جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "ricoeur" در نشریات گروه "فلسفه و کلام"

The present article with the aim of interpretation and reviving the meaning of forgiveness is reading Ricoeur’s “Thereness” of forgiveness. Therefore, according to hermeneutical understanding, Being is interpreted as forgiveness and giveness and by using hermeneutics method and an ontological perspective, the findings of the research illustrated that the conditions of possibility in understanding is Being-in–the-world and projecting in the future possibilities. As well, I found that understanding as a possible Being-ness, is the possibility of forgiveness. According to this theoretical view and by using Ricoeur’s narrative structure we are going to answer to these main questions that how can forgiveness be possible as Being-ness and how human can understand his possibilities in the arena of “I can” and give meaning to them? In order to illustrate the manifestation of forgiveness in the world of the text and  showing how the “Thereness” of Dasein can be possible, we project ourselves in the narrative possibilities of Time of Love movie through re-figuration to achieve a reading of forgiveness and new understanding of ourselves. According to Ricoeur’s view as each interpretation is an understanding of ourselves through the other, by placing ourselves in the possibilities of the story’s hero and emphasizing on “I can”, we’ll pass our present self and enter to the arena of love and forgiveness; we’ll place “there”.

The study of imagination has always had a significant role in the study of art and aesthetics. And imagination plays a central role in Ricoeur's philosophical system; a subject that has received less attention. It was Ricoeur's goal to bring the productive aspect of imagination back to the main text of philosophy, by presenting a critical reading of the history of philosophy. By using Emanuel Kant's imagination analysis, Ricoeur revived the various dimensions of imagination in the field of perception, to achieve a comprehensive theory of productive imagination. This paper attempts to address the importance of painting as a work of art and its relevance to reality, by studying the path taken by Ricoeur to present a theory of productive imagination. In this regard, explaining the role of Iconic Augmentation, which is one of the latent characteristics of the productive aspect of imagination, better defines the action present in the image and the dialectical position of language and image. Ultimately, painting, as a fictional work that its idea's reference is not merely a representation, becomes more real as its imaginativeness increases. The result is a new approach to describe the nature of painting as a work of art.

This article aims at disambiguation or better say, decontradiction of the concept of ideology by referring to Ricoeur's opinions about ideology. Ricoeur calls his method of studying ideology phenomenological. Why phenomenology? Because the term ideology, when placed in a polemical framework, will suffer from both "bad use" and "abuse". Only with a serious semantic approach and a correct explanation of the conditions that this concept depends on, can we put an end to this abuse. Such a task is possible in the light of an approach that Ricoeur calls "developmental phenomenology", "a rising analysis of the concept" and "an attempt to explore the subsurface of the obvious meaning of ideology to reach its fundamental meanings". The attempt is to disambiguate this concept, which is at first glance polemical and controversial, so that a clearer and fairer definition of it would be presented. Based on Paul Ricoeur's work titled Lectures on Ideology and Utopia, which was delivered at the University of Chicago in 1975, and his other articles and works on ideology and phenomenology, this article has tried to answer the two main questions of this field together with Ricoeur: a) Who were the main theorists of the concept of ideology? b) How many major definitions can be extracted from the phenomenological study of ideology? The extract of the intertwined answer to the two mentioned questions is that Ricoeur, while examining the works of people such as Marx, Althusser, Mannheim, Weber, Habermas and Geertz, questions the common and negative perceptions of ideology, and based on a detailed and deep examination of the works of the mentioned thinkers, comes to three major and specific definitions, or in other words, three stages or functions of ideology; the first one based on Marx's definition, the second one based on Weber's attitude and the last one based on Geertz's views about this term. Ricoeur calls these three definitions, stages or functions respectively, ideology as "ambiguity of reality", ideology as source of "power legitimacy", and finally ideology as source of "social cohesion". Based on such an analysis of ideology, in the second part of the article, the different functions of utopia have been discussed, and while emphasizing the positive aspects of utopia, it has been concluded in conformity with Ricoeur that a society without utopia is a dead society.

Imagination is most traditionally assumed as something that is a contradiction of reality. Accordingly, it is considered as a faculty that is merely able to evoke our emotions and feelings and implies unreal things that do not contribute to cognition. This is one of the most important themes of Paul Ricoeurˊs theory. By analyzing and criticizing other theories, he tries to go over this contradiction and emphasizes the functional aspect of imagination and its contribution to reality. By exploring through various texts of Ricoeur, in order to achieve an organized framework, this article seeks to show how imagination can play a main role in the construction of reality. Therefore, by taking up Ricoeurˊs claims, first of all, we explain his verbal turn which has two functions and also significant consequences. These functions include schematizing synthesis and projecting new meanings, which elaborated on three levels. In this way, it can be seen how a poetic schema creates a picture by inventing a new meaning, which indirectly refers to reality and hence defamiliarizes it. Finally, we try to point out the most key consequences of this new understanding.

In managing the crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic, what is most heard is the emphasis on keeping your distance from the others. But whether this spacing could make changes over time in the usual behavioral norms? Could we reconstruct and renovate this various broken rules and norms which like narrative plots had the role of unification?  In this paper, we would analyze the crisis of the relation of the self to the other within this situation. We explain Ricoeur's epistemological approach towards the relation of the self to the other in the light of the concepts of ethics and social responsibility. Then, on the bisis of Ricour's theory of practical wisdom, we try to show some possibilities for encountering the crisis of this relationship in the pandemic situation. By grafting the concept of law onto the ethics through the practical wisdom, we obligate oneself to the order of political institution as an interior command which is the call of conscious. This call is an ethical order from the others within us. It could arise the hope that people and political institutions cooperate with each other to pass the current crisis.

When we encounter with literary texts, works of art and films which are full of the relations of metaphors, narratives and actions, this important question maybe asked that how is their relationship and how it could be related to our understanding? In the present article, we will discuss Ricoeur's ideas concerning this problem.. Our thesis is that understanding in Ricoeur's thought is metaphoric, narrative and actual in nature. The metaphoric character of understanding will be shown on the basis of the "as" structure and seeing similarities simultaneous with differences. In his idea narration and plot are, like metaphor, gathering the differences with similarities and regulating them as unity. Ricoeur believes that narrative innovation with its referral to reality could be the origin of action and indicate the relation of action to understanding. Thus metaphor, narrative and action are the intrinsic aspects of understanding which are closely and fundamentally related to each other. As, In the area of hermeneutics, he extends the concept of text and its understanding beyond just writing, analyzing this theme will inform us the importance of the way of encountering different kinds of texts.

Understanding oneself has been of great importance in various areas of thought and discussed from different aspects. Some thinkers believe that self-understanding is intuitive and others consider it to be reflective and interpretative. In the history of western thought, especially in the areas of hermeneutics and phenomenology, Heidegger and Ricoeur are representative of these two different approaches. From this perspective we entitle their views as ontological and semantics. In this writing, we try to elaborate the ontological view point of Heidegger and the semantic approach of Ricoeur concerning the problem of self-understanding in order to pursue the possibility of any graft between them. For revealing the possibility of this graft, we focus on two aspects; We show that: 1- Self-understanding in Heidegger's and Ricoeur's thought be realized within the common horizons of "time", "language" and "the other", though, through different approaches of ontology and epistemology; and 2- For these three horizons in Ricoeur's definition of them, we can define an ontological foundation within the structure of  dasein.  It seem that this ontological basis can be considered to be at the beginning of Ricoeur's epistemological long route. In this regard, we can graft fundamentally these two approaches onto each other.

Hermeneutical phenomenology is a philosophical approach which is emerged from the compound of two important attitudes in the continental philosophy. Heidegger (1889-1976), who is considered as a founder of hermeneutical phenomenology, makes a conjunction between these two attitudes innovatively. This task is influenced by Husserl's phenomenological requirements concerning the sense and interpretation and his known slogan, toward the things itself. After Heidegger, Ricoeur (1913-2005) who is influenced by the concept of epoche in Husserl's phenomenology, makes such a conjunction in an innovative way. The difference between their views is that Heidegger, in Ricoeur's statement, follows the short route taken for ontological analysis of dasein, and Ricoeur proposes a long detour, starting with semantic considerations within the analysis of symbolic expressions of the human being. The basic thesis for present research is to show that, despite of different approaches in Heidegger and Ricoeur's thought toward this subject, in both views ''understanding'' can be considered as one of the most important requirements of the possibility of this connection. Their common viewpoint about ''understanding'' could be considered as a good reason for this claim. The importance of proving this thesis is that we can then by scrutinizing all the implications of understanding, find a vast area of possibilities in this conjunction that open lots of horizons in hermeneutics, epistemology, ontology and phenomenology which help us toward the way of truth.

In “White Mythology”, Derrida deals with the role of metaphors in philosophy, and how philosophy defines metaphor. He believes that when philosophers define metaphor, they reduce it to the nominal metaphor, and this shows that they try to subject it under the concept. This is for Derrida an example of philosophy’s reductionist confrontation with its others. But Derrida deconstruct the distinction between the concept as the element of philosophy and the metaphor as the element of literature. For him, the concept and all philosophical concepts are basically metaphors, and the movement of metaphor is the movement of genesis of philosophical concepts. Riceour in “Metaphor and Philosophical Discourse” criticizes Derrida fiercely, and claims that the distinction between the discourses is what our tradition gave us, and Derrida neglects the important distinction between philosophical discourse and poetic discourse. The so called deconstruction of binary oppositions in Derrida mélanges the distinct discourses. Riceour himself tries to show the origin of the distinction between philosophical and poetic discourses in the work of Aristotle, especially about the concept of analogy. He finally concludes that an excact distinction takes form in the point of closeness of two discourses.

The present article studies Paul Ricoeur and Mulla Sadra's views on imagination, particularly its influential role in knowledge. Though their philosophies differ in principle, they share certain ideas in common. Ricoeur, contemporary philosopher and hermeneut, utilizes semiotics, linguistics, structuralism, and so on, to enrich hermeneutics. Language, thus, gets a central role in his philosophy. The basic difference of Ricoeur’s idea on imagination which distinguishes him from Mulla Sadra is that ‘language’ is used as a basis to explain imagination; he explains the role of imagination in knowledge through language. But Mulla Sadra does not directly deals with language, but considers act of imagination in constituting knowledge as an act of certain faculty of the soul. But in spite of this basic difference, both philosophers consider imagination as a mediator between external world and internal world of the mind and both explain this possibility by the notion of integration of two different issues.