Introduction.....................................1
The need for clarity.............................1
A brief biography of Paul Ricoeur...............2
The symbols of evil by Paul Ricoeur..............3
An overview of the four myths by Paul Ricouer....4
The myths in Paul Ricouer........................4
Hermeneutic phenomenology, a proper measure in addresssing the question of evil..5
Conclusion.......................................6
THE HERMENEUTIC APROACH TO THE QUESTION OF EVIL IN THE LIGHT OF PAUL RICOEUR
INTRODUCTION
The concept of evil and its problem in philosophy has long ago been an issue of serious concern.
However, a lot of approach towards it has not totally been fruitful and has not been able to obtain an optimal universal credential. This is true owing to the fact that most academic works only claim to offer a proper guide to the concept of evil, but at the end one comes to the realization that little or nothing is being said about the problem in question thereby leaving one hopeless and unfulfilled. The controversial nature of evil in the world is made manifest in I. Kant in his "Radical evil" that the world lieth in evil, is a plaint as old as history, old even as the oldest art, poetry, indeed, as old as that oldest of all fictions, the Religion of priest-craft1. The above, in a certain respect, holds our existence as simultaneous with evil and therefore any attempt towards it could only produce dicey hope and vain actualization.
Although the center of this thesis is not on Kant but I intended to have a view about Kant's Radical evil owing to its great contribution towards attaining a clear and convincing analogy of the problem of evil.
Kant, however continues to affirm in his radical evil, that evil is possibly found in human nature and of great importance here is on moral evil which is solely dependent on our own actions and an act against good results to evil 2. These views of Kant, however has been expanded, and details about it has been made know in his radical evil which affirms that we as beings have the predisposition and orientation towards evil.
The work is an investigation of Paul Ricoeur's dimension of investigating the problem of theodicy and relevant solutions there in . In the cause of this thesis, the indisputable facts in Paul Rico essay on evil, a challenge to philosophy and theology shall be enumerated while the disputable statements I shall illustrate on.
In This work I shall give an overview of Paul's approach to the problem of evil, giving an insight on the essay of his "Evil. A challenge to philosophy and theology. Then I shall conclude by analyzing Paul's Hermeneutic understanding of evil as that which should be applicable to our being and history.
THE NEED FOR CLARITY
In philosophy as well as in theology, there has continued to be an intense quest for a proper definition of concepts, as this in a very great way ensures more clarity and enables us not to run into impending controversies and contradiction . Concepts are most times used differently with a different intention and a different meaning intended to communicate. The importance of proper definition of concepts 1 Emil L. Fackheim, The God Within: Kant, Schelling and historicity, ed. by john W. Burbidge (Toronto Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1996), p.26.
2 Ibid.
mostly philosophical concepts, has always been immanent in philosophy from the ancient philosophical time till the contemporary era. One of such instances is that of Socratic dialectics made manifest especially in the Theaetetus which centered on the definition of knowledge (The Theaetetus of Plato, 1990)
It is the drive to know and define a thing that triggers me to look for a succinct definition or elaboration of this concept evil, which will give further an enabling scenario to talk more about it with further insights. In this case I still ponder on the possibility of giving a unitary definition which is wholly encompassing without an exclusion of any form of evil in its minimal degree. I strongly hold on to the fact that a solution to the problem of evil could be solved to a greater extent if there is clarity of what evil is. The relationship between evil and sin, death and suffering should not and does not lie in the use of these concepts for the same meaning while trying to specify on evil, Paul Ricoeur has the affirmation that "the whole enigma of evil may be said to lie in the fact that at least in the traditions of the west, we put under the same terms such different phenomena as sin , suffering and death3. These concepts though are used in the same respect at different intervals do not connote the same meaning, instead belong to different categories. Evil as suffering goes in hand with Lament which is an outburst of an affliction that has befallen one, and as evil wrongdoing or sin goes along with blame. These two concepts blame and lament were used to drown the sharp distinction between suffering and sin. Paul Ricoeur affirms that "Lament occurs as the opposite of blame; where as blame make culprits of us , Lament reveals us as victims "4
The polarity of blame and lament as emphasized by Paul Ricoeur is a fact, because they both produce an unequal physical effects as well as their opposite manifestations. However he further illustrates that the
"competences of evil lie both on the evil done and on the evil suffered since most cases of suffering results from the evil humans do to others."5 It is a also pertinent to point out that cases of natural evil volcanos and earth quakes abounds which does not result from what a human being has done to the other person.
In order to arrive at a clear description of this concept evil and how best to solve its problems that presses hard on philosophy and theology lets see the view of Paul Ricoeur Right from his bio-data.
A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF PAUL RICOEUR
Paul Ricoeur lived from 1913-2005. He was born precisely on the 17th February 1913 and died 20th may 2005. Born into a protestant family in France, he host his father in the world war I of 1915. With this he was left to his grandparents and his aunt. His intellectual pursuit was greatly influenced by his family who held more emphasis on the study of the bible. He first studied at he university of Rennes and later 3 Paul Ricoeur & David Pallauer, 'Evil: A challenge to Philosophy and Theology ' , journal of American Academy of Religion, vol 53, No.4 635 648 (1985), p.636.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid., p.36.
the university of Sorbonne where he was greatly influenced by Gabriel Marcel. He later joined the French Army in the world war II and this affected the pursuit of his carrier*
He wrote many works that covered a wide range of issues. To mention a few of such works, I would like to enumerate starting with his first work freedom and nature. The voluntary and the Involuntary (1950, Eng. trans. 1966) The fallible man (1960, Eng. trans. 1967) and symbolism of evil (1960, Eng. trans. 1970): These works and many others are the results of his philosophical approach to philosophy.
The central message in most of his texts were deeply rooted in philosophical anthropology. Concerning this particular anthropology, he arrived at the name "capable human being" which has the aim of giving an account of the fundamental capabilities and vulnerabilities that human beings display in the activities that make up their lives. He rejects the fact of self-mastery which for him can only be achieve in relation to the world.
THE SYSMBOLS OF EVIL BY PAUL RICOEUR
Symbols were of great interest in the phenomenology, adopted by Paul Ricoeur and this he made manifest in his work, the "The symbolism of evil". The symbolism of evil from the perspective of Paul, launched an entrance into the phenomenology of symbol which shows that meaning of concepts are not based on intuitive possession but mediated by symbols. In dealing with the question of evil, he adopted the four myths which by interpretation, mediate the experiences of evil, that cant be easily grasped by rationality. His move and intention is to show the transition from fallibility to falleness, possibility of evil to the affirmation and admission of evil. In quest for who and from where emanates evil, Paul Ricoeur demonstrated how the anthropological account of sin and guilt have put human agency as the originator of evil. Where archaic notes of "defilement" saw evil as a contaminating force added to the soul form outside, the more ethical notion of "guilt" attributes evil to our own misuse of freedom. Here ethical notion enables the guilty to recognize its own "servile will". Instead of blaming or scapegoating others it takes responsibility for it self as a "bad choice that binds itself (c.f The Symbolism of Evil, Beacon press 1967 p.156).
The approach of Ricoeur I believe is unique owing to its trace of the origin of evil in relation to the foundational myths whereby western culture sought to communicate its first experience of good and evil. Myths are understood as symbols developed in the form of narration and articulated in a time and space of history and geography.
Paul's unique approach is observable in his Hermeneutic approach to the problem of evil. He held a paradigm shift from Husserl's phenomenology methods and his quest to arrive at a philosophy that does not include presuppositions. According to Ricoeur, his approach to the question of evil recognizes the existence of symbols prior to intuition and these symbols trigger thoughts and provokes us to reflect for deep meanings of the symbols. He affirms that "It is by beginning with a symbolism already there that we give ourselves something to think about. (Cf. The symbolism of evil, Routledge, London and N.Y 2003
p.19).
AN OVERVIEW OF THE FOUR MYTHS BY PAUL RICOUER
Paul Ricoeur has always been remarked for approaching the concept of evil from a unique, speculative and concise dimension. His critique of limiting theodicy to the mercy of coherence followed his trifold attempt at a better speculation of the problem of evil. This trifold approaches are "firstly to get scope of the problem, with the help of a phenomenology of experience, secondly to transverse the levels of discourse taken by speculation on the origin of evil and theodicy to reconnect the work of thinking, arising out of the enigma of evil."6
Among the prominent works of Paul Ricoeur is "The symbols of evil in which he gave a clear description of evil as a universal concept (universality of evil) and distinct ways in which each culture hiave attempted to come in touch with this universal concept (evil). By interpretation, each person had his own expression of guilt and or sin but every culture as its own "unique or elementary symbol" in narrating the experience of fault. In Paul Ricoeur these primary symbols are first made manifest and summarized in myth which has later as its product philosophical speculation and logical explanation.
These symbols are thought provoking in the light of Paul and are enlightening too owning to the fact that they contain unique doctrines (cf. The symbolism of evil, Beacon edition Boston 1967, Back page).
THE MYTHS IN PAUL RICOEUR
Myth is an issue of great interest and concern in the work of Paul as made manifest in his levels of discourse in the speculation of evil. Paul asserts that "Myth constitutes the first major transition from experience to language in several ways. By telling how the world began, a myth tells how the human condition came about as something generally wretched and miserable . But myth's function of providing order, thanks to its cosmological import, has a s its corrective and corollary."7 The indispensability of myth in a discourse such as evil cannot be overlooked owing to its ability to look at things from the beginning.
However for proper clarity, Paul defines a myth as that which is "not a false explanation of images and fables, but a traditional narration which relates to events that happened at the beginning of time and which has the purpose of providing grounds for the ritual action of men of today and in a general manner, establishing all the forms of action and thought by which man understands himself in his world."8 Bellow are the four mystical representation concerning the response to the questions why is there evil ? and how can evil be gotten rid of ? (origin and end of evil).
6 Paul Ricouer & David Pallauer, Evil: A Challenge to Philosophy and Theology, journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol.53, No4 (1985), p. 636.
7 Paul Ricoeur & David Pallauer, Evil: A challenge to Philosophy and Theology, journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol.53, No.4 (1985), p. 637.
8 Paul Ricoeur, The symbolism of evil, trans. by Emerson Buchanan (N.Y: Harper and Row, 1967), p. 172.
1) Creation myth:
The creation myth as seen in Paul Ricoeur posits a dual view of good and evil in conflict with each other.
Here evil is seen as that which has been from the beginning and is in constant struggle with the good 3The end of evil is found in the fact that the creative act starts a process of setting things in roles as seen in the Mesopotamian creation narrative.
2)The tragic myth
The origin of evil here is traced to the divine who leads humanity into evil unjustifiably. The case of job associates the divine with evil. God is absolutely good and powerful, and he treats people in a fair and just manner, yet job who was innocent had to suffer greatly. Here there is no end of evil except for the purging of emotions or sympathy the audience feels for the suffer. The Greek tragedy is an example of this case
3) Adamic myth
This type of myth is anthropological as it pertains to man, and the ancestors of the human race as the originators of evil. For the end of evils, a second process other than creation is instituted eschatologically to extinguish this evil an instance this is the creation story.
4)Orphic myth
Here evil is traced to have emerged from the coming together of the body and the soul. The bodiless soul is exiled into a body and this causes the soul to be evil. To bring an end of evil here, is to liberate the soul from the body, and this could only be done in a strict Neoplatonism.
For the four myths ( cf. THE Symbolism of evil, Harper and Row 1967, p.175-305) HERMENEUTIC PHENOMENOLOGY, A PROPER MEASURE IN ADDRESSING THE QUESTION OF EVIL
These concepts phenomenology and Hermeneutic phenomenology, had been of great importance in philosophy as well as theology in discussing troubling and re-curing concepts and can never be neglected as far as the cosmos still remains. Phenomenology is dated back to Edmund Husserl (1859-1958) who not withstanding that he never coined the word phenomenology, was acclaimed as the father of the philosophical movement known as phenomenology. Phenomenology as an attempt to describe experiences without metaphysical speculation holds on that only by suspending the natural attitude could philosophy become its own distinctive science. It excludes empirical things while owing much more attention and affirmation to consciousness. One of the most important method applied by phenomenology is the "phenomenological epoche" which entails the need to return to the things themselves, and bracketing out the real, and the things in themselves as unknowable. Unlike the transcendental phenomenology of Husserl, Paul Ricoeur developed a rather more elaborate perspective which is tensive still. With his unique style be held an extensive approach to phenomenon from outside 5
the concept by gathering other related concepts in order to arrive at a perfect solid descriptive a solution of phenomenological problems. His Hermeneutic method has been outstanding towards solving the question of evil which has continued to linger in philosophical and theological debates.9 ( cf internet encyclopedia of philosophy www.iep.utm.edu/Husserl/
Heidegger and Paul Ricoeur as the foremost representatives maintain that phenomenology becomes Hermeneutic when its method is taken to be interpretative rather than descriptive. It is this interpretative approach which Paul Ricoeur adopted, that made him an outstanding figure in the evil question. To assure soundness in dealing with certain essential issues like the concept of evil, we need to return to the centrality of the human person in the search for truth and wisdom. Science cannot offer us all the answers we require for life's troubling issues. Hermeneutic gives a very due importance to the full breath of human inquiry in a fully human manner. Ricoeurs firmness on Hermeneutic phenomenology is made manifest in his adoption of a method he called "rational dialectic" and he later described the dialectic as "a relative moment in a complex process called interpretation. It is pertinent to note that the Hermeneutic approach of Ricoeur was helpful in addressing the concept of evil but we shouldn't fail to admit its impasse (not giving a final solution to the problem in question) It is a fact that a lot of philosophers and non-philosophers as well do not take cognizance of the meaning of symbols and the need to give a sound interpretation of these symbols in addressing most troubling philosophical issues. This is a proper way forward towards solving the ever troubling issues in philosophy most significantly the problem of evil. ( Dr. Johanna de Groot, the importance of Hermeneutics 2008) Symbolic hermeneutics recuperates in addition the principal sacred symbols (hierophanies) that modern humans have forgotten but whose meaning is at the base of our language and thought. Ricoeur in relation to this observes that "In this epoch our language becomes more precise, more univocal, more technical, in a word, more apt for integral formalizations, which are called precisely symbolic logic. It is within this discursive epoch that we wish to place our language from which we propose to depart again toward a full language"10
9 James Fieser & Bradley Dowden, 'Husserl's phenomenology', in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
<http://www.iep.utm.edu/Husserl/> [consulted on 11/01/2015]
10 Paul Ricoeur, Philosophie de la volonté. Finitude et culpabilité ii. La symboliques du mal, ( Aubier paris, 1960), p.
481.
CONCLUSION
Hermeneutic phenomenology and symbolic hermeneutics as explicit in Paul Ricoeur becomes a comprehensive discourse that illuminates for us not only an Archaic cultural universe, but also part of our own mode of existence and exercise.
The symbolic Hermeneutics, opens wide an extended scope of seeing reality and going to the symbols in order to draw meanings from them. At this point I wish to emphasis that the hermeneutic approach which Paul adopted, gives a very unique dimension in the question of evil by a sound interpretation of the myths which are the initial steps of expression.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fackheim, Emil L., The God Within: Kant, Schelling and historicity, ed. by john W. Burbidge (Toronto Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1996).
James Fieser & Bradley Dowden, 'Husserl's phenomenology' , in encyclopedia of philosophy
< http://www.iep.utm.edu/Husserl/> [consulted on 11/01/2015]
Ricoeur, Paul, Philosophie de la volonté. Finitude et culpabilité ii. La symboliques du mal, ( Aubier paris, 1960).
――, The symbolism of evil, trans. by Emerson Buchanan (N.Y: Harper and Row, 1967).
Ricoeur, Paul & David Pallauer, 'Evil: A challenge to Philosophy and Theology ' , journal of American Academy of Religion, vol 53, No.4 (1985).