comparison

discourse

ethics

hermeneutics

hermeneutics of suspicion

ideology

interpretation

language

myth

narrative

practice

surplus meaning

symbol

theory

translation

world

nationality

French

occupation / innovator as

philosopher

phenomenologist

university professor

Sorbonne

University of Chicago

University of Nanterre

University of Strasbourg

American Academy of Arts and Sciences

innovator in the field of

Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy

phenomenology

philosophy

Universite catholique de Louvain

university teacher

religion

Protestantism

theologian

scientific organization

Modern Language Association

World War II

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences

Interpretation Theory

Freud and Philosophy

is the shock of the incomparable. Ricoeur argues against the slogan 'we can only compare the comparable'.

foreign', De tienne talks about the 'shock of the incomparable'. The incomparable, he observes, confronts us with 'the strangeness of first words and first beginnings' (p. 48). (Ricoeur 2006: 36). . . I am referring to a work that is not directly linked to translation, but which sheds light in a lateral way on the phenomenon that I am trying to describe: the production of equivalence through translation. The book is by Marcel De tienne (a Hellenic scholar) and is entitled Comparing the Incomparable [Comparer l'incomparable].1 It is levelled against the slogan: 'We can only compare the comparable' (pp. 45-6), so he talks about 'constructive comparative studies'. (Ricoeur 2006: 35)

is a communicating system which refers to a world that it claims to describe, express, or to represent.

1. (A) a language system is viruta and hence timeless. (B) discourse always occurs at some particular modment of time. 2. (A) a languge system is self-contained. (B) discourse always refers to persons who say or write or hear or read3. (A) A language system is a necessary condition for communicaiton (provides codes), but does NOT itself communicate. (B) communicates among interelocutors. (A) the signs in a language system refer to other signs in it. (B) 'refers to a world that it claims to describe, express, or to represent'

is the grounds or foundations 'despite everything'.

TRANSLATION 'DESPITE TRANSLATABILITY'. Yes, we must confess: from one language to another, the situation is definitely that of scattering and confounding. And yet translation is inscribed in the long litany of 'despite everything'. Despite fratricides, we campaign for universal fraternity. Despite the heterogeneity of idioms, there are bilinguals, polyglots, interpreters and translators.

is a version of phenomenology. It is less of a break from phenomenology than an extension and transformation of it.

For Ricoeur, hermeneutics is a version of phenomenology. It is less of a break from phenomenology than an extension and transformation of it. He argues that phenomenology and hermeneutics are dialectically related: hermeneutics is grounded on phenomenological presuppositions, while phenomenology is grounded on hermeneutical presuppositions. A survery of the literature shows that while many recognize how similar and complementary these two seemingly opposed schools of philosophy are, the tendency among commentators is to reduce phenomenology to hermeneutics

is an interpretive practice whereby one reads with a double motivation: A willingness to suspect and a willingness to listen: A vow of rigor and vow of obedience.

animated by this double motivation: a willingness to suspect, willingness to listen... vow of rigor, vow of obedience' (Paul Ricoeur, Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), 27)

is the effort by authors such as nietzsche, marx, and freud, to show how texts betray their author's intent, be it his desire for power, his class position, or his unconscious desires.

Ricoeur, in his analysis of hermenueitcs discusses Nietzsche, Marx and Freud as 'masters of suspicion' who work to show how texts betray their author's intent, be it his desire for power, his class position, or his unconscious desires. Western Philosophy exhibits a history of suspicion represented by (1) Descartes' radical doubt, (2) Pascal's skepticism (3) Nietzsche's suspicion.

is ultimately not a choice between false and true but rather a deliberation over the relation between representation and praxis.

For Ricoeur, the problem of ideology is finally not a choice between false and true but a deliberation over the relation between representation (Vorstellung) and praxis (lecture 5). Distortion is the proper characterization of ideology when representations claim autonomy, but the concept of ideology is predicated more basically on its simply being representation. Thus, distortion is one of the levels within this model and not, as Marx would have it, the model for ideology itself. The lectures that follow attempt to determine whether the relationship between representation and practice is one of opposition or conjunction. Ricoeur argues against Marx for the latter, claiming that representation is so basic as to be a constitutive dimension of the realm of praxis. The conjunction of ideology and praxis will redefine our conceptions of both. '

is one yet languages are many, which accounts for the primary need for, a possibility of, translation. What all languages share in common is a capacity to mediate between a human speaker and a world of meanings (actual and possible) spoken about.

Language is one yet languages are many. In this very distinction lies the primordial need for translation. What all languages share in common is a capacity to mediate between a human speaker and a world of meanings (actual and possible) spoken about. (Kearney in Riceouer 2006 :xiii).

is one aspect of a much more concrete and encompassing relation than the relation between commanding and obeying that characterizes the imperative.

The Law is one aspect of a much more concrete and encompassing relation than the relation between commanding and obeying that characterizes the imperative. Paul Ricoeur

is something else than an explanation of the world, of history, and of destiny.

But myth is something else than an explanation of the world, of history, and of destiny. Paul Ricoeur

is the privileged means by which we reconfigure our confused, unformed and mute temporal existence.

For Ricoeur, narrative is 'the privileged means by which we reconfigure our confused, unformed and mute temporal existence'. (')

is understood broadly as offering a relationship between the act of emplotment and the enduring identity found in a person, nation . ..

For Ricoeur, narrative can be broadly understood to offer a relationship between the act of emplotment and the enduring identity found in a person, nation, . . . (')

the practice of translation remains a risky operation which is always in search of its theory. (Ricoueur 2006: 33)

is any expression of double meaning which provokes interpretation.

By symbols Ricoeur understood all expressions of double meaning wherein a primary meaning referred beyond itself to a second meaning which is never given immediately. This 'surplus meaning' provokes interpretation. The symbol gives rise to thought, as Ricoeur put it in what was to be become his most celebrated maxim. (Kearney in Riceouer 2006 : xi)

is that which practice is always in search of.

is a fragile condition, admitting of no verification other than a new translation and thus requiring a kind of 'linguistic hospitality'.

Despite the conflictual character which renders the task of the translator dramatic, he or she will find satisfaction in what I would like to call linguistic hospitality. Its predicament is that of a correspondence without complete adhesion. This is a fragile condition, which admits of no verification other than a new translation . . . a sort of duplication of the work of the translator which is possible in virtue of a minimum of bilingualism: to translate afresh after the translator. (Kearney in Riceouer 2006 :xvi')

is always serving two masters, the foreigner in his strangeness and the reader in his desire for appropriation. Reader.

Franz Rosenzweig, whom our colleague Hans-Christoph took as 'a witness to the problem of translation' (this is how I venture to translate the title of his great Tu bingen book), gave this test the form of a paradox: to translate, he says, is to serve two masters, the foreigner in his strangeness, the reader in his desire for appropriation. (Ricoeur 2006: 22-3)

is capable of being criticized only by suggesting another supposed, alleged, better or different translation.

Hence the paradox, before the dilemma: a good translation can aim only at a supposed equivalence that is not founded on a demonstrable identity of meaning. An equivalence without identity. This equivalence can only be sought, worked at, supposed. And the only way of criticizing a translation something we can always do is to suggest another supposed, alleged, better or different one. (Ricoeur 2006: 22)

is guided by an ethics of interlinguistic hospitality.

This is ultimately what Ricoeur intends when he describes the ethics of translation as an interlinguistic hospitality. (Kearney in Riceouer 2006 : xx)

is inscribed in the long litany of 'despite everything'. Despite fratricides, we campaign for universal fraternity. Despite the heterogeneity of idioms, there are bilinguals, polyglots, interpreters and translators.

Yes, we must confess: from one language to another, the situation is definitely that of scattering and confounding. And yet translation is inscribed in the long litany of 'despite everything'. Despite fratricides, we campaign for universal fraternity. Despite the heterogeneity of idioms, there are bilinguals, polyglots, interpreters and translators. (Ricoeur 2006: 18)

Paul Ricœur

Authors(0)

Books (0)

Books (0)

Paul RicœurThinkers

Books (0)

Paul Ricœur