Towards a Hermeneutics of Religion(s).

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-215
Author(s):  
Fedor Stanjevskiy

The objective of this article is to present and analyze some theses advanced in “Lectures 3” by Paul Ricoeur. The book is devoted to the boundaries of philosophy, to non-philosophical sources of philosophy and finally to the other par excellence of philosophy—to religion. The book is composed of a series of essays divided thematically into three parts. The first part deals with Kant's and Hegel's philosophy of religion. Then in the course of the book the author gradually moves away from the philosophical logos (the second part deals with prophets, the problem of evil, the tragic etc) to arrive at a point where recourse to the exegesis of the Bible becomes for him indispensable.

Author(s):  
Juan Pablo Martínez Martínez

A lo largo de la historia de la filosofía, el problema del mal ha sido enfocado o desde un punto de vista moralizante o desde un punto de vista metafísico, que difícilmente puede dar respuesta a la pregunta por el origen del mal radical en el hombre. Partiendo de la distinción entre mal sufrido y mal cometido o mal moral —que establece Paul Ricoeur—, se tratará de mostrar que el mal sufrido realmente no es un mal. Por su parte, la experiencia genuina del mal sufrido que se concreta en la pregunta al aire del justo sufriente nos permitirá, por un lado, deslindar las concepciones de sufrimiento y mal mediante el uso del concepto dolor, y por otro lado, una revisión antropológica del problema del mal, que cuadra perfectamente con la línea de propuesta de Paul Ricoeur, cuya teoría acerca de la experiencia del mal será comentada y ampliada desde un antropología trascendental, no desde una metafísica, ni desde la perspectiva simbólica de Ricoeur.Throughout the history of philosophy the problem of evil has been examined either from a moral or a metaphysical point of view, neither of which can answer the question of the radical origin of evil in human life. By distinguishing between suffered evil and committed or moral evil —a distinction that Paul Ricoeur established— we will try to show that suffered evil is not really an evil. On the one hand, the genuine experience of suffered evil, which takes form in the questions of the just man who suffers, will allow us to make a distinction between suffering and evil through the concept of pain. On the other hand, it will also help us to conduct an anthropologic review of the problem of evil. This approach fits perfectly with Paul Ricoeur’s line of thought, since his theory about the experience of evil will be studied and delved into through a transcendental anthropology, not from a metaphysical approach, and not from Ricoeur’s symbolic perspective.


2020 ◽  
pp. 427-451
Author(s):  
Jarosław Sobkowiak

e concept of the subjectivity of a person presented in this article has shownthat man as a subject appears in constant references and relations in which hisexistence is embedded. On the one hand, it escapes the determinism of nature,on the other hand, it reveals a certain crack between its nature and action. isleads to the conclusion that even if a person is characterised by individuality, itis not a separate existence. It seems justified to return to the question of whatmakes a person, in spite of both external and internal variability; they remain thesame or otherwise what builds and what destroys the subjectivity of the person?e question thus posed reveals the first threat to human subjectivity whichis the fact of the existence of evil. For it is not only something external to manbut also something that makes man both the “place” of the appearance of evil and responsible for evilB8. While staying in Ricoeur’s philosophy characterisedby a dialectical movement one can already see in the language discussing evila threat to certain “deposits of hope” present in his thoughtB<. For the religiouslanguage to which Ricoeur ultimately reduces the problem of evil is the languageof hope and eschatology. Freedom also takes on a new meaning in this context.It is no longer just something that has been enslaved but above all somethingthat is a “desire for the possible.” A possible freedom is the Resurrection. In thisperspective, even evil and suffering can find their ultimate meaning, and thesubjective character of morality does not threaten to fall into subjectivism.Moreover, it is in the name of such subjectivism that morality demands for thesubject this “otherness,” the hope that comes from the Resurrection.


1970 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-160
Author(s):  
Jérôme de Gramont

Every reader of Ricœur knows that hermeneutics endeavors to answer the aporiae of historical phenomenology. Hence arises the need to return to those aporiae and those answers. On the one hand, phenomenology, born with the maxim of going “directly to things themselves,” is confronted with the incessant evasion of the thing itself and with its dreams of presence being thereby shattered. This reversal should not be blamed on the failings of this or that thinker, but attributed to the very destiny of phenomenology itself. On the other hand, Ricœurian hermeneutics takes note of a gap (the very remoteness of the thing itself), and of a necessary return (to the thing of the text). Thus, there is nothing for thought itself to grieve over with respect to this enterprise. However, while the phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty, faced with the same difficulties, orients itself towards political philosophy, the hermeneutics of Ricœur rather seeks to lead us to a philosophy of religion. This article hypothesizes that, in spite of the formula (inherited from Thévenaz) of a “philosophy without an absolute,” the thought of Ricœur heads in fair measure towards the Absolute, and that ontology is not the only name of the Promised Land.


2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc-Antoine Vallée

This paper proposes a presentation and an analysis of the first philosophical writing of Paul Ricœur, on the problem of God in the reflexive philosophies of Lachelier and Lagneau. His principal aim is to situate this first writing in the context of Ricœur’s philosophical work, by underlining his belonging to the french reflexive tradition and his refusing of the absolute idealism of Lachelier and Lagneau. The author insists more precisely on the realistic and personalist thesis of the young Ricœur and on the appearance of the problem of evil in his work.  


Humanities ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 84
Author(s):  
Karl Shankar SenGupta

This essay examines the idea of kenosis and holy folly in the years before, during, and after the Holocaust. The primary focus will be Vasily Grossman’s Life and Fate, though it also will touch upon Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Demons and the ethics of the Lithuanian-Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas, speaking to their intersecting ideas. Dostoevsky, true enough, predates the Shoah, whereas Grossman was a Soviet Jew who served as a journalist (most famously at the Battle of Stalingrad), and Levinas was a soldier in the French army, captured by the Nazis and placed in a POW camp. Each of these writers wrestles with the problem of evil in various ways, Dostoevsky and Levinas as theists—one Christian, the other Jewish—and Grossman as an atheist; yet, despite their differences, there are ever deeper resonances in that all are drawn to the idea of kenosis and the holy fool, and each writer employs variations of this idea in their respective answers to the problem of evil. Each argues, more or less, that evil arises in totalizing utopian thought which reifies individual humans to abstractions—to The Human, and goodness to The Good. Each looks to kenosis as the “antidote” to this utopian reification.


Author(s):  
Peter Addai-Mensah

The existence of God is taken for granted by many believers. God is described as all good and all loving. The Bible tells believers that everything that God created was good and that God was so satisfied with the work of creation that God rested on the seventh day – cf. Gen. 1:31. This statement raises the question of the existence of Evil. Evil is a reality. The existence of Evil raises a lot of philosophical as well as theological questions such as: how can a benevolent God allow God’s people to suffer? Why should an omnipotent God allow Evil to exist?. This article discusses the problem of Evil. It takes a critical look at the different forms of Evil and the havoc that Evil causes. Finally, it examines how the believer in God can respond to the prevalence of Evil in Ghana today.


2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-66
Author(s):  
Josef Řídký

During the past fifty years, a dispute over the nature of historical discourse has taken place with the narrativist approach, arguing for the dominance of narration in history, on the one hand, and professional historians defending historiography's will to tell the truth, on the other. Paul Ricoeur entered the discussion with his work Time and Narrative where he offered an inventive response. According to him, both narration and scientific explication are essential to historical discourse. To support his statement, he introduces terms such as ‘a third time,‘ ‘a quasi-narration’ or ‘a historical consciousness.’ Thus, he shifts attention from narration to time. These terms can prove their usefulness when interpreting historical works. In the rest of the article, we aim to carry out such an interpretation on the example of Landscape and Memory by Simon Schama. In a Ricœurian perspective, Schama's book reveals its deep time significance.


Author(s):  
David P. Barshinger

This chapter describes Jonathan Edwards’s doctrine of sin and evil. It emphasizes the role of the Bible as foundational to his theology while also highlighting his desire to defend the reasonableness of traditional Christian doctrine in light of eighteenth-century intellectual challenges. The chapter explores Edwards’s theodicy in response to the problem of evil—how he sought to absolve God of the charge that he is the author of evil. It describes Edwards’s doctrine of original sin and human depravity, which he explained by defending the universality of sin and the transmission of Adam’s sin to his posterity and in which he developed an innovative metaphysic using occasionalism and continuous creationism. As a pastor, Edwards preached on sin to warn people of punishment, call them to repentance, and emphasize redemption in Christ. The chapter recommends giving greater attention to Edwards’s sermons and pastoral ministry in understanding his view of sin and evil.


Author(s):  
William P. Alston

The philosophy of religion comprises any philosophical discussion of questions arising from religion. This has primarily consisted in the clarification and critical evaluation of fundamental beliefs and concepts from one or another religious tradition. Major issues of concern in the philosophy of religion include arguments for and against the existence of God, problems about the attributes of God, the problem of evil, and the epistemology of religious belief. Of arguments for the existence of God, the most prominent ones can be assigned to four types. First, cosmological arguments, which go back to Plato and Aristotle, explain the existence of the universe by reference to a being on whom all else depends for its existence. Second, teleological arguments seek to explain adaptation in the world, for example, the way organisms have structures adapted to their needs, by positing an intelligent designer of the world. Third, ontological arguments, first introduced by Anselm, focus on the concept of a perfect being and argue that it is incoherent to deny that such a being exists. Finally, moral arguments maintain that objective moral statuses, distinctions or principles presuppose a divine being as the locus of their objectivity. Discussions of the attributes of God have focused on omniscience and omnipotence. These raise various problems, for example, whether complete divine foreknowledge of human actions is compatible with human free will. Moreover, these attributes, together with God’s perfect goodness give rise to the problem of evil. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly good, how can there be wickedness, suffering and other undesirable states of affairs in the world? This problem has been repeatedly discussed from ancient times to the present. The epistemology of religious belief has to do with the questions of what is the proper approach to the assessment of religious belief (for rationality, justification, or whatever) and with the carrying out of such assessments. Much of the discussion has turned on the contrast between the roles of human reason and God’s revelation to us. A variety of views have been held on this. Many, such as Aquinas, have tried to forge a synthesis of the two; Kant and his followers have sought to ground religion solely on reason; others, most notably Kierkegaard, have held that the subjecting of religious belief to rational scrutiny is subversive of true religious faith. Recently, a group of ‘Reformed epistemologists’ (so-called because of the heavy influence of the Reformed theology of Calvin and his followers on their thinking) has attacked ‘evidentialism’ and has argued that religious beliefs can be rationally justified even if one has no reasons or evidence for them.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document