History And Truth Ricoeur Pdf

  • and pdf
  • Tuesday, May 11, 2021 2:36:55 AM
  • 0 comment
history and truth ricoeur pdf

File Name: history and truth ricoeur .zip
Size: 2717Kb
Published: 11.05.2021

Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving….

Paul Ricoeur was among the most impressive philosophers of the 20th century continental philosophers, both in the unusual breadth and depth of his philosophical scholarship and in the innovative nature of his thought. He was a prolific writer, and his work is essentially concerned with that grand theme of philosophy: the meaning of life. His constant preoccupation was with a hermeneutic of the self, fundamental to which is the need we have for our lives to be made intelligible to us.

Ricoeur history and truth pdf - .and Truth Paul Ricoeur, Charles A. Kelbley and Editions De Seuil

Paul Ricoeur was among the most impressive philosophers of the 20th century continental philosophers, both in the unusual breadth and depth of his philosophical scholarship and in the innovative nature of his thought. He was a prolific writer, and his work is essentially concerned with that grand theme of philosophy: the meaning of life. His constant preoccupation was with a hermeneutic of the self, fundamental to which is the need we have for our lives to be made intelligible to us.

Though a Christian philosopher whose work in theology is well-known and respected, his philosophical writings do not rely upon theological concepts, and are appreciated by non-Christians and Christians alike. He lost both his parents within his first few years of his life and was raised with his sister Alice by his paternal grandparents, both of whom were devout Protestants.

Ricoeur was a bookish child and successful student. He was awarded a scholarship to study at the Sorbonne in , and afterwards was appointed to his first teaching position at Colmar, Alsace.

While at the Sorbonne he first met Gabriel Marcel, who was to become a lifelong friend and philosophical influence. In he was married to Simone Lejas, with whom he has raised five children. He was interred with Mikel Dufrenne, with whom he later wrote a book on the work of Karl Jaspers. Ricoeur is a traditional philosopher in the sense that his work is highly systematic and steeped in the classics of Western philosophy. His is a reflective philosophy, that is, one that considers the most fundamental philosophical problems to concern self-understanding.

While Ricoeur retains subjectivity at the heart of philosophy, his is no abstract Cartesian-style subject; the subject is always a situated subject, an embodied being anchored in a named and dated physical, historical and social world. For this reason his work is sometimes described as philosophical anthropology. Ricoeur is a post-structuralist hermeneutic philosopher who employs a model of textuality as the framework for his analysis of meaning, which extends across writing, speech, art and action.

Ricoeur considers human understanding to be cogent only to the extent that it implicitly deploys structures and strategies characteristic of textuality. For Ricoeur, the human subjectivity is primarily linguistically designated and mediated by symbols. Unlike post-structuralists such as Foucault and Derrida, for whom subjectivity is nothing more than an effect of language, Ricoeur anchors subjectivity in the human body and the material world, of which language is a kind of second order articulation.

In the face of the fragmentation and alienation of post-modernity, Ricoeur offers his narrative theory as the path to a unified and meaningful life; indeed, to the good life. He weaves together heterogeneous concepts and discourses to form a composite discourse in which new meanings are created without diminishing the specificity and difference of the constitutive terms.

For example, in What Makes Us Think? Ricoeur discusses the nature of mental life in terms of the tension between our neurobiological conceptions of mind and our phenomenological concepts.

The tensive style is in keeping with what Ricoeur regards as basic, ontological tensions inherent in the peculiar being that is human existence, namely, the ambiguity of belonging to both the natural world and the world of action through freedom of the will.

Accordingly, Ricoeur insists that philosophy find a way to contain and express those tensions, and so his work ranges across diverse schools of philosophical thought, bringing together insights and analysis from both the Anglo-American and European traditions, as well as from literary studies, political science and history.

The tensions are played out in our ability to take different perspectives on ourselves and so to formulate diverse approaches and methods in understanding ourselves. The different theoretical frameworks employed in philosophy and the sciences are not simply the result of ignorance or power. However, as points of intersection of discourses, these meanings can come apart. Given the fundamental nature of these tensions, Ricoeur argues that it is ultimately poetics exemplified in narrative , rather than philosophy that provides the structures and synthetic strategies by which understanding and a coherent sense of self and life is possible.

Ricoeur acknowledges his indebtedness to several key figures in the tradition, most notably, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel and Heidegger. Like Hegel, the dialectic involves identifying key oppositional terms in a debate, and then proceeding to articulate their synthesis into a new, more developed concept. However, this synthesis does not have the uniformity of a Hegelian synthesis.

However, the common ground is simply the ground of their mutual presupposition. At the same time, hermeneutic understanding necessarily relies upon the systematic process of explanation. Neither the natural sciences nor the human sciences are fully autonomous disciplines. This is a foundational dialectic for him, and so, as might be expected, it structures his discussions and dissections of every field of philosophy he enters: selfhood, justice, love, morality, personal identity, knowledge, time, language, metaphor, action, aesthetics, metaphysics, and so on.

Unlike the Hegelian dialectic, for Ricoeur, there is no absolute culminating point. There is, nevertheless, a kind of absolute, an objective existence that is revealed indirectly through the dialectic. This is most evident in the third volume of Time and Narrative , where he argues that phenomenological time presupposes an objective order of time cosmological time , and in The Rule of Metaphor , where he argues that language belongs to, and is expressive of, extra-linguistic reality.

Despite this apparent concession to realism, Ricoeur insists that the objective cannot be known as such, but merely grasped indirectly and analytically. Here, the Kantian influence comes to the fore. For Ricoeur, objective reality is the contemporary equivalent of Kantian noumena: although it can never itself become an object of knowledge, it is a kind of necessary thought, a limiting concept, implied in objects of knowledge. Although we can know, philosophically that there is an objective reality, and, in that sense, a metaphysical constraint on human existence, we can never understand human existence simply in terms of this objectivity.

What we must appeal to in order to understand our existence are our substantive philosophical and ethical concepts and norms.

This sets up an inevitable tension between the contingency of those norms and the brute fact of objective reality, evidenced in our experience of the involuntary, for example, as aging and dying.

Again, Kant looms large. We necessarily regard ourselves from two perspectives: as the author of our actions in the practical world, and as part of, or passive to, cause and effect in the natural world. Such is the inherently ambiguous and tensive nature of human, mortal subjects. It is this condition, then, with which philosophy must grapple.

And it is to this condition that Ricoeur offers narrative as the appropriate framework. Consequently, those philosophies lack the means to address the second question. Postmodernism self-consciously rejects traditional processes of identity formation, depicting them as familial and political power relations premised upon dubious metaphysical assumptions about gender, race and mind. To the moral question, the debt is to Aristotle and Kant.

There he explores the involuntary constraints to which we are necessarily subject in virtue of our being bodily mortal creatures, and the voluntariness necessary to the idea of ourselves as the agents of our actions. Selfhood is an intersubjectively constituted capacity for agency and self-ascription that can be had by individual human beings. Selfhood proper is neither simply an abstract nor an animal self-awareness, but both. This entails understanding oneself as a named person with a time and place of birth, linked to other similarly named persons and to certain ethnic and cultural traditions, living in a dated and named place.

The difficulty will be. The self. This circularity has its origins in the nature of embodied subjectivity. My body cannot be abstracted from its being mine. Whatever states I may attribute to my body as its states, I do so only insofar as they are attributes of mine. Yet my body is also that over which I exercise a certain instrumentality through my agency. One cannot feel oneself feeling. This example is supposed to demonstrate two points: first, that the ambiguity of my body prevents the complete objectification of myself, and second, that ambiguity extends to all perception.

In other words, my body has an active role in structuring my perceptions, and so, the meaning of my perceptions needs to be interpreted in the context of my bodily situation. The result is that knowledge of myself and the world is not constituted by more or less accurate facts, but rather, is a composite discourse—a discourse which charts the intersection of the objective, intersubjective and subjective aspects of lived experience.

On this view, all knowledge, including my knowledge of my own existence, is mediate and so calls for interpretation. This also means that self-understanding can never be grasped by the kind of introspective immediacy celebrated by Descartes. Thus, who I am is not an objective fact to be discovered, but rather something that I must achieve or create, and to which I must attest. The ability to grasp oneself as a concrete subject of such a world requires a complex mode of understanding capable of integrating discourses of quite heterogenous kinds, including, importantly, different orders of time.

It is to the temporal dimension of selfhood that Ricoeur has most directly addressed his hermeneutic philosophy and narrative model of understanding.

Such a capacity is an essential requisite for a reflective philosophy. He points out that we experience time in two different ways.

We experience time as linear succession, we experience the passing hours and days and the progression of our lives from birth to death. The other is phenomenological time; time experienced in terms of the past, present and future. As self-aware embodied beings, we not only experience time as linear succession, but we are also oriented to the succession of time in terms of what has been, what is, and what will be. These two conceptions of time have traditionally been seen in opposition, but Ricoeur argues that they share a relation of mutual presupposition.

The past is always before the present which is always after the past and before the future. The order of succession is invariable, and this order is not part of the concepts of past, present or future considered merely as existential orientations.

Ricoeur argues that any philosophical model for understanding human existence must employ a composite temporal framework. The only suitable candidate here is the narrative model. Mimesis1 describes the way in which the field of human acting is always already prefigured with certain basic competencies, for example, competency in the conceptual network of the semantics of action expressed in the ability to raise questions of who, how, why, with whom, against whom, etc. Mimesis2 concerns the imaginative configuration of the elements given in the field of action at the level of mimesis1.

Emplotment here has a mediating function. A particularly useful feature of narrative which becomes apparent at the level mimesis2 is the way in which the linear chronology of emplotment is able to represent different experiences of time.

For example, a narrative may begin with a culminating event, or it may devote long passages to events depicted as occurring within relatively short periods of time. Narrative configuration has at hand a rich array of strategies for temporal signification. Another key feature of mimesis2 is the ability of the internal logic of the narrative unity created by emplotment to endow the connections between the elements of the narrative with necessity.

In this way, emplotment forges a causal continuity from a temporal succession, and so creates the intelligibility and credibility of the narrative. Ricoeur argues that the temporal order of the events depicted in the narrative is simultaneous with the construction of the necessity that connects those elements into a conceptual unity: from the structure of one thing after another arises the conceptual relation of one thing because of another.

Mimesis is a cyclical interpretative process because it is inserted into the passage of cosmological time. As time passes, our circumstances give rise to new experiences and new opportunities for reflection. We can redescribe our past experiences, bringing to light unrealized connections between agents, actors, circumstances, motives or objects, by drawing connections between the events retold and events that have occurred since, or by bringing to light untold details of past events.

Of course, narrative need not have a happy ending. The concern of narrative is coherence and structure, not the creation of a particular kind of experience. Nevertheless, the possibility of redescription of the past offers us the possibility of re-imagining and reconstructing a future inspired by hope. It is this potentially inexhaustible process that is the fuel for philosophy and literature.

His conception of ethics is directly tied to his conception of the narrative self. This entails another moral concept: that of imputation.

Paul Ricoeur’s Idea of Reference

History and Truth. Paul Ricoeur Preface by. David Rasmussen Foreword by. Anthony Steinbock General Editor. Charles Kelbley Introduction by.


Georg G. Iggers; History and Truth. History and Truth. By. Ricoeur. Paul. Translated, with an introduction, by This content is only available as a PDF.


History and Truth

Embed Size px x x x x Challenges pertaining to the truth of written history and the knowledge of the. Ricoeur, History and Hermeneutics, in: Y. Kelbley and Editions De Seuil.

Recognizing the epistemological specificity of the different spheres of the problematization of knowledge, as well as the indissociability of these spheres, this paper aims to discuss the analytical potential of 'narrative' as a category to reflect on the production, distribution and consumption of historical knowledge. Through a dialogue with Paul Ricoeur, this paper focuses on the understanding of narrative as an unavoidable temporal structure in reflection about the epistemological and axiological nature of this knowledge, thus bringing together dialogue between the theory of history and the didactics of history. Keywords: historical science; school knowledge; narrative structure. In the last decade the question of the epistemological specificity of historical knowledge learned as the object of teaching has emerged in Brazil as a research problem for the field of teaching history.

Paul Ricoeur was one of the foremost interpreters and translators of Edmund Husserl's philosophy. These nine essays present Ricoeur's interpretation of the most important of Husserl's writings, with emphasis on his philosophy of consciousness rather than his work in logic. In Ricoeur's philosophy, phenomenology and existentialism came of age and these essays provide an introduction to the Husserlian elements which most heavily influenced his own philosophical position. Post a Comment. This Book was ranked at 6 by Google Books for keyword History.

Paul Ricoeur’s Idea of Reference

0 Comments