The interpretation of texts and actions, this was Ricoeur's task. I don't mean to be mean, but you're overemphasizing his religious background, and underemphasizing the philosophical concern he has for the concept of time and history and narrative.The reason he includes theology is because theologians were top notch philosophers, not because he associated with Catholic Jesuit thinking. I'm sorry, Ricoeur was open to religion but basically thought religion was not one with empathy for the other, I'm sorry, you're cherry-picking.
Thank you for your message. Why the desire to segregate philosophy from theology with such vehemence? What do you mean by "cherry-picking" in the context of my interpretation and commentary on Ricoeur's thought? I'm also not sure what you mean by "Catholic Jesuit thinking" since I always associate Ricoeur with his Calvinist religious background.
@@myinteriorcastle313 More on the topic, I’m less convinced about Ricoeur’s religious motivations. I think he was more concerned with the nature of understanding and interpretation than theological issues. I don’t think the latter questions are unworthy, quite the opposite, but maybe the bulk of his work has more to do with communication and connections with humans on a deeper level. A level only loosely connected with religious affiliations.
@@bpatrickhoburg Thank you for these words of clarification and it remains an interesting question for Ricoeur regarding his own work. Here are two helpful video interviews with Ricoeur that add to the discussion: entretiens.ina.fr/itineraires/Ricoeur/paul-ricoeur, www.canal-u.tv/chaines/utls/reflexions-sur-la-croyance-et-les-convictions/la-croyance-religieuse. To your point, Ricoeur comes down in history as a "philosopher" rather than a "theologian." His work certainly is more of a theologically influenced philosophy rather than a philosophically influenced theology.
The interpretation of texts and actions, this was Ricoeur's task. I don't mean to be mean, but you're overemphasizing his religious background, and underemphasizing the philosophical concern he has for the concept of time and history and narrative.The reason he includes theology is because theologians were top notch philosophers, not because he associated with Catholic Jesuit thinking. I'm sorry, Ricoeur was open to religion but basically thought religion was not one with empathy for the other, I'm sorry, you're cherry-picking.
Thank you for your message. Why the desire to segregate philosophy from theology with such vehemence? What do you mean by "cherry-picking" in the context of my interpretation and commentary on Ricoeur's thought? I'm also not sure what you mean by "Catholic Jesuit thinking" since I always associate Ricoeur with his Calvinist religious background.
@@myinteriorcastle313 Hey I’m sorry I was so vehement. I get passionate, I’m sorry. I appreciate you man.
@@myinteriorcastle313 More on the topic, I’m less convinced about Ricoeur’s religious motivations. I think he was more concerned with the nature of understanding and interpretation than theological issues. I don’t think the latter questions are unworthy, quite the opposite, but maybe the bulk of his work has more to do with communication and connections with humans on a deeper level. A level only loosely connected with religious affiliations.
@@bpatrickhoburg Thank you for these words of clarification and it remains an interesting question for Ricoeur regarding his own work. Here are two helpful video interviews with Ricoeur that add to the discussion: entretiens.ina.fr/itineraires/Ricoeur/paul-ricoeur, www.canal-u.tv/chaines/utls/reflexions-sur-la-croyance-et-les-convictions/la-croyance-religieuse. To your point, Ricoeur comes down in history as a "philosopher" rather than a "theologian." His work certainly is more of a theologically influenced philosophy rather than a philosophically influenced theology.