العادل

by Paul Ricœur, بول ريكور, فتحي التريكي (مشرف ترجمة)

طبع في جزئين .. تتصدّر الجزء الأوّل من كتاب «العادل » هذه القولة لأرسطو : «إنّ المنصف، وإن كان في الوقت نفسه عادلا، ليس ما هو عادل بمقتضى القانون، وإنما هو ملطّف من ملطّفات العدالة القانونيّة. والسبب قائم في أنّ القانون هو على الدوام أمر عامّ وفي أنّ حالات نوعيّة ليس بوسع المرء أن يصوغها في ملفوظ عامّ ينطبق عليها انطباقا يقينيّا .» ثمّ ينطلق المؤلف في تحليل مفهوم المسؤولية ويعلّق على كتاب «نظريّة العدالة » لجون راولز، كما يتطرّق إلى قضيّة التأويل و/ أو الاحتجاج، ويدقّق الفروق بين الجزاء وردّ الاعتبار والعفو، ويعالج مسألة الضمير والقانون. وفي الجزء الثاني يخصّص المؤلّف بابًا للدراسات، فيتناول مثلا مسألة العدالة والحقيقة، وبابًا للقراءات فينقد كتاب «مبادئ الحقّ » لأوتفريد هوف أو كتاب: «وعود العالم : فلسفة ماكس فيبر » لبيار بوراتز، وبابًا ثالثا للتمارين فيتحدّث عن المستويات الثلاثة للحكم الطبّي أو عن العدالة والانتقام. ويختم بالإدلاء بشهادته في قضيّة الدم الملوّث التي هزّت فرنسا في آخر التسعينات من القرن الماضي والتي اعتبرها قضيّة «سوء حكمنة .» وفي الجملة، فإنّ كتاب «العادل » يمتاز بعمق التحليل في مسائل شائكة، وقد تولّى المجمع التونسي تعريبه في إطار تكريم الفيلسوف الفرنسي الكبير «بول ريكور » الذي مازالت أفكاره تشعّ على الفلسفة الحديثة شرقا وغربا.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Justice

562 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1995

About the author

Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005) is widely recognized as one of the most distinguished philosophers of the twentieth century. In the course of his long career he wrote on a broad range of issues. His books include a multi-volume project on the philosophy of the will: Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary (1950, Eng. tr. 1966), Fallible Man (1960, Eng. tr. 1967), and The Symbolism of Evil (1960, Eng. tr. 1970); a major study of Freud: Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation (1965, Eng. tr. 1970); The Rule of Metaphor (1975, Eng. tr. 1977); Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (1976); the three-volume Time and Narrative (1983-85, Eng. tr. 1984–88); Lectures on Ideology and Utopia (1986); the published version of his Gifford lectures: Oneself as Another (1990, Eng. tr. 1992); Memory, History, Forgetting (2000, Eng. tr. 2004); and The Course of Recognition (2004, Eng. tr. 2005). In addition to his books, Ricoeur published more than 500 essays, many of which appear in collections in English: History and Truth (1955, Eng. tr. 1965); Husserl: An Analysis of His Phenomenology (1967); The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics (1969, Eng. tr. 1974); Political and Social Essays (1974); Essays on Biblical Interpretation (1980); Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences (1981); From Text to Action (1986, Eng. tr. 1991); Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative, and Imagination (1995); The Just (1995, Eng. tr. 2000); On Translation (2004, Eng. tr. 2004); and Reflections on the Just (2001, Eng. tr. 2007).

The major theme that unites his writings is that of a philosophical anthropology. This anthropology, which Ricoeur came to call an anthropology of the “capable human being,” aims to give an account of the fundamental capabilities and vulnerabilities that human beings display in the activities that make up their lives. Though the accent is always on the possibility of understanding the self as an agent responsible for its actions, Ricoeur consistently rejects any claim that the self is immediately transparent to itself or fully master of itself. Self-knowledge only comes through our relation to the world and our life with and among others in that world.

In the course of developing his anthropology, Ricoeur made a major methodological shift. His writings prior to 1960 were in the tradition of existential phenomenology. But during the 1960s Ricoeur concluded that properly to study human reality he had to combine phenomenological description with hermeneutic interpretation. For this hermeneutic phenomenology, whatever is intelligible is accessible to us in and through language and all deployments of language call for interpretation. Accordingly, “there is no self-understanding that is not mediated by signs, symbols, and texts; in the final analysis self-understanding coincides with the interpretation given to these mediating terms” (Oneself as Another, 15, translation corrected). This hermeneutic or linguistic turn did not require him to disavow the basic results of his earlier investigations. It did, however, lead him not only to revisit them but also to see more clearly their implications.