarianism, but especially with regard to republicanism. This article shows how Ricoeur’s political philosophy—with its focus on the so-called “political paradox”—contains the main components of contemporary republicanism, with its stress on (...) active citizenship and mixed constitution as necessary prerequisites for freedom, interpreted as the absence of illegitimate domination. I also argue that there are, however, significant differences between Ricoeur’s theory and the main currents in contemporary republicanism, civic republicanism, and civic humanism, because of his reliance on a positive conception of freedom on the one hand and his emphasis on the fragility of politics on the other hand. (shrink)

It is a common conviction that Ricoeur’s main contribution to Anglo-American political philosophy is to be found in the dialogue he tried to establish between liberalism and communitarianism. I argue that the depth of Ricoeur’s political philosophy is better served by situating it not only with regard to liberalism and communitarianism, but especially with regard to republicanism. This article shows how Ricoeur’s political philosophy—with its focus on the so-called “political paradox”—contains the main components of contemporary republicanism, with its stress on (...) active citizenship and mixed constitution as necessary prerequisites for freedom, interpreted as the absence of illegitimate domination. I also argue that there are, however, significant differences between Ricoeur’s theory and the main currents in contemporary republicanism, civic republicanism, and civic humanism, because of his reliance on a positive conception of freedom on the one hand and his emphasis on the fragility of politics on the other hand. (shrink)

Ricoeur’s thought bears a number of marks from his reading of the work of Merleau-Ponty. In this article, I argue that this also accounts for the nature of his political thought. I bring Ricoeur’s reviews of Humanisme et terreur (1947) to light in order to show how his confrontation with Merleau-Ponty marked an important turning point in his political thought. Firstly, I show that Merleau-Ponty’s defense of Marxism provoked Ricoeur to reflect upon its intrinsic pathology, and how this marked a (...) significant change in Ricoeur’s political position, namely, from Marxism to personalist socialism.Secondly, I explain how Ricoeur’s reading of Humanisme et terreur gave rise to a preliminary expression of ideas that would later become lasting and essential concepts of his political philosophy. More specifically, the pathology of Marxism would later become embedded in his theory of the political paradox and the concept of the prophet lived on in his reflections on civic responsibility.La pensée de Ricoeur porte un certain nombre de traces de sa lecture de Merleau-Ponty. Dans cet article, je soutiens qu’il en est de même pour sa pensée politique. Je mets en lumière ses recensions d’Humanisme et terreur (1947) pour montrer que sa confrontation avec Merleau-Ponty a marqué un tournant important dans sa pensée politique. En premier lieu, je montre que la défense merleau-pontienne du marxisme a conduit Ricoeur à réfléchir sur sa pathologie intrinsèque et que cela a entraîné un changement significatif dans la position politique même de Ricoeur, quittant le marxisme pour le socialisme personnaliste. En second lieu, j’explique comment la lecture par Ricoeur d’Humanisme et terreur a donné lieu à l’expression préliminaire d’idées qui allaient devenir par la suite durablement les concepts essentiels de sa philosophie politique. Plus précisément, la pathologie du marxisme est devenue plus tard sa théorie du paradoxe politique et le concept du prophète a eu une longue vie dans ses réflexions sur la responsabilité civique.Il pensiero di Ricoeur trae una serie di spunti dalla lettura del lavoro di Merleau-Ponty. In quest’articolo, sostengo che questo valga anche per il suo pensiero politico. Infatti, prendo in analisi la recensione di Ricoeur di Umanesimo e terrore (1947) al fine di mostrare come il suo confronto con Merleau-Ponty segnò un importante punto di svolta nel suo pensiero politico. Innanzitutto, mostro che la difesa del marxismo da parte di Merleau-Ponty portò Ricoeur a riflettere sull’intrinseca patologia dello stesso, e come questo segnò, quindi, un significativo cambiamento del posizionamento politico di Ricoeur stesso, che passò dal marxismo al socialismo personalista. In secondo luogo, spiego come la lettura di Umanesimo e terrore da parte di Ricoeur generò la preliminare formulazione di una serie di idee che più avanti sarebbero diventate concetti essenziali e durevoli della sua filosofia politica. Più nel dettaglio, la patologia del marxismo sarebbe poi diventata parte della sua teoria del paradosso politico e il concetto del profeta avrebbe preso vita dalle sue riflessioni sulla responsabilità civica. (shrink)

This book explores Ricoeur’s philosophical anthropology and political philosophy. It is unique in its emphasis on the personalist perspective in the work of Paul Ricoeur and on the existence of a distinct, personalist branch of republicanism.