>Greg:
>Ricour's phrase "when we speak we say more than we say" comes to mind.
>Although I'm not a big fan of his I'm surprised that we don't hear
>much about him on this list, any reason for that?
>
Hi Greg,
I think there are a couple of reasons why Ricoeur has
not received "name-brand" status, tho i think his
thought leaks into a great deal of what the name-branders
have been doing for decades.
1) he is a synthesizer; indeed, his big contribution
has been to branch out of "phenomenology"
in his earlier work and "dialogue" with
wittgenstein, ordinary lang philos, and
analytical philosophy.
to do this results in a nice "behind-the-scenes"
facilitation of differing view points discoursing
with each other, but little recognition for
"original contribution." also, such synthesizing
always leaves those heavily baricaded within their
own "school" or "tradition" with a view of Ricoeur
as very confusing, incomprehensible.
he always said
that his work can be looked upon as
a completion of his "phenomenology of
the will" and he just got stuck in one section of it:
"the poetics of the will," which is his place
between anglo-amer and european philos.
he always takes the totalizers to task.
2) he is a christian, unabashed, and this has
produced some philoisophical essays and
trends that some would consider disguised
sermons and so completely irrelevent to
philosophy. even his insights such as
the hermeneutics of suspicion and the
hermeneutics of belief, while a keen insight,
and very useful, is considered "theology"
by many.
there's two cents worth on Ricoeur.
is he still living?
kindest regards,
henry
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---