Moral and Ethical Problems in the Concept of Memory of Paul Ricœur

The concept of memory is fundamental to the phenomenological hermeneutics of Paul Ricœur. The scientist formulates the concept of fair memory and sets two major tasks in for this philosophy: the epistemological one presupposing preservation of authentic ideas about the past, and the ethical one, which requires an adequate assessment of agents in history from the standpoint of moral norms. The moral duty of memory obliges humanity to convey to future generations the knowledge of achievements and atrocities committed in history, in order to objectively qualify historical events that have taken place and to show compassion for the victims of social cataclysms. The activity of memory is characterized by two interrelated trends: the art of memory and the art of oblivion. The art of memory involves the forcing of spontaneous memorization inherent in consciousness, based on the methods of mnemonics. The art of memory is not an absolute task. From the point of view of Ricœur, ethical values are the highest goal. Since no society can exist in a state of continuous hostility and hatred, in exceptional situations, in order to maintain peace and prevent violence, it has to resort to positive oblivion, which allows transferring evil memories to reserve areas and clearing the memory of anger. As an example of such positive oblivion, contributing to neutralization of conflicts and consolidation of society, the philosopher analyzes the practices of amnesty, involving abolition of legal prosecution of opposition activists and adoption of a moratorium on the exposure and condemnation of their past actions, subject to future loyalty and non-violence. Ricœur comes to the conclusion that the metaphysical horizon of memory is its ability to forgive. The paradox of spirituality consists in confidence in man, in admitting that striving for goodness is inherent in humans. This confidence of the possibility of a person’s spiritual rebirth enables conditional par a guilty person, without abolishing the need for a just censure of criminal acts or compassion for victims. Such ethically enlightened memory stores knowledge of inflicted evil for the sake of selfpurification and further rejection of hatred.

1. Barash J.A. (2004) Politiques de l’histoire. L’historicisme comme promesse et comme mythe. Paris: Presses universitaires de France (in French).

2. Barash J.A. (2012) What Is a Collective Memory? On the Question of Paul Ricœur’s Interpretation of Memory. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences = Filosofskie nauki. 2012. No. 10, pp, 32–43 (Russian translation).

3. Barash J.A. (2016) Collective Memory and the Historical Past. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

4. Barash J.A. (2017) The Reality of the Historical Past: The Heideggerian Turn in Paul Ricœur’s Reflection on History. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences = Filosofskie nauki. 2017. No. 8, pp. 87–105 (Russian translation).

5. Blauberg I.I. (2013) On Memory and Oblivion: P. Ricœur and A. Bergson. In: Vdovina I.S. (Ed.) Paul Ricoeur in Moscow (pp. 191–206). Moscow: Kanon + (in Russian).

6. Cassin В. (2004) Amnistie et pardon: pour une ligne de partage entre éthique et politique. In: Cassin B., Cayla O., & Salazar P.-J. (Eds.) Vérité, réconcilation, réparation (pp. 37–57). Paris: Seuil (in French).

7. Castillo M. (2008) The Concept of Ethics and Morality in the Doctrine of Paul Ricoeur. In: Blauberg I.I. (Ed.) Paul Ricoeur Is a Philosopher of Dialogue (pp. 12–23). Moscow: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences (Russian translation).

8. Gagnebin J.M. (2019) Les empêchements de la mémoire. Études Ricœuriennes / Ricœur Studies. Vol 10, no 1, pp. 43–57 (in French).

9. Levi P. (1986) I sommersi e i salvati. Torino: Einaudi (Russian translation: Moscow: Novoye izdatel’stvo, 2010).

10. Machulskaya O.I. (2014) The ethical concept of Paul Ricoeur: the answer of anti-normative philosophy. In: Blauberg I.I. & Vdovina I.S. (Eds.) Paul Ricoeur: Man – Society – Civilization (pp. 249–257). Moscow: Kanon + (in Russian)

11. Fedorova M.M. (2018) History/Memory: The “Difficult” Dilemma. Istoriya filosofii / History of philosophy. Vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 108–121 (in Russian).

12. Ricœur P. (1990) Soi-même comme un autre. Paris: Seuil (Russian translation: Moscow: Izdatel’stvo gumanitarnoy literatury, 2008).

13. Ricœur P. (1995) Hermeneutique. Ethique. Politique. Moscow: KAMI (Russian translation).

14. Ricœur P. (2000) La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli. Paris: Seuil (Russian translation: Moscow: Izdatels’tvo gumanitarnoy literatury, 2004).

15. Rousso H. (1987) Le syndrome de Vichy: de 1944 à nos jours. Paris: Seuil (in French).

16. Solzhenitsyn A.I. (1991) Interview with the Time magazine on January 19, 1974. Novyy mir. 1991. No. 8 (in Russian).

17. Vdovina I.S. (2013) Paul Ricoeur: The Practical Wisdom of Philosophy. In: Vdovina I.S. (Ed.) Paul Ricoeur in Moscow (pp. 267–276). Moscow: Kanon + (in Russian).

18. Weinrich H. (1997) Lethe, Kunst und Kritik des Vergessens. München: C.H. Beck (in German).

19. Yates F.A. (1966) The Art of Memory. London: Routledge; Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Russian translation: Saint Petersburg: Universitetskaya kniga, 1997).