the capable human being according to paul ricoeur
TRANSCRIPT
THE CAPABLE HUMAN BEING ACCORDING TO PAUL RICOEUR
__________________
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of Philosophy
University of Santo Tomas
__________________
In Partial Fulfillment
to the Requirements for the Degree
A.B. Philosophy
__________________
By
Sem. Ervin Ray S. Garcia
January 2011
Acknowledgements
“To think is to thank…”
Words are not enough to express my sincerest and profoundest gratitude and appreciation to the following wonderful people who, in one way or the other, have extended their valuable assistance and kindest understanding to make this endeavor possible.
To our Dean, Rev. Dr. Norberto M. Castillo, OP for the valuable advice and guidance given to me as a student of the Ecclesiastical Faculties, Faculty of Philosophy. Thank you po Father!
To the UST Ecclesiastical Faculties Staff: Sir Joel, Kuya Ghie, Kuya Mike, Ma’am Cecile, and the rest, thank you for the support and patience you have given me.
To my formators in the seminary, Rev. Fr. Reynante B. Balilo, OSA; and Rev. Fr. J. William D. Araña, OSA for all the warm welcome and accommodation given to me, and for all the guidance they have given me in my seminary formation. Muchas Gracias!
To my Augustinian brothers, indeed there was never a dull moment with you. Thank you for all the joy, laughter, and fun. Indeed, these are worthy of remembering. Maraming salamat po!
To my original batch mates at the UST Central Seminary: Paul, Ray Anselmo, and Mark; to my Benedictine best friend Kart (Dom. Leander), thank you
for all the good memories that we have shared together. You will always be my batch mates
To my Cabalen, Prince Tan for allowing me to use his thesis as a guide. It has truly been a great help. Dacal a salamat Kapatad!
To the members of the Vocation Committee of Saint James the Apostle’s Parish in Betis who supported me in prayers. Dacal pung salamat!
To Ador, Kong Marlon, Ate Lai, thank you for all the moral and spiritual support; and to all my prayer warriors especially Arni and Tintin who unceasingly pray for me. Thank you very much! You will also be in my prayers.
To my Parish Priests, Rev. Fr. Emil Dizon and Rev. Msgr. Cenovio Lumanog for their moral support. Dakal pung salamat, Among!
To all my spiritual and financial benefactors, most especially to Auntie Alma S. Twaño, my forever thanks. May the good Lord bless you abundantly for your generosity and kind hearts. Thank you po!
To my fellow seminarians in Guagua who supported me in some ways: Kong Nitoy, Keith, Jolo, CJ, Jerome, and Patrick. Thank you so much!
To my fellow Betis Seminarians: Kong Ferdie, Kong Rolly, Kiko, Philip, and to my “wale” Luis and Elwin. Heartfelt thanks for the brotherhood and camaraderie.
To Mr. Antonio Pangilinan for those valuable advice and insights, and for introducing me to Dr. Leo. Without him, I would have been at a total lost. Muchas Gracias Señor!
To my professor and thesis consultant, Mr. Manuel H. David for the time and support. You will always be remembered. Danke Schon!
To my thesis adviser, Dr. Leovino Ma. Garcia for his unreluctant support, patience, and kindness. Thank you Doc for treating me more than an advisee could ever ask for. You are truly a Ricoeurian. Merci beaucoup!
To my dear Archbishop of San Fernando, Pampanga, Most Rev. Paciano B. Aniceto, DD for his never-ending support in nourishing my vocation to the priesthood. Dacal pung salamat, Apu Ceto!
To my loving and caring family: my Mom and Dad, Jon and Jen, Chela and my nephews, and to my brother Andrew, I really can’t find the right words to thank you for all the love, care, support, understanding, and inspiration you are giving me all these years. God knows how I truly am grateful for having you all. Indeed, I truly am blessed with you. To all my relatives and friends, and to all those who are inadvertently missed out, my apologies. Maraming salamat po! You will always be in my heart and in my prayers.
To God the Most High, the Absolute and Perfect Being, nothing is impossible. This is for Your glory – Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!
Dedication
To my Family especially
to my Dad and to my Mom…
And in the memory of
Inang,
Uncle Doc,
& Uncle Mon
…this is heartily and lovingly dedicated.
Abstract
Philosophical anthropology is the philosophical discipline that inquires into the
essence of human nature and the human condition. To answer the question of human
nature, this discipline seeks to unify or critique philosophically the different scientific
methods and humanistic approaches used in this enquiry. Most of the thinkers in the
history of philosophy have their own distinctive way or method of understanding
human nature. However, philosophical anthropology emerged as a product of the new
methods and approaches in philosophy developed recently in the context of the late
modern period where these methods and approaches interact with the progress of
natural and human sciences.
To understand the essential points of philosophical anthropology regarding
the nature of human being, we must consider the two basic questions: “What is a
human being?” and “Who am I?” The first question is what traditional philosophy
asked; various answers were given, but the best known philosophical definition
remains the one formulated by Aristotle; that of the human being as a “rational
animal”.
Similar scientific methodologies applied to the humanities emerged due to
the development of the natural sciences in the modern period. This brought the
different ways and approaches of distinct disciplines on the question of the nature of
the human being. First, in the case of the Darwinian theory of evolution, the nature of
the human being is explained on the bases of biological forces. Second, in the case of
Karl Marx, the essence of the human being is explained primarily through economic,
social, and political forces. Third, the theories of Sigmund Freud explain human
nature through psychological forces. Similarly, history and sociology seek to explain
the cultural and environmental conditions shaping individuals into a kind of being.
But some of these theories are limited in explaining only the cultural context of the
human being. To try to explain the nature of the human being with these different
disciplines and scientific methods is highly complex. The development of
contemporary phenomenology shows how the question of the essence of the human
nature remains problematic. Thus, phenomenology prefers to answer this question
through lived or concrete experiences.
In phenomenology, concrete descriptive accounts of the different kinds of
experiences are offered by the philosopher so that the essential features or aspects are
attained, including both the limitations and the possibilities of the human
being. Existential phenomenology, in particular opens the question by probing into
the essence of the human being from the angle of “Who am I?” In this enquiry,
deeper aspects of the human being are disclosed by exploring the question
subjectively, where unique experiences of the human being are brought to light. In
this way, possible modes of being human in terms of capabilities are disclosed.
Chapter One
The Capable Human Being according to Paul Ricoeur
“Man is the measure of all things!”
-Protagoras
Introduction
Background of the Study
What is a human being? What is it that makes us human? Being a
Filipino, we are very much familiar with the saying, “Madaling maging tao,
ngunit mahirap magpakatao.” It is easy to be human but more difficult to
become a truly human being. To act in a very human manner, we should
know first our limitations. To become fully human, we should know ourselves.
Socrates’ dictum “Gnothi Seauton!” or “Know Thyself!” became known and
popular during his time and even in our present era. In order for us then to
understand the essence of our humanity, we should first know ourselves.
Among the philosophers who first asked the question about the human
being was Socrates (as cited in Festin, 2006, p.4). He focused on the
question of human being, his ultimate reality and essence; unlike the
naturalists who concerned themselves with the problem of the principle and of
the “physis” of things. According to him:
“Man is his soul. It is his soul that distinguishes him from other things. By soul, it is the reason and the seat of our intellectual and ethical activities. The soul is the conscious “I” or the consciousness, and the intellectual and moral personality.”
Human Being uses his body as if it were a mere instrument. The body
is always at the service of the soul that is man himself. Plato (as cited in
Festin, 2006, p.4) however introduced a dualistic conception of human being.
The main reason is that the body is understood not as a receptacle but as a
“tomb” or “prison” of the soul, or as the place of the soul’s expiation.
On a different perspective, Aristotle (ibid, p.6) introduces us to an
entirely new approach to the problem of human being. Great importance is
given to the reality of the soul. He believes that human being can only be
understood in relation to his psychology associated with the “psuche” or the
soul. Man’s intellective psuche is then the principle. This principle is not just
of intellective activities, but also of vegetative and animal activities. Human
Being has only one psuche which reflects and explains all the activities that
man does and exhibits.
Saint Augustine (ibid, p.10) however could not avoid understanding the
reality of being human in accordance with Christian doctrine. He states that
Human Being is an image of the Trinitarian God (ibid, p.10). It is important
that the manner in which Human Being mirrors the mystery of the Holy Trinity
be explained. His magisterium with regards to human’s body and soul is
much influenced by the principles and doctrine of his Christian faith (as cited
in Festin, 2006, p.10), such as the belief in the resurrection of the body and
the fundamental truth about Jesus Christ, the Son of God who became man
through his incarnation. Saint Augustine also believes that the interior human
being is the image of the Trinity that in order to find God, human does not
need to investigate the world, but simply dig deeper into the core of his being.
Being an intellective being, man does not only seek to discover and
explore the thing around him; he also asks questions about himself since he is
capable of self-reflection. He is not only the subject of his activity, but also the
object of his cognitive curiosity. As Saint Thomas Aquinas (ibid, p.11) said,
“The human being is both the material object and the formal object of his self-
knowledge.”
The influence of Aristotle’s philosophy is apparently manifested in St.
Thomas Aquinas’s anthropological thoughts. This influence is clearly
reflected in the way the latter perceives man’s body and soul, where man is
not only seen as a psuche or anima, but as a total composition of both body
and soul. The human being has a single soul which accounts for all the
activities he is capable of doing. As a Human Being, man exists and acts
because of his human form, the basis of his being a human. This then
explains that man’s soul is not representative of who he is. Aquinas views
that Human Being is by nature a composite being since there are two (2)
principles that compose his being.
Pico della Mirandola (as cited in Festin, 2006, p.16) stresses that
human being stands unique among all other creatures for having been
endowed with the highest intellect which enables him to reason out. This
uniqueness of intellect also enables him to decide what and who he wants to
become. His being therefore is not decided by a pre-determined nature, but
according to some pre-chosen forms. He becomes what and who he wants to
be depending on the choices he has to make. Human Being is therefore the
creator of being, and that is where the miracle and his greatness lie - Magnum
miraculum est homo - man is a great miracle.
Pietro Pomponazzi (ibid, p. 16) stressed that human being is a
microcosm in which the entire universe is reflected. Human Being may be a
small part of the universe. However, as a composite being, the human soul
occupies a very important aspect in the hierarchy of being, and thus,
considered divine.
Human as an inquisitive being, he investigates practically almost about
everything surrounding him. Among all other creatures, he clearly
understands realities other than himself. This quality makes human unique
from all other beings. As stated by Jean Paul Sartre (ibid, p.1), man’s being is
not just an ‘en-soi’ (a being in itself), but a ‘pour soi’ (a being for itself); a being
that tends to go outside of itself. He now becomes a “supposit” being, a being
for others, a person for.
Philosophical Anthropology asks the fundamental question about
human existence. The object of its study is the essence of being human. It
responds to the question, “What does it mean to become human?” In this
study, the researcher aims to find out the meaning of the Capable Human
Being according to Paul Ricoeur.
Philosophical anthropology was developed by Paul Ricoeur through a
dialectical hermeneutics by combining the phenomenological approach with
different empirical or scientific methods. This is brought about by Ricoeur’s
skepticism that one’s philosophy, science or method could be used as a way
to cover different essential characteristics or conditions of the person. That
different disciplines could be brought to allow new and unexplored aspects of
the person to emerge through some preferred methodology. This, for Ricoeur
is merely phenomenological, different from what may actually be real or true
about the person. Ricoeur points out that these methods could not be
reduced to one universal or “supra-method” that will surpass all other
methods. For this reason, understanding of the human being, although
progressing, would always remain limited or finite. However, Ricoeur and
other philosophers considered that literature and the arts provide essential
insights about human nature and its capacities.
Ricoeur brought out the capacities of Capable Human Being - the basic
powers that found our humanity. These are the capacity to speak (the ability
to produce a reasoned discourse); the capacity to act (the power to produce
events in society and in nature); the capacity to narrate or the power to tell
stories that reveal to us the hidden possibilities of our life; the capacity to be
responsible for our actions; the capacity to promise (the capacity to keep
one’s word); the capacity to forgive (the power to address a liberating word to
the Other) and the capacity to experience a “happy memory,” with just enough
remembering and just enough forgetting. The Capable Human Being does not
only have the capacities to speak, to act, to narrate, to feel responsible. S/he
also has the capacity to experience a happy memory. (Garcia, 2010, pp. 2-3).
Academic Interest
Although there are other academic disciplines like sociology, cultural
anthropology, and history that deal with the understanding of the human
being, this study focuses on the philosophical aspects of the human being that
may contribute to our clear understanding of it. Through this, the limitations
and possibilities of being human may be brought out, and eventually be fully
understood.
Theoretical Framework
In this study, the researcher uses the Hermeneutical approach as the
theoretical framework. This involves analysis, interpretation, and discussion
of certain texts of Paul Ricoeur that thematically deal with the Capable Human
Being.
Thesis Statement
In this study, the researcher presents an exposition of the philosophical
and anthropological discussion regarding the meaning of Capable Human
Being according to Paul Ricoeur. The question as the main problem of the
study therefore, shall be answered: What does it mean to be Capable
Human Being? To answer the main problem, it is necessary to address the
following specific questions as sub-problems:
1. How did Ricoeur move from vulnerability to capability?
2. What are the capacities of the Capable Human Being?
3. What is the significance of the Capable Human Being in the task of
becoming Human?
Main Thesis
For Ricoeur, the Human Being is an incarnate spirit endowed with
freedom, enabling him to become a member of the nexus. A Human Being
has the capacities not only to think but also to speak, to act, to narrate, to be
responsible, to remember and to forgive. These capacities make us Human.
Sub-Theses
1. The Philosophical Anthropology of Ricoeur stresses both the
vulnerability as well as the capability of being Human.
2. The Capable Human Being has the following capacities: to think, to
speak, to act, to narrate, to be responsible, to remember and to forgive.
3. Understanding what a Capable Human Being can help us live a
truly Human life.
Significance of the Study
1. Theoretical Significance
The theoretical significance of this study will contribute to the studies of
Paul Ricoeur in Philosophical Anthropology and to the study of Paul Ricoeur’s
concept of the Capable Human Being. Result of this study further adds
breadth and depth to the existing concepts that will better enable us to fully
explain and eventually understand man as a Capable Human Being.
2. Practical Significance
Practically, this study will be significant since results can be used as a
baseline data for other academic fields or disciplines like ethics, sociology,
philosophy and anthropology. Specifically, people will be able to know and
learn these concepts which eventually help them live essentially and
practically more capable human lives.
Review of Related Literature
Based on the researched data, the researcher found out that there is a
considerable number of books that analyze and explain the philosophical
anthropology of Paul Ricoeur. These books are of great help to the
researcher since most of Ricoeur’s writings are basically difficult to
comprehend. To have a much clearer understanding of Ricoeur’s concepts
and thoughts, the researcher thought of considering other related references
and books that analyze and explain man as a Capable Human Being.
Ricoeur, Paul (1996). The Hermeneutics of Action, edited by Richard Kearney. London: Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks.
This book presents an overview of Ricoeur’s significant contribution to
modern thought and to the development of hermeneutics, phenomenology,
and ideology critiqued in the human sciences. Specifically, it tackles topics
such as hermeneutics of action, narrative force, and the other,
deconstruction. These topics are discussed in the context of contemporary
thinkers like Heidegger, Levinas, Arendt, and Gadamer.
Ricoeur, Paul (1998). Critique and Conviction. New York: Columbia University Press.
This book presents topics in ethics, metaphysics, psychoanalysis,
hermeneutics, and politics. It also provides insights and sources of influence
that shaped Ricoeur’s philosophical approach and his core concerns, among
which is the question of what it is to be a human being.
Ricoeur, Paul (1992). Oneself as Another. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
This book is an account of Ricoeur’s philosophical ethics which gives
way for a further study on metaphysics and morals. The book also provides
insights of Ricoeur’s development of hermeneutics of the self as it focuses on
the concept of personal identity. On Ricoeur’s writing of the book, it testifies
to the importance of openness to the whole range of thought significantly
considered in the history of philosophy. Through this book, Ricoeur brings
favorable results for his notable arguments on language, narrative, and
discourse.
Ricoeur, Paul (1991). From Text to Action. Essays in Hermeneutics II. Translated by Kathleen Blamey and John Thompson. Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
In this book, Ricoeur presents his work in constructing a general theory
of interpretation in relation to its own philosophical background, considering
Hegel, Husserl, Gadamer, and Weber. Moreover, the book also presents
Ricoeur’s response to contemporary philosophers like K.O. Apel and Jurgen
Habermas as he relates to his theory of ideology to their concepts of
ideology. Doing this makes Ricoeur believe that his hermeneutic theory is not
just a mere analytic tool or scientific interpretation. This book further presents
what Ricoeur calls “a gradual reinscription of the theory of texts within the
theory of action.”
Clark, Stephen (1990). Paul Ricoeur. London and New York.
This book presents Ricoeur’s writings ranging from existentialism
through structuralism, psychoanalysis and hermeneutics, to his studies of
metaphor and narrative. These writings are presented and surveyed situating
them within the context of contemporary post-structuralism. It also includes a
discussion of Ricoeur’s work Time and Narrative.
Reagan, Charles & David Stewart (1978). The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: An Anthology of His Work. Boston: Beacon Press.
This book is an essential reading material for those studying
contemporary philosophical thought. It presents the richness and complexity
of the thought and methodology of Ricoeur who has long been hailed in
Europe as one of the greatest thinkers and philosophers of his time.
Methods
1. Historical and Descriptive Method
This study uses historical and descriptive methods in identifying and
describing Ricoeur’s Philosophical Anthropology, specifically in understanding
the Capable Human Being.
2. Scope of the Study
a. Theoretical Scope
i. Disciplinal Scope
Other academic disciplines such as Sociology and Ethics
touch on the different views of the sudden leap from philosophical to
anthropological sphere under the field of Hermeneutics. In this
research, the researcher focuses his attention on Hermeneutics,
where the Philosophical Anthropology of Paul Ricoeur belongs to. In
other words, this study will use the hermeneutical character of the
topic to tackle the theories that need to be discussed under the
Philosophical Anthropology sphere of Paul Ricoeur.
ii. Historical Scope
This study primarily focuses on Contemporary Philosophers.
However, the researcher cites other philosophers from other
periods/eras such as from the Ancient, Medieval, and Modern
Philosophy as a point of reference in order to better able trace and
discuss points clearly.
iii. Thematic Scope
This study is an exposition of Paul Ricoeur’s Philosophical
Anthropology in relation to his Capable Human Being. The
researcher mainly limits his investigation on the study of the
following works of Ricoeur, namely: Interpretation
Theory; The Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences; From Text to
Action:Essays in Hermeneutics II; and The Course of Recognition.
The researcher chooses to do this because these works clearly
discuss and thoroughly clarify his philosophy and his notion on the
Capable Human Being.
b. Textual Scope
Ricoeur introduces the question of being with two pre-
suppositions: that of fullness and that of intersubjectivity, experiencing
the other as a Capable Human Being who presents himself to his fellow
Human Being.
3. Procedure
a. Gathering/ Collecting of Data
In gathering the data, the researcher visited select libraries. Among
them were the University of Santo Tomas (UST) Ecclesiastical Faculties
Library, UST Central Library, and the Ateneo De Manila University Rizal
Libraries. Moreover, a documentary abstraction guide was used as an
instrument in collecting data. Lectures, notes, and related references from
the researcher’s adviser and professors were also used for this study.
b. Analysis of Data
i. External Analysis
The external analysis of his study will be made by ensuring the
authenticity of the translation of the primary texts of Paul Ricoeur by
some translators and editors.
ii. Internal Analysis
This study uses a stylistic analysis of the grammatical and
technical construction of the language style of the thinker’s texts in the
context of their life situation.
The focus of the internal analysis is:
First Level of Analysis
The first level of analysis focuses on the discussion of the Philosophical
and Anthropological concept of Paul Ricoeur’s Hermeneutics.
Second Level of Analysis
The second level of analysis exposes the Hermeneutical sphere on the
concept of Paul Ricoeur in terms of the study of the Capable Human Being of
his texts.
In both levels of analysis, the researcher incorporates an analysis of the
findings of previous commentators for the researcher to highlight and defend
the points of agreement and disagreement with them.
4. Limitation
Some of the original texts of Ricoeur are written in French.
Admittedly, the researcher is not familiar with some of the French
terminologies used by Ricoeur, thus the former finds the latter’s texts
difficult to understand. Hence, the researcher is limited only to explaining
and understanding texts known or familiar to him.
5. Procedure of the Study
The new exposition of Philosophical Anthropology: The Capable
Human Being according to Paul Ricoeur is exposed and explicated in this
study. The researcher used library research. He relies on translated works of
Paul Ricoeur with the aid of his thesis adviser who is a Ricoeur specialist. He
also consulted commentaries, articles, periodicals and other references
pertinent to the philosophy of Paul Ricoeur.
Organization of the Study
The study consists of five (5) chapters, each with a coherent
presentation of the abovementioned subject matter/premise.
Chapter One: Introduction
The first chapter is devoted to the introduction of the study. It contains
the background of the study, the framework used, the statement of the
problem, the thesis statement, the review of related literature, and the
methods used in the study.
Chapter Two: From Vulnerability, Fallibility and Culpability towards Capability of the Human Being
The second chapter discusses the natural tendencies of the Capable
Human Being. It gives a clear exposition on vulnerability, fallibility and
culpability. And how does the Capable Human Being shift from being
vulnerable, fallible and culpable towards being capable. It shows that the
Human Being both have these negative and positive qualities. In this chapter,
the exposition does not just end on the negative side of the Human Being but
it presents how the Human Being shifted from being culpable towards being
capable. It also gives an emphasis on the positive qualities of Being Human.
Chapter Three: The Capacities of the Capable Human Being
The third chapter explains the capacities of the Capable Human Being,
these are: the capacity to speak, the capacity to act, the capacity to narrate or
tell a story, the capacity to feel responsible, the capacity to promise and to
experience a happy memory. In each capacity, there is an explanation to
show the meaning of these capacities.
Chapter Four: The Significance that we can see upon understanding the Capable Human Being
The fourth chapter is an exposition of the importance of the Capable
Human Being. It shows that the Capable Human Being both have negative
and positive qualities. What makes him fully human is by having those
qualities. In this chapter, we will find out why the Human Being is significant
and what makes him important.
Chapter Five: Summary and Conclusion
The last chapter presents the summary and conclusion of the study on
the Capable Human Being according to Paul Ricoeur.
Chapter Two
From Vulnerability, Fallibility and Culpability towards
Capability of the Human Being
“Hope is the courage to imagine the possible.”
-Paul Ricoeur
Human Being is by nature weak and fragile in a sense that he is limited.
He can easily fall and stray from the right path in the process of becoming
human. It only shows that there is someone who is superior to us, and that
Being is the Supreme and Most Perfect Being who is God. Being vulnerable
and fallible are just some of the aspects of being human. As Domenico
Jervolino (1995, p. 535) said, “Fallibility slips into the core of human reality.”
We can understand in what sense man is fallible. But fallibility is implied in the
disproportion which makes man a fragile being. Disproportion, need for an
intermediary, fragility, fallibility, make up a progression full of meaning
(Ricoeur, 1978, p. 21). Without denying vulnerability, fallibility and culpability,
the human person is also created with innate capabilities. He is capable of so
many things because he is a rational and intellectual being. He is the crown of
God’s creation and that made him different from other beings. He was given
the highest favor by becoming an intellective being. He has the ‘logos’ which
Aristotle translated as ‘reason.’ This reason is his ability to decide, to think,
and to differentiate things from the other. “The condition of human reason is
proper to beings who are searchers for the meaning of Being. We are given
the task to exist in time, to live historically our liberation as humans, and to
live by thinking and to think by living.” (Jervolino, 1995, p. 538). He has the
freedom and free will to choose his own destiny. These make him different
from other creatures.
A. The Vulnerability, Fallibility, and Culpability of the Human Being
The word Vulnerability comes from the Latin word ‘vulnus,’ ‘vulnero’
(Simpson, 1982, p. 650) which literally means ‘wound;’ ‘to wound or to injure.’
We are all products of our past, and some of us experienced being wounded
by getting injured in the past whether it is physical or emotional. And these
wounds must be cured. They must be addressed in order for them not to
become serious. We were wounded because, maybe we fell, and we fell
because we are not that strong. This shows us that as human beings, it is
natural for us to experience failure, and it is natural that out of our humanity
we are being trapped into the hole. This trap would mean being tempted to
commit sin. To be tempted is not a sin. There is nothing wrong in being
tempted. Even Jesus got tempted by the devil when he was fasting in the
desert for forty days and forty nights, but he was not able to sin. What makes
temptation a sin is when we experience it and we choose to sin rather than to
avoid it. After sinning, we will experience the feeling of being guilty. As
Ricoeur (as cited in Garcia, 1997, pp. 84-85):
Guilt then is not identical with human finitude. Guilt loses its character as a bad use of freedom to become the constitutional limitation of existence. There is no denying the avowal of the fault by guilty human being. Human responsibility for the fault has to be accounted for but it has to be conjugated with the hope of pardon which restores, and thus presupposes his original innocence, more original than his guilt.
The cause of our wound is our fault - the fault that we do not take good
care to avoid the error of sinning.
According to Ricoeur (as cited in Garcia, 1997, pp. 86-87), “fault is a
frenzied preoccupation with the self.” It is only a self-imposed bondage
to Nothing or Vanitybut it also introduces the “inauthentic infinite” which blocks
the manifestation of the “authentic infinite” or freedom. He admits that the fault
is “an event with immense possibilities;” insofar as it is “a discovery of the
infinite, an experience of the holy in reverse, of the holy in the demonic…”
Ricoeur mentions something about freedom: what freedom is, and how we
can say that man is free. True freedom is to do what is right. It is never right
to do wrong to do right. Therefore if we missed the mark by committing an
error, we are not free. According to Ricoeur, the fault is only a bad use of
freedom and does not belong to the essence of human existence.
Human Being was created sinless before the eyes of God. He is
basically and essentially good in his nature, and this goodness constitutes his
freedom. Similarly, Mencius (1970, p. 19) theorized that the human nature is
originally good. Is the very essence of Human Being capable of sinning? For
Ricoeur, it is but, there is no necessity to sin. But why is there a sin? Answer
to this question can be compared to the story of creation. When God created
the world, He gave man freedom to live a life far from sins and from the act of
sinning. However, why does man fall into the trap of sinning? This is simply
because sins have been created and committed. These sins are committed in
more unlikely circumstances. According to Ricoeur, “man is basically good
but he falls into the fault of sinning because at times he experiences
weaknesses and shortcomings that test his true character.” These
weaknesses and shortcomings are manifestations of his vulnerability. Being
human, man is subject to committing errors since he is fragile; that is, “to err is
human” (Shakespeare, as cited in Cruz, 2004, p.167). Contrarily, it is not
through these shortcomings that the very essence of his being human is
measured. Despite his erring nature, he is endowed with capabilities that
prove his being human. Comparatively, the Human Being is like a fragile jar
carefully designed with intricate details. However, due to inadvertence or
mere carelessness, this jar may be partly broken. But the essence of its
being a jar is still there since it is not completely broken, and it can still be
used to serve its purpose despite its broken part. However, the jar can be
fixed and restored in its original form and beauty, which therefore maintains it
essence. In like manner, the Human Being after having committed faults has
also the opportunity to become whole again when he repents on what he has
done. Something in particular may be broken because of carelessness and is
regarded as the fault – the fault of carelessness being the reason of having it
broken. Similarly, through the fault he commits in freedom, the human being
is broken. Because of this, he becomes less free. Ricoeur (as cited in
Garcia, 1997, pp. 82 – 83) said that the fault can be conceived “only as an
accident, an interruption, a fall, and does not constitute a part of a system
together with the fundamental possibilities contained in willing and the
involuntary.” Ricoeur further believes that the necessity of bracketing the fault
arises from methodological as well as doctrinal considerations. Garcia further
points out that:
The human essential structures are available to an “eidetic” description while actual existence is only available to an “empirical” reflection. If the possible fulfillment of human existence is added, a “poetic” discourse is evoked, which creates three parts – Eidetics, Empirics, and Poetics – that make up the Philosophy of the Will. Eidetics reveals the neutral structures of human existence which the fundamental possibilities offered equally to innocence and to the fault as a common keyboard of human nature. The Empircs, on the other hand, reflects on the concrete existence of faulted human being, prefacing this with an analysis of fallible human being. The Poetics proposes to express in imaginative discourse the promised reconciliation of human existence with the source of creation.
These three parts – Eidetics, Empirics, and Poetics form a
methodological ensemble designed by Ricoeur to support a certain vision of
being human. As a philosopher who vowed to the elucidation of integral
human experience, Ricoeur wants to account rationally not only for the reality
of faulted Human Being but also for the possibility of fallible Human Being
(Garcia, 1997, p. 84).
Garcia also points out that the abstraction of transcendence is linked to
the abstraction of the fault which implies an affirmation of Transcendence. If
fault is the captivity of freedom, transcendence therefore is the liberation of
freedom. As Ricoeur stressed that men live transcendence as purification
and deliverance of their freedom and salvation (as cited in Garcia, 1997, p.
88). To sum up, the double abstraction of the fault and Transcendence holds
the advantage of safeguarding the responsibility and hope of being human by
allowing us to delineate first, with clarity and rigor, the fundamental limits and
possibilities of being human (Garcia, 1997, p. 90)
Culpability originated from the Latin root word ‘Culpa’ (Simpson, 1982,
p. 160) which literally means ‘fault.’ Human Being is culpable because he has
his own worldly desires and needs that need to be filled. Out of being human,
these desires and needs will make him satisfied if he was able to achieve
them. As Garcia (1997, pp. 128-129) defines needs as, in a strict sense:
…refers to alimentary or sexual assimilation, that is to say, appetite. Now appetite shows itself as “an indigence and an exigence, an experience lack of… and an impulse towards….” (Ricoeur, Freedom and Nature, 1966, p. 89). Here, lack and impulse are lived in the invisible unity of an affect. Need is distinguished by these two essential aspects – its intentionality and its unity as lacuna and impetus. Need makes us aware of the receptivity of the will to values which it has not
posited. In a negative condition, need is a motive if the conduct assuring its fulfillment is not an irresistible reflex. On the other hand, in the positive condition, what makes need a motive is the representation which regulates properly human conduct issuing from need. This representation raises need to the level of a motive for willing. It is thus in imagination – the imagination of the absent thing and of the way to attain it-that need attains a form and becomes a motive for the will. Here imagination is understood by Ricoeur as “a manner of anticipating an absent reality on the background of the world.” (Ricoeur, “The Unity of the Voluntary and the Involuntary as a Limiting Idea,” 1967, p. 101). Imagination, however, can only give form to the vague experience of need because it assumes, in the absence of the things, the role of perception which appraises it of its object and of the way to attain it.
Needs then become desire – the present experience of need as lack
and urge extended by the representation of the absent object and by
anticipation of pleasure, indicative when one is ready to say, “This is good!”
(Garcia, 1997, p. 129).
Human Being by nature has the capacity to become vulnerable, fallible
and culpable because he is not a perfect being, and these imperfections make
him a completely human, because he will not be a Human Being if he is
absolutely perfect. He will reach the level of God’s perfection if he does not
have these imperfections. There is a great distinction between God and man.
If Human Being will become perfect as God, therefore he will have the same
attributes and qualities similar and comparable with God. But it should not be,
because man must be a human in a sense that he is imperfect, but out of this
imperfection, he must strive to become perfect as God is perfect. By striving
to become perfect, he must avoid the proclivity of sinning. The saints are also
Human Beings like us. They are also imperfect like us, but out of their
imperfections, they strive to become perfect and holy by avoiding the
tendency of committing the fault. Saints would not be saints without their past.
Once, they were sinners in the past but they strove to reach perfection out of
their imperfection by the process of conversion. It only shows us that Human
Being is vulnerable, fallible, and culpable but it does not end here; there are
also positive aspects which we will see upon discovering the essence of
Being Human, his Capabilities…
B. The Capabilities of the Human Being
Despite man’s imperfections, his vulnerability, fallibility, and culpability,
we should not discount the fact that he is, among all other creatures, an
intellective being. Human Being is created by God in his image and likeness,
endowed with the power to reason out and the capacity to do things unlike
other creatures unable to do so.
Paul Ricoeur (as cited in Garcia, 2010, p. 1) brought out the capacities
of Capable Human Being – the basic powers that found our humanity. These
are: the capacity to say or speak (the ability to produce a reasoned
discourse); the capacity to act (the power to produce events in society and in
nature); the capacity to narrate (the power to recount stories that reveal to us
the hidden possibilities of our life); the capacity to feel responsible for one’s
actions (the capacity to ascribe to oneself the consequences of one’s actions);
the capacity to promise (the ability to keep one’s word) and in his last
magnum opus, Memory, History, Forgetting; the capacity to forgive (the power
to address a liberating word to the Other “You are better than your actions”);
and, the capacity to experience a “happy memory,” with just enough
remembering and just enough forgetting.
The Human Being has many capabilities, strengths, talents, skills,
abilities that make him unique and higher above all forms of God’s creations.
Human Being is the crown of God’s creation; the best masterpiece of it. He is
unique in the sense that he was given the special privilege to be created in
the image and likeness of God. Besides, Human Being has the power to rule
over the whole creation because he has the capability to reason out, to judge
and to comprehend. He is a rational being, an intellective being. He has the
freedom, the free will and the intellect to make good decision and judgment.
Man can know that God exists by reflecting on creation. As we read in the
Book of Wisdom, “From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a
corresponding perception of their Creator” (Wis. 13:5, cf., Rom. 1:20, n. 19).
“If Human Beings fail to recognize God as the creator of all, it is not because
they lack the means to, but because their free will and their sinfulness place
an impediment in the way” (John Paul II, n. 19). Human Being’s intellectual
capacity, his ability to reason and to think in abstract terms, is a great gift.
Human Being can acquire true knowledge about himself, God and the world.
Human Being is born with a desire to know the truth about him. It is essential
that he finds the truth because only by choosing true values by which to live
can he be true to his nature and find happiness (ibid., n. 25). No one can
avoid the need to address life’s ultimate questions (ibid., n. 27). In fact man
can be defined as “the one who seeks the truth” (ibid., n. 28). The search for
the truth about the meaning of life can reach its end only in reaching the
absolute because the finite world does not provide a satisfactory answer.
Human Being must not only exercise his reason; he must also trust other
persons in the search for the ultimate truth. He experiences not only an innate
need for the truth but also an innate need for a person to whom he might
entrust himself on the journey to find it (ibid., n. 33).
Ricoeur states that there is no other way to understand oneself except
through the interpretation of the expressions of the self through one’s actions,
symbols, myths, metaphors and texts. “For the person who takes life
seriously, the question of the meaning of human existence cannot but remain
a fundamental concern. It may be affirmed that the unique vocation of the
philosopher is to understand, with the depth and rigor, the significance of
being human.” (Garcia, 2010, p.1) In these basic capacities of the Capable
Human Being, we see that the entire orientation of Paul Ricoeur’s philosophy
is essentially “ethical” or to use his own term “poetic” in the sense that it
awakens in us the desire to be or the power to exist creatively. (Garcia, 2010,
p. 1).
Garcia adds that Paul Ricoeur will always remain as the French
philosopher who posed the question “What is the meaning of being human?”
in all its scope.
Chapter Three
The Capacities of the Capable Human Being
“Whatever Human Beings do is a realization of what they are capable of doing; and what they are capable of doing
is a manifestation of what they are.”
-Edith Stein
Capacities can be observed from the outside, but they are
fundamentally felt, lived in the mode of certainty. Human Being can identify
himself by his capacities, by what he can do. The individual designates
himself as a Capable Human Being, and we must add a suffering human
being to emphasize the vulnerability of the human condition. (Ricoeur,
“Asserting Personal Capacities and Pleading for Mutual Recognition,” 2004, p.
1). The capacities that a human agent attributes to himself, and to the other,
are required to give this personal identity a social status. Personal identity is
marked by a temporality that can be called constitutive. The person is his or
her history.
The very essence of the human being is measured through his
capabilities to do things as expected of him being the highest form of
creation. These capacities according to Ricoeur (Garcia, 2010, p.2) are: the
capacity to speak, the capacity to act, the capacity to narrate or recount, the
capacity to feel responsible, the capacity to promise, the capacity to forgive,
and, in the last magnum opus, the capacity to experience happy memory.
Ricoeur (The Course of Recognition, 2005, p. 252) said that we ought to
undertake a further review of those capacities that, taken together, paint the
portrait of the Capable Human Being.
A. The Capacity to Speak
According to Ricoeur (“Asserting Personal Capacities and Pleading for
Mutual Recognition,” 2004, pp. 1-2), the power to say may mean a more
specific capacity; that is, the ability to spontaneously produce a reasonal
discourse where conversants share ideas to each other in accordance with
common rules and related communicative conventions that speakers must
have to initiate and sustain conversational involvement (Gumperz in Coupland
and Jaworski, 1997, p. 40). As Noam Chomsky (as cited in Brown, 2006)
contends, “Man has an innate capacity for language because according to
him, each individual has a language acquisition device – LAD (Chomsky,
1960, p. 29) stored in the brain, which enables man to talk and communicate
as he associates with other people in his early years.”
Ricoeur (2005, p. 253) states that to speak presupposes an
expectation of being heard where the relation between question and answer is
exemplary. However, the power to speak is being burdened when we find
difficulty in putting things with words; thus us unable to speak. This inability to
speak shows that we can always mistake the underlying motivations that stop
our need to say something. Secrets, inhibitions, resistance, disguise, lies,
and hypocrisy are among the reasons that make us unable to speak.
The way we speak is a reflection of our true color, a revelation of our
innermost being. When we say something, we express what is inside us
revealing whatever emotion we have. Words can be a source of inspiration;
others can be demoralizing. There is indeed a power in words. As mentioned
by Ricoeur, the word is his kingdom and he is not ashamed of it (as cited in
Garcia, 2010, p. 1). When we dialogue with someone, we are using language
to express our ideas, emotions, experiences, and the like. Garcia (ibid) points
out that philosophical reflection and discourse constitute power – the power of
the world that is capable of challenging the high and the mighty, exposing lies
and corruption, and proposing a more humane and just world for everyone.
Language is the principal means by which we greet, compliment or
even insult one another, and accomplish hundreds of other tasks in a typical
day. Actions that are carried out through language are called “speech acts”
(Austin, 1962; Finegan and Basnier, 1989, p. 328). As members of the
kingdom of the word, we must contribute to develop an understanding of the
power of the word.
B. The Capacity to Act
“Actions speak louder than words.”
This is a dictum which may be considered to be true. Truly, one’s
actions determine his words. This is also an expression of what he feels.
Despite no words coming out from one’s mouth, one is able to express the
message he would like to convey through actions. The Capable Human
Being has the capacity to act. According to Ricoeur (“Asserting Personal
Capacities and Pleading for Mutual Recognition,” 2004, p. 2), “The power to
act is the capacity to produce events in society and in nature.” He adds that
the case of being able to act calls for the same kind of complement as does
self-designation in the dimension of being able to speak (Ricoeur, The
Course of Recognition, 2005, p. 253). To do this capacity, one has to make
events happen in a given context of interaction. For Ricoeur, admitting that
every capacity has its counterpart of specific incapacity is very easy to
accept. The details of these incapacities reveal even more concealed forms
of incapacity that lead to self-deception, mistaking oneself for what he is not
(ibid., p. 257).
C. The Capacity to Narrate or Recount
To narrate is a linguistic technique to report events. At its simplest, to
narrate recounts the cause and effects of events that take place over space
and time to particular people (Clark, 2007, p. 118). This leads to the
interweaving of fiction and history, which means that the articulation of our
human experience requires the intertwining of history and fiction. Thus, the
narrative of our life must use the capacity of both to understand its hidden
possibilities. This leads us to the concept of narrative identity (Garcia, 2010,
p.7). This allows us to answer when we ask who the agent or author of the
action is. It also allows us to include changes in the cohesion of a life which
conforms to the dynamic temporal structure coming from the poetic
composition of the narrative text.
Ricoeur points out that the power to recount occupies a pre-eminent
place among the capacities inasmuch as events of every kind become
understandable when told in stories. However, emplotment creates a division
in identity. Thus in self-identity, change is integrated as peripeteia (Ricoeur,
“Asserting Personal Capacities and Pleading for Mutual Recognition,” 2004,
p.2). Self identity can then be considered, like the narrative that remains
unfinished and open to the possibility of being recounted differently by others.
In addition, Ricoeur (The Course of Recognition, 2005, p.253) also
mentioned that the power to narrate attributes the virtue of designating the
“who” of action in the narrative. The plot weaves together events and
characters which should not obliterate the primary reference to the power to
act for which self-recognition makes up the attestation.
D. The Capacity to Feel Responsible
Considering the cliché, “No man is an island,” which means no man
can live alone. Man needs someone in order to cope with his weaknesses
and shortcomings with the strength of other people. Each of us is
accountable to one another. Similar to the song people always sing:
“Walang sino man ang nabubuhay para sa sarili lamang. Walang sino man ang namamatay para sa sarili lamang. Tayong lahat ay may pananagutan sa isa’t isa…”
Contemplating these lines, we are able to realize that indeed we have a
responsibility towards other people. Every person is a supposit being – a
being for, a person for. As Rev. Dr. Enrico Gonzales, OP directly uttered:
“Each person has the vocation to love and an invitation to be loved.” When
one asks the question, “Why do we love someone/something?” he will then
realize that one does because he lacks something that someone has.
Paraphrasing Aristophanes’s idea, one loves someone or something because
this is what he desires in pursuit of wanting to be complete. This desire can
be achieved when a person provides you with it. This is the reason why we
need other people. Upon needing other people, we become accountable for
the person (St. Exupery, 1945/2006, p.237). That accountability precedes
responsibility towards imputability. For Ricoeur (“Asserting Personal
Capacities and Pleading for Mutual Recognition,” 2004, p. 2), imputability
constitutes what is clearly a moral capacity since the human being is held to
be the very author of his acts. Imputability makes him responsible.
Otherwise, if harm is done to others, he is subject to reparation and to final
sanction. Ricoeur stresses further that the idea of imputability centers on the
power to act over against another person who can be an interrogator, an
inquisitor, and an accuser (The Course of Recognition, 2005, p. 254).
E. The Capacity to Promise
One of the positive qualities that Filipinos possess is the way they
value the sense of “Palabra de Honor.” This means being true and firm to
what one says. Being true is being able to do what has been promised no
matter what happens. Otherwise, censure is given to the person, which in
turn imposes guilt on the doer. The keeping of one’s word refers to a “holding
on to oneself.” A promise presupposes a challenge of time. In keeping one’s
word, one responds to the trust placed by other persons on his fidelity
(Garcia, 2010, p. 9). As accorded by Ricoeur (“Asserting Personal Capacities
and Pleading for Mutual Recognition,” 2004, p. 2), promising is possible on
this basis of responding to the trust placed by other people on one’s fidelity.
The promise limits the unpredictability of the future at the risk of betrayal.
Man should keep his promise – or break it. He then engages the promise of
the promise, that of keeping his word, of being faithful.
In the case of promise, the relation between recognition in time and
recognition before others turns out to be different. Ricoeur further points out
that:
“It is not only to the other person but for the other’s good that one makes a promise. Yet, a promise may not be heard or accepted; it can even be refused or rejected subject to suspicion. But the relation to time is not absent. Not only does the promise engage the future, the present credibility of the one making the promise sums up a whole personal history that gives signs of a habitual trustworthiness.”
Thus, it can be realized that promise is indeed connected with recognition
both of time and of others.
F. The Capacity to Forgive and to Experience a Happy Memory
In the phenomenology of memory, there are three specific things to be
considered to ask: who remembers, what is remembered, and how we
remember. According to Ricoeur (Garcia, 2010, p. 10), the capacity to
remember is more important than the fear of forgetting or the duty to
remember or not to forget. Ricoeur concentrates on the question of how we
remember where his approach takes the form of the use and abuse of
memory. He identifies three principal forms: blocked memory, manipulated
memory, and commanded memory. The use and abuse of memory or
compulsive repetition, according to Ricoeur is the true enemy of memory (ibid,
pp. 10–11).
Is forgetting one of the capacities of the Capable Human Being? One
may fully understand forgetting if it is interpreted in terms of the memory of
forgetting. For Ricoeur, according to Garcia, the only way to tackle the
incommensurable approaches of the neuro-sciences and phenomenology is
to be aware of the notion of “trace” which designates three different things:
the written trace, the mnesic trace (cerebral or cortical), and the mnemonic or
psychic trace.
Forgetting according to Ricoeur should be considered as an art
because it consists of recounting the narrative in another way. After
forgetting, one should interpret forgiving as an expression of the Capable
Human Being. Ricoeur (Garcia, 2010, p. 13) stresses that:
“There is forgiveness as there is joy, as there is wisdom, extravagance, and love.” Forgiveness should not stop on the institutional or political sphere. The journey of forgiveness ends at the center of selfhood in an ultimate act of trust. Forgiving consists in holding the guilty person capable of something other than his offenses and his faults.”
To forgive is to address a liberating word to the other: “You are better than
your actions.” (Garcia, 2010, pp. 12–13). This then leads to a reconciled
memory with forgiveness as its most eminent form. Happy memory, a
reconciled memory, is a carefree memory. In memory as care (ibid.) one is
concerned about the past. Carefree memory, on the horizon of concerned
memory, is the soul common to memory that forgets and does not forget
(Garcia, 2010, pp. 13–14).
Chapter Four
The Significance of Understanding the Capable Human Being
“Philosophy must [also] aspire to be a wisdom that seeks to give meaning and richness to the life of a whole
people.”
- Leovino Ma. Garcia
In studying the philosophical anthropology of Paul Ricoeur, the
researcher discovered the different capacities of the Capable Human Being.
He also became aware of the significance of the Capable Human Being.
Based on the researcher’s understanding, the human being presents two
aspects that make him a total being. According to Ricoeur, the human being
has shortcomings as part of his vulnerability and fallibility; and he also has
capabilities. The researcher’s understanding of Ricoeur’s philosophical
anthropology is that the human being can be compared to “yin yang” which is
composed of two colors—black and white. The white part of theyin
yang represents man’s capabilities; and the black part his weaknesses or his
shortcomings. One cannot call the yin yang as yin yang when it is only
composed of a pure white color; or when it has only the black color. It is
because yin yang is made up of black and white that it is identified as yin
yang. The beauty of its composition is seen by anyone who beholds it. It is a
common knowledge that white is the opposite of black and black is the
opposite of white. In like manner, man’s being can be viewed in the way
the yin yang is viewed. The Human Being, like the yin yang, becomes
complete as a total being with his strengths and weaknesses—his capabilities
and his frailties. The human being can never be called human when he is
considered only as weak. Also, the human being cannot be called human
when only his strengths and capabilities are considered. The human being is
absolutely not a perfect being, and can never be compared to God who, in the
truest sense of the word, is absolutely perfect. The human being is human
simply because he is by nature vulnerable and capable. Since the human
being is by nature not absolutely perfect, he has the capacity to strive to
become more perfect by trying to acknowledge and accept his being human
and his nature.
In what way do we see the value and essence of being human? By the
very fact that one is able to reflect on himself, he is able to value—that he is
basically good and has capabilities inherent in him. A human being is unique
as he is created by God in His own image and likeness. The human being is
endowed with intellect and free will to do good. Through this, one is able to
see the basic goodness of man, the way Ricoeur views him. However, due to
unexpected circumstances, the human being errs, and commits mistakes that
make him deviate from his basic goodness. Through his shortcomings, he
may become broken in spirit. However, having been broken in spirit does not
necessarily make him a lesser person. He may become whole again when he
acknowledges responsibility for his faults, and when he learns to accept his
past. In this way, he learns to realize the consequences of his actions.
The essence of Capable Human Being can be seen through the fact
that he is uniquely endowed with countless abilities and talents. This ultimate
essence of Capable Human Being is basically manifested in his capabilities
which go beyond shortcomings.
Chapter Five
Summary and Conclusion
“A philosophy of the subject and a philosophy of transcendence – which is what a philosophy of man’s limitations is in the last resort
– are both determined in one and the same movement.”
- Paul Ricoeur
In focusing on the philosophical anthropology of Paul Ricoeur, the
researcher was able to show the significance of the Capable Human Being.
That human being is basically good. Of course, one cannot deny the fact that
the human being has his weaknesses and shortcomings. Yet, despite these,
the Human Being, possesses a basic goodness that enables him to go
beyond his shortcomings.
In Chapter 1, different explanations and views about the very nature of
the Human Being from different philosophers were presented. Through these
views, it is understood how important and essential man is as a Human
Being. From the views of the Ancient Greek thinkers to the views of
Contemporary philosophers, the value of the Human Being was traced.
In Chapter 2, certain concepts about the Human Being were
presented as explained from the perspective of Paul Ricoeur. In this chapter,
we see how the human being strives to overcome his faults and shortcomings
by his capabilities. Without denying the fact that the Human Being is
vulnerable, fallible and culpable, Ricoeur brings out the capacities that make
him the Capable Human Being capable of. In this chapter, the researcher
distinguishes the weaknesses and the strengths of the human being. Human
Being is viewed here capable of committing faults simply because of his being
fragile. Human Being comes to the point when he is tested by trials in his life,
which make him err from the straight path. He is not supposed however to
give up when he falls. He needs to stand up because according to Ricoeur, he
has the capacity to do so and do good things for others and himself. From the
perspective of Ricoeur, the human being has a basic goodness.
In Chapter 3, Ricoeur’s detailed explanation about the capabilities of
the Human Being is presented. He underscores these capabilities by
explaining each of them. First, that Human Being has the capacity to speak.
Ricoeur sheds light on the value and importance of language being the
primary means of the human being in communicating with other people.
Here, one sees how powerful the word is in that it can inspire or demoralize
other people. Ricoeur also sheds light on the capacity of Human Being to
act. Understanding Ricoeur’s view on this aspect, one will realize that man’s
actions lend themselves to particular interpretations. That is why, actions
speak louder than words. Our actions may have certain meanings to others
which are either positive or negative. Ricoeur also points out that Human
Being is capable of narrating or recounting. To narrate consists precisely in
saying who did what, why, and how, by unfolding in time the connection
between these different aspects. In this way, the narrative solves the
problems posed by the attribution of an action to an agent. According to
Ricoeur, the power to recount occupies a pre-eminent place among the
capacities inasmuch as events of every kind become discernible and
intelligible only when recounted in stories. The age-old art of recounting
stories, when applied to oneself produces life narratives articulated in the
works of historians and literary writers. According to Ricoeur, the Human
Being also has the capacity to become responsible. For Ricoeur (“Asserting
Personal Capacities and Pleading for Mutual Recognition,” 2004, p. 2),
imputability constitutes what is clearly a moral capacity. A human agent is
held to be the genuine author of his acts, regardless of the force of organic
and physical causes. Imputability, assumed by the agent, makes him
responsible, capable of ascribing to himself his portion of the consequences.
If harm is done to others, the way is open to reparation and to final sanction.
And last but not least, the Capable Human Being has the capacity to
promise. When one promises, he is expected to fulfill this, because someone
is hoping for him to fulfill what he has promised. Promises are made not to be
broken.
Through the views of Ricoeur regarding the capacities of the Capable
Human Being to speak, to act, to narrate, to feel responsible, and to promise,
one may also become aware that the Human Being is capable of experiencing
a “happy memory” with just enough remembering and just enough forgetting.
(Garcia, 2010, p. 3).
In Chapter 4, the researcher sheds light on the very essence of the
Capable Human Being on the basis of Ricoeur’s view of the Human Being. In
this chapter, one can realize the value and the essence of the Capable
Human Being, emphasizing his basic goodness. Nevertheless, as part of his
being human, one cannot deny that he is also fragile. The Human Being can
also be viewed as a complex being. The researcher compared him with
the Ying Yang, with its black and white colors symbolically representing the
vulnerability and the capability of the Human Being. The Human Being can
never be called human when he has only his capabilities or when he has only
his flaws. The Human Being is both fragile and capable. He has worth and
value because he is unique from all other creatures since he has the
capacities that make him the Capable Human Being.
Through the study of the philosophical anthropology of Paul Ricoeur,
we may be inspired to strive to become Capable Human Beings.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, H. D. (2006). Theories of Language Learning. London: Longman.
Chomsky, Noam (1978). Principles of Language Acquisition and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Urszula (2007). Studying Language: English in Action. England: Palgrave MacMillan.
de St.-Exupery, Antoine (1945/2006). The Little Prince. London: Egmont.
Festin, Lorenz Moises J. (2006). Course Notes in Philosophical Anthropology. Makati City: San Carlos Seminary.
Finegan, Edward & Niko Besnier (1989). Language: Its structure and use. London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Garcia, Leovino Ma. (2010). Interpreting Life: Paul Ricoeur’s Hermeneutics of the Text. Unpublished Text.
_______ (2005). Paul Ricoeur of Happy Memory. Denmark: University of Copenhagen.
_______ (1998). “The Meaning of Being Human in Ricoeur’s Philosophy of the Will (Part II). Budhi II, No. 1, pp. 65 – 103.
_______ (1997). “Paul Ricoeur: Philosopher of Responsibility and Hope. Budhi I, No. 2, pp. 129 – 182.
_______ (1997). “The Meaning of Being Human in Ricoeur’s Philosophy of the Will (Part II). Budhi I, No. 3, pp.81 – 154.
Good News Bible, Today’s English Version. Manila: Philippine Bible Society.
Gumperz, John J. in Coupland & Jaworski (1997). Sociolinguistics: A reader and coursebook. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Jervolino, Domenico (1995). “The Depth and Breadth of Paul Ricoeur’s Philosophy,” in The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn. The Library of Living Philosophers Vol. XXII. Illinois: Opencourt.
John Paul II , Pope (1998). Fides et Ratio. Pasay City: Pauline’s Publishing
House.
Lau, D.C. (1970). Mencius. Great Britain: Penguin Books.
McDougall, Littell (1989). English and American Literature. Illinois: McDougall, Littell & Co.
Pellauer, David (2007). Ricoeur: A Guide for the Perplexed. London – New York: Continuum.
Ricoeur, Paul. (2005). The Course of Recognition, translated by David Pellauer. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
_______ (2004). “Asserting Personal Capacities and Pleading for Mutual Recognition.” Unpublished Text.
_______ (1966). Fredom and Nature. The Voluntary and the Involuntary. Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
_______ (1967). “The Unity of the Voluntary and the Involuntary as a Limiting Idea,” Translated by Daniel O’Connor, in Readings in Existential Phenomenology, edited by Nathaniel Lawrence and Daniel O’Connor. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1967, pp. 93-112.
Simpson, D. P. (1982). Cassell’s Latin Dictionary. New York: MacMillan
Publishing Co., Inc.
Tupas, T. Ruanni F. (2002). Second Language Teaching. Diliman, Quezon City: University of the Philippines Open University.
APPENDIX
Sem. Ervin Ray S. Garcia with his thesis adviser
Dr. Leovino Ma. Garcia
Leovino Ma. Garcia, Ph.D.
Dr. Leovino Ma. Garcia graduated A. B. Humanities cum laude degree from the Ateneo de Manila University in 1965. He obtained a doctorate in philosophy, magna cum laude with a dissertation on Paul Ricoeur from the French-speaking Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium in 1981. His field of expertise is Contemporary French Philosophy, especially the philosophies of Ricoeur and Emmanuel Levinas. Dr. Garcia has applied Ricoeur’s hermeneutics in the interpretation of contemporary Philippine paintings and antique Philippine maps. He recently edited Carlos Quirino’s Philippine Cartography in 2010.
In 1988, he became the first lay Dean of the School of Arts & Sciences of the Ateneo de Manila University, serving for two terms until 1994. He also became the first Dean of the Loyola School of Humanities of the Ateneo from 2000 to 2007. In 2001, as Humanities Dean, Dr. Garcia invited Dr. Nicole Revel, together with Dr. Fernando Zialcita to team-teach a course on Intangible Heritage.
He served as President of the Philosophy Circle of the Philippines from 1985 to 1988, President of the Philosophical Association of the Philippines from 1988 to 1998, and President of the Asian Association of Catholic Philosophers from 1992 to1994. In 2004, at the World Congress of Catholic University Institutions of Philosophy (COMIUCAP) in Mexico City, he was elected Vice President for Asia. Through his initiative and efforts, he organized the third COMIUCAP World Congress in Manila in September 2008. At the
closing of this Congress, he was elected President/.World of the COMIUCAP.
For his work in promoting cultural relations between France and the Philippines, Dr. Garcia has been made Officer, Order of Arts & Letters in 2008 by the French Government. The Loyola Schools of the Ateneo de Manila University honored him with the Lifetime Achievement in the Humanities Award in 2007. He is presently the Chair of the Ateneo Library of Women’s Writings.