Key Arguments

• Ricoeur announces the distinctive status of this study: "This study, more than any of the others, is exploratory in nature. It aims at bringing to light the ontological implications of the earlier investiga tions, placed under the heading of a hermencutics of the self."
• He formulates the central ontological question explicitly in terms of the self: "What mode of being, then, belongs to the self, what sort of being or entity is it?"
• To make this question tractable, he proposes to "divide the difficulty into more manageable portions, and to apply to these the fragmentary method we have continually practiced," indicating continuity of method from the earlier 'studies'.
• He recalls the schema from the Introduction, according to which "hermencutics is the site of three interrelated problematics: 1. the indirect approach of reflection through the detour of analysis; 2. the first determination of selfhood by way of its contrast with sameness; 3. the second determination of selfhood by way of its dialectic with otherness."
• He justifies calling the whole project 'hermeneutics' because "We were able to give the name of hermencutics to this series, by reason of the exact equivalence between self-interpretation and the unfolding of this triple mediation," thereby linking the three problematics directly to self‑interpretation.

Source Quotes

TENTH STUDY What Ontology in View? This study, more than any of the others, is exploratory in nature. It aims at bringing to light the ontological implications of the earlier investiga tions, placed under the heading of a hermencutics of the self. What mode of being, then, belongs to the self, what sort of being or entity is it?

It aims at bringing to light the ontological implications of the earlier investiga tions, placed under the heading of a hermencutics of the self. What mode of being, then, belongs to the self, what sort of being or entity is it? In order to divide the difficulty into more manageable portions, and to apply to these the fragmentary method we have continually practiced, let us re turn to the questions proposed in the Introduction.

What mode of being, then, belongs to the self, what sort of being or entity is it? In order to divide the difficulty into more manageable portions, and to apply to these the fragmentary method we have continually practiced, let us re turn to the questions proposed in the Introduction. According to this schema, hermencutics is the site of three interrelated problematics: 1. the indirect approach of reflection through the detour of analysis; 2. the first determination of selfhood by way of its contrast with sameness; 3. the second determination of selfhood by way of its dialectic with otherness.

In order to divide the difficulty into more manageable portions, and to apply to these the fragmentary method we have continually practiced, let us re turn to the questions proposed in the Introduction. According to this schema, hermencutics is the site of three interrelated problematics: 1. the indirect approach of reflection through the detour of analysis; 2. the first determination of selfhood by way of its contrast with sameness; 3. the second determination of selfhood by way of its dialectic with otherness. We were able to give the name of hermencutics to this series, by reason of the exact equivalence between self-interpretation and the unfolding of this triple mediation.

According to this schema, hermencutics is the site of three interrelated problematics: 1. the indirect approach of reflection through the detour of analysis; 2. the first determination of selfhood by way of its contrast with sameness; 3. the second determination of selfhood by way of its dialectic with otherness. We were able to give the name of hermencutics to this series, by reason of the exact equivalence between self-interpretation and the unfolding of this triple mediation. The hierarchization of these three problematics has not served as the guideline for our earlier studies, constructed instead upon a certain poly semy of the question "who?" (who speaks? who acts? who tells his or her story? who is responsible?).

Key Concepts

• This study, more than any of the others, is exploratory in nature. It aims at bringing to light the ontological implications of the earlier investiga tions, placed under the heading of a hermencutics of the self.
• What mode of being, then, belongs to the self, what sort of being or entity is it?
• In order to divide the difficulty into more manageable portions, and to apply to these the fragmentary method we have continually practiced, let us re turn to the questions proposed in the Introduction.
• According to this schema, hermencutics is the site of three interrelated problematics: 1. the indirect approach of reflection through the detour of analysis; 2. the first determination of selfhood by way of its contrast with sameness; 3. the second determination of selfhood by way of its dialectic with otherness.
• We were able to give the name of hermencutics to this series, by reason of the exact equivalence between self-interpretation and the unfolding of this triple mediation.

Context

Opening paragraphs of the Tenth Study, where Ricoeur frames the whole chapter as an ontological deepening of his hermeneutics of the self and re‑introduces the three problematics from the Introduction as the guiding structure for the ontological sketch.