Home > Positioning > Persons > Ricoeur

Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005)

Ricoeur’s philosophy is a hermeneutics of the self that takes the long route — through language, symbol, metaphor, narrative, and action — rather than claiming direct access to what the self is. The self is not transparent to itself; it is disclosed through detours. Metaphor is not ornament but “an event of thought” that redescribes reality. Narrative is not a literary device applied after the fact but the form through which temporal existence becomes intelligible — we understand who we are by telling and retelling the stories of our lives. The result is a philosophical anthropology of the “capable human being” (l’homme capable) — a self that can speak, act, narrate, and take responsibility, but that reaches itself only through mediation, never directly.

Life

Born in Valence in 1913. Orphaned early — his mother died shortly after his birth, his father was killed in the Battle of the Marne in 1914. Raised by paternal grandparents and an aunt in Rennes, in a devout Protestant family. He studied philosophy at the University of Rennes and the Sorbonne, where he encountered Gabriel Marcel and the phenomenological tradition.

He was mobilised in 1939, captured in 1940, and spent five years as a prisoner of war in Germany, where he read Husserl, Heidegger, and Karl Jaspers. The captivity was formative: his first major philosophical work, a translation of and commentary on Husserl’s Ideas I, was completed in the camp. After the war he taught at Strasbourg, the Sorbonne, and the University of Paris at Nanterre (where he served as dean during the 1968 upheavals — an experience he found painful and disillusioning). From 1970 he held a position at the University of Chicago alongside his French appointments, moving between the Continental and Anglo-American traditions more comfortably than most. He died in Châtenay-Malabry in 2005.

The long route

Ricoeur’s method is defined against two alternatives. Against Descartes and the Cartesian tradition: the self is not reached by direct introspection — the cogito is not the starting point but a task, something to be won through interpretation. Against the structuralist dissolution of the subject (Lévi-Strauss, early Foucault): the self is not an illusion produced by impersonal structures — it acts, speaks, narrates, and is responsible.

The “long route” is the passage through signs, symbols, texts, metaphors, and narratives by which the self comes to understand itself. There is no short route — no direct self-knowledge that bypasses mediation through language. This makes hermeneutics (the theory of interpretation) the fundamental philosophical method: understanding the self requires interpreting the expressions through which the self appears.

The rule of metaphor

The Rule of Metaphor (La métaphore vive, 1975) argues that metaphor is not a deviation from literal language but a creative act that produces new meaning. A living metaphor — one that has not yet been absorbed into ordinary usage — “redescribes reality” by holding two semantic fields in tension. “Time is a river” is not a decorative substitution for a literal proposition; it creates a new way of perceiving time that was not available before. The tension between the literal (time is not a river) and the metaphorical (and yet it is) is where the cognitive work happens.

Metaphor operates at the level of the sentence, not the word — it is a predicative event, not a naming substitution. This places Ricoeur against the classical rhetorical tradition (metaphor as transfer of a word’s meaning) and alongside the “interaction theory” (Max Black, I.A. Richards): metaphor produces meaning through the interaction of two subjects, not the substitution of one term for another.

The philosophical consequence: language has a creative capacity to generate new meaning, not merely to represent existing reality. Quality of expression is quality of thought — a poor metaphor does not just communicate badly, it thinks badly.

Narrative identity

Time and Narrative (Temps et récit, 1983–85, 3 vols.) and Oneself as Another (Soi-même comme un autre, 1990) develop the concept of narrative identity — the idea that the self is not a substance but a story. Personal identity is constituted through the narratives we tell about ourselves and that others tell about us.

Ricoeur distinguishes two senses of identity. Idem-identity is sameness: the identity of a thing that persists through change (the same ship, the same fingerprint). Ipse-identity is selfhood: the identity of a self that maintains itself through time by keeping promises, holding commitments, taking responsibility — not by remaining the same substance but by being faithful to who it is becoming. The self’s permanence in time is not the persistence of a thing but the faithfulness of a character.

Narrative is the form that holds the two together. A life story integrates change and constancy: the protagonist changes through events but remains recognisable as the same person, not because of underlying substance but because the narrative holds the changes together as one life. Plot (emplotment, mise en intrigue) is the operation that synthesises disparate events into a meaningful whole.

The capable human being

Oneself as Another (1990) organises the hermeneutics of the self around four capacities — the four “I can”s of the capable human being:

Each capacity involves both selfhood and otherness: I speak to someone, I act in a world I share, I narrate for an audience, I am imputed by others. The title Oneself as Another captures the thesis: the self is not self-enclosed but constituted in relation to the other — not the other as limit (as in Levinas) but the other as the one through whom selfhood is mediated.

Where Ricoeur stops

The long route is a commitment to mediation — the self is always reached through interpretation, never directly. This gives the philosophy its richness (every domain of expression becomes philosophically relevant) and its characteristic limitation: the question of whether the detours ever arrive. Ricoeur’s hermeneutic circle — we understand the whole through the parts and the parts through the whole — is productive but does not close on a final interpretation. The self remains an ongoing task, never a completed achievement. Whether this incompleteness is a philosophical insight (the self genuinely is an open story) or a structural feature of the method (hermeneutics cannot deliver what it promises) is a question Ricoeur’s own framework holds open rather than resolves.

The relationship to Levinas marks the other boundary. Ricoeur takes seriously Levinas’s claim that the other is not merely a partner in dialogue but a source of ethical demand. Oneself as Another devotes its tenth study to what Ricoeur calls “attestation” — the self’s capacity to respond to the other’s summons. But Ricoeur resists Levinas’s asymmetry: for Levinas, the ethical relation is radically asymmetrical (the Other’s claim on me is infinite and non-reciprocal), while for Ricoeur, the self and the other stand in a relation of mutual recognition — “oneself as another” runs in both directions. The debate is over whether mutuality domesticates the ethical demand or whether asymmetry overstates it.

Key works

See also: Levinas · Gadamer · Husserl · Heidegger