Ricoeur - Science topic

The field of addiction studies, and more broadly, explanatory models in psychopathology, has been at the center of intense controversies in recent years. I would summarize one of the main situations as follows: proponents of a brain-centered approach struggle to integrate their constructs with those modeling the links between mental content and behavior, largely due to reasons described by phenomenologists (see the exchanges between Ricoeur and Changeux for a discussion, though it remains unresolved). For those advocating for models that attempt to articulate behavioral expression and mental content, the task becomes particularly challenging when it comes to conceptualizing deviations in brain functions in a way that could influence mental content and related behaviors.

What concerns me is that these disputes are becoming ideological, touching on feelings of belonging and professional identity, and often do not unfold peacefully. The situation is all the more worrying because the field of addiction studies suffers from a recurrent problem: There isn't enough clinical substance in these debates = there are not enough experienced clinicians and patients included in the theoretical and methodological development phases of the researchers. By experienced clinicians, I primarily refer to those who have faced the theoretical models taught in psychotherapy, recognized their limitations without becoming disheartened or disengaged, and remained flexible and compassionate professionals. I have met such people in my life—not thousands, but they exist! They have well-mastered psychotherapeutic training, sometimes more than one, but their thinking system is neither rigid nor overly defensive—they make wonderful interlocutors for researchers. Their professional memory is full of well-treated clinical cases whose inspirational value for researchers is considerable. And are there researchers open to interdisciplinary dialogue? They exist as well, even if the frustration with psychopathological models that struggle to provide tangible clinical results makes them somewhat defensive.

Honestly, I wonder what could facilitate a useful interdisciplinary discussion—not just a superficial conversation where viewpoints are politely expressed but without real concrete evolution, but a framework that reduces the risks to each person's ego and fosters the emergence of new ideas, all for the benefit of those with psychopathological difficulties. One approach could be to invite practitioners and researchers to share the questions that remain unanswered in their respective fields—focusing on what they don't know rather than what they do. The exchange would not initially be about sharing established knowledge but rather about discussing the thorny yet central questions. I am referring to the excellent article (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32231315/) written by leading neuroscientists, particularly Box 4, titled "Outstanding questions." In my view, this is a remarkable example of humility and intellectual honesty. Solutions do exist to initiate a genuine dialogue and demonstrate our ability to overcome divisions and conflicts.

In short, I am concerned about ideological stances that give ideas disproportionate weight compared to the data collected. For my part, the time is ripe for reflection, for taking the necessary step back to reconsider clinical and experimental matters we thought were settled—questions of diagnosis, treatment effectiveness, processes of change, and investigation methods. In sum, ideas that we thought were firmly established are being deconstructed, and now is a prime moment to think outside the box. What do you think?

Studies of identity and Otherness

I just started in philosophy and I've chosen to work on the field of language and translation for when I reach my thesis and senior research. I've been reading around and compiled some initial data for a draft I'm making. I have Paul Ricoeur's Hermeneutics of translation where he goes on to explore the hermeneutic model of translation in terms of three main paradigms: linguistic, ontological and ethical, George Steiner's Hermeneutic Motion where he claims that there are four parts of the hermeneutic look at translation (trust, aggression, incorporation, and restitution), and Elizabeth Nield's Translation is A Two-Way Street: A Response to Steiner where she argues that Steiner missed some important elements in his theory (First, Steiner fails to discuss the seductiveness of the text in a theory based on a view of translation as interpretation. Second, Steiner fails to give suffecient weight the personal nature of the interpretifve act itself. And, Steiner fails to discuss the moment of encoding - the moment of writing - which for many theorists is the whole translation.)

I keep on looking for the hermeneutic motion's threefold problem that George Steiner is criticizing in his Hermeneutic Motion but I can't seem to find any. I, also, have yet to conclude whether he is talking about Ricoeur's hermeneutic model of translation in terms of three main paradigms or something else. If he is, in fact, talking about Ricoeur's theory, then should I be doing a paper on steiner attacking Ricouer's paper and use Nield's arguments against steiner?

My problem is that I can't decide how to proceed on the field of philosophy and translation. I am still confused on what problem I should be answering and focusing on. I just need some insights and recommendations on how to proceed.

can you say that the revelation is the source of ethics for Levinas and Ricoeur? Can you discribe the main similarity and the main difference? 

Ricoeur in "soi-même comme un autre" critices in some way the excess of the responsability as it is presented in Levinas books as "totality and infinity" or "Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence" proposing the concept of "sollicitude" (or care) as benevolence that includes reciprocity. Do you think that there is a way of conciliation of both concept? 

Responsibility (Arendt, Lévinas, Jonas)

"Sollicitude" (Ricoeur)