The dialectic of mutual recognition between self and the other by Paul Ricoeur

Abstract

The French philosopher Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005) devoted a book on confession under the title (The Path of Confession, Three Studies), in which he tried to control the concept of confession, and Ricoeur was aware of the complexity of the task, as he discovered in the lexicon three basic meanings for reforming recognition : Identification, self-recognition, and mutual recognition, as our study will address the problem of the third reform, which is mutual recognition, which is originally a problem in the dialectic of mutual recognition between self and the other, or identity and altruism, but before analyzing this argument, through Ricoeur's reading of Hegel and his readers The likes of (Alexander Kojief and Jacques Tamino), as he relied on the German philosopher Axel Honeth ..., in his book (The Struggle for Confession) the stages of recognition need to be traced, where we will try to control and establish identity and define it, that is, establish the self and identify with it, then move to recognition Things and people, then we move to the conflict and controversy existing between the self and others, in order to extract recognition. From this point of view, Ricoeur means mutual recognition (social recognition), which is based on the relationship between the self and the other, and the first meaning has taken an epistemological dimension, While the second meaning took an ethical dimension, while the third meaning, which is with us, takes our study a practical dimension, and in this context Ricoeur tries to discuss the dialectic of the struggle for recognition, that is, mutual recognition, social appreciation and mutual recognition between the self and the other, through the master-slave dialectic of Hegel, and through Cogito Cartesian, Kantian ethics, and from his analysis of the problematic of the struggle for recognition by Axel Hommeth, through which the concept of identity develops, and opens up to the concept of altruism, and then stand on the dialectical relationship of recognition and non-recognition.