Esteban Lythgoe

Normal 0 21 false false false ES-CO X-NONE X-NONE El objetivo del presente artículo consiste en sostener que ha habido una evolución en el concepto de testimonio de Paul Ricoeur y que incluso su primera definición jurídica se diferencia de otras de la misma raíz. Para establecer este último punto se compara su definición con de C.A.J. Coady. Se intentará dar cuenta de los motivos, implicaciones y limitaciones de sus diferencias. Seguidamente, se afirma que en La memoria, la historia, el olvido el filósofo abandona el concepto jurídico de testimonio, caracterizado como una declaración enmarcada en un debate, para inclinarse por otro que lo define como una institución natural dialógica. Nuestra hipótesis es que dicho cambio fue debido no a causas fenoménicas sino contextuales

The analysis of Dasein’s modes of being (authentic, inauthentic and original) shows us that originality has a close relation with authenticity. Originality is not an ontological dimension in opposition to authenticity and inauthenticity which are ontical dimensions, but the ontological beingtowards- death and the authentic and ontic resoluteness composes it. If that is the fact, then temporality cannot be conceived as an original and indifferent phenomenon that explains the movement from inathenticity to authenticity and the other way round. Our hypothesis is that this movement can only be explained by speech, i.e. vocation and ‘temptation’, but that Heidegger despised this fact, due to his methodological goal of having only one phenomenon, time, as sense of being

In this paper, I attempt to show the evolution of the concept of testimony in PaulRicoeur’s writing. In the paper “Herméneutique du témoignage” given at theConference of Castelli in 1972 Ricoeur defined “testimony” in legal terms, as atestimony given in the frame of a dispute. In contrast, in “La Mémoire, l’Histoire,l’Oublie”1Ricoeur split testimony from the legal frame and characterized it as adialogical “natural institution.” My first hypothesis is that, even though in the1972 conference he recognized the legal origin of testimony, his definition is notquite the standard one. In order to establish this hypothesis, I will compareRicoeur’s definition with C.A.J. Coady’s understanding of the term to showwhere the differences are and explore the implications of each. Next, I willdiscuss the limitations of the legal definition, and how the concept of testimonywas changed in order to overcome them. I will then show how Ricoeur’s conceptof testimony works in MHO so as to associate memory with history. Finally, Iwill focus on Ricoeur’s revised notion of testimony in his last book Parcours dela reconnaissance, and argue that some of the changes in the definition had anargumentative and not a phenomenological reason