Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Ricoeur’S Critical Hermeneutics And The Psychotherapeutic Model Of Critical Theory, Francis J. Mootz Iii
Ricoeur’S Critical Hermeneutics And The Psychotherapeutic Model Of Critical Theory, Francis J. Mootz Iii
Scholarly Works
This paper seeks to extend Ricoeur’s acclaimed mediation of the Gadamer-Habermas debate. Freud’s psychoanalytic practice was an important touchstone for the debate, and Ricoeur’s reading of Freud provides a key to his critical intervention in the debate. The emerging postmodern account of psychotherapeutic practice provides a model of the critical hermeneutics that Ricoeur championed. Bringing Ricoeur’s insights to bear on this model, we can advance the questioning spurred by the Gadamer-Habermas debate without pretending to bring closure to the unending conversation of thinking.
Belief And Interpretation: Meditations On Pelikan's 'Interpreting The Bible And The Constitution, Francis J. Mootz Iii
Belief And Interpretation: Meditations On Pelikan's 'Interpreting The Bible And The Constitution, Francis J. Mootz Iii
Scholarly Works
Jaroslav Pelikan's recently published collection of essays considers the similarities between biblical and legal hermeneutics. Although Pelikan offers an erudite and subtle account, I argue that he fails to consider a central question raised by the comparison: the extent to which belief is a prerequisite of interpretation. But the claim that we cannot genuinely interpret a document if we do not believe that it has something to say to us, if we do not anticipate that we can learn from the text, raises a difficulty. If belief is central to interpretation it would appear to consign interpretation to a wholly …
Argument, Political Friendship And Rhetorical Knowledge: A Review Of Garver's "For The Sake Of Argument", Francis J. Mootz Iii
Argument, Political Friendship And Rhetorical Knowledge: A Review Of Garver's "For The Sake Of Argument", Francis J. Mootz Iii
Scholarly Works
Gene Garver's recent book, "For the Sake of Argument: Practical Reasoning, Character and the Ethics of Belief" (U. Chicago Press, 2004), responds to the dilemma at the core of contemporary legal theory. Garver incisively describes why legal reasoning is viewed either as impotent or dangerous. Reason appears impotent in the legal context to the extent that we maintain its rigor by limiting its scope to dialectical demonstration; it appears dangerous to the extent that we free reason from having to provide definitive answers. Garver looks to Aristotle for a solution. To deal with the inadequacies of the accounts of practical …