Blog Marcos L. Mucheroni Filosofia, Noosfera e cibercultura

After trying to understand hermeneutics in a row: F. Scheleimacher (1768-1834), Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) and Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002), I wondered what was Paul Ricoeur vision about this (1913-2005) ?
I found it in one book, what a relief, The Conflict of Interpretations, in an excellent Portuguese publication of Porto  Publishing, although other works of Ricoeur make reference to the subject: Theory of interpretation and an essay on Freud.
It begins by presenting the problem clearly: “If a text can have multiple meanings […] it is necessary to resort to a much more complex meaning notion than that of said univocal signs that an argument of logic requires […]. Consequently, hermeneutics could not remain a technical expert […], it brings into play the general problem of understanding. “(Ricoeur, no /year, p. 6) remember the” interpretation of the text “in elementary school.
Unlike Dilthey who saw the performance as “transportation between two psychic lives” Ricoeur goes beyond life lived to the “understanding of modes available at a time: myth, allegory, metaphor” (. Ricoeur, s / a, p) allowing hermeneutics more “complete”.
It goes beyond also the “way short” adopted by Heidegger in Being and Time, to formulate an ontology of understanding that “you do not get to it gradually, deepening the methodological requirements of exegesis (sic), history or psychoanalysis: Moved to her by a sudden reversal of the problem. “(Ricoeur, s / a, p.8)
I share the observation of exegesis because even if you do a thorough analysis of a word, its etymology and even its historical context, lack the life experience, this is the only true universal and philosophical hermeneutics, which springs from life, but ” living. ”
In Ricoeur’s view, Heidegger never intended to analyze a particular one, “he wanted to retrain our eye and redirect our gaze; he wanted subordinássemos historical knowledge to ontological understanding, as a form derived from an original form “(Ricoeur, s / a, p.12), making a metaphor as like Ricoeur, change the glasses.
Otherly (another book Ricoeur), its ontology is a militant ontology, based on the historical knowledge will come through interpretation, the ontological level, not only of being, but the Other Self.
We can call Ricoeur route long road, part of understanding the language, that is, you want to understand the signs that make up the culture before understanding its own ontological status, but must be careful reflection as an intermediary between these two stages, “reflection is blind intuition is not mediated by what Dilthey called the expressions in which life objectifies” (Ricoeur, no / year, p.19), said thus:
“The guy who plays in interpreting the signals is no longer the cogito: is an existing one that discovers, the exegesis of his life, which is put into being even before sunset and to own. Thus, hermeneutics would find a way to exist that remain from end to end be interpreted. “(Ricoeur, no / year, p. 13)
RICOEUR, P. O Conflito das Interpretações: Ensaios de Hermenêutica. trad. port. Artur Morão. Porto: Rés-Editora, no/year. (pages notes in portuguese edition).