lds-herm blog

Discussion of hermeneutics, esp. as it pertains to LDS scripture

Starting Part II of Ricoeur’s Memory, History, Forgetting

Posted by joespencer on April 10, 2008

I’ve read up through the end of chapter 1 of part II of Memory, History, Forgetting, and this book gets only more exciting! The difficulty is that there is so much to talk about here that I’m not sure what should be said, really. (Nor have I had an abundance of time lately to sort out my thoughts.)

I think I would like, therefore, to open the discussion by saying basically nothing, by simply opening the forum for whatever points of the text anyone wants to discuss. What strikes you?


5 Responses to “Starting Part II of Ricoeur’s Memory, History, Forgetting

  1. joespencer said

    To get the discussion going, I’ll say that what most strikes me in Ricoeur’s discussion here is his connection between the socially necessary reiteration of testimony and its connection to the structure reiterability of the written trace. This is, of course, what is behind his concluding problematic: history as a crisis of testimony.

    This seems an especially promising direction to go.

    The details, of course, are remarkable: his rereading of the Phaedrus, his analyses of space and time, his very helpful discussion of the archive, etc.

  2. Robert C. said

    I’m just beginning the actual chapter reading, but I have a question about the preliminary material and Ricoeur’s overall approach: why is he taking up history in an epistemological way? I can understood good reasons for putting off a hermeneutic approach (which part III will undergo, right?), but is it not possible to think about history phenomenologically? Or does Ricoeur actually mean (in, for example, the first full, short paragraph on p. 136) that he’s going to do a phenomenology of the scientific (and literary) view of history, and then basically point out the presuppositions and problems with these views??

  3. Robert C. said

    Just a update, I finished Part II, chapter 1 and it seemed to me that Ricoeur was indeed discussing history as it’s typically conceived and practiced, making comments along the way to, presumably, set up the rest of the book. I’ve only just begun chapter 2 (of Part II) and probably won’t finish till next week or so….

  4. Clark said

    Is this starting up again? Anyone?

    Bueller? Bueller?

  5. rommel said

    find hard of looking his book, anyone help me please, he is my philosopher in my thesis, “forgiveness”…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: