Documents found
-
31.More information
Continuing on from recent discussions on the overlap between Paul Ricoeur's philosophy and care ethics, this article will aim to clarify the status of practice in Ricoeur's work. I will argue that even though Ricoeur's philosophy is indeed marked by its “desire for a foundation,” as care ethicist Joan Tronto has pointed out, this aim is more of a fragile wager than a principle, and is always at risk of being overturned by practices and other worldviews. I will demonstrate this point by arguing that (1) Ricoeur's hermeneutic approach to practice leads to the view that objective methods of knowledge and explanation are always grounded by the broader hermeneutic task of practical understanding and care for the self; (2) in moral reasoning, Ricoeur's analysis of the conflict between respect for the rule and respect for persons results in his prioritizing of respect for the singular other rather than the universal rule, meaning that the other can always disrupt and reorient universal or foundational modes of reasoning; and finally (3) within healthcare relations Ricoeur aims to develop an alternative understanding of respect that places it in a dialectical relation with care. These practice-oriented readings of hermeneutics, morality, and respect aim to open up a dialogue between care ethics and philosophical approaches that have often been placed outside of care ethics.
-
33.More information
The phenomenon of life — yours, or mine always — is given to be seen or to be understood in its cohesion and in its proper identity through a narrative “montage”. This is the hypothesis which this article explores in trying to determine if the narrative montage refers to a “staged coup”, as Artaud suggests, or if instead it is not, following the very different analysis by Ricoeur, a plot in which the character, entangled in his or her own experiences, fights against the scattering of the self, or again, as according to Schapp, if each person is not simply involved in his or her own stories as well as in those of others, with no other means of reaching himself or herself than through such tangles.
-
34.More information
Paul Ricœur highly appreciates the “dynamic structuralism” of Hayden White. Yet he enters into a debate with White's approach to history. The controversy revolves around the constitution of the historical field. White maintains that it is solely the discourse of the historian that constitutes the historical field ; that is why the task of a metahistorical investigation consists in an analysis of the tropological structure and the explicative modes characteristic of this discourse. On the contrary, Ricœur considers life in history as the very basis of any constitution of the historical field ; that is why he tries to replace White's dynamic structuralism by a hermeneutic phenomenology of historical experience. However, due to the dynamic character of White's structuralism, even the metahistorical approach to history allows us to recognize, at least, some traces of historical experience. Indeed, several traces of this kind are to be discovered in the studies White devotes to the great 19th century historians and philosophers of history. But this fact should not be seen to suppress the clear difference between the two thinkers. It is only Ricœur who assigns to historical experience a fundamental role in the very constitution of the historical field. However, as far as the precise description of this role is concerned, there is also a certain difference between Time and Narrative, on the one hand, and Memory, History, Oblivion, on the other. In the first work, Ricœur emphasizes mainly the idea of a redescription or refiguration of reality by narratives. By contrast, in the second work, he succeeds in making clear that a true reconstruction of the past does not depend solely upon a purely epistemological approach to history, but it requires also an ontological analysis of what may be designated as our “historical condition”. It is in this ontological analysis that memory and oblivion find their place — a place which proves to be, on the other hand, central.
-
35.More information
In the last few years, transnational feminist movements have developed considerably in order to avoid national and international political strategies and, more broadly, to challenge claims of universalism. In order to fight the hegemonic discourses that have been inherited from a colonial and patriarchal past, theorists of feminist transnational movements have accessed possibilities offered by the politics of translation. The politics of translation refers to the political implications of translating, but also to translation as a paradigm for conceiving of “politics”—namely, rights, policy, or institutions. Using translation as a paradigm would, according to this claim, put into question unified, dominant, and universalistic claims. In this context, Ricoeur provides us with important theoretical solutions. Not only does he maintain the concept of universality, but he moreover offers a useful framework in which to conceive of it as “in translation.” Therefore, Ricoeur reconciles the feminist critiques of the universal with the feminist project of thinking through of a politics of translation. In Ricoeur's theory, this reconciliation is elaborated within an ethics of translation based on an ethics of care, or solicitude. This article explores the ways in which an ethics of translation based on the values of caring and solicitude allows us to conceive of a politics of translation that includes a renewed concept of the universal. First, I will show how transnational feminism has developed against the idea of the universal. Second, I will suggest that we can define the universal “in translation” to think through both a politics and an ethics of translation. Third, I will sketch the outlines of this ethics of translation, which, while maintaining the possibility of the universal, includes a principle of hospitality, which is fully developed through an ethics of care.
-
37.More information
AbstractThis article is a reflection on a paper by Paul Ricoeur on the Christian testimony. A testimony is more than a bare confession of faith. It includes a narrative, as we see in the gospels. But it is also more than a bare report. It comprises an existential layer of personal experience. It voices the whole commitment of the witness to the cause to which he bears witness. Thus, the testimony becomes a personal profession of faith, whereby the witness identifies himself with the cause and with the person he bears witness to. Hence Ricoeur's word : “the absolute testimony about the absolute”.
-
39.More information
Whether they are agitated, oppositional, or unruly, the turbulence and turmoil of adolescents sometimes exceed the typical predicaments faced at puberty. They pertain to another realm : that of terror. These children and adolescents, scorched by life, can act out in exceedingly violent ways. Given the repeated breaks to their protective shield, early maternal deprivation and violence, how can these children access symbol formation ? How do they forge their own sense of subjective identity ? The degree of violence of these adolescents both astounds and engages us. Throughout this article, the author explores the articulation between literature, self writing and the subjectivation process, and illuminates the ways in which self writing can be therapeutic and salutary for children who have been afflicted by terror.
Keywords: terreur, adolescence, philosophie de Ricoeur, narration subjective, terror, adolescence, Ricoeur's philosophy, subjective narration
-