Ricker philosophy. Ricoeur, Paul

RIQUERE(Ricoeur) Paul (born February 27, 1913, Valence, France) is a French philosopher, a leading theorist of phenomenological hermeneutics. Received philosophical education at the University of Rennes and the Sorbonne; professor at the universities of Paris (1956–66), Nanterre (1966–70), Chicago (since 1970), honorary doctorate from more than thirty universities in the world. He considers the task of his work to be the development of a generalizing concept of man in the 20th century. taking into account the contribution made to it by the "philosophy of life", phenomenology, existentialism, personalism, psychoanalysis, and other trends. He considers E. Husserl, G. Marcel, K. Jaspers to be his teachers. He experienced a significant impact of the ideas of French personalism: the concept of personality, according to Ricoeur, is the most fundamental in philosophy, since personality is the birthplace of values ​​that give rise and meaning to the world human culture. In contrast to F. Schleiermacher and W. Dilthey, who interpreted hermeneutics in the spirit of psychologism, which merges with traditional epistemology, Ricoeur transfers the question of hermeneutics to the ontological plane: hermeneutics is not only a method of cognition, but, above all, a way of being.

In his philosophical studies, Ricoeur is guided by the regressive-progressive method, relying on which he suggests dialectically comprehending phenomena in the unity of their three temporal dimensions: past, present and future. Applied to human subjectivity, the purpose of this method is to highlight the "archeology" of the subject, i.e. its rootedness in being, and find access to its teleology, movement into the future. Ricoeur opposes his concept to the classical interpretation of the subject as consciousness, relying on Husserl's doctrine of the "life world", Heidegger's ontology, and especially Freud's psychoanalysis. He understands the latter as a hermeneutics aimed at comprehending the "original inclinations" of the human self through understanding the forms of their sublimation in culture. The limit of regressive analysis Ricoeur considers the "original will" of the individual to be, associated with the experience and awareness of the possibility of non-being. Progressive analysis is aimed at the "prophetia" of the human spirit, where the source of meaning is located not behind the subject, as is the case in "archaeology", but in front of him. Here Ricoeur relies on the ideas of the phenomenology of the spirit (Hegel), aimed at revealing the teleology of human subjectivity, and on the phenomenology of religion (M. Eliade), testifying to the aspiration of man to the sacred, setting eschatological perspectives for human existence, and through it history as a whole. Despite the obvious differences that exist between psychoanalysis, the phenomenology of the spirit and the phenomenology of religion, they all have the right to exist, if only they complement each other; philosophy, as hermeneutics, must combine these interpretations of the human phenomenon and become the exegesis of all the meanings that exist in the world of culture.

At the same time, Ricoeur, following Freud, considers the linguistic character of human experience to be the initial condition. Hence it follows that cultural creativity always symbolic. Ricœur also borrows this idea from Freud, who expressed it when interpreting the libido, which has an exceptional capacity for delayed symbolic gratification, in which the libidinal goal is replaced by the ideal goal. Libido, according to Ricoeur, takes a person out of the realm of biology into the realm of cultural meanings. Under the symbol, he understands any structure of meanings, where one meaning - direct, primary, literal - with the help of additions denotes another meaning - indirect, secondary, allegorical, which can be perceived only through the first meaning. Language, according to Ricœur, initially has a symbolic function, the essence of which was revealed by Husserl, who presented him with a double requirement: the requirement of logic, coming from telos, and the requirement of pre-predicative explanation, coming from arche; language, making a movement "backward", finds its own justification in what is not a language, and it itself indicates its dependence on what makes it possible from the side of the world; this is how the language communicates the symbolic function, which defines the logic of hermeneutics as the logic of double meaning. The peculiarity of the symbol is that it gives meaning with the help of another meaning: the original, literal meaning in it refers to the allegorical, existential, spiritual meaning. In the 1970s Ricœur comprehends the problematic of the symbol, applying to it "a more appropriate tool", which he considers a metaphor. Metaphor, which shifts analysis from the realm of the word to the realm of the phrase, brings Ricœur right up to the problem of innovation, to which his progressive analysis is directed: the meaning of the metaphor is not contained in any of the individual words, it is born in conflict, in the tension that arises as a result of combinations of words in a phrase; metaphor clearly demonstrates the symbolic function of language: the literal meaning recedes before the metaphorical meaning, the correlation of the word with reality and the heuristic activity of the subject are intensified; in a metaphorical expression that violates the semantic correctness of the phrase, incompatible with its literal reading, the human ability to create is realized.

AT last years Ricoeur recognizes the interpretation of hermeneutics as an interpretation of symbols as very narrow and proceeds to the analysis of cultural texts (literary works, historical narratives, etc.) as an object of interpretation. He seeks to understand interpretation as the predominant way of including the individual in the integral context of culture, as one of the essential foundations of his activity in culture. Retaining the previous intention to create a concept of interpretation based on a dialectical understanding of time, Ricoeur introduces the activity principle into hermeneutic analysis as its basis. He sees the task of hermeneutic comprehension in substantiating the role of a person as a subject of cultural and historical creativity, in which and thanks to which the connection of times is carried out and which is based on the vigorous activity of the individual. Ricoeur's new position is formed under the strong influence, on the one hand, of Augustine's teachings about time as states of the soul, on the other hand, the Aristotelian interpretation of intrigue in a work of art and the mimetic essence of art. At the same time, in his concept of narrative, Ricoeur raises the question of the dialectical interaction between the philosophical-hermeneutic and scientific approaches in the comprehension of man and the world of culture; according to him, the dialectic of explanation and understanding, which unfolds at the level of the text, becomes the key moment of interpretation and henceforth forms the predominant theme and main goal of interpretation.

In the 1990s Ricoeur focuses on the problem of interaction and mutual understanding of people - their communication, joint being; the focus of the philosopher is on such problems as ethics and politics, and especially the problem of responsibility in political activity: politicians must learn to speak the language of morality - otherwise we are threatened with political cynicism, mortally dangerous for all mankind.

Compositions:

1. Philosophie de la volonté, I. Le Volontaire et Involontaire. P., 1948;

2. Histoire et verite. P., 1955;

3. Philosophie de la volonte, II. Finitude et Culpabilité. 1. L'Homme faillible. P., I960;

4. Philosophie de la volonte, II. Finitude et Culpabilité. 2. La symbolique du mal. P., 1960;

5. Le Conflit des interpretations. Essais d'herméneutique I.P., 1969;

6. Du texte à L'action. Essais d'herméneutique II. P., 1986;

7. Soi-même comme un autre. P., 1990;

8. Reflection fatale. Autobiography intellectuelle. P., 1995;

9. in Russian trans.: Hermeneutics. Ethics. Politics. M. 1995;

10. Conflict of interpretations. Essays on hermeneutics. M., 1995;

11. Hermeneutics and psychoanalysis. Religion and faith. M., 1997.

Literature:

1. Mongin O. Paul Ricoeur. P., 1994.

hermeneutics

2. The concept of hermeneutics P. Ricoeur

Paul Ricoeur (born February 27, 1913) is one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th century. His pen belongs to the works:

"Karl Jaspers and the Philosophy of Existence" (1947),

"Gabriel Marcel and Karl Jaspers. Philosophy of mystery and philosophy of paradox" (1948),

"History and Truth" (1955, 1964),

"Philosophy of Will" (1955-1960),

"On Interpretation. Essays on Freud" (1965),

· "Conflict of interpretations. Essays on hermeneutics" (1969),

"Living Metaphor" (1975),

· "Time and Narrative" (vols. I-III, 1983 1985), etc.

The task that the thinker Paul Ricoeur set for himself is colossal: to develop a kind of generalizing concept of man in the 20th century. Phenomenology, philosophy of life, existentialism, personalism, psychoanalysis, hermeneutics, structuralism, analytical philosophy, moral philosophy, philosophy of politics, etc., in a word, all the main currents and directions of philosophy of the 20th century, having deep sources, laid down antiquity, and even earlier - mythological thinking, and based on the ideas of their immediate predecessors: Kant, Hegel, Fichte http://mirslovarei.com/.

Ricoeur transfers the issue of hermeneutics to the ontological plane: having abandoned the development of hermeneutics as a method of cognition, he is engaged in building it as a way of being. The philosopher sees his main task in creating a philosophy of life, using all the resources of the Hegelian philosophy of the spirit. From a methodological point of view, this, in his words, means "grafting the problem of hermeneutics onto the phenomenological method." Following this path, the philosopher intends to overcome the extremes of objectivism and subjectivism, naturalism and anthropologism, scientism and antiscientism, the contradictions between which have led modern philosophy to a deep crisis.

One of the tasks of the first independent work is to compare the phenomenologically interpreted attention with the problems of truth and freedom. So Ricoeur begins the "combination" of phenomenology and existentialism, borrowing from the first method of analysis, from the second - the meaning of "embodied existence". As a result, Ricoeur discovers the cardinal duality of human experience: being a perception, it is associated with an object, but at the same time experience is an activity, since it is characteristic of freely orienting attention.

While generally agreeing with the existentialist interpretation of man, Ricoeur at the same time criticizes it for monism, which allows only one interpretation of existence - imagination, emotions, experiences, etc. Ricoeur finds it possible to "reverse" the perspective of existentialist analysis and explore not only what follows the existentialist originality, but the existential situation itself, the mode of existence in which the subject is rooted. As a result of this operation, Ricoeur discovers the area of ​​the unconscious, that which is accepted by the subject as a necessity and is transformed by him into a practical category. Ricoeur does not consider the unconscious to be something fundamentally inaccessible to consciousness Reale D., Antiseri D. Western philosophy from its origins to the present day. T.4. SPb., 1997. C. 463.

The concept of will (ability to act) is one of the central concepts in Ricoeur's concept. The constitutive will is identified by him with the concept of proper human experience; it is the original act of consciousness and of man in general. Accepted as the "ultimate originality" of the subject, the will serves Ricœur and as a starting point from which one can go in two directions: one of them is the study of the movement of consciousness that opens the future (transcending); the other is an appeal to the archeology of the subject, to his original inclinations, which are not further reduced and are found only in comparison with non-existence.

According to Ricoeur, the needs, desires, habits of a person acquire a true meaning only in relation to the will that they cause, motivate; the will completes their meaning, it determines them by its choice.

When developing a methodology phenomenological ontology Ricoeur relies on the psychoanalytic method of interpretation, highlighting the following points in it. First, psychoanalysis approaches ontology by critiquing consciousness: "the interpretations of dreams, fantasies, myths, symbols that psychoanalysis offers are a kind of contestation of the claims of consciousness to be a source of meaning"; psychoanalysis speaks of "lost objects that must be found symbolically", which, according to Ricoeur, is a condition for creating a hermeneutics freed from the prejudices of the Ego, where the problem of reflection is overcome in the problem of existence http://wikipedia.com/.

And the second thing that Ricoeur draws attention to, comprehending psychoanalytic methodology: only in interpretation and with its help is it possible to move towards ontology. When analyzing the forward movement of consciousness ("the prophetia of consciousness"), when each image finds its meaning not in what precedes it, but in what follows it, Ricoeur uses the "progressive" method: consciousness is extracted from itself and rushes forward , to the meaning, the source of which is in front of the subject.

For Ricœur, the word, the saying obviously has a symbolic function. At the same time, he clearly distinguishes the philosophy of language from the science of language. He sees the basis of this difference in the fact that the science of language is interested in a closed system of signs, while the philosophy of language “breaks through” this isolation in the direction of being and explores the phenomenon of language as an element of exchange between structure and event; the leading role in this exchange belongs to the living word.

For the first time, Ricoeur believes, the philosophical problem of language was posed by Husslerl as a kind of paradox of language: language is a secondary expression of the understanding of reality, but only in language can its dependence on what precedes it be pronounced. Ricoeur sees Husserl's special merit in the fact that he substantiated the symbolic function of language.

Thus, language points to the possibility of a symbolic function and defines the logic of hermeneutics as the logic of double meaning. Semantically, the symbol is formed in such a way that it gives meaning with the help of meaning, in it the original, literal, sometimes physical meaning refers to the allegorical, existential, spiritual meaning. Thus, the symbol calls for interpretation and for speaking.

Metaphor most clearly demonstrates the symbolic function of language: when a language uses a metaphor, the literal meaning recedes before the metaphorical meaning, but thereby the correlation of the word with reality increases and the heuristic activity of the subject deepens. In a metaphorical expression that violates the semantic correctness of the phrase and is incompatible with its literal reading, Ricoeur reveals the realization of the human ability to create.

The comprehension of the narrative function of culture, begun by Ricoeur in the 80s, and the attempts made in connection with this to combine phenomenology with linguistic analysis, hermeneutics with analytical philosophy, allow the thinker to move from the analysis of fragments of culture, imprinted in a word or phrase, to the analysis of cultural texts, ultimately as a result - to the existence of culture as a historical integrity.

Types of concepts and the relationship between them

In the history of logic, when solving the problem of a concept, two extremes were allowed, first of all. One is the separation of the concept from reality, opposition to it, the inability to see an organic connection with it ...

Hermeneutics of Dilthey

One of the creators of the special theory of understanding is Wilhelm Dilthey. A significant source of Dilthey's work was Anglo-French positivism with its method of psychologism in the analysis of the immediate data of consciousness...

Hermeneutic method in humanitarian knowledge

The specificity of humanitarian knowledge is defined: firstly, as significantly dependent on socio-cultural factors; secondly, as a widely used interpretation methods of research; third, as having a specific object...

Hermeneutics - tse: 1) theory and methodology of the texts' corruption (“mystery of understanding”); 2) directly in the philosophy of the XX century, as it grew on the basis of the theory of interpretation of literary texts ...

hermeneutical method. Hermeneutic Colo

Paul Riker (born February 27, 1913) - One of the most important philosophers of the XX century. There is much practice for the pen: "Karl Jaspers and philosophy of origin" (1947), "Gabriel Marseille and Karl Jaspers. Philosophy of mystery and philosophy of paradox" (1948), "History of that truth" (1955...

Slavophiles are representatives of the liberal-minded noble intelligentsia who support the doctrine of the originality and national exclusivity of the Russian people ...

Historical dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles

Westernism, like Slavophilism, arose at the turn of the 30s-40s of the 19th century. It was represented by "both capitals" - Moscow and St. Petersburg. The Moscow circle of Westernizers took shape in disputes with the Slavophiles in 1841-1842...

general characteristics judgments

Think up on your own or find it in the specialized literature (but not by logic!): 1.1 examples: a) generalization of the concept Generalization of the concept (eng. Concept gneralisation) is a logical operation that consists in ...

Fundamentals of Logic

Reliable knowledge in the scientific or practical field is always preceded by rational comprehension and evaluation of the factual material delivered by observation ...

Opening the Hermeneutic Circle: Gadamer

V.S. Malakhov, in the afterword to Gadamer's book "The Actuality of the Beautiful" Gadamer G.-G. The Actuality of the Beautiful. M., Art, 1991. p. 324. writes that "Fate from the very beginning favored him (Gadamer)," after all, he became interested in philosophy. ..

Essence of logic

A concept is a logical form that defines a range of objects according to similar, essential features. Each concept has its own content and scope. The content of the concept is the essential features of the object. The scope of the concept is the number of objects ...

Philosophical hermeneutics

The way of philosophizing, in the center of which is the process of understanding, is hermeneutics. Hermeneutics (from Greek - I explain, interpret) - philosophy based on the theory and practice of understanding...

Philosophical hermeneutics

But the most complete, deep and meaningful presentation of the problems of philosophical hermeneutics is presented in the work of Hans Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) in such works as "Truth and Method", "Philosophy and Hermeneutics"...

Sensory and logical knowledge

Laws, the essence of phenomena, a person learns at the abstract-logical level of knowledge, through thinking. “Thinking is a mediated, generalized cognition of reality...

Paul Ricoeur and Hans Georg Gadamer are considered to be the most important hermeneutic theorists of the twentieth century. And although theological ideas are implicit in the works of Ricoeur, they are much more more determined the future of Christian theology than the ideas of Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005) was born in Balance in France, into a deeply religious Protestant family. His father died in World War I when Paul was only two years old. His mother also died, and Paul was raised by his father's parents and aunt, who lived in Rennes. Paul graduated from the University of Rennes in 1932, and from 1934 he studied philosophy at the Sorbonne. Here he fell under the influence of the Catholic existentialist philosopher Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973). The essence of Marcel's teaching is that each person is a unique individuality, and not a line in a long list of faceless numbers, and this teaching was taken seriously by Paul. In 1935, Paul received a master's degree. But in 1939 his further education was interrupted by the Second World War. He went into the army, and in 1940, together with his unit, he was taken prisoner.

While in captivity, Ricoeur studied German philosophy, in particular, the works of the psychiatric philosopher, existential thinker Karl Jaspers; the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl; as well as the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, including his concepts existence, history, opportunities and a person as Dasein. Subsequently, they all took a central place in Ricoeur's work. After the war, he taught at the University of Strasbourg (1948-1954), the only French university with a Protestant theological faculty. In 1950 Ricoeur received his Ph.D. Before that, in 1949, his book was published Le Volun-taireet G Involuntaire("Voluntary and involuntary").

In 1956 he became a professor of philosophy at the Sorbonne and wrote the books Man in error and Symbolism of Evil. Both were published in French in 1960 (in English in 1965 and 1967), The Man in error was originally conceived as the second volume of a three-volume work on human will and mortality. It clearly shows the influence not only of Marcel, but and Jewish existentialist philosopher Martin Buber. human subjectivism has great importance. Human life, contrary to the claims of many scientists, is much more than empirical conditioning, observation, or reality.3 perceived his emphasis on the need interpretation, or hermeneutics. However, unlike Gadamer, he considered as an explanation (Erklarung), so is understanding (Verstehen) extremely important for interpretation. Explanation alone may not be enough, but it introduces a critical component into the process of interpretation, which makes understanding possible. Only through explanation can one come to the "post-critical naivety" of understanding. Ricoeur wrote: “I believe that hermeneutics is driven by a double motivation: a willingness to question, a willingness to listen; vow of strictness, vow of obedience. In our time, we are not yet done with idols and just started to listen symbols"*

4. For several years, Jacques Derrida was Ricoeur's assistant. But in 1965 Ricoeur left the traditionalist Sorbonne to take part in an experiment in progressive education at the University of Nanberra. Then in 1968 Ricoeur moved to the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium. Here he published a collection of essays entitled A Conflict of Interpretations (1969), which clearly showed the plurality of his views in the field of hermeneutics. Finally, in 1970, Ricker moved to Chicago, where he taught philosophy until 1985. In 1975, his work "Rules of Metaphor" was published, and in 1976 - "The Theory of Interpretation".

5. Now everything was ready for the production of two of his most significant works, which were preceded by the essay books Essays on Biblical Interpretation (which included essays written from 1969 to 1980) and Hermeneutics and the Humanities (essays 1971-1980). gg.). Ricoeur's first great work was Time and Narrative, published in three volumes between 1983 and 1985. ( English translation saw the light in 1984-1988). French title Temps etRecit, no in Vanhouser's opinion probably means "time and story". Here Ricoeur explores the temporal logic of the plot or the construction of the intrigue. He uses the concept of long time introduced by Augustine, as well as the general concept of the temporal construction of the plot, borrowed by him from Aristotle. The "transmission" of the plot occurs on the basis of the organizing principle and the time of the narration. The second greatest work of Ricoeur is the book "I-myself as another." In it, as once in "Man in error", he returns to the problem of the human personality, discussing the importance of human activity, deeds, relationships and moral responsibility. Personality, in the understanding of Ricoeur, is not a loner of Descartes and not even the bodily "I" of P.F. Strawson, but a being whose life cannot be imagined outside of an ethical context.

6. After completing his monumental work, Self as Other, Ricoeur turned to the theme of religion, the Bible, and storytelling in In Search of the Sacred (English edition 1995). He set out his reflections on some passages of Scripture in the book Thinking Biblically. Lessons of Exegesis and Hermeneutics” (1998). He then turned increasingly to ethical issues, especially in The Just (2000) and Reflections on Justice (French edition 2001, English two years after Ricoeur's death, in 2007). In these last works, Ricoeur tried to combine the concept of moral virtue proposed by Aristotle with Kant's absolute and universal moral will.

Riker gives short description early stages of the development of one's thought in the appendix to the "Rule of Metaphor". For the first time he turned to the problem of moral guilt and the limitations of a person in the works “A Man in Mistake” and “Symbolism of Evil”. Existentialist philosophers of the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s, exploring the philosophy of the will, placed particular emphasis on the concepts of guilt, dependence, and alienation, that is, on what constitutes sin in the religious sense. Heidegger and Bultmann called this state imaginary existence. Jaspers associates this concept with borderline situations, and Marcel with despair. Back in 1932-1933. Marseille published an article about Jaspers and his border situations, which had a certain influence on Ricoeur. In 1947 Ricoeur held comparative study works of Marcel and Jaspers.

Ricoeur's fascination with existential phenomenology at that time was explained by reading the works of Edmund Husserl, as well as acquaintance with the ideas of Maurice Merleau-Ponty. In his work The Phenomenology of Perception, Merleau-Ponty refuted the generally accepted interpretation of phenomenology. Ricoeur contrasted this work with Jean Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness (1943), which he said he admired but seemed completely unconvincing. Then he continued to study the concept of transcendence from Jaspers. But if Jaspers spoke of "codes of transcendence", then Ricoeur believed that decoding can serve as a model of hermeneutics. He even criticized Bultmann for failing to appreciate the many ways in which language functions. Ricoeur became convinced that discovering the semantic diversity of language is much more important than mastering phenomenology to perfection. Like many at that time, Ricoeur gradually lost interest in some interpretations of phenomenology, increasingly turning to questions of linguistics and the philosophy of action. He understood that linguistic questions are directly related to the problem of evil, for which we use metaphors such as alienation, burden and bondage as the main symbols, even if they are part of the narrative.

In the work “Symbolism of Evil”, Ricoeur, studying the experience experienced by mankind, is based on the phenomenology and ideas of Dilthey. At the same time, he comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to introduce a hermeneutic component into reflective reflections, since symbols can have a double meaning. Words such as “addiction” or “burden” are borrowed from everyday life, but their empirical, everyday meaning takes on a moral and spiritual connotation, despite the fact that tensions often arise between these two aspects of meaning. Max Black makes the same point about metaphor. Some metaphors, he admits, are purely instructive, explanatory or decorative. But a truly creative metaphor involves interaction between two realms of meaning. In his work, Ricoeur speaks of levels of meaning, of multiple sense, or "split reference". In his reasoning, he uses the ideas of Max Black and Roman Jakobson.

However, the symbols are often buried in the narrative. It is usually about mythological narratives, or, in the words of Childs and Caird, about "broken myths." Thus, Ricoeur borrowed both Jewish and Greek ideas about sin, using the story of Adam along with the tragic Orphic myths. In addition, he referred to the works of the famous religious scholar Mircea Eliade. Ricoeur attempted to interpret the biblical narrative, but he refused to consider it as a story of the fall in a literal or doctrinal sense. The main content element in this case he thought wisdom. Ricoeur's autobiographical remarks indicate that the years 1965-1970 marked the end of an era for himself and for all of French philosophy. Everything was ready for the creation of his main work in the field of hermeneutics and the return from language to the philosophy of action and will.

2. Further scientific activity. Freud's interpretation, "Conflict of interpretations" metaphor

1. Ricoeur recalled that, around the time of the turn in Heidegger's philosophy, the interest of scientists was attracted by the dynamics language and creative aspect poiesis. This new interest turned out to be completely incompatible with humanism, phenomenology and hermeneutics. The beginnings were laid by the structuralism of Claude Lévi-Strauss (1955-1964), supposedly based on Ferdinand de Saussure's "General Linguistics" (1913), and Lévi-Strauss's research in cultural anthropology, which found its main embodiment in the work "Mythology: I" (1964). Simultaneously with structuralism came the Marxist interpretation presented by Louis Althusser and the psychological reading of Freud by the psychologist Jacques Lacan. Ricoeur's assessment was reserved: "Structuralism should not be used as a universal model." This approach is applicable only in some special cases.

Ricoeur's preeminent work in the field of psychoanalysis, Freud and Philosophy (French edition 1965; English edition 1970), is a classic rationale for the need to take into account not only understanding but also explanation, although each of these aspects is an integral part of hermeneutics. He recognized the effectiveness of psychoanalysis in explaining the causes of the psychological mechanisms of self-deception, but at the same time he strongly rejected the mechanistic materialistic views of Freud. Freud's research, according to Ricoeur, can be considered a classic of hermeneutics, since he refused to take on faith the "text" of the human person, trying to penetrate this deceptive superficial story in order to read the true "text" hidden in its depths. This, Ricoeur believed, should serve as a model for hermeneutic research, in which we try to go beyond the supposed "text" in search of the true text of human life.

This desire to “penetrate the depths of the classical and projected text” led Ricoeur to formulate a hermeneutic of suspicion, which remains the main tool of the interpreter in his attempt to counter, in Habermas’s phrase, “self-interest”—our desires and subjective interests that distort our understanding of the text. Ricoeur writes: “Freud suggests looking into dreams to discover the relationship between language and desire. First of all, it is not the dream itself that we saw, but only its description that is subject to interpretation. Freudian analysis aims to find the real, underlying text behind what is said. At the same time, our true desires and double meaning come to the surface.

Freud's mistake was that he saw the action of forces in everything, ultimately having a physical or material character. He failed to appreciate the richness (or plurality) of meaning in the language of his patients. Even Aristotle understood that the interpretation of a whole sentence is something more than the sum of the meanings of its constituent words. A noun, for example, does not contain an indication of time. Even Nietzsche recognized that interpretation involves every aspect of philosophy without exception. In this regard, let us repeat Ricoeur's famous words about the hermeneutics of suspicion that we cited earlier: “I believe that hermeneutics is driven by a double motivation: a willingness to doubt, a willingness to listen; a vow of strictness, a vow of obedience” (p. 27). We are once again convinced that his goal was to do away with idols created in the image and likeness of man, and to hear the creative language that transforms our lives.

Ricoeur then speaks of "post-critical faith" or "second naivete" (ee. 28-29). This belief is rational because it has been critically examined and explained. Ricoeur recognizes the need for an archeology of explanation, but it alone is not enough; in the absence of "understanding" it remains empty.

In a section entitled "Interpretation as an Exercise in Suspicion", Ricoeur calls the "three great destroyers"—Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud—the "masters of suspicion." All three, according to Riker, clear the way to the authenticity of the word. According to Freud, the symbol is extremely important, but ambiguous. Symbolic logic, with its striving for precision and singularity of meaning, contradicts the principles of hermeneutics. From the point of view of logic, hermeneutics is ready to be content with a dual meaning. But this readiness should not be considered a superficial substitute for a definition, since it is the result of general reflection. We must do away with idols and heed the symbols.

Ricoeur continues his detailed study of Freud. To begin with, he argues that, without hermeneutics, the 1895 project is purely "scientific" in nature and is an attempt to explain everything that happens to us by the action of mechanistic "forces" (ee. 69-86). But already in The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud takes a step forward, paying attention not only to the mental, but also to the emotional. Ideas, thoughts, reason take their place, and Ricoeur introduces the concept of "figurative" interpretation. Dreams are meaningful (Sinn). seen dream ("dream-thought")- this is not what we later remember and try to describe. It changes in the process of "compression" and substitution, in other words, it shrinks and falls into disorder, which leads to overdetermination (p. 93). Overdetermination means that, having several levels of meaning, dreams can be interpreted in different ways. Freud argued that often scenes from childhood are presented to people as something experienced quite recently. This may be due to hallucinations. The interpretation of a dream is an attempt to find dreams-thoughts in the story about him. This process often takes the form of fulfillment in a dream of desires suppressed by consciousness.

Freud is realistic about the concept id. Ricoeur speaks of narcissism and a tendency to narcissism, inherent in every person. The work dedicated to Freud did not arouse much interest in France, since many French intellectuals of that time were carried away by Lacan's ideas. But although Lacan addressed questions of linguistics, Ricoeur still saw a closer connection with the humanities in Freud's work, dealing with questions of intelligibility, pretense, interpretation, and meaning.

2. The book "Conflict of Interpretations" is a collection of essays on various topics. Among them are Descartes and consciousness, structuralism and the duality of meaning, psychoanalysis and Freud, as well as symbols, religions and faith. Many essays continue the themes of "Symbolism of Evil" and "Freud and Philosophy", but hermeneutics remains the main one among them. In his essays, Ricoeur pays more attention to linguistic philosophy and the foundations of the humanities and social sciences.

Although structuralism has its roots in the theory of Saussure, Ricoeur does not ignore the speech act and the recent studies of Ludwig Wittgenstein, J. L. Austin, and P. F. Strawson. The unit of meaning should be considered not a word, but a sentence or even a conversation. Ricoeur's main goal is "to shed light on the debate about structuralism and its value." According to him, they explain a lot about la langue t language as a treasury of possibilities realized in la parole. Man and his history have not become the subject of these discussions, and therefore they are purely semantic, and not hermeneutical in nature. This kind of analysis is carried out exclusively at the empirical level and belongs to the field of synchronic rather than diachronic (historical) linguistics. All this presupposes a closed system, as Trier argued, and even earlier Saussure. Such a system is independent object pierced internal connections.

All of the above marks the triumph of the so-called scientific enterprise, but at the same time excludes the speech act. As Humboldt emphasized, and even more emphatically the French linguist Emilio Benveniste (1902-1976), communication cannot be fully explained in terms of behaviorism and the stimulus-response formula, since language is inextricably linked with life. The ideas of Roland Barthes, A. J. Greimas and Gerard Guenette are useful, but not comprehensive. We must not forget about the connection between the system and human activity, or between the structure and the event. In a previous essay in A Conflict of Interpretations, Ricoeur discusses "double sense" as a problem in hermeneutics. In it, he assigns the same role to the structuralists, in particular Greimas, as later to Freud in an essay on psychoanalysis. They explain some, but not all, features of language and discourse. The collection also includes essays on phenomenology, symbolism and one essay on Heidegger.

3. The Rule of Metaphor (1975) again draws readers' attention to the multifaceted richness of language. In this work, some of the themes of the Conflict of Interpretations are further developed. A symbol for a word is the same as a metaphor for a sentence. Benveniste had a great influence on Ricoeur in this matter, and Max Black in regard to areas of interaction. According to Mary Hesse and Janet Martin Sorkis, creative metaphors are not merely illustrations or embellishments of text. They are not a substitute for other analogies, and yet they are quite capable of expressing cognitive truth. In addition, they have a heuristic ability, or the ability to make discoveries, Ricoeur writes in the essay "Metaphor and Reference." He borrows the definition of metaphor from Aristotle. The essence of metaphor lies in the fact that we, by analogy, call an object by someone else's name. Metaphor implies change, movement and transformation, and also provides the possibility of creative interaction between two semantic areas.

This book is a real encyclopedia on the history of metaphor from the time of Aristotle to the present day. Metaphor exists independently of comparison. Creative metaphor opens up new shades of meaning in the text. Its function is similar to that performed by scientific models. At the level of the sentence, it plays the same role as mythos(plot) in poetry. Within the concept of metaphor, we find whole "families of metaphors": tropes, images and allegories. Ricoeur discusses predication and identity, citing P. F. Strawson's The Individuals, as well as the semantics and rhetoric of metaphor.

Ricoeur dedicated his essay "Metaphor and New Rhetoric" to A. Zh. Greimas. The essay begins with a conversation about J. Trier and his concept of "semantic fields". It is this that underlies any structuralist theory of language. Once again, Ricoeur mentions Gerard Guenette and Max Black, who made important contributions to the solution of the problems under discussion. The semantic grammar of Greimas does not take into account too much. Synecdoche and metaphor, for example, are distinguished by their originality and so-called semantic audacity. The existing rules do not indicate the creative possibilities of these stylistic devices. The rest of the essays talk about the most prominent specialists in the field of the history of metaphor, including Roman Jakobson. It is interesting to note that the essay "Metaphor and Philosophical Discourse" begins with a dedication to Jean Ladrière, a man who has made great efforts to clarify the pragmatics, or eventfulness, of the language of the liturgy. The subtitle of the entire book, "An Interdisciplinary Study of the Emergence of Meaning in Language", accurately reflects the author's intention, Ricoeur proceeds to study the extralinguistic features of the language and clarify the term "refiguration" in the process of creative reading of the text.

3. Late period. "Time and Story"

Ricoeur's classic works are the extremely authoritative Time and Story (in three volumes, first French edition 1983-1985) and Self as Other (1990; English edition 1992). Ricoeur said that he was inspired in part by his reading of Dilthey's writings and his insistence on exploring both explanation and understanding. He also mentions his move to America. All these factors were of paramount importance in the development of Ricoeur's hermeneutics.

Another step in this direction was the essay “What is a text? Explanation and Understanding (1970), originally written for a collection dedicated to Hans Georg Gadamer. In his essay, Ricoeur acknowledges that there has been considerable outrage about the liberation of the text from spoken language. According to him, Dilthey believed that the inner life is expressed in external signs as symbols of a different mental life. In addition, Dilthey recognized the need for explanation and understanding. Ricoeur concludes his essay by defining a new concept of interpretation as the appropriation of meaning that takes place in the present.

Philosophical theme time occupies a central position in Time and Narrative. Four main factors contributed to this. (1) Constant dialogue with Heidegger and Greimas; (2) Ricoeur's desire to put his earlier lectures on time in order; (3) recognition of the importance of history; (4) the great impression made on Ricoeur by the writings of Gerhard von Rad, a researcher Old Testament. Ricoeur was well acquainted with Heidegger's concepts of historicity and temporality. (Zeitlichkeit), transcendent substantiation of the possibility of the existence of time.

Ricoeur begins the first volume of Time and Narrative with Augustine, in particular, with the eleventh book of his Confessions, which speaks of "discord" or the length of time in the past, present and future. He writes about the complexities of temporal experience that Augustine noticed and described. According to Augustine, we experience the future as expectation; real - like Attention; and the past is like memory. Reeker notes: "By living in the context of human time (memories, attention and hope), we understand the world, the objects around us and our own present." Augustine we are talking about the sequence of separate dissimilar moments. Together they form part of creation and have been consistently present throughout human history. By themselves, these experiences carry "discord", but God (or history) collects them into a single whole, "aspiring to eternity." Augustine believed that time was created at the same time with the world. The dialectic of time and eternity gives rise to a hierarchy of levels of temporalization. Everything depends on the proximity or remoteness of this or that experience from the field of eternity. Dialectics of concepts intention and distention finds a solid foundation in eternity and time, peering into the future with hope. Too often we mistakenly confine storytelling to pure logic and communication.

Aristotle's "poetics" complements Augustine's reasoning about time. Ricoeur writes that in his concept of "plot construction" (mythos) there is a meaning opposite to that of which Augustine spoke. Poetry contributes "agreement" and coherence into temporal logic plot construction. Mythos, or plot construction, "arranges a logical sequence of events." Within this sequence, the true character of the participants is known in their actions. In this sense, the whole makes possible Verstehen(understanding).

In the third, main chapter of the first part of the first volume, Ricker talks about the dynamics of plot construction. He claims that "refiguration"

occurs during the perception of the work. The basis of the whole is a preliminary understanding of the world of action. However, it is still characterized by "temporality" (Zeitlichkeit), providing unity of personality and character. Thus, in hermeneutics, the plot "passes into the realm of the present." We have come to a narrative understanding. Ricoeur speaks more about this unity in the second volume. The ever-present synthesis of heterogeneous phenomena can take the form dramatization. The drama of Christian teaching and storytelling has become a theme in the work of many other writers.

4. In the second half of the first volume, Ricoeur addresses the topic of relationships narratives and stories. Surprisingly, he does not mention Hans Frey, whose books were hugely popular with Anglo-American audiences. But Ricoeur would not have been happy with the idea of ​​a "historical-like" story anyway. Ricoeur acknowledges the reality of "historical intentionality" and asserts the existence of an indirect relationship between narrative and history. All this can help in finding answers to epistemological questions, the solution of which was beyond the power of Fry.

In the course of his research, any historian will be convinced that historical events in their pure form are by no means always present in the construction of the plot of the story. Thus, for example, in the Gospel of Mark, the narrative tense speeds up when describing the events associated with the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. His run slows down after the story of Peter's confession, and, finally, when it comes to the passions of Christ, time drags on painfully slowly, as if emphasizing that right now all the most important things are happening. Ricoeur explains that he is not ready to completely abandon the idea of ​​a historical event; in one way or another it is in the revelation of the narrative. For the reader, the event takes place directly in the present. It happens by the will of God and in accordance with the plot of the story. Later he will talk about the pseudo-event.

5. The second volume presents the third part of Time and Narrative. It deals, in particular, with the configuration (or change) of time in an artistic narrative. Term mimisis y often used by Plato, Aristotle, and Eric Auerbach, distinguishes this form of storytelling from a dry account of historical events and can include folk tales, epic, tragedy, comedy, and romance. Here Ricoeur intends to broaden and deepen the idea of ​​how plot construction works. In this regard, he mentions, for example, Gérard Guenette's analysis of order, duration, and frequency in narrative time, including prolepses, or anticipation of future events that, among other things, shed light on the stories of the four gospels and define the format of traditional detective stories. Ricoeur pays an important place to literary theories in relation to such works as "Mrs. Dalloway" by Virginia Woolf, "Magic Mountain" by Thomas Mann and "In Search of Lost Time" by Marcel Proust.

6. The third volume, like the first, consists of two main parts. In the first section, Ricoeur talks about the relationship between the existence of man in time (including narrative time) and time as a cosmological, astronomical or chronological concept, measured by clocks and the solar system. I have already written about this in The Promise of Hermeneutics. Ricoeur introduces this topic with Husserl's phenomenology. For Husserl, the present "now" is not concentrated at one point and is closely connected with intentionality. Kant referred time, along with space and causality, to internal categories established by reason, and Ricoeur aims to understand how and why Kant came to this conclusion. His transcendent aesthetic is obviously supposed to hide phenomenology. Some examples turn out to be true, as in the expression "the time comes," but Kant overlooks double the reality of time—human and mechanical.

In the third chapter of the first part of the third volume, Ricoeur addresses the theme of the relationship between time and Heidegger's historicity. Heidegger is primarily interested in subjective existence. Dasein in time, but he does not deny the value of the concepts of chronological or cosmological time. The concept of caring embraces myself the true structure of time, but this is not the only way to perceive it. time in perception Dasein- it's story time. Returning to the past, anticipating events and the difference in perception of the speed of the passage of time does not contradict the readings of the clock and penetrates to the very heart of the human experience. Anticipation, or expectation, is more natural to a person than a simple category of the future. But tempo-rality differs even greater unity. Dilthey was able to discern this "connectivity" (Zusammenheit) life, giving meaning to historicity.

Narration and interpretation once again confirm that the whole life of a person takes place “within” time.

7. The last part of "Time and Narrative" consists of seven chapters, which form the second section of the third volume. Ricoeur starts again with the theme of correlation lived and historical time. History fills natural time with new creative meaning, for example, with the help of a calendar. We are used to talking about contemporaries, predecessors and successors. Thus we weave together the web of history, as Dilthey wrote. This is how a third form of the existence of time appears, which Ricoeur sometimes calls "mythical time", presumably in connection with the construction of the plot from a simple sequence of events.

We understand that such a sequence usually contains a fundamental event, such as the birth of Jesus Christ or the feast of Pentecost, occurring at regular intervals. Thus, calendar time borrows from the physical concept of a continuous sequence of events. Benveniste rightly pointed out this. The influence of Gerhard von Rad is also evident in Ricoeur's views. Ricoeur argues that in choosing a research topic, historians are guided by their own interests. Therefore, the connection arises from the practical experience of each historian. The expression "significance of the trace" is borrowed from Emmanuel Levinas. We again observe the intersection of the existential and the empirical.

Further, Ricoeur touches on the theme of artistic narration and imagination, returning to the contents of the second volume. Gap between inhabited and global time is presented here in a slightly different form. In my book The Promise of Hermeneutics, I used the example of a subordinate who for some time waiting his boss. In this case, time, as it were, indicates the socio-economic status. Patients have to wait doctor in the waiting room. There are a lot of such examples both in life and in fiction.

Thus, Ricoeur returns to the difficult question of the narrative reality of past events. What exactly does a person want to say when speaking about real events? This question worried Ricker even more than Hans Frey. Sometimes it seems that Ricoeur is close to the romantics, who claimed that past events leave a trace. This trace is the best one can hope to find in the text. In the 1960s, some Cambridge theologians began to speak of a "flimsy connection" between historical events and their theological meaning, Ricoeur asks about the possibility of identifying events in history and in the present. In his opinion, the reproduction of an event in the present identifies it with history. After all, if the past does not correspond to the present, does this mean that it meets us as "other"? History may seem to us to be evidence of otherness, because the past is also different from the present.

These relationships are best characterized in terms of the world of the text and the world of the reader, as opposed to the verbal form of reference. Ricoeur's concept of "world" is close to that proposed by Gadamer. He writes: "Practical application is not just an accidental addition to understanding and explanation, but an equally important part of every hermeneutic study." Ricoeur repeatedly uses the term "application", noting the complexity of this concept. As in the "Rule of Metaphor", he argues that we cannot ignore the experience of "distinguishing likeness". As a result of reading the text, the world of the reader arises.

In the next chapter, Ricoeur develops a similar theme: the weaving history and fiction. Phenomenology gives this phenomenon proportionality. Fiction, as a rule, has a "pseudo-historical" character, but in the ninth chapter of the third volume, Ricoeur asks whether Hegel does not turn history proper into philosophical history. Universal history becomes the history of the world. Therefore, we should not be guided by Hegel, despite the development of the concept historical reason. We should avoid abstraction future and past. The term "waiting horizon", according to Ricoeur, was chosen as well as possible. It was used by Gadamer's former student Hans Robert Jaus. The term demonstrates the authenticity of how we experience the future: it is about the future that becomes the present not about abstraction, like Hegel. concept Geschichte captures the essence of our experience much better than history because the past must live in the present.

Ricoeur concludes by addressing the topic legends. He is more careful about his authority and legitimacy than Gadamer. In this regard, it is worth listening to the criticism of ideology. All judgment and prejudice is subject to error. However, it must be recognized that the sequence of readings speaks of the time being experienced and deserves to be heeded. We ourselves are part of the tradition. But the present must also be perceived responsibly and diversified. On the one hand, Ricoeur rejects the "ice demon of objectivity", but, on the other hand, calls to listen to the reality of experience and intersubjective life.

Riker comes to the conclusion that everything he said about time is quite consistent with the mediation of indirect narrative discourse. He considers it possible to refigure time by narrative. One should also keep in mind the difference between the cosmological and phenomenological approach, and aporias(multilevel inaccuracies) of time. This brings us to the question of narrative identity, to which Ricoeur returns in Self as Other. This, in turn, brings us to the topic of reaction to characters, suggesting the presence ethical principles^ or research responsibility. This is also one of the central themes of the book "I-Myself as Other". We are given "a world that is never ethically neutral." Narrative demonstrates the interconnectedness of all things, said Dilthey. But at the same time, Ricoeur also notes the limits of the narrative. Thus, for example, it is impossible to overcome the dualism of phenomenology and cosmology. In addition, a person is constantly tempted to put into the story a single and unchanging meaning for all generations. However, what has been said in no way negates the need for a narrative with its ethical and political context, 4. "I-myself as another." The Essence of the Human Self, Otherness, and Narrative

In 1990 Ricoeur wrote a book Soi-tete sotte un autre(in Russian translation "I am like another"). It is mainly devoted to the theme of the self and the human person, with all its narrative and ethical implications. A stable personality presupposes "otherness".

Descartes' concept of personality refers to what represents a person, but the stability of the personality, in his understanding, is determined by God. Nietzsche criticized this position by proclaiming the deceitfulness of language. In addition, the so-called autonomy of the individual is inseparable from concern for the welfare of others. Ricoeur's first subject of study was identifying reference, with important place is assigned to the work of P. F. Strawson "Individuals". Ricoeur demonstrates the flaws in Strawson's position, including a lack of attention to the I-Thou relationship.

Ricoeur then proceeds to the topic "I" as speaking subject. This theme was developed by F. Recanati, J. L. Austin and John Searle, who, however, could not give a precise definition of who the subject is talking to. What generates action? Ricoeur also considers dsictic terms:

"here" and "there", "I" and "You", connecting the location with the position of the speaker.

Ricoeur chose the philosophy of action without actors as his next research topic, with reference to G. E. M. Anscombe. The grammar of "desire" takes us a step further, but it still doesn't fully answer the question: "Who?" Anscombe, in a certain sense, "rescues" the notion intentions, but even intentional action leaves many questions unanswered. Useful discussions about action can be found in Donald Davidson, but he does not give a complete answer to Reeker's questions.

Let's move on to the next research topic. Descartes, Kant and Hegel consider the individual as an agent. However, many unresolved problems remain. X. L. A. Hart demonstrates the complexity of the concept of "attribution", which offers only a partial solution to the problem of the self.

The turning point in Ricoeur's reasoning comes when he turns to the next two themes, personal and narrative identity. The biggest gap so far has been temporality. Personality problems are associated with the changes taking place in a person, so it is important to pay attention to the temporal dimension of human life. Therefore, we must turn to the topic of human time and storytelling in order to understand the dialectic of identity and self. In this case, fiction can provide a useful stimulus to the imagination. The narrative tells us about the unity of human life, but at the heart of everything lies the integrity of the individual. Loyalty to one's promises is one of the main signs of this integrity and permanence. Ricoeur writes about "loyalty to a given word." But Promise wears ethical character; But when it comes to loyalty God's word, then also religious, even if it demonstrates the permanence of personality.

As expected, Ricoeur turns to the work of John Locke, borrowing from them additional details, analogies and allegories of self-identification. Locke attached great importance to memory. But, as David Hume pointed out, this is not enough. Identity cannot be superimposed on successive perceptions. Ricoeur rather approves of Derek Parfit's critique of Hume's criteria of identity in Causes and Persons. But, in the end, Ricoeur is truly satisfied only with the idea of ​​a “moral subject” who has his own beliefs and constantly interacts with the people around him. One can penetrate into the essence of the unity of human life only by asking moral questions.

To do this, it is necessary to study the interconnectedness of events in the narrative and construction of the plot. Dilthey also spoke about this. We leave the realm of the conventional in Kant's understanding, Ricoeur writes: "Character, therefore, also belongs to the category of narration." Even Propp and Greimas (representatives of the classical structuralist approach to narration) give an important place to character, role and action. The plot requires it. It requires a person who is responsible for his actions, giving them an ethical identity. Without this, it is impossible to answer the question: "Who am I?"

5. "I am like another." ethical conclusions. Other later works

1. The rest of the topics raised by Ricoeur are related to the ethical side. The first two of them complement each other. In one, Ricoeur addresses the notion of the "ethical purpose" of the human person, referring in particular to Aristotle and the virtues. According to Aristotle, every person has a purpose. Good is purposeful: a person who leads a righteous lifestyle sets as his goal the possession of one or another virtue. At the same time, rational reasoning is quite appropriate. In this connection Ricoeur turns to the later philosophy of Alisdair Macintyre. He writes that a virtuous person "lives by serving others and justice." His life cannot go on alone. Merleau-Ponty introduces the concept of "I can", denoting the ability to behave ethically in relation to other people. An example of such behavior, Aristotle considers friendship, the purpose of which is the establishment of virtuous relations.

Christians interpret this virtue in terms of love (agape). The Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995) also recognizes that the permanence of personality is impossible without another person who can call it to account. In Aristotle, all this is connected with the ethics of interaction, during which we simultaneously give and receive. Levinas is speaking here of the "personality" of the other. The inability to give oneself to people violates the integrity of the human personality. Compassion and empathy should be an integral part of our lives. This is the main proof of our care about neighbors. Such a person can get something for himself even at the moment of helping a weak friend. Without this, it is impossible to be yourself. All of the above forms the basis of the judicial system of coercion, as well as political discussions and actions.

2. Moving on to the next topic, Reeker agrees with McIntyre that the problem of the origins of justice remains unresolved. In this regard, he returns to the concept of morality in Kant (1724-1804). MacIntyre argues that we have, to a large extent, "lost the idea of ​​... morality"; “the presence or absence of manipulation in public relations” is almost irrelevant now.’ He is convinced that we cannot correct the situation if we do not ask ourselves: “What story can I consider myself the hero of?” Riker agrees with this. But speaking of goodness without limits, it is necessary to mention moral obligations. As Kant wrote: "The moral good means the good without limits." We have come to Kant's problem of universality. His answer was based on the absolute categorical imperative of human will and autonomy. Kant declared: "Always act in such a way that the maxim of your will at any moment of time can become a universal law."

There are many answers to this statement by Kant. Friedrich Schiller is credited with an ironic reaction to Kant's words about the internal struggle that is inextricably linked with the fulfillment of a person's duty: “I gladly serve my neighbors, but - alas! I have a penchant for them. So the question gnaws: am I really moral? And yet Kant's categorical imperative elevated moral obligation to the rank of an absolute. Commitment, in turn, creates motivation. For this, according to Kant, freedom and autonomy are necessary, but Ricoeur notes the connection of these phenomena with heteronomy. Autonomy itself would be in conflict with the heteronomy of the arbiter. Respect for others and for oneself are indispensable even in cases where evil reaches its extreme point.

At first glance, it seems that Ricoeur is trying to combine Aristotle's call for a virtuous life with Kant's call for the observance of a moral obligation in care and love. He writes: “The commandment, which we first meet in Lev. 19, 18 ... is repeated in Matt. 22:39: "Love your neighbor as yourself." But Ricoeur also says that love and hate are subjective principles that do not form objective universals. Therefore, Kant's intention remains in doubt. Principle autonomy seems to rule out any "otherness". So, Kant's ideas are characterized by internal tension. He is right that the only good without limitation is our good will. Utilitarianism cannot be fully identified with morality. We must not abandon the deontological concept of virtue. From the point of view of society, we also need a theory of justice.

In this regard, Ricoeur first turns to the work of John Rawls. But his theory is based on a preliminary understanding of justice and injustice, and therefore threatens to turn into a vicious circle. Ricoeur bases his theory of justice on practical wisdom. Then he analyzes the moral aspect of the tragedy. How, for example, should justice be regarded in the view of Antigone? The deeds that Antigone considers her duty, contradict the idea of ​​duty as understood by Creon. So Ricoeur does not quite agree with the wisdom of tragedy. We must stick to the middle ground between universalism and contextualism, paying attention to key concepts in the context of a virtuous life, associated with the "other": security, prosperity, freedom, equality and solidarity. They are extremely important for social and political processes. Each of these concepts invites reflection. In addition, they all have symbolic overtones that go beyond the only possible meaning, and each suggests care about others. Perhaps this is the one care, which was discussed in Heidegger, in Hegel we observe in the context of both historical situations and moral ones. Aristotle, on the other hand, confines himself to the untenable concept of practical wisdom. (phronesis).

3. Do maxims deserve the right of education universals. Practical wisdom helps us to use all these maxims in a way that as required by the situation. An integral part of this process is always respect for other people. Responsibility and autonomy may also be present to a certain “minimum” degree. But care invariably implies respect for "otherness" another person, even in new non-standard situations. Morality can lead to conflict and even struggle; but this does not negate the universal need for practical wisdom.

Kant's insistence on autonomy is conditioned by the historical context. The Enlighteners believed that they were bringing humanity freedom from the domination of blindly accepted tradition. However, this concept remains dialectical, and by no means absolute. Therefore, a new interpretation of Kant is needed, taking into account the universal aspect. The ideas of Habermas, as well as the concept of "self-interest", also deserve a serious attitude. In his two-volume work The Theory of Communicative Action, Jürgen Habermas (b. 1929) actively uses the concepts of "self-interest" and "living world", studying the question of the extent to which language and communication can interfere in the field of ethics. Aristotelian concept phronesis combined with Kantian morality and Hegelian Sittlichkeit(morality, recognizing historicity and universality).

4. The last topic that Riker addresses is related to ontology. Ricoeur's emphasis on action and the self calls into question an ontological theory centered on matter rather than the material stability of "personality in interaction with otherness". Ricoeur considers Heidegger's concept Dasein as one way of being. He writes: “Most important to me is the idea that was the goal of the previous discussion on Aristotelian energeia(force)… Otherness is superimposed on the self… it is part of the ontological structure of the self.” It signifies the permanence of the self. (ipse) and presupposes intersubjectivity.

At the center of everything are the biblical qualities of self permanence and continuous development. Even suffering, which is usually left unaddressed, becomes part of the ontology, and the narrative takes its rightful place. Ricoeur writes: "To say 'I exist' is to say 'I want, I move, I do'." Existence is inseparable from resistance. The words "I can" do not lose their paramount importance, as we have already seen. We need the temporality and "otherness" of the people around us.

This effectively concludes the book "I-Myself as Other". But Riker continues to work. Twenty-one works were included in the collection "Figuring the Sacred" (English edition 1995), They are dedicated to different topics, in particular about religious language, Kant, Rosenzweig, Levinas, biblical themes and imagination. Later, Ricoeur published the book "Thinking Biblically" in collaboration with André Lacock. The authors explore the first two chapters of Genesis, referring to the works of Gerhard von Rad, Klaus Westermann, Edmond Jacob, Karl Barth and other writers that deal with the creation of the world. Other themes include the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:13); resurrection and resurrection (Ezek. 37:1-14); the cup of loneliness on the cross (Ps. 21) and other passages, mostly from the Old Testament. Lacock's exegesis precedes Ricœur's hermeneutical reasoning.

In the first few years of the new millennium, as in previous years, Ricoeur turns his attention to the realm of ethics. 2000 saw the release of The Just (French edition 1995), followed by Reflections on Justice (French edition 2001, English edition 2007). The last work contains research results and lectures. The collection "Just" consists of lectures given in different places. Ricoeur returns to the seventh and eighth themes of I-Myself as Other: Aristotle on virtue and Kant on moral obligation. It offers a much-needed teleological and no less important de-ontological basis. But the main research is devoted to practical wisdom. Among other things, Ricoeur addresses the topic of rights (lecture 1) and obligations (lecture 2). The question of rights brings us back to the already discussed questions of self (Who? What? Can I?) and the institutional structure of questions of rights. The latter includes a conceptual analysis of responsibility. One person holds another responsible for something, and there is always an interpersonal factor involved. The concept of responsibility needs to be expanded.

In other lectures, Ricoeur analyzes John Rawls' theory of justice and concludes that after reading his works, the reader is left with an impression of innuendo, unless we are ready to accept the amendments made by J. Habermas and K. O. Apel. In the essay "After Rawls' Theory of Justice," Ricoeur argues that this important concept is not limited to one sense of fairness or even general agreement. Other essays focus on pluralism, modes of argumentation and judgment. Meditations on Justice takes up the same themes with the same emphasis on virtue and, in particular, on "respect for the dignity of another, equal to the respect that a person has for himself."

6. Five aspects of critical analysis. Text" the author's intention and creativity

Since Ricoeur touches on a variety of topics in his writings, his ideas evoke a critical response in a variety of fields. Among the subjects of Ricoeur's research we have considered, it is enough to mention his theory of symbol and metaphor; analysis of Freud's theory; explanation and understanding; text and author; construction of a narrative plot; his concept of fiction and its connection with history; imagination;

biblical literary genres; the emphasis placed on the Books of Wisdom; concept mimesis; the relationship of truth and history; the category of historical reason in Hegel and Dilthey; prescriptive law, love and justice. Ricoeur also made significant contributions to religion and ethics. Is it possible to give an unambiguous assessment of such a multifaceted activity? We will confine ourselves to a brief analysis of Ricoeur's hermeneutics, even if we have to deal indirectly with all these topics.

1. One of the best studies of Ricoeur's work can be considered the work of Kevin Vanhouser "The Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur". Vanhouser rightly notes: “Ricœur refuses to follow the path of historical criticism, which reduces the text to its constituent traditions, or to limit its meaning to the original situation and pointing to real events". At the same time, he does not approve of the purely structuralist approach, which limits the meaning of the text to the immediate context, depriving it of special linguistic references. This is generally true, although many would disagree with such a reductionist view of history. Some compare him to Fry.

Ricoeur values ​​"possibility" so highly that he tends to view all historical accounts as being refigured in order to be actualized in the present. Vanhouser speaks of an "ugly moat" separating history from fiction. According to Aristotle, the historian describes real events, while the poet describes imaginary ones. Ricoeur considers this provision in relation to the Bible, indicating that this allows it to creatively influence a person's life.

Yet Ricoeur points to a more complex relationship between truth, history, and narrative. Mimesis operates on several levels. Ricoeur acknowledges that the relationship between narrative and story is "troubling". Of course, fiction stimulates the imagination. But Ricoeur places great emphasis on the historical intentionality and reality of foundational events such as the birth of Christ. He does not want the event to disappear in every respect. Recognizing the reality of the past, he, like Gerhard von Rad and Rudolf Bultmann, sees the significance of the past exclusively in the present. (Geschichte y but not history), as if we had to choose between a "dead" past and a tradition that continues to live and speak to us. Therefore, even though it is an exaggeration, perhaps an oversimplification of the situation, Vanhouser's conclusion points in the right direction. You can't make sure that the wolves are fed and the sheep are safe, but all too often he tries to achieve just that -

go. He is right in emphasizing the importance of re-creation or actualization, but at the same time he misrepresents the essence of historical descriptions. He rightly points out that historical description should not always be the center of attention. Luke, for example, speaks of his desire for historical accuracy and at the same time relevance. Vanhouser agrees. main idea Ricoeur, but does not share his tendency to generalize.

2. The marked divergence of views between Ricoeur and Gadamer and the similarity of Ricoeur's ideas with Habermas's criticism are due to the deep and justified confidence that both explanation and understanding play a vital role in hermeneutics. Dan Stever explains that this idea is already present in the early works of Ricoeur - "Man in error" and "Liberty and Nature. Voluntary and involuntary. Since every interpretive judgment contains errors, we need a hermeneutical criterion. This must not be neglected, whatever is in the center of our attention; psychoanalysis of the human mind, semiotics or structuralism in language or the referential and literal aspect of metaphor.

From the very beginning, Ricoeur took seriously those "involuntary" features of hermeneutics that distort meaning in our favor, including the self-interest of still unconscious desires. Ricoeur, as Stiver rightly remarks, came to the conclusion that a prosaic phenomenological description is not capable of expressing all aspects of human life. This statement becomes even more important when it comes to the multiple interpretations of symbol and metaphor. In Symbols of Evil, Ricoeur speaks of human error, including symbols of shame, defilement, sin, and guilt. These concepts can be called symbolic if the meaning at the same time acquires polyvalence. Symbol inexhaustible like the Bible itself. Ricoeur develops Kant's idea that "a symbol gives rise to a thought".

Ricoeur's view of the human tendency to delusion is expressed more radically in Freud and Philosophy, where he speaks of desires so repressed that they spring from the subconscious in the form of hidden self-interest. This idea of ​​Reeker fits perfectly with the biblical emphasis on the deceit of the human heart and the inability even of our conscience to guide us along the true path (Jer. 17:9; 1 Cor. 4:1-5). As for the interpreter, he must first lose himself in the "desert of criticism" and then regain himself in "post-critical naivety." Werner Ginrond also emphasizes suspicion and return. He writes: "Ricœur pointed out the need to develop a theory of interpretation that would enable the interpreter to critically evaluate the ambiguous nature of all linguistic events."

Admittedly, Enlightenment philosophy, positivism, and to a certain extent biblical criticism erroneously assert that the text should be treated as a value-neutral object, and the interpreter should not be guided by self-interest or desires. Riker was well aware that explanation can prevent distortion of meaning or misunderstanding. Even semiotics and structuralism can help in this function. It cannot be said that Ricoeur misunderstood Gadamer in this matter. He took a particular interest in the communication theory of Habermas and Apel. In addition, he strongly advised listening to the three masters of suspicion: Nietzsche, Marx and Freud. Ricoeur came to the conclusion that Gadamer's approach to hermeneutics is too uncritical, and different points of view related to different traditions show their failure in performing a critical task. Gadamer does not pay enough attention to questions of ethics, power and domination. This is in keeping with Ricoeur's Protestant beliefs in a predominantly Catholic country, although his emphasis on textual ambiguity is often reviled. Luther and Calvin insisted on the clarity and unity of the meaning of Scripture, but they would not deny the reality of deceit, self-interest, and propensity to err even in relation to the church.

3. Turning to Ricoeur's question of textuality, we learn that John Thompson, one of his early commentators and critics, states: we do not find a logically coherent description of the relationship between action and structure. J. L. Austin, Gilbert Ryle, and Wittgenstein in the later stages of their work allocate an important place to the immediate context of language. First person statements are often performative or illocutionary function. Wittgenstein also takes into account the temporal nature of statements. Following him, Peter Winch shows interest in history and social change. Phenomenology is the study of human action, and Ricoeur takes this approach. Texts and actions are perceived as embodied consciousness. Descriptive discourse is colored by moral values. The interpretation of human actions and texts cannot be scientific, even if they are related to politics and economics. The text becomes for Ricoeur a model of human action and an object of understanding. Thomson considers this idea unacceptable.

According to Thomson, Habermas' achievements in this area are much more significant. Labor is regulated and controlled by technical rules formulated by the literal means of language, and ideologies systematically distort communication between people. It is believed that Riker does not allocate enough space context and social change in the context. Semiology and structuralism cannot completely replace them. Ricoeur and Habermas recognize the reality of power, ideology, self-interest, but under the influence of Heidegger, Ricoeur opposes them to scientific analysis. Ricoeur's concept of action is limited. Thomson tries to place the action in a larger social context. He is right in sharing the confidence of Austin, Ryle, and the later Wittgenstein on the importance of the simple philosophy of language. environment language.

Yet the collection Essays on Biblical Interpretation shows that Ricoeur, unlike Thomson, draws a clear line between modes of discourse. Since these essays did not see the light of day until 1981, at least in the English edition, Thomson could not take this into account. In general, Thomson's criticisms are valid only in relation to Ricoeur's early work, in addition, Thomson gives an obvious preference to Habermas. Ricoeur distinguishes at least six types of biblical discourse: prescriptive, that is, law; psalms or hymns addressed to God; didactic, as exemplified by the messages; prophetic; Books of Wisdom, whose authors convey their thoughts to the reader, as it were, gradually; and most importantly, the narrative, which is probably most Scriptures. Ricoeur is correct in pointing out that the church and preachers tend to liken a variety of genres to prophetic discourse (as in Jer. 2:1), where the prophet speaks on behalf of God and revelation is introduced by the words, "Thus saith the Lord." But the narrative ensures the continuity of traditions in the form Creed:“My father was a wandering Aramean… we cried out to the Lord God of our fathers…” (Deut. 26:5-10). Ricoeur states: “Narrative discourse is distinguished primarily by its emphasis on the underlying event or events as traces of God's acts. Confession always takes the form of a story."

There is also a prescriptive discourse corresponding to the will of God and the real conditions of human life. Law is one aspect of this type of discourse and is also part of the human response to covenant with God. Jesus attached great importance to "the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7:12). The Books of Wisdom have their own characteristics, and the topics included in them include "boundary situations", which Karl Jaspers spoke of as the abolition of the human and the incomprehensibility of God. They also address the theme of suffering, in particular Job. 42:1-6, and this appeal is expressed in the form of indirect revelation. Sometimes the books of Job and Ecclesiastes correct the excessive severity of Deuteronomy. Finally, the hymn discourse presented by the Book of Psalms addresses God personally. This, too, is part of revelation, but it rarely becomes the subject of a sermon. Many psalms are written in the first person and addressed directly to God.

4. Nicholas Walterstorff commends Ricoeur's focus on language, but he thinks Ricoeur too often falls short of "that element of pluralism, polysemy, and analogy" that is present in God's revelation. Ricoeur's theology develops in a direction close to Barth's, where revelation is always mediated and leaves almost no room for the approach proposed by Walterstorff. According to the latter, Ricoeur actually rejects the author's discourse, interpretation and writer's intention. Undoubtedly, Ricoeur assigns a more active role to the reader than to the text. Walterstorff quotes: "The text is dumb... The text is like a musical score, and the reader is like a conductor." Lalangue is a cipher; laparole- discourse. Speech always means actualization. But Walterstorff is interested in the "noematic" or general cognitive truth contained in the text.

Sometimes the text communicates or contains a suggestion about the state of affairs. In such cases, the intention of the author is crucial. This can be said, for example, about a large part of the Gospel of Luke and certainly about the First Epistle to the Corinthians and the Epistle to the Galatians. Sometimes the author's intentions are not as important as they are in the Book of Jonah and in many of the Psalms. And yet this question occupies a certain place in the formulation of responsible interpretation. Otherwise, any reading of the text that pleases the reader should be considered correct.

Walterstorff seems to mean that Ricoeur is not entirely consistent here. He refers to the dialogues, and Ricoeur himself admits this. The place of the author is part of the temporality of the text, and his concepts of "I" and "You" are extremely important. Walterstorf asks the question: “How could it happen that, giving authorial discourse a central place in his philosophy of language, in the theory of text interpretation Ricoeur recognizes only the interpretation of textual meaning?” He wants to avoid romanticism, but ends up avoiding his usual summary approach. It is necessary to be more attentive to the individual characteristics of each text.

5. And yet, summing up, we can say that Ricoeur pays enough attention to the creative side of the language, the consequences that this or that text can have, as well as the historicity of the text and the reader. In his brief commentary, Jensen wanted to say just that, noting the transformative power of the text that Ricoeur writes about. David Klemm tries to simultaneously reach a consensus with Ricoeur himself and with his critics, saying that Ricoeur deciphers "hidden richness in gradually revealing meanings hidden in the depths of the literal sense." Added to this is his emphasis on temporality and narrative. In his work on metaphor, Ricoeur tries to show that language undergoes creative changes and transformations. He considered one of his tasks to be the transformation of "clock time" into "human time".

This creative side finds expression in Ricoeur's interest in ethics, which is based on human freedom and the belief that "I can". Despite everything said in the works "Symbolic of Evil" and "Freud and Philosophy", Ricoeur here contradicts himself. He recognizes the role of evil, unconscious, involuntary and deceptive; but at the same time he should have been more critical of Kant's autonomy. The Christian has only secondary autonomy, if it is appropriate to speak of it here at all. Even when redeemed, we live "under sin." Combining his hermeneutics, his understanding of the self and narrative with the ethical questions of the individual and the world, he opens up, in the words of John Wall, the theme of "moral creativity." Wall sees this "poetics of possibility" or "poetics of will" as part of the classical concept of the need for faith, linked to a larger movement of grace. The “I can” that comes from outside creates a world of possibility that speaks of love and the transformation of society. However, Ricoeur is reluctant to express his theological views.

7. Additional reading

Riker Paul. Time and story. M.; St. Petersburg: TsGNII INION RAS; Cultural Initiative; University Book, 2000.

Jenson, Alexander Theological Hermeneutics, SCM Core Text (London: SCM, 2007), pp. 144-51.

Ricoeur, Paul Essays on Biblical Interpretation, edited by Lewis S. Mudge (Phila delphia: Fortress, 1980; London: SPCK, 1981), pp. 23-95. , Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation, translated by Denis Savage (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), pp. 3-36. , time and narrative, translated by Kathleen Blarney and David Pellauer, 3

vols. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1984,1985,1988), 1:3-51,3:80-96. Thiselton, Anthony C, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading(London: HarperCollins; Grand Rapids.

Philosophy is a form of knowledge of the world, and each has its own. There are people who try to convey philosophy to others through speeches and writings, and this article will tell about the life of one philosopher.

Philosophers of the twentieth century

Philosophy, like history and literature, is conditionally divided into centuries, but many philosophers still remain our contemporaries (Plato, Kant or Descartes). However, time does not stand still, there is development in many areas, and people have to adjust and adapt to this. Therefore, new trends appear in various fields, including philosophy (phenomenology, neo-Marxism, structuralism, neo-positivism, etc.), respectively, and philosophers appear who want to convey the essence of these trends - Theodor Adorno, etc. Consider life and the work of one of them.

In 1913, one of the most famous philosophers of the 20th century was born in Valencia on February 27. His name is Paul Ricoeur. He was orphaned early, his mother died almost immediately after his birth, and his father, who was an English teacher, died at the front during the First World War. His tutors were grandparents (father's parents), who were Protestants and belonged to a religious minority, which was very noticeable in Catholic France and influenced the life of little Paul.

Ricoeur received his primary education by studying the Bible and going to church services. Then Paul was able to enter the university in Rennes, then he entered the university at the Sorbonne, and after graduation he began to teach philosophy at the Lyceum.

When World War II began, Paul became a soldier in the French army, and was soon captured, but was able to continue his work and began translating Husserl's Ideas ( German philosopher who founded the phenomenological school).

After the end of the war, Paul Ricoeur was able to return to teaching: first it was the University of Strasbourg, then the Sorbonne, and then the University of Nanterre. In 1971, he became a professor at the University of Chicago, and at the same time taught at Yale.

Paul Ricoeur died at the age of 92 in his home in France, it happened in 2005, when he fell asleep and never woke up.

Philosopher's personal life

An outstanding philosopher of the 20th century was Paul Ricoeur. His personal life took shape when he was only 22 years old, but he met his wife as a child, and for many years they were just friends. Simone Lezha gave birth to her husband 5 children: 4 sons and one daughter. They lived together for many years, raising children, and then grandchildren. Unfortunately, one son committed suicide in the mid-80s, the rest are still alive. Ricoeur's wife died shortly before the philosopher's death.

Philosophical direction

And a follower of phenomenology, which appeared in Germany in the early 1910s. The main problem that stood in this direction was the knowledge of a person as the foundation on which his life is built. How to create this foundation, from what to build it, if not to resort to the chemical processes of the brain, that was the main task. The main theory that was formulated by philosophers is that any knowledge is phenomena (phenomena) in the human mind.

Paul Ricoeur went further and developed the idea of ​​such a direction as hermeneutics, which was a continuation of phenomenology, but expressed through language. The main thesis was formulated as follows: one can interpret the world in the same way as one can interpret the text with the help of certain models.

For example, in hermeneutics there was such a thing as a hermeneutic circle - in order to understand and interpret any phenomenon and event, you need to know its individual parts.(i.e. to understand the intent literary work, you need to know and understand the sentences that make up the text), it should also happen in life: find the reason why this or that event happened, get to the bottom of it, taking it apart, etc.

This direction and its research methods are used in social theory, literature and aesthetics.

Ricoeur believed that phenomenology and hermeneutics are inextricably linked, the first direction explores the perception of reality, the second - interprets texts. Those. we perceive the world in a certain way, and then we interpret it in our own way, organizing our world. Texts are everything that surrounds us, memory, language, word, faith, history. All these are human experience and objects of perception.

Ricoeur lived a long life, having been born at the beginning of the 20th century, having survived two world wars and having been in captivity, he died at the age of 92 in the 21st century. He saw a lot and understood a lot, he always tried to convey his views to people, teaching at universities and creating literature on philosophy. There are a few interesting facts which show how versatile his life was.

When Paul Ricoeur was in captivity, he continued to work and took up the translation of Husserl. The camp had a rich intellectual life - lectures and seminars were held, and later this place became an educational institution.

In 1969, at the University of Nantar, he was appointed dean and served for two years. But after he found himself between two fires: politics and bureaucracy, he accepted the offer of the University of Chicago and went to work there for more than 20 years.

At the age of 91, he received an award for achievement in the humanities.

Ricoeur was a very literate person and wrote many works on the phenomenon of human life, while covering completely different areas: language, symbols, signs, psychology, religion, literature and history, good and evil.

Paul Ricoeur Awards

In 2000, Ricoeur became the winner of the Kyoto Prize, which is awarded every 4 years in three areas - fundamental sciences, philosophy and advanced technologies.

In 2004, he received the Kluge Prize for his work in the humanities. This award is considered by many to be analogous to the Nobel Prize.

The main works of the philosopher

More than 10 works were created by the philosopher in different periods own life. Some were released over 50 years ago, others at an advanced age. But before the world saw them, a thorough work was carried out to collect materials, because it could not be otherwise, this is exactly what Paul Ricoeur believed. His photo can be seen on the Internet and in our article, but it is best to familiarize yourself with the works by holding a book in your hands to understand the underlying meaning.

The first work was created in 1947 and was called "Gabriel Marcel and Karl Jaspers", and at the latest he released in 2004, calling it "The Way of Recognition".

In 1960, Ricoeur worked on the two-volume Philosophy of Will, it was during this period that he came to the direction of hermeneutics, when it was necessary to study the concept of evil. Paul believed that in order to comprehend evil, you need to know the myths and understand the symbolism, and it was then that he became interested in this direction, creating several works that brought him fame. He wrote books such as "The Conflict of Interpretations" and "Theory of Interpretations", studied the works of Plato and Aristotle, in 1983 to 1985 he published the three-volume "Time and Story", exploring various theories of different times.

Famous philosopher quotes

Paul Ricoeur was an outstanding philosopher of his time. After many years, his works will also be in demand, and the quotes are relevant, you just have to read a few and think:

"Every tradition lives on through interpretation."

"The unity of human speech is a problem today."

“Silence opens up the whole world to the listener.”

“Thinking means going deep.”

, phenomenology

Biography

Paul's mother died shortly after she gave birth to him. His father, an English teacher, died at the front at the beginning of the First World War (1915). The father's parents raised the orphan in the Calvinist spirit. It was mainly books that shaped him, in particular the comments on the Epistle to the Romans by Karl Barth and his own work, The Word of God and the Word of Man.

Paul Ricoeur married in 1935 and subsequently had five children. Since 1935, Ricoeur has been teaching philosophy at the Lyceum and actively, until the outbreak of World War II, studies the German language. In 1939, Ricoeur volunteered for the front, but was captured. In this situation of forced detachment, he experiences philosophy boundary situations: existential states of defeat, despair, loneliness. But here, by the will of fate, he was given the opportunity to comprehend them theoretically: Ricoeur reads in the original the works of Karl Jaspers, which had a huge impact on him. He was also advised by other captive intellectuals to study the writings of Edmund Husserl. Having not yet fully understood phenomenology, Ricoeur began to translate Husserl's Ideas-I. Fascinated by the works of Husserl and the understanding of some new things that opened up to him, Ricoeur continued this work after the war. But the start was given precisely under such unusual circumstances. (However, given the biography of Descartes, these circumstances should not be considered so unexpected).

Ricoeur's work was highly appreciated by his longtime friend Karol Wojtyla (future Pope John Paul II). In the last years of his life, Paul Ricœur often traveled to the ecumenical community of Brother Roger Schutz in Taizé, in order, in his own words, to experience what he believed with all his heart.

Philosophy

Paul Ricoeur developed a balanced version of hermeneutic philosophy. In his opinion, the tendency of Western philosophy to achieve transparency of the “I”, begun by the reflective philosophy of Descartes and actually continued by Kant (see Ricoeur’s work “Kant and Husserl”), should be supplemented by a study of the essence of understanding itself.

Confession

Professor at the Sorbonne (France) and the University of Chicago (USA).

Major writings

• "Gabriel Marcel and Karl Jaspers" (1947)
• "Philosophy of Will" (in 2 volumes, 1950-1960)
• "Kant and Husserl" (ed. 1954)
• "History and Truth" (1955)
• "On Interpretation. Essays on Freud" (1965)
• "Conflict of interpretations. Essays on hermeneutics" (1969)
• “Theory of Interpretation. Discourse and Excess of Meaning (1976)
• "Being, Essence and Substance in Plato and Aristotle" (1982)
• "Time and story" (in three volumes, 1983-1985)
• "School of Phenomenology" (1986)
• "The path of recognition" ().

Russian bibliography

• Ricoeur, P. Hermeneutics. Ethics. Politics. - M .: JSC "KAMI", Ed. Center "Academia", 1995. - 160 p. - ISBN 5-86187-045-4.
• Ricoeur, P./ Per. from fr. I. S. Vdovina. - M .: Kanon-Press-Ts: Kuchkovo field, 1995. - (Republished in 2002).
• Ricoeur, P. Hermeneutics and psychoanalysis. Religion and faith. - M., 1997.
• Ricoeur, P. Time and story / Per. T. V. Slavko. - M.; SPb. : TsGNII INION RAN: Cultural Initiative: University Book, 2000.
• Ricoeur, P./ Per. from fr. I. S. Vdovina, O. I. Machulskaya. - St. Petersburg. : Aletheia, 2002.
• Ricoeur, P./ Per. from fr. I. I. Blauberg and others - M .: Publishing house of humanitarian literature, 2004.
• Ricoeur, P. Fair / Per. B. Skuratov with the participation of P. Hitsky. - M .: Gnosis: Logos, 2005.
• Ricoeur, P. Man as a subject of philosophy // Questions of Philosophy. - 1989. - No. 2. - S. 41-50.
• Ricoeur, P. The triumph of language over violence. Hermeneutic Approach to the Philosophy of Law // Questions of Philosophy. - 1996. - No. 4. - S. 27-36.
• Ricoeur, P./ Per. M. Edelman - lecture given at the Faculty of Protestant Theology in Paris in October 1998.
• Ricoeur, P. I am like another / Per. from French - M .: Publishing house of humanitarian literature, 2008 (French philosophy of the XX century). - 416 p.

Write a review on the article "Ricœur, Paul"

Notes

Literature

• Vdovina I. S. In memory of Paul Ricoeur // Questions of Philosophy. - 2005. - No. 11.
• Vdovina I. S. Paul Ricoeur: Phenomenological and Hermeneutic Methodology for Analyzing Works of Art // Theory of Artistic Culture. - Issue. 10. - M ., 2006.
• Zotov A.F. Search for Synthesis: Paul Ricoeur // Contemporary western philosophy. - M., 2004.
• Klimenkova T. A. The problem of cultural and historical creativity in the phenomenological hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur // French Philosophy Today. - M., 1989.
• Paul Ricoeur is a philosopher of dialogue. - M ., 2008. - 143 p.

Links

An excerpt characterizing Ricœur, Paul