Search

This paper tries to show that there has been an evolution in Paul Ricoeur's concept of testimony and that his first juridical definition is also different from others of the same origin. To determine this point we will compare his definition with C.A.J. Coady's. We will try to explain the motives, implications and limitations of its differences. Then it will be established that in Remembering, history and oblivion, the philosopher leaves the juridical concept of testimony, which main issues are to be a declaration inside a debate, and prefers another one that define it as a dialogical natural institution. Our hypothesis is that this change was not due to phenomenical but contextual causes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]