Jean Grondin

We publish here the letters between Gadamer and Ricoeur, as they are found in the Archives of the two philosophers (Gadamer-Archiv in Marbach and Fonds Ricoeur in Paris). Starting from February 1964 and ending on October 2000, the thirty-five letters reproduced here cannot give a complete picture of their much richer correspondence and relations, because it seems that neither Ricoeur, nor Gadamer kept all the letters they received from one another. But altogether, they document their common concerns, their mutual respect, even their intellectual solidarity and finally the particular context that brought them to write to one another, i.e. Ricoeur’s intention to publish a translation of Gadamer’s book, Truth and Method, in a new series he edited for the Seuil Publisher. This publishing and translation project will mark their entire correspondence.

In later, retrospective texts where he explained his hermeneutical turn, Paul Ricoeur claimed that this turn was due to the impossibility of knowing oneself directly, through introspection, and the necessity to undertake the detour of interpretation with regard to knowledge of oneself. By going back to the first occurrences of this hermeneutical turn in his work of 1960, The Symbolism of Evil, this paper argues that other motives, which were later forgotten, were also at play and perhaps more instrumental, most notably the intention of salvaging modernity against itself and of curing it of its forgetfulness of the sacred.

The hermeneutical circle is one of the most fundamental and contentious doctrines of hermeneutical theory. In its most basic form in contemporary hermeneutics, it is the idea that we always understand or interpret out of some presuppositions. Hermeneutical thinkers like Heidegger, Bultmann, Ricoeur, and Gadamer view the hermeneutical circle favorably since it constitutes for them an inescapable and positive element of understanding: as finite and historical beings, we understand because we are guided by anticipations, expectations, and questions. For them, the key is not to escape the hermeneutical circle, but, to enter into it in the right way. The notion of the hermeneutical circle is recent, but its roots go back to antiquity and ancient rhetoric. The hermeneutical circle, Heidegger contends, describes the constant and ongoing process of trial and error, where one always strives to develop the right anticipations which have to be “borne out by the things themselves”.

Jean Grondin’s starting point in his impressive book is what Hans-Georg Gadamer refers to as the universal claim of hermeneutics. Gadamer is better known for the limits his hermeneutics seems to place on universal claims. Against the reliance the Enlightenment placed on the insights of a reason common to humanity, Gadamer stresses the prejudiced and partial character of attempts to understand meaning. And against more contemporary attempts to ground Enlightenment conceptions in universal human competencies, he stresses the historicity and finitude of human knowledge. Our attempts to understand the meaning of texts, conversations, historical events, and social actions and practices are conditioned by the horizon of our language, our own historical experiences, and our assumptions and expectations. Still, Gadamer ends his Truth and Method by stressing not only the linguistic character of understanding but the infinite capacity of all languages to find and express new dimensions of meaning. “Language,” he writes, “forestalls any objection to its jurisdiction. Its universality keeps pace with the universality of reason.”

La phénoménologie a connu trop peu de sommets créateurs depuis Husserl et Heidegger pour qu’il soit possible d’ignorer le dernier ouvrage de Jean-Luc Marion, aussi superbement écrit qu’il est ambitieux. Certes, de très exhaustives encyclopédies conçues par nos collègues américains, pour lesquels le terme de phénoménologie sert un peu d’équivalent à celui de philosophie continentale, recenseront des légions de phénoménologues depuis Husserl et Heidegger, mais aucun n’aura eu d’impact vraiment déterminant sur la conception même de la discipline. Ces listes comprendront de redoutables penseurs comme Jean-Paul Sartre, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Emmanuel Levinas et Paul Ricœur, où l’on reconnaîtra les plus illustres représentants de la tradition de la phénoménologie française.

The question of Nietzsche's place in hermeneutics raises many questions: can Nietzsche's thought itself be characterized as "hermeneutical" and to what extent, given that hermeneutics was only developed as such after him? Can and should hermeneutics, which until recently did not take his thought much into account, incorporate Nietzsche's thought as a whole? Whereas a mutual fecundation will always be fruitful, this paper argues that one should resist a simple integration of Nietzsche into hermeneutics in light of their different understandings of truth, interpretation and nihilism. It thus becomes possible to also resist the postmodern and nihilistic understanding of hermeneutics. Aware of their differences, hermeneutics and Nietzsche will perhaps have more to say to one another

D’abord formé par Nicolai Hartman et Rudolf Bultmann, Gerhard Krüger (1902- 1972) fut l’un des élèves les plus doués de Heidegger. Il a suivi d’un œil critique et avisé les soubresauts de sa pensée. S’il fut séduit par la résurrection de la question de l’être et celle de la métaphysique chez Heidegger, comme par sa critique du sujet moderne, c’est une tout autre conception de l’être, de la métaphysique et de l’existence humaine qu’il lui opposait. Il le fit notamment dans ses livres remarquables sur Kant (1931) et sur Platon (1939) que l’on peut lire comme des contestations rigoureuses de la conception heideggérienne de l’histoire de la métaphysique, mais aussi de sa vision de la philosophie.

We have many reasons to be grateful to Gianni Vattimo for his ongoing contribution to philosophy and public life. Undoubtedly, his most decisive philosophical impulses have come from the German philosophical tradition, and mostly from the Holy Trinity of Nietzsche, Heidegger and Gadamer, who was his teacher. Yet, he was not German, but a proud Italian, and, for some reason, more able than others to carry this tradition further. The issue I would like to discuss here is whether hermeneutics, and thus philosophy itself, must be seen as a form of nihilism. If nihilism only means a tolerance for the view of others to the extent that they do not violently limit the liberty of others, one can agree with Gianni Vattimo. But if one understands under “nihilism” the notion that there are no truths in the sense of adaequatio, one can challenge this view. Vattimo often faults Gadamer for not acknowledging fully the consequences of his own thought, i.e. the nihilistic consequences of his hermeneutic ontology. Yet one must ask: Why is it that Gadamer failed to proclaim a nihilistic hermeneutics? In other words, why did Gadamer resist the postmodernism of some of his followers?

Même si elle est emblématique de la pensée de Gadamer, la difficile notion d’une « fusion d’horizons » a été assez peu étudiée pour elle-même. Cet article se propose d’en faire ressortir le sens, la portée, mais aussi les difficultés. Il cherche surtout à montrer en quoi cette fusion d’horizons est l’œuvre du langage (lui-même pensé à partir de sa fusion avec l’être) et dans quelle mesure on peut y voir la version gadamérienne de l’adéquation entre l’être et la pensée, suivant la conception classique de la vérité, que Gadamer ne renie jamais.

Based on some interpretations about the Critique of Pure Reason, the author holds a real answer to the question about the possibility of Metaphysics remains in the uncertainty there. Without any proper Conclusion of the work, this question is displaced to the background and it is, in certain way, superseded by the question about God's existence and a future life. In II, The Transcendental Doctrine of Method, Kant points towards the Highest Good as a determining ground of the ultimate end of pure reason

RESUMEN Este artículo reconstruye la genealogia arendtiana de las formas extremas de la violencia, tomando como hilo conductor los procesos de desingularización con un doble propósito: por un lado, analizar las (dis)continuidades históricas de dicha genealogia que trasciende la dimensión fisico-instrumental de la violencia y entra conexión con la (des)configuración de la identidad personal; por otro lado, reivindicar la vigencia de la obra de Hannah Arendt para explorar los ecos presentes de esa violencia, sin perder de vista su especificad actual. ABSTRACT This paper reconstructs the Arendtian genealogy of the extreme forms of violence, taking desingularization processes as its guiding thread, with a twofold goal: on the one hand, to analyze the historical (dis)continuities of that genealogy, that goes beyond the physical-instrumental dimension of violence and comes into connection with the (de)configuration of personal identity; on the other hand, to claim the validity of Arendt's work to explore the echoes of that violence, without losing sight of its current specificity.