What do you think?
Rate this book
مقالات و محاضرات في التأويلية
و لكن النشوة الاستتيقية لا يمكنها أن تستعيد مكانتها كتجربة أصلانية إلا إذا ما أرجعت إلى منابعها بواسطة تاريخ تأويلي حقيقي للانفعالات اللامبالية. إن هذا التاريخ المفهومي للنشوة الذي يستدعي أوغستين بقدر ما يستدعي غورجياس و أرسطو هو بالأساس تاريخ للوظيفة التطهيرية للفن عبر البلاغة و الإنشائية و مقالات الدفاع. و هو يظهر ثراء التجربة الاستتقية المغمور ، و هي التجربة التي تجمع بين جحد العالم و نقله في الموضوع الجمالي ، و بين التمسيف بين الأدوار الاجتماعية و التماهي اللعبي مع البطل الخيالي ، و بين قوة العصيان و طاقة تدشين معايير جديدة للفعل.
و تبدو أعمال ياوس اليوم هي الأقدر على سد ثغرة هامة في الهرمينوتيقا ، أعني دراسة الانفعالات اللامبالية في علاقتها يالقصة التخييلية و الشعر. فيضيف معرف النشوة الإستتيقية هكذا بعدا جديدا ، غير لغوي في المعنى الضيق ، إلى الفهم السابق للعالم الذي تنغرس فيه كل المعارف. إن هذا المسعى يخص الجدل الإبستيمولوجي من جهة كون مفهوم التجربة الإستتيقية يعضد أطروحة أولوية الحس المشترك على المعرفة المفهومية و أولوية التواصل الإستتيقي على التوافق النظري.
و تبدو أعمال ياوس اليوم هي الأقدر على سد ثغرة هامة في الهرمينوتيقا ، أعني دراسة الانفعالات اللامبالية في علاقتها يالقصة التخييلية و الشعر. فيضيف معرف النشوة الإستتيقية هكذا بعدا جديدا ، غير لغوي في المعنى الضيق ، إلى الفهم السابق للعالم الذي تنغرس فيه كل المعارف. إن هذا المسعى يخص الجدل الإبستيمولوجي من جهة كون مفهوم التجربة الإستتيقية يعضد أطروحة أولوية الحس المشترك على المعرفة المفهومية و أولوية التواصل الإستتيقي على التوافق النظري.
- GenresPhilosophy
235 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
6 people are currently reading
33 people want to read
About the author
Paul Ricœur
310 books457 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 of 1 review
February 7, 2016
Whenever I read anything about Ricoeur's own hermeneutics, I feel like perusing into the more technical, skeletal side of his thought, one that the meaty, existential, and quite moving parts of his philosophy are wrapped around. Nevertheless, while one like myself need to decipher a lot of concepts and paradigms he posed here, it is enough for one to read this in order to see where he is going.
Displaying 1 of 1 review