What do you think?
Rate this book
Конфликт интерпретаций. Очерки о герменевтике
Книга виднейшего философа современности Поля Рикёра "Конфликт интерпретаций", полный перевод которой представлен в этом издании, знакомит читателя не только с оригинальным толкованием текстов Фрейда, Ницше, Маркса, Хайдеггера, Бультмана, но и дает представление о методологическом подходе, свойственном феноменологической герменевтике, ведущим представителем которой является Рикёр.
695 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1969
19 people are currently reading
696 people want to read
About the author
Paul Ricœur
310 books456 followersPaul Ricoeur (1913–2005) is widely recognized as one of the most distinguished philosophers of the twentieth century. In the course of his long career he wrote on a broad range of issues. His books include a multi-volume project on the philosophy of the will: Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary (1950, Eng. tr. 1966), Fallible Man (1960, Eng. tr. 1967), and The Symbolism of Evil (1960, Eng. tr. 1970); a major study of Freud: Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation (1965, Eng. tr. 1970); The Rule of Metaphor (1975, Eng. tr. 1977); Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (1976); the three-volume Time and Narrative (1983-85, Eng. tr. 1984–88); Lectures on Ideology and Utopia (1986); the published version of his Gifford lectures: Oneself as Another (1990, Eng. tr. 1992); Memory, History, Forgetting (2000, Eng. tr. 2004); and The Course of Recognition (2004, Eng. tr. 2005). In addition to his books, Ricoeur published more than 500 essays, many of which appear in collections in English: History and Truth (1955, Eng. tr. 1965); Husserl: An Analysis of His Phenomenology (1967); The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics (1969, Eng. tr. 1974); Political and Social Essays (1974); Essays on Biblical Interpretation (1980); Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences (1981); From Text to Action (1986, Eng. tr. 1991); Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative, and Imagination (1995); The Just (1995, Eng. tr. 2000); On Translation (2004, Eng. tr. 2004); and Reflections on the Just (2001, Eng. tr. 2007).
The major theme that unites his writings is that of a philosophical anthropology. This anthropology, which Ricoeur came to call an anthropology of the “capable human being,” aims to give an account of the fundamental capabilities and vulnerabilities that human beings display in the activities that make up their lives. Though the accent is always on the possibility of understanding the self as an agent responsible for its actions, Ricoeur consistently rejects any claim that the self is immediately transparent to itself or fully master of itself. Self-knowledge only comes through our relation to the world and our life with and among others in that world.
In the course of developing his anthropology, Ricoeur made a major methodological shift. His writings prior to 1960 were in the tradition of existential phenomenology. But during the 1960s Ricoeur concluded that properly to study human reality he had to combine phenomenological description with hermeneutic interpretation. For this hermeneutic phenomenology, whatever is intelligible is accessible to us in and through language and all deployments of language call for interpretation. Accordingly, “there is no self-understanding that is not mediated by signs, symbols, and texts; in the final analysis self-understanding coincides with the interpretation given to these mediating terms” (Oneself as Another, 15, translation corrected). This hermeneutic or linguistic turn did not require him to disavow the basic results of his earlier investigations. It did, however, lead him not only to revisit them but also to see more clearly their implications.
The major theme that unites his writings is that of a philosophical anthropology. This anthropology, which Ricoeur came to call an anthropology of the “capable human being,” aims to give an account of the fundamental capabilities and vulnerabilities that human beings display in the activities that make up their lives. Though the accent is always on the possibility of understanding the self as an agent responsible for its actions, Ricoeur consistently rejects any claim that the self is immediately transparent to itself or fully master of itself. Self-knowledge only comes through our relation to the world and our life with and among others in that world.
In the course of developing his anthropology, Ricoeur made a major methodological shift. His writings prior to 1960 were in the tradition of existential phenomenology. But during the 1960s Ricoeur concluded that properly to study human reality he had to combine phenomenological description with hermeneutic interpretation. For this hermeneutic phenomenology, whatever is intelligible is accessible to us in and through language and all deployments of language call for interpretation. Accordingly, “there is no self-understanding that is not mediated by signs, symbols, and texts; in the final analysis self-understanding coincides with the interpretation given to these mediating terms” (Oneself as Another, 15, translation corrected). This hermeneutic or linguistic turn did not require him to disavow the basic results of his earlier investigations. It did, however, lead him not only to revisit them but also to see more clearly their implications.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
August 29, 2022
Ethics, in this radical sense of the word, is the progressive appropriation of our effort to be.
Reflection, because it is not an intuition of the self by self, can be, and must be, a hermeneutics.
(hard to argue with him there, I'd say)
Evil is no longer a thing but a broken relationship, hence a nothing... The very wrath of God is like the nothingness of his absence.
Here, doubtless, is the ultimate mystery of sin. We inaugurate evil. It is through us that evil comes into the world. But we inaugurate evil only on the basis of an evil already there, of which our birth is the impenetrable symbol.
Most fundamentally, the hermeneutic position is not that of a speaker but a listener. Let the symbols speak. Moreover, Ricoeur's special emphasis on one particular cluster of symbols - the symbols of evil - is not an accidental preference on his part. Evil has a privileged status because it resists most completely the imperial ambitions of philosophy. It cannot be incorporated or thought within a rational order. Its symbols adumbrate the limits of thought. A hermeneutic philosophy is one of finitude; without attempting a final explanation, the philosopher responds in thought to the solicitations of the symbol.
This collection covers a lot of the same material as the Symbolism of Evil and Freud and Philosophy. I have to say I much prefer Ricoeur back when he was obsessed with guilt and sin. Later on he discovered analytic philosophy and became much, much dryer. I guess some people consider Time and Narrative or Oneself as Another his masterpiece. I would have to demur. Read this early book and be in awe of a brilliant mind wrestling with human existence.
*
"It is the inestimable value, however negative in the long run, of Husserlian phenomenology as a whole to have established the fact that any investigation into 'constitution' refers to something pre-given or preconstituted." (from 'Consciousness and the Unconscious')
I think here we can find the (limited) truth behind all hyperbolic talk of the 'death of the subject' in philosophy; not that cogito ergo sum could ever be refuted, or that subjectivity can be reduced or explained away by any objective system. Rather, I think the point is that subjectivity is never a fully autonomous realm of meaning. The Cartesian ideal of reflection as apodictic and self-transparent knowledge is ultimately illusory. Consciousness is always and everywhere haunted by its other.
This decidedly is not what Husserl set out to establish by doing phenomenology. Just the opposite, he thought he could finally bring cartesian reflection to its completion, to clarify all subjective meaning. But his tireless work ethic and intellectual honesty led him again and again back to the impossibility of this task.
Well, then, when one reaches the limits of consciousness, what does one find? I don't think Husserl had an answer, his strict philosophical vocation precluded him from engaging any kind of fanciful speculation. This is where Ricoeur finds it necessary to turn to Freud. Psychoanalysis does offer a detailed description of the unconscious. It begins where phenomenology necessarily comes to an end.
But I think there's a problem here. Freud's epistemology, such as it is, is sort of the opposite of Husserl's. While no one would ever accuse Husserl of being a limpid writer, nonetheless his thought strives to be transparent at every step. Reflection can always be checked against itself. By contrast, Freud relies to a scandalous degree on the black box of his supposed authority as an analyst. Ricoeur does an admirable job trying to minimize the absurdities and wild speculative leaps of Freudian doctrine, to make it more philosophically respectable. When one actually reads, say, Beyond the Pleasure Principle or Totem and Taboo, however, it's difficult not to wince at the amount of bad scholarship and sheer quackery on display. Husserl leads us to the threshold of the unconscious but can tell us nothing about it. Freud purports to tell us a lot about it, but what he says is pure myth, with no greater validity than astrology.
*
"Language seeks to disappear; it seeks to die as an object" - from 'Language, Word, Event'
Parallels between phenomenology and structuralism; the first is often seen as a kind of apotheosis of a philosophy of the subject and the latter heralds 'the death of the subject.' However, the opening move of each is in fact much the same. Famously, Husserl began with the reduction, which put the entire world in suspense. All phenomena then become questions of meaning rather than being. In effect this is similar to the structuralist who begins by proposing to study language as an autonomous system of signs, without reference to outside reality.
The difference is that in phenomenology there still remains a thinking subject as the unity of all meanings. Apparently this is not the case with structuralism. Levi-Strauss and others believed it was possible to do away with the subject entirely - in effect to give us philosophy of things-thought-about without any need for an agent that does the thinking. I find this highly problematic and possibly absurd.
Putting the viability of this approach aside for a moment, however, it's important to point out that the start of phenomenology also proved to be its least stable point. The reduction could never be fully carried out; this partly explains the later ontological turn of Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty. The realization that meaning could not be investigated as a realm apart from being. The world, as it were, stubbornly remained too real.
Is there any parallel to this within structuralism? I'm not familiar enough with the major thinkers to say for sure. It is striking, however, to note that structuralism began with the linguistics of Saussure and that there's a fairly wide consensus Saussure was superseded by Chomsky. Moreover, Chomsky brought the speaking subject back to the forefront in the study of language. Instead of language as a closed system of signs, Chomsky proposed to study the speaker's ability to create novel sentences and be understood. This obviously restores the subject, and also seems to require a return of the whole extra-linguistic world to provide a motive for this novelty.
*
Simone Weil liked to say that atheism could be a stage of purification on the road to faith. In the essay 'Religion, Atheism, and Faith' Ricoeur is able to give a precise philosophical articulation to Weil's mystical intuition. Moreover, where Weil always tended toward a grotesque masochism, Ricoeur is able to adumbrate a kind of faith that would be equally free of vulgar reward and gratuitous self-flagellation.
*
From the essay 'Fatherhood: From Phantasm to Symbol,' after a discussing how rarely God is called father in the Old Testament, Ricoeur turns to the New:
Reflection, because it is not an intuition of the self by self, can be, and must be, a hermeneutics.
(hard to argue with him there, I'd say)
Evil is no longer a thing but a broken relationship, hence a nothing... The very wrath of God is like the nothingness of his absence.
Here, doubtless, is the ultimate mystery of sin. We inaugurate evil. It is through us that evil comes into the world. But we inaugurate evil only on the basis of an evil already there, of which our birth is the impenetrable symbol.
Most fundamentally, the hermeneutic position is not that of a speaker but a listener. Let the symbols speak. Moreover, Ricoeur's special emphasis on one particular cluster of symbols - the symbols of evil - is not an accidental preference on his part. Evil has a privileged status because it resists most completely the imperial ambitions of philosophy. It cannot be incorporated or thought within a rational order. Its symbols adumbrate the limits of thought. A hermeneutic philosophy is one of finitude; without attempting a final explanation, the philosopher responds in thought to the solicitations of the symbol.
This collection covers a lot of the same material as the Symbolism of Evil and Freud and Philosophy. I have to say I much prefer Ricoeur back when he was obsessed with guilt and sin. Later on he discovered analytic philosophy and became much, much dryer. I guess some people consider Time and Narrative or Oneself as Another his masterpiece. I would have to demur. Read this early book and be in awe of a brilliant mind wrestling with human existence.
*
"It is the inestimable value, however negative in the long run, of Husserlian phenomenology as a whole to have established the fact that any investigation into 'constitution' refers to something pre-given or preconstituted." (from 'Consciousness and the Unconscious')
I think here we can find the (limited) truth behind all hyperbolic talk of the 'death of the subject' in philosophy; not that cogito ergo sum could ever be refuted, or that subjectivity can be reduced or explained away by any objective system. Rather, I think the point is that subjectivity is never a fully autonomous realm of meaning. The Cartesian ideal of reflection as apodictic and self-transparent knowledge is ultimately illusory. Consciousness is always and everywhere haunted by its other.
This decidedly is not what Husserl set out to establish by doing phenomenology. Just the opposite, he thought he could finally bring cartesian reflection to its completion, to clarify all subjective meaning. But his tireless work ethic and intellectual honesty led him again and again back to the impossibility of this task.
Well, then, when one reaches the limits of consciousness, what does one find? I don't think Husserl had an answer, his strict philosophical vocation precluded him from engaging any kind of fanciful speculation. This is where Ricoeur finds it necessary to turn to Freud. Psychoanalysis does offer a detailed description of the unconscious. It begins where phenomenology necessarily comes to an end.
But I think there's a problem here. Freud's epistemology, such as it is, is sort of the opposite of Husserl's. While no one would ever accuse Husserl of being a limpid writer, nonetheless his thought strives to be transparent at every step. Reflection can always be checked against itself. By contrast, Freud relies to a scandalous degree on the black box of his supposed authority as an analyst. Ricoeur does an admirable job trying to minimize the absurdities and wild speculative leaps of Freudian doctrine, to make it more philosophically respectable. When one actually reads, say, Beyond the Pleasure Principle or Totem and Taboo, however, it's difficult not to wince at the amount of bad scholarship and sheer quackery on display. Husserl leads us to the threshold of the unconscious but can tell us nothing about it. Freud purports to tell us a lot about it, but what he says is pure myth, with no greater validity than astrology.
*
"Language seeks to disappear; it seeks to die as an object" - from 'Language, Word, Event'
Parallels between phenomenology and structuralism; the first is often seen as a kind of apotheosis of a philosophy of the subject and the latter heralds 'the death of the subject.' However, the opening move of each is in fact much the same. Famously, Husserl began with the reduction, which put the entire world in suspense. All phenomena then become questions of meaning rather than being. In effect this is similar to the structuralist who begins by proposing to study language as an autonomous system of signs, without reference to outside reality.
The difference is that in phenomenology there still remains a thinking subject as the unity of all meanings. Apparently this is not the case with structuralism. Levi-Strauss and others believed it was possible to do away with the subject entirely - in effect to give us philosophy of things-thought-about without any need for an agent that does the thinking. I find this highly problematic and possibly absurd.
Putting the viability of this approach aside for a moment, however, it's important to point out that the start of phenomenology also proved to be its least stable point. The reduction could never be fully carried out; this partly explains the later ontological turn of Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty. The realization that meaning could not be investigated as a realm apart from being. The world, as it were, stubbornly remained too real.
Is there any parallel to this within structuralism? I'm not familiar enough with the major thinkers to say for sure. It is striking, however, to note that structuralism began with the linguistics of Saussure and that there's a fairly wide consensus Saussure was superseded by Chomsky. Moreover, Chomsky brought the speaking subject back to the forefront in the study of language. Instead of language as a closed system of signs, Chomsky proposed to study the speaker's ability to create novel sentences and be understood. This obviously restores the subject, and also seems to require a return of the whole extra-linguistic world to provide a motive for this novelty.
*
Simone Weil liked to say that atheism could be a stage of purification on the road to faith. In the essay 'Religion, Atheism, and Faith' Ricoeur is able to give a precise philosophical articulation to Weil's mystical intuition. Moreover, where Weil always tended toward a grotesque masochism, Ricoeur is able to adumbrate a kind of faith that would be equally free of vulgar reward and gratuitous self-flagellation.
This philosophical investigation into the religious meaning of atheism has led us from resignation to consent and from consent to a mode of dwelling on earth that is governed by poetry and thought. This mode of being is no longer the 'love of fate' but a love of creation. Such a fact suggests a movement from atheism toward faith. The love of creation is a form of consolation which depends on no external compensation and which is equally remote from any form of vengeance. Love finds within itself its own consolation; it is itself consolation.
*
From the essay 'Fatherhood: From Phantasm to Symbol,' after a discussing how rarely God is called father in the Old Testament, Ricoeur turns to the New:
It is against this background that we can understand the Lord's Prayer: Abba, which we could translate by "dear father." Here is completed the movement from designation to invocation. Jesus, in all probability, was addressing himself to God in saying "Abba." This invocation is absolutely unprecedented and without parallel in the literature of Jewish prayer. Jesus dares to address himself to God as a child to his father. The reserve to which the whole Bible testifies is broken at this precise point. The audacity is possible because a new time has begun... Far, therefore, from the addressing of God as father being easy, along the lines of a relapse into archaism, it is rare, difficult, and audacious, because it is directed toward fulfillment rather than toward origins.
Read
February 21, 2025alguns textos apenas!
Read
December 18, 2025يستكشف ريكور في هذا الكتاب، صراع التأويلات، حيث تتنافس مناهج مختلفة—مثل التحليل النفسي، التفسير الديني، والبنيوية لتقديم فهم للمعنى. حيث لا يمثل هذا الصراع عائقا، بل فرصة لإثراء فهمنا للوجود الإنساني.
التأويل والرمز: نقطة البداية
الرمز هو نقطة انطلاق التأويل. الرمز، كما يعرفه ريكور، هو تعبير لغوي أو ثقافي يحمل معنى مزدوجا: معنى أولي مباشر ومعنى ثانوي يتجاوز الحرفية. وفي مواجهة الرمز، يظهر صراع التأويلات.
التأويل الفينومينولوجي: الفهم والتفسير
التأويل، في جوهره، هو عملية فينومينولوجية تجمع بين الفهم والتفسير. الفهم هو الانفتاح على المعنى كما يظهر في التجربة الحية، بينما التفسير هو تحليل منهجي للرموز والنصوص. في الفصل الأول من كتابه، يوضح ريكور أن التأويل يبدأ بـالتقصي عن المعنى، أي الكشف عن الطبقات الكامنة وراء الرمز. لكن هذا التقصي لا يكتمل إلا من خلال التطلع إلى المعنى، حيث نسعى إلى استشراف الإمكانيات التي يفتحها الرمز. هذه الحركة المزدوجة—من التقصي إلى التطلع—هي ما يميز التأويل الفينومينولوجي.
التحليل النفسي وصراع التأويلات
في الفصل الثاني، يتناول ريكور التحليل النفسي كمنهج تأويلي. حيث يقدم فرويد نموذجا قويا للتأويل من خلال ربط الرموز (مثل الأحلام) باللاوعي. لكن هذا التأويل، كما يحاجج، هو تأويل الشك، حيث يتم تفكيك الرمز للكشف عن دوافع خفية. وهكذا ينتقد ريكور لاختزالية الفرويدية لأنها تهمل البعد الروحي والثقافي للرموز، مقترحا تأويلا يدمج بين الشك والإيمان.
الرمزية الدينية واستعادة المعنى
في الفصل الثالث، يستكشف ريكور الرمزية الدينية كميدان للتأويل. الرموز الدينية، مثل الخلاص أو العهد، تحمل دلالات عميقة ترتبط بتجربة المقدس. على عكس التأويل النفسي، الذي يفكك الرمز، فإن التأويل الديني يسعى إلى استعادة المعنى من خلال الانفتاح على البعد المتعالي (Transcendent).يستلهم ريكور إيلياده وغيره من علماء الأديان، مضيفا بعدا فينومينولوجيا. الرمز الديني ليس مجرد تعبير عن المقدس، بل هو دعوة للعيش في أفق المعنى الذي يفتحه. على سبيل المثال، رمز القيامة لا يفسر فقط كحدث تاريخي، بل كدعوة لفهم الوجود الإنساني كتحول وتجدد. هذا التأويل التوسعي يتناقض مع التأويل الاختزالي، لكنه يكمله، مما يبرز ثراء الصراع التأويلي.
البنيوية وحدود التأويل
في الفصل الرابع، يناقش ريكور البنيوية كنموذج تأويلي يركز على البنية اللغوية للنصوص. ليفي-ستروس، على سبيل المثال، يحلل الأساطير كأنظمة من العلاقات الثنائية (النيء/المطبوخ مثلا). هذا المنهج قوي لأنه يكشف عن القوانين الكامنة وراء الرموز، لكنه يهمل البعد الوجودي للتجربة الإنسانية.
الصراع كإثراء: نحو تأويل شامل
الصراع بين التأويلات—النفسي، الديني، والبنيوي—ليس عقبة، بل مصدر إثراء. كل منهج يكشف عن جانب من المعنى: التحليل النفسي يكشف عن اللاوعي، التأويل الديني يفتح أفق المقدس، والبنيوية تكشف عن القوانين اللغوية. بدلا من اختيار منهج واحد، يقترح ريكور تأويلا شاملا يدمج بين هذه المناهج.
التأويل والعالم الحي
التأويل ليس مجرد عملية نظرية، بل هو طريقة للعيش في العالم الحي (Lebenswelt). العالم الحي هو أفق التجربة الإنسانية، حيث تتشكل المعاني من خلال التفاعلات الثقافية والاجتماعية. الرموز—سواء كانت دينية، نفسية، أو أسطورية—هي جزء من هذا العالم، وتأويلها يساعدنا على فهم مكانتنا فيه.
الخاتمة
صراع التأويلات ليس نهاية، بل بداية. التأويل هو مشروع مفتوح، حيث تتجدد المعاني مع كل قراءة جديدة. من خلال الجمع بين الشك والإيمان، التفكيك والاستعادة، يصبح التأويل طريقة للكشف عن ثراء الوجود الإنساني. الفلسفة التأويلية، كما يصوغها ريكور، هي دعوة للعيش في عالم من الرموز، حيث كل رمز هو نافذة إلى المعنى، وكل تأويل هو خطوة نحو فهم أعمق لأنفسنا وللعالم.
November 8, 2023
I guess the way I categorized it, or the way that Goodreads has done it works. Whatever. Here we see Paul Ricoeur talk about all the different influences he had, and areas of study he talked about collected in a bunch of short writings. One of the things he likes to talk about is hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the area of forming types of interpretation for text. That is, how to understand the meaning of things. Ricoeur, of course, centers this kind of activity on biblical interpretations... which has to do with issues relating to how to understand Jesus Christ. Ricoeur really liked to talk about this discursive history. But mostly Ricoeur liked to understand different fields, like psychoanalysis, as a competitive way of understanding texts. I suppose you could say that structuralism and post-structuralism could also be understood as ways of understanding text, but hey, Ricoeur is saying this kind of activity started with people trying to understand the bible.
Its, like, a Jewish-Christian kind of thing.
I guess with today's politics you can tear this one apart too. Eurocentrism. Or Ethnocentrisms. Or whatever. He also likes to connect this hermeneutic activity with Phenomenology... and so, the structuralists and post-structuralists along with psychoanalysis and the whole gang is pulled in there. Except that Ricoeur drew his line in terms of religious texts, ways of reading texts and understanding meaning behind text as a kind of phenomenology. I guess one way to put it is that Ricoeur justified text reading (hermeneutics) as a tradition that takes forms from phenomenology and from religious texts. In English courses for teachers interested in the theory behind textual readings, we can turn to Ricoeur as a source of thought. This falls broadly under genre defining activities, as meaning, meaning-making, narrative, narrative-forms, and other ways of arranging texts (like that of history genres, science journals, technical manuals, discourse analysis, linguistic) can all be thought of through the filter of hermeneutics. So Ricoeur liked to poke his thoughts in these directions. One of his main books is also about psychoanalysis. He also has his reductionist magnum opus in which cites metaphor to be the precursor to all of philosophy and the development of language with the information of all of its different language-statuses embedded in the genres of language. So Ricoeur liked to think this grand kind of way that French and German Philosophers liked to think, but Ricoeur did it in language. All in all, a real great treasure if you are into hermeneutics or language or discourse in texts and the different ways to construct meaning and understanding about the world in general... Also generally speaking, very dry to read.
I suppose, This is one way to try to get a handle on forming the proper meaning to things!
Its, like, a Jewish-Christian kind of thing.
I guess with today's politics you can tear this one apart too. Eurocentrism. Or Ethnocentrisms. Or whatever. He also likes to connect this hermeneutic activity with Phenomenology... and so, the structuralists and post-structuralists along with psychoanalysis and the whole gang is pulled in there. Except that Ricoeur drew his line in terms of religious texts, ways of reading texts and understanding meaning behind text as a kind of phenomenology. I guess one way to put it is that Ricoeur justified text reading (hermeneutics) as a tradition that takes forms from phenomenology and from religious texts. In English courses for teachers interested in the theory behind textual readings, we can turn to Ricoeur as a source of thought. This falls broadly under genre defining activities, as meaning, meaning-making, narrative, narrative-forms, and other ways of arranging texts (like that of history genres, science journals, technical manuals, discourse analysis, linguistic) can all be thought of through the filter of hermeneutics. So Ricoeur liked to poke his thoughts in these directions. One of his main books is also about psychoanalysis. He also has his reductionist magnum opus in which cites metaphor to be the precursor to all of philosophy and the development of language with the information of all of its different language-statuses embedded in the genres of language. So Ricoeur liked to think this grand kind of way that French and German Philosophers liked to think, but Ricoeur did it in language. All in all, a real great treasure if you are into hermeneutics or language or discourse in texts and the different ways to construct meaning and understanding about the world in general... Also generally speaking, very dry to read.
I suppose, This is one way to try to get a handle on forming the proper meaning to things!
December 13, 2014
pandangan Ricoeur terhadap teks. Teks adalah wacana yang dibakukan. Maka teks otonom dari intensi pengarang, situasi dan kondisi saat teks itu ditulis, dan untuk siapa teks itu ditulis. Teks berdiri sendiri dan tidak memiliki lagi hubungan dengan 3 hal tersebut.
Teks memiliki pesan objektif yang tersimpan pada aspek semiotik. Ada tanda yang mesti ditangkap oleh pembaca. Tanda memiliki satu makna saja. Tanda memunculkan simbol. Paul Ricoeur mengartikan “Symbol is any structure of signification in which a direct, primary, literal meaning, designates, in adition, another meaning which is indirect, secondary, and figurative and which can be apprehended only through the first.”
Teks memiliki independensi dan penafsir datang melalui berbagai latar belakang. Penafsir memiliki subjektifitas dalam memahami teks. Sesuatu yang alamiah dan tak bisa ditolak. Penafsir adalah being with others dan being in the world, bukan being alone. Maka penafsir tak mungkin lepas dari pengaruh sejarah dan intersubjektiftas zaman.
Dengan pandangan ontologis terhadap anasir aktivitas memahami teks seperti tertulis di atas, Paul Riceour merumuskan metode penafsiran yang ia sebut Hermeneutics Arc. Ada tiga tahapan yaitu Explanation, Understanding, Appropriation.
Explanation adalah tahapan si penafsir mengambil jarak dari dirinya sendiri, dia mencabut subjektifitasnya dan berusaha menangkap tanda-tanda yang terdapat pada teks. Tanda memiliki satu makna saja. Penafsir berusaha mencari tahu apa yang dikatakan oleh teks yang ia baca secara objektif. Penafsir membiarkan teks bercerita dan bercakap pada penafsir. Bila kita analogikan dengan metode penyembuhan psikoanalisa, pada tahap explanation ini psikoanalis membiarkan pasien untuk bercerita panjang lebar. Psikoanalis mendengarkan seksama kata per kata.
Understanding/interpreting adalah tahapan si penafsir mencoba memahami apa yang tersembunyi dari makna literer yang diutarakan oleh teks. Paul Ricoeur mendefinisikan interpretasi sebagai berikut
“Interpretation is the work of thought which consist in deciphering the hidden meaning implied in the literal meaning”
Tahapan ini berlaku pada simbol-simbol yang terdapat pada teks. Simbol memiliki makna ganda atau bahkan memiliki banyak makna. Terinspirasi dari pemikiran Sigmund Freud yang mengatakan kesadaran manusia hanyalah pucuk gunung es dari ketidaksadaran yang lebih besar. Bagitu pula dengan kata-kata yang terkatakan, itu hanya pucuk gunung es dari sesuatu yang lebih penting yang tidak terkatakan. Dalam tahap Understanding/interpreting penafsir berusaha mencari maka implisit dan tersembunyi dari teks.
Appropriation adalah tahapan si penafsir mengembalikan subjektifitasnya. Dari pembacaan pada tahap explanation dan understanding/interpreting yang ia lalui, kemudian ia internalisasi, ia maknai berdasarkan subjektifitasnya. Tahapan ini bertujuan untuk memperluas horizon si penafsir. Pemaknaan terhadap teks menjadi milik si penafsir.
Teks memiliki pesan objektif yang tersimpan pada aspek semiotik. Ada tanda yang mesti ditangkap oleh pembaca. Tanda memiliki satu makna saja. Tanda memunculkan simbol. Paul Ricoeur mengartikan “Symbol is any structure of signification in which a direct, primary, literal meaning, designates, in adition, another meaning which is indirect, secondary, and figurative and which can be apprehended only through the first.”
Teks memiliki independensi dan penafsir datang melalui berbagai latar belakang. Penafsir memiliki subjektifitas dalam memahami teks. Sesuatu yang alamiah dan tak bisa ditolak. Penafsir adalah being with others dan being in the world, bukan being alone. Maka penafsir tak mungkin lepas dari pengaruh sejarah dan intersubjektiftas zaman.
Dengan pandangan ontologis terhadap anasir aktivitas memahami teks seperti tertulis di atas, Paul Riceour merumuskan metode penafsiran yang ia sebut Hermeneutics Arc. Ada tiga tahapan yaitu Explanation, Understanding, Appropriation.
Explanation adalah tahapan si penafsir mengambil jarak dari dirinya sendiri, dia mencabut subjektifitasnya dan berusaha menangkap tanda-tanda yang terdapat pada teks. Tanda memiliki satu makna saja. Penafsir berusaha mencari tahu apa yang dikatakan oleh teks yang ia baca secara objektif. Penafsir membiarkan teks bercerita dan bercakap pada penafsir. Bila kita analogikan dengan metode penyembuhan psikoanalisa, pada tahap explanation ini psikoanalis membiarkan pasien untuk bercerita panjang lebar. Psikoanalis mendengarkan seksama kata per kata.
Understanding/interpreting adalah tahapan si penafsir mencoba memahami apa yang tersembunyi dari makna literer yang diutarakan oleh teks. Paul Ricoeur mendefinisikan interpretasi sebagai berikut
“Interpretation is the work of thought which consist in deciphering the hidden meaning implied in the literal meaning”
Tahapan ini berlaku pada simbol-simbol yang terdapat pada teks. Simbol memiliki makna ganda atau bahkan memiliki banyak makna. Terinspirasi dari pemikiran Sigmund Freud yang mengatakan kesadaran manusia hanyalah pucuk gunung es dari ketidaksadaran yang lebih besar. Bagitu pula dengan kata-kata yang terkatakan, itu hanya pucuk gunung es dari sesuatu yang lebih penting yang tidak terkatakan. Dalam tahap Understanding/interpreting penafsir berusaha mencari maka implisit dan tersembunyi dari teks.
Appropriation adalah tahapan si penafsir mengembalikan subjektifitasnya. Dari pembacaan pada tahap explanation dan understanding/interpreting yang ia lalui, kemudian ia internalisasi, ia maknai berdasarkan subjektifitasnya. Tahapan ini bertujuan untuk memperluas horizon si penafsir. Pemaknaan terhadap teks menjadi milik si penafsir.
December 17, 2009
basic kids stuff compared to Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and Husserl... He breaks down the concept of hermeneutics to the point where, to me at least, it appears to become exactly the same as exegesis. Meh, I could leave this one on the shelf. Plus he relies heavily on psychoanalysis and the oedipus complex in the chapter devoted to explaining Fatherhood and Symbolism. I have absorbed too much Deleuze and Guattari to really take any of that Oedipalizing seriously anymore.
February 8, 2008
One to slog through. Consider Ricouer a hobby, not just a philosophy to be breezed through.
June 30, 2008
One Highlight "Interpretation of the Myth of Punishment"
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews