Laurence Ryan V.

Mata, OP May 9, 2018

4phl/ Hermeneutics to Deconstruction

The Conflict of Interpretation

Paul Ricoeur

Introduction:

The entire book of the conflict of interpretation by Paul Ricoeur is a compilation of his

written articles, compiled and translated by different translators and interpreters. The book is

divided into five chapters with different subtopics in each main chapter. It is organized in such a

way that the thoughts of Paul Ricoeur about hermeneutics which is the science of interpreting a

text should flow in a logical manner. The sequence of arranging Paul Ricoeurs thoughts in this

book is to show the whole picture and of the hermeneutics of Ricoeurs especially when there is a

conflict of interpreting a text.

The reader of Paul Ricouer’s ‘conflict of interpretation’ has something to confess. His

reading of the work of Paul Ricouer did not come to him in a very light and easy way of

understanding. It is difficult to understand the thoughts of this philosopher especially when it

comes in interpreting the terminologies that the philosopher used in his philosophy.

Understanding the words and the terminologies that he used is a very important factor in order to

really enter into the flow of thought of the philosopher. Without this serious search and analysis

of words, understanding the philosopher will become very difficult, and if there are things that

the reader understand, without the serious gaze upon the philosopher’s text the understanding

will become murky and unclear.

 To apply what the professor said about reading first the primary text of the author before

going to the commentaries and other interpretation about the work is a really challenging task

young researchers. Yet in the process, the wisdom behind in doing it becomes clearer and

clearer. Nothing beats a firsthand experience with the philosopher’s text himself, without the

other interpretation that the other readers have made.

The reader still cannot move on from his experience of going to the text of Paul Ricoeur.

He noticed that even though he was already at the middle page of the book, he still does not

understand a thing about what the philosopher is trying to say. Given the limited time that he has

in order to finish reading the entire book gave him a sense of a haste in interpreting and reading

the book. Yet a pressured mind cannot really think that well. It must first be freed from any

anxiety that is coming outside. Until comes the time wherein his professor explained the basic

thoughts and main thought of the book, then some light flowed into the mind mingled with the

unclear thoughts regarding the first attempt of trying to read Paul Ricouer’s conflict of

interpretation. There is also a benefit of trying to understand the one that you are reading from

those who have already mastery and knowledge about the text then the light of thought which is

formed in the mind can become brighter and clearer.

This is not a close reading to Paul Ricoeur’s text Conflict of Interpretation. That may

sound ambitious upon a one time reading of the text of Ricoeur. Also, this paper will not use

other resources other thatn the primary text himself written by Paul Ricoeur’s Conflict of

Interpretation.

The oriental philosophers has this saying that a long journey begins from a single step.

Perhaps the first reading analysis of Paul Ricoeur’s text could be the first step of the reader
before going to a long and deeper journey of reading and understanding Paul Ricoeur’s

philosophy or hermeneutics.

Text Outline:

The book as mentioned earlier is divided into five major chapter. This textual outline

shows the major discussion and flow of thought in the book.

I. Hermeneutics and Structuralism

II. Hermeneutics and Psychoanalysis

III. Hermeneutics and Phenomenology

IV. The Symbolism of Evil Interpreted

V. Religion and Faith

These are the five major chapters in Ricoeur’s book conflict of interpretation. Within the

major chapter are also the minor subjects of discussion in order to give a sequential flow of

thought in understanding the big picture of Ricoeur’s philosophy on Hermeneutics.

What is the book all about?

It is important to know the reason why the book or a certain thought is formed or created.

It gives a certain direction and guide to where concept is leading us. It also gives the readers an

idea why his writings or his work is important to read, study and understand.

The book is about hermeneutics. From the title itself, it gives information about what to

do when there is a conflict of interpretation. When in the vast interpretation of others you were

trap for example on the act of deciding which a better and close interpretation is. Paul Ricouer
proposes his ideas which is found in this book about the possible way and action when trapped in

a situation when there are many possible interpretation of the texts.

A. Hermeneutics and Structuralism

In chapter one of the book, Paul Ricoeur tries to discuss his thoughts on hermeneutics and

structuralism. He discussed the structure and hermeneutics. Another term for this structure is

what Ricoeur called tradition. He mentioned that “it is a certain manner in which time is lived

and used: the time of transmission and the time of interpretation.” 1 Time is important in

interpretation. The time when the text was made and accomplished. The time where it has

become a part of history, of a certain tradition. Paul Ricoeur is quite cleat with this when he said:

“interpretation does not spring from nowhere; rather, one interprets in order to make explicit, to

extend, and so to keep alive the tradition itself, inside which one always remains. It is in this

sense that the time of interpretation belongs in some way to the time of tradition.” 2 When one

interprets one must always consider the time, the tradition which affects the text in the past

bringing it to the present.

The problem of double meaning is part of the hermeneutics and structuralism. Having a

double meaning is a problem in interpretation and in hermeneutics. Especially when it comes to

some structure. This double meaning is a hermeneutic problem and also a semantic problem.

Paul Ricouer problematize having multiple meanings for just a single word or phrase. It can be a

source of conflict and he found a way, a comparison from the exegetes in handling this situation.

1
Paul Ricoeur, “The Conflict of Interpretation,” Edited by Don Ihde. USA: Northwestern University Press, 1974, pp.
27.

2
Ibid.
 So far the structure, word and event are all part of hermeneutics and structuralism.

According to Paul Ricouer this is because of the language. Different cultures and tradition varies

in different languages so there can always be a double meaning as a result. Language is what

makes the structure in hermeneutics.3

B. Hermeneutics and Psychoanalysis

Hermeneutics and psychoanalysis is the second chapter of Paul Ricoeur’s book on the

conflict of interpretation. In psychoanalysis, the realm of the consciousness and of the

unconscious is being considered and analyze as a result of the work or behavior of man. This

idea of psychoanalysis came from the idea of Sigmund Freud. Just like Nietzsche and Marx, an

encounter with the idea of psychoanalysis made a shock to Paul Ricoeur’s philosophy, 4

considering the possibility of the unconscious and conscious mind in trying to understand and

interpret the text.

Psychoanalysis can affect man’s culture. There is a possible movement of contemporary

culture. Psychoanalysis, the conscious and the unconscious thinking of man can provide a view

or an understanding about the culture, for the psycho minds can interpret the culture not just

piece by piece but as a whole. So it is really important to consider psychoanalysis for its function

to interpret culture as a whole.5

Sigmund Freud is a psychologist and not a philosopher. He is not equal in the in the rank

of Socrates, Plato, Kant, or Descartes as a philosopher. Reading and analyzing the thought of

3
Paul Ricoeur, “The Conflict of Interpretation,” Edited by Don Ihde. USA: Northwestern University Press, 1974, pp
81.

4
Ibid, 99.

5
Ibid, 121.
Freud “adds a relocation in a different discourse to the architectonic reconstruction of the work.” 6

Paul Ricoeur gave a philosophical interpretation to Freud’s psychoanalysis, like that of Erich

Fromm. A philosophical interpretation is the work of the philosopher according to Ricoeur.7

Paul used the dialectic of archaeology and teleology as a viewpoint to interpret the

Freudian Concepts. According to Paul Ricoeurs own words: “this dialectic of archaeology and

teleology allows us to reinterpret some Freudian concepts, such as sublimation and identification,

which do not, in my opinion, have a satisfactory status in Freud’s own systematics.”8

The technique and the nontechnique in interpretation still falls under the psychoanalysis

of Freud. Paul Ricoeur have made two divisions regarding this two term and formulate questions

in order to understand it more deeply. The meaning of this two could be both technique and

technology. Paul Ricoeur divided them into two as degree of the night and the iconoclasm of the

intimate.9 Paul Ricouer gave his answer and somehow a continuous inquiry regarding this:

This is why I think psychoanalysis has nothing specific to say for or against

casuistry, just as it has nothing to say for or against prescriptive or normative

thought. I know that it is willing to remain silent on this point. Its function is to

pose prior questions: are our wishes free or constrained? Regain the ability to

speak and to enjoy, and all the rest will be given to you as a bonus. Is this not

to say, along with Augustine, “love, and do what you want?” For if your love

6
Ibid, 160.

7
Paul Ricoeur, “The Conflict of Interpretation,” Edited by Don Ihde. USA: Northwestern University Press, 1974, pp.
160.

8
. Ibid.161.

9
Ibid, 177.
 has rediscovered its place, your will also find its justice- but by grace rather

than by law.10

The last part in analyzing and correlating Freud’s psychoanalysis with the science of

interpretation is about the art and the Freudian systematics. Just like the work of Hans-Geog

Gadamer when he speaks about the art it means the sensible, or for Kant it’s about the aesthetic

sense. Aesthetic simply because it pertains to what is sensible and knowable through the use of

the senses. According Paul Ricoeur, Freud understands the systematics “in the strict sense as

denoting the application to Aesthetic phenomena of what he calls systematic point of view,

which is clearly opposed to the descriptive or even to the simply dynamic point of view.” 11 From

the world of culture it can create a reality which is in the level of the aesthetic.12

C. Hermeneutics and Phenomenology

Paul Ricouer is famous in his philosophy about word and work. That there is a strong

relation of meaning between word and work. This is somehow similar to what Paul Ricouer is

trying to point out in the third chapter of his book which is about the hermeneutics and

phenomenology. He got some insight from Nabert’s philosophy about the elements for an ethic

and inner experience of freedom. This is where his idea on act and sign from Nabert’s

philosophy is coming. Paul Recoeur mentioned that “thus we can understand that the entire

sensible world and all the beings with which we have dealings sometimes appear to us as a text

to be deciphered. Or to use other words which are not Nabert’s but which his work encourages:

10
Paul Ricoeur, “The Conflict of Interpretation,” Edited by Don Ihde. USA: Northwestern University Press, 1974, pp.
195.

11
Ibid, 196.

12
Ibid, 208.
reflection, because it is not an intuition of the self by the self, can be, and must be, a

hermeneutics.”13 Hermeneutics is not a mere reflection. A subjective reflection which involves

self-thought and self-realization. Hermeneutical science is not a mere reflection that happens in

the mind. The work is also being considered. For truth is not only found in words but also in

work. Work and word must come together and so such as the act and sign.

Paul Ricoeur derived his phenomenological sense in this chapter not from the founder of

phenomenology himself who is Edmund Husserl but rather from Heidegger whom the father of

phenomenology let go as his disciple because of his renovation and addition to the science of

phenomenology. He got the thought and insights of Heidegger and the question of the subject

from Heidegger’s work which is being and time. He took Heidegger’s being and time as a guide

to point out the link between being and Dasein as a guide of the inquiring mind in

interpretation.14

This analysis and correlation to Heidegger’s philosophy brings about the question of the

subject and the challenge of semiology. The subject here is being challenged by the above factors

that was already mentioned above. The subject is being challenge by psychoanalysis, it is also

being challenged by structuralism toward the hermeneutics of the ‘I am’ or the cogito. Paul

Ricoeur made his answer and analysis regarding the issues about hermeneutics which is in a way

connected and related to the cogito. Paul Ricoeur mentioned this, which is an important factor in

his thought.

13
Paul Ricoeur, “The Conflict of Interpretation,” Edited by Don Ihde. USA: Northwestern University Press, 1974, pp.
222.

14
Ibid, 224..
 The hermeneutics which relective philosophy must include must not be limited

to effects of meaning and double meaning: it must boldly ne a hermeneutics of

the I am. Only in this way can the illusion and the pretensions of the idealist,

subjective, solipsistic cogito be conquered. This hermeneutics of Cartesian I

think and the uncertainties, even the lies and illusion, of the self, of immediate

consciousness. It alone can yoke, side by side, the serene assertion I am and the

poignant doubt who am I?15

This is an important statement from Paul Ricoeur for in the first place he correlate the

hermeneutics with the important idea that was found in Descartes philosophy which is about the

cogito. Paul Ricouer then gave his answer to the question about what in reflective philosophy

holds in a future? Paul Ricoeur gave his answer with this statement:

A reflective philosophy which, having completely incorporated the correction

and the lessons of psychoanalysis and semiology, takes the long and

roundabout route of an interpretation of private and public psychic and cultural

signs, where the desire to be and the effort to be which constitute us are

expressed and made explicit16

D. The Symbolism of Evil Interpreted

Paul Ricoeur moved his thoughts in trying also to understand signs and symbol in the

process of interpretation. For him it is not only about the side of good that needs to be

15
Paul Ricoeur, “The Conflict of Interpretation,” Edited by Don Ihde. USA: Northwestern University Press, 1974, pp.
266.

16
Ibid, 266.
interpreted. Both good and evil which could be represented through symbolism must also be

considered in trying to understand and interpret text and extract its meaning. That is why the title

given to the fourth chapter of Paul Ricoeur’s book is on the symbolism of evil interpreted.

In a logical sense and referential sense, as Paul Ricoeur gives high regards to the way

exegetes interpret the bible, Paul Ricoeur in trying to discuss the symbolism of evil begins from

the Genesis which literally translated as the beginning, tries to discuss original sin as a study of

meaning. Paul Ricoeur is trying now to give way to faith. This original sin is primarily biblical in

a sense that it is also full of meaning and interpretation. It is actually found in a Christian’s

confession of faith for it is in the article of faith provided for Christian believers. Yet it is still

open to discussion and certain interpretation at the same time keeping its sense of mystery. Paul

Ricoeur in this sense clarified himself not as a dogmatic theologian. 17 Dissecting and analyzing

the notion of original sin is not theological in purpose but philosophical in a sense that Paul

Ricoeur is after for its meaning. Here comes now a very important thought in hermeneutics of

Paul Ricoeur for in this regard he now mentioned and used the term to deconstruct. According to

him, “to reflect on its meaning is in a certain way to deconstruct the concept, to break down its

motivations and by a kind of intentional analysis to retrieve the arrows of meaning which aim at

the kerygma itself.”18 To deconstruct the meaning of a certain text according to Ricoeur is really

to destroy what believes to be its meaning. This give a way to study meaning even further by

destroying or removing the barracks or the walls that surround a certain word and concept

depriving the reader to a more vast understanding of the text and meaning itself. Paul Ricouer

tried to destroy or deconstruct the concept of original sense as his example in order to clarify his
17
Paul Ricoeur, “The Conflict of Interpretation,” Edited by Don Ihde. USA: Northwestern University Press, 1974, pp.
270.

18
Ibid.
thoughts more vivid and reasonable. He said: “The concept of original sin is false knowledge,

and it must be broken as knowledge. It involves the quasi-juridical knowledge of the

transmission of a hereditary taint. This false knowledge compresses in an inconsistent notion a

juridical category of debt and a biological category of inheritance.”19

To make it clearer, the need to deconstruct or in a sense to destroy the concept that covers

a certain word or text is not totally do destroy the text and the importance that the text or word is

trying to give. Deconstruction is necessary for it brings out the true knowledge of the text by

disintegrating, or removal of what is believed or analyzed to be a carrier of false knowledge that

surrounds the text. This is called the defeat of knowledge in order to bring about and recover the

true knowledge that man is looking for in interpretation. Paul Ricoeur made himself clear about

this when he mentioned that: “the point of this apparently destructive criticism, however, is to

show that false knowledge is at the same time true symbol, a symbol of something which it alone

is capable of transmitting.”20 What Paul Ricoeur is trying to explain here is the term to destroy

and criticize, negative may it sound, offers a positive outcome in interpretation. He said: “so the

criticism is not just a negative one. The defeat of knowledge is the other side of working toward

the recovery of meaning.” He continue on saying: “this recovery is a retrieval of the “orthodox”

intention, the strict sense, and the ecclesiastical meaning of original sin.”21

Paul Ricoeur allotted two parts of discussion for the hermeneutics of symbols and

philosophical reflections. The thoughts about this things needs a long and vivid demonstration

and explanation. He is trying to investigate her the determined complex of symbols especially
19
Paul Ricoeur, “The Conflict of Interpretation,” Edited by Don Ihde. USA: Northwestern University Press, 1974, pp.
270.

20
Ibid.

21
Ibid.
the symbolism of evil. In his first philosophical reflection, he managed to engage his thoughts in

theodicy for it is a reflection of symbolism of evil. He mentioned in the first part of his reflection

that, “what in the old theodicy was only the expedient of false knowledge becomes the

understanding of hope. The necessity that we are seeking is the highest rational symbol that this

understanding of hope can engender.”22 The word hope now was mentioned by Paul Ricoeur this

word hope signifies a lot when he manage to discuss religion and faith in this book.

The second part of Paul Ricoeurs reflection about the hermeneutics of symbols and

philosophical reflection revolves about his investigation concerning the symbols of evil that are

elaborated in the ritual literature, the myths and wisdom from the Middle East, Israel and

Greece.23 Paul Ricoeur concluded in this part of hermeneutics of symbols that “the eschatology
24
of consciousness is always a creative repetition of its own archaeology.” This means that the

future or the end of our consciousness is always in line with our history and the history of our

culture and tradition within a certain language. Our consciousness is a consciousness of time, of

the past, present and future.

After this flow of thought comes in now the demythization of accusation. This means

about the ability of the mind to choose, discern and judge. This is the purpose of the conflict of

interpretation. To teach the readers how to deal with problems where there is a conflict or several

interpretation. So far, Paul Ricoeur has discussed many things concerning building up his idea

regarding hermeneutics and deconstruction. This does not teach the readers how to criticize and

22
Paul Ricoeur, “The Conflict of Interpretation,” Edited by Don Ihde. USA: Northwestern University Press, 1974, pp.
314.

23
Ibid, 315.

24
Ibid, 334.
analyze the text but also to teach the readers how to make a certain judgement after considering

the many aspects that affect the understanding of the text per se.

The whole thought of hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur is still trying its very best to connect

it to faith and intellectual love. Paul Ricoeur mentioned that “to understand this is the task of

intellectual live. My thesis here is that this comprehension remains intelligible to faith in the

endless correction of its symbols: intelligible, because understanding must struggle, without a

truce, with the antinomy; and faith even more, love because what actuates this understanding is

the ceaseless work of purification applied to desire and to fear.”25 As mentioned earlier, the way

Paul Ricoeur managed to organize his thoughts and ideas about hermeneutics and the conflict of

interpretation, he owe it most especially to exegesis. This is perhaps the reason why Paul Ricoeur

manage to use concrete examples and verses from the sacred scriptures.

E.

The last chapter of Paul Ricoeur’s book is on religion and faith. He managed to discuss in

a chronological way thoughts about freedom I the light of hope. He also discussed certain topics

about guilt, ethics and religion. Also about religion, atheism and faith. The last one is about

fatherhood: from phantasm to symbol.

The book is a collection of the essays of Paul Ricoeur and it is quite noticeable that the

thoughts of Ricoeur is a vast and diverse discussion of the different aspect not just about

hermeneutics per se but also about the different aspects and field in philosophy. Examples again

is the way he analyze structuralism and linguistic analysis, his hermeneutics and

phenomenology, psychoanalysis and the question of the subject and last is about religion and
25
Paul Ricoeur, “The Conflict of Interpretation,” Edited by Don Ihde. USA: Northwestern University Press, 1974, pp.
352.
faith.26 It is fascinating to think and imagine how Paul Ricoeur managed to tie all of this things

together and formulate in a way his theory about the conflict of interpretation.

Conclusion:

The purpose of Paul Ricoeur in writing these essays compiled as a book is to graft

according to him, the hermeneutical problem onto the phenomenological method. 27 His long

process of investigation, research and thinking is to give renewal of phenomenology through

hermeneutics.28

In beginning to understand a text, or in the process of interpretation, three things must be

considered. First is the community, followed by the tradition then lastly the living current

thought. The aim is to understand the text beginning with its intention, on the basis of what it

attempts to say. This is a phenomenological method. Like the aufbau or going back to the things

themselves. Most of Paul Ricouers thoughts about phenomenology was influenced by Heidegger,

being and time, the notion of being and dasein. Paul Ricoeur believes that “understanding

becomes an aspect of Dasein’s “project” and of its “openness to Being.” The question of truth is

no longer the question of method; it is the question of the manifestation of being for a being

whose existence consists in understanding being.” 29 Philosophy for Paul Ricoeur remains a

hermeneutics because it is a reading of the hidden meaning inside the text of the apparent

meaning.30

26
Ibid, ix.

27
Ibid, 3.

28
Ibid.

29
Ibid, 10.

30
Ibid, 22.
 Interpreting a text is not an easy task. Giving your judgement and decision means

involving your whole being into it and if the truth is concealed, destruction will follow.

Hermeneutics is not a quick and rush process. Interpretation of the text always involves

structuralism, psychoanalysis, phenomenology, symbolism and signs, faith and religion and

hope. To be phenomenologist in approach to hermeneutics is a demanding process which

involves full concentration of the thought to the text that is being interpreted. It is like putting

oneself into the text in order to understand and return again to the self with the consciousness

and understanding of the other. This is a phenomenological way in hermeneutics.

Is someway this is how the reader of the book first understand the contents of conflict of

interpretation of Paul Ricoeur. It is not that deep and clear enough. Maybe in a span of time after

several readings, the researcher may give a deeper understanding of Paul Ricoeurs text about the

conflict of interpretation. Aurevoir!