Paul Ricoeur’s Philosophy and Theology. Essay

Paul Ricoeur was born to a devout Protestant family and grew up with his aunt since he was two years of age. Because his mother died and his father was killed during the World War I, he grew up as an orphan in a small remuneration afforded to him by the government as a war orphan. He was a bookish and an exceptional student during his time; his family’s influence brought him up with Protestant faith. He studied philosophy at Sourbonne and got influence from Gabriel Marcel. During World War I, he served the French army in 1939, became prisoner of war in Germany for five years. During his stay at the camp, he met other intellectuals like Mikel Dufrenne and read a lot about Karl Jaspers who was to have a great influence on him. After the war, he continued his studies and in 1950, he received his doctorate degree. He was given opportunity to work as the Chair of General Philosophy in his alma mater in 1956; from there he began his work as a prolific writer sharing his philosophy and theology. Throughout his life, he was known and respected as one of the most impressive philosophers of the 20th century. Every event in his life has contributed to what he believed in. His Christian belief was influenced by his family; his philosophical view was influences of people he met, he talk, and read. He is a well-known Christian philosopher yet, his writings were appreciated by both non-Christian and Christian. Paul’s Ricoeur’s Philosophy Ricoeur’s philosophical is central to the meaning of life and self. Recoeur’s philosophy is based on the two questions about the self. These questions answers are about the identity of the self and how should it live. Recoeur viewed self hood as inter-subjective capacity for agency and self self-ascription, and anybody can acquire. It means that self as an agency, and self-ascription. However, in his exploration of the issue, he discussed the philosophical thinking in five aspects namely: hermeneutic philosophy, post-Hegelian-Kantian methodology, narrative theory, philosophy of the self, and a moral-political philosophy. Hermeneutics is defined as a system through which a certain belief is interpreted using a specific theory and method for interpretation. Paul’s hermeneutics philosophy according to Paul Ricceur and Richard Keamey is of twofold source of reflection: the hermeneutics of testimony and the hermeneutics of the self. In their explanation, Paul had come up with a thesis, which concludes that testimony must give something to be interpreted as in history, and this testimony will be the object of interpretation. The hermeneutics of self on the other hand pertains to the role in which attestation has to play. David Kaplan in his article explained that hermeneutics for Ricoeur is interpretation of knowledge through its signs, symbols, and texts; it is interpretation of human works and actions. The Post-Hegelian Kantian philosophy on the other hand, is mediation for Ricoeur in such a way that it is combining two different views. Ricoeur accepted Kant’s claim that ideas of morality and history is understandable, and that it has universal validity because of its theoretical and practical reasons. Hegel on the other hand, viewed evil in the world as the â€Å"cunning of reason† as helpful for man in realizing a reality. Thus, post-Hegelian Kantian means that expectation is a hope for a humanity belonging to a history, which as a whole is a collective singular. This vision of history is the foundation of ethics and laws in Kant. This implies that Ricoeur acknowledges the concept of totality as long as its scope of reflection is limited to universal rationality (or history). He is actually recognizing that any differences could be regarded as related as in plurality of voices (or idea) yet, reasons behind could be recognized when philosophy tries to find it. Ricoeur’s thesis in Time and Narrative presents that human experience and narration exist. Through hermeneutics, one can easily interpret human experience because it has narration or plot. Narration theory therefore, is telling, writing, and understanding of fictional stories, as Kaplan explained. Narration or plot according to Wall, Schweiker and Hall is an integration of philosophy of action and philosophy of language into a synthesis. By means of this integration, a production of narration is come alive through voluntary and involuntary human actions, its symbolic language, and conflicts, which are to be interpreted through hermeneutics methods linking the time and history. The Philosophy of Self or Philosophy of subjectivity is an attempt anyone can do to elucidate the meaning of man’s existence. Ricceur and Kearney explicate Ricoeur’s hermeneutics of self into the sovereign self and the destructive self. The sovereign self according to them represents the idea in its meaning in the modern philosophy, which pervades modern culture and develops the self-image of people in the modern society. The deconstructive self on the other hand presents self as pure extensionless, consciousness, already established in being. Self therefore has the capability of combining knowledge, and it is vulnerable for it seeks certainty and security. At this point, will and reason are very important to human for they are the instruments for self-preservation and self-advancement. Signs and symbols and human experience are essential for man to interpret the meaning of their existence. Moral Philosophy for Ricoeur emphasizes that human being is capable of affirming the limits of one’s own moral perspective and embracing God’s critical transformative power. Being a Bible believer, he believed that everyone has moral responsibility, which accounts directly to moral value. Wall Schweiker and Hall noted that these moral values could be deeply explored from distinctive theological and hermeneutical perspective as what Ricoeur tried to point out. The issue of moral thought or moral responsibility in the study of Ricoeur’s philosophy offers important remedy to present ethical situations or problems. Moral ethics is an expression of human capability though fallible man yet has the ability to embody moral values through the power of God by simply being humble enough to acknowledge weaknesses. Paul Ricoeur’s Theology According to Julisn F. Woods, Paul Recoeur approaches theology by asking questions such as: â€Å"Where is freedom? Or does le coincide with the discovery and understanding of an inner necessity deeper than choice and kind of autonomy? In a word, does the highest degree of freedom consist in the surging up of an absolute power of choosing or in the love fate? † These questions prelude Ricoeur’s ethical approach and hermeneutical approach to theology. Recoeur consider theology and philosophy to be distinct in terms of their contents. He sees theology as hermeneutical, which provides cross-disciplinary, cross-traditional conversational quest for truth. Recoeur was particularly interested in Biblical exegeses and has written an essay in collaboration with other New Testament scholars. He adopted Boltmanian tradition engaging in historical criticism while also affirming the breadth of Biblical genres. In the essay entitled â€Å"Ethics and Considerations on the Golden Rule† Recoeur cited that Christian Ethics or communal ethics in religious perspectives, as he calls it, consist in the tension between unilateral love and bilateral justice, and in mutual interpretation of each of these in terms of the other. According to Mark Wallace, Recoeur’s religious thought that as one attempts to interpret the Bible, it actually begins with the risk of understanding biblical language including symbols and signs. Recoeur himself stated that interpretation of the Bible should be in accordance with testimonies of the witnesses particularly the Jewish community. He regarded that the Christian message is meaningful and is worthy of consideration, and that examining it will it self very fully. For Ricoeur, the God of the Bible cannot be theoretically proven as a staple of reason or as a fact alongside other facts in our empirical experience. He believes that Gods existence cannot be proven by any natural theology that necessitates thought or the knowledge of empirical objects. Wallace pointed out that Recoeur relies on signs, not on proofs in interpretation of the language. Recoeur believed that pertaining to scripture language it relies on the signs and traces of a reality testified to at the horizon of philosophical reflection that demands to be interpreted and understood. In the argument of language interpretations, Ricoeur balances it against the possibility of error in the testimony of the witnessing community and regard it a risk that would result in false testimony. Wallace noted that the risk must be taken because the stakes are so high. Therefore, Ricoeur believed in the truthfulness of the Bible being the ultimate source of God’s words. Interpretation of it should undergo hermeneutical approach based on history by knowing underlying concepts suggested in symbols, signs and text. For Ricoeur, the stakes is the possibility of Biblical language being a faithful trace of God’s presence in the Jewish and Christian communities. He believed that the knowledge of the absolute is never given in an absolute sense but only relative to the contingent and fallible signs that the divine life gives of itself in its generosity. Ricoeur agreed that religion deals with man’s ultimate concern and that the New Testament calls to be Christ like, is the counterpart of the mandated self of the Hebrew Bible.