Ricoeur and Berman

Abstract

This essay surveys commonalities and differences between Antoine Berman, a philosopher, and Paul Ricoeur, a hermeneutic philosopher, and thereby tries discover where and how Translation Studies and hermeneutics might come into contact. Ricoeur and Berman are known as leading representatives of modern hermeneutics and modern Translation Studies, respectively. Ricoeur, however, takes as his last philosophical topic in the context of his research about the problematics of meaning, textual interpretation, Self-and-Other. On the other hand, Berman incorporates a variety of philosophers' thoughts on - such as Schleiermacher's, Benjamin's, Heidegger's, and Derrida's - into today's Translation Studies, and thereby develops philosophical in Translation Studies that we can call philosophy, per se. These two different scholars, belonging two different fields, called hermeneutics and Translation Studies, meet in the realm of translation. Their encounter becomes concrete in that they continue quote each other. In his major works, Berman constantly refers Ricoeur's hermeneutics. And Ricoeur intensively discusses Berman in dealing with the problem of translation as the last topic of his intellectual Odyssey.1 The present investigation was ignited, first and foremost, by our curiosity into what made both of them cite each other's work. Therefore, it is the purpose of this essay consider their philosophical systems in themselves. Rather, we are going focus on a number of themes that touch both Berman's and Ricoeur's thoughts. More precisely stated, we are going see, on the level of and interpretation, where their perspectives on the nature of a text share commonalities and where they show differences. Commonalities Hermeneutics and Translation Studies are Heterogeneous and Non-Scientific Berman and Ricoeur claim clear-cut positions concerning how define knowledge in hermeneutics and Translation Studies. Let us look at Berman first. Berman defines Translation Studies as reflections on the unique experience called text translation.2 Here, reflective Translation Studies contrasts with translatics (traductique) based on technical engineering and informatics. Translatics, trying be literally scientific, overlooks the importance of reflection on translating experiences. Berman believes that translatics alone can never clarify or describe a culture's inherent drive meet new cultures through and thereby elevate itself. Therefore, he believes that Translation Studies is non-unifiable and has encompass all the plural and heterogeneous experiences. He proclaims that to postulate the possibility of a global and unique theory unifying the entirety of translating activities is overlook the fact that the space of is definitely plural, heterogeneous, and non-unifiable.3 Berman further reminds us that the truth and value of a text are only revealed through the experiences of and can hardly be analyzed through an objective-scientific approach. His argument can be taken as a warning today's discussions on translation, which tend be expressed in empiricist and scientific-oriented tones. Surprisingly enough, Berman's standpoint is very similar Ricoeur's hermeneutical perspective. Ricoeur also claims it is impossible establish general and unified principles concerning interpretation. According Ricoeur, there is no general hermeneutics, no universal canon for exegesis, but only disparate and opposed theories concerning the rules of interpretation. The hermeneutic field, whose outer contours we have traced, is internally at variance with itself.4 In brief, then, Berman and Ricoeur do think that Translation Studies and hermeneutics should be scientific. Of course, not scientific does mean anti-scientific, subjective, or biased. …