Paul Ricoeur's Concept of Mans Fallibility as a Way of Hoping in Mans Innate Goodness

PAUL RICOEUR’S
Concept of Man’s Fallibility
As a way of Hoping in Man’s Innate Goodness

------------------

A Research Study Submitted to

Sacred Heart Seminary-Bacolod

-----------------

In Partial Fulfillment

to the Requirements for the Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy

By:

Sem. Rommel Falc G. Palivino

February 22, 2013

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

From the beginning humans have tried to transcend the condition of fallibility. One of the oldest stories in the bible tells us how Adam and eve attempted to overcome their fallibility by eating forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge.
According to the bible Adam and Eve tempted by the serpent to eat the forbidden fruit that God did not allow them to do so, but because they are given freedom and free will they had a choice whether to do it or to overcome the temptation. Human beings make mistakes, commit errors, and perform tasks imperfectly. They are fallible, they can never be certain that their ideas are true or that their actions are correct. Human life is imperfect; there is inequality or “disproportion” in us and community. Human experience is a chronic disproportion in which one cannot succeed in reconciling paradoxes within himself. Thus, through the imagery of disproportion the pathetic conveys something of the human totality as paradox. No matter how perfect we want ourselves to be, we find we are short of ideals of communion. There is always disunity. The finitude of man is a simple act of introspection, looking that the given object presents only one side of itself. The basis of this is that we realize that we see things from a specific limited point of view because we are finite. This perspectival view can cloud our judgments that sometimes it makes us choose the things we do not want to do and thereby we commit faults. This pre conditions us to fallibility.
The idea that man is by nature liable to err is, according to the working hypothesis of Ricouer, an idea wholly accessible to pure reflection; it designates a characteristic of man's being. As Descartes says at the beginning of the fourth meditation Man's being is such that "I find myself subject to infinity of imperfections, so that I should not be surprised if I err." How man finds himself subject to err is what the concept of fallibility tries to make understood.

For Descartes human has its own capability of doing such goodness, but we need to remember that human also has this inherent fallibility which according to him is infinite. Meaning, we cannot avoid erring not only because of temptations but because of being a man who is fallible. But, Ricoeur tries to counter this idea of explaining how thus man being fallible in a hermeneutical manner.
With the concept of fallibility, the doctrine of man approaches a threshold of intelligibility wherein it is understandable that evil extends to the whole creation, to angels, to man, to material things. Man’s disproportion, is that the polarity within him of the finite and the infinite, had this activity of intermediation or mediation. Man’s specific weakness and his essential fallibility are ultimately sought within this structure of mediation between the pole of his finitude and infinitude. Why is this disproportion had? How do we understand this disproportion? His finite pole being bodily and his infinite pole being spiritual make this disproportion great. It is quite possible that man is not radical source of evil, that he is not absolute evil doer. But even if evil were contemporary with the root of origin of things, it would be still true that it is manifest only in the way it affects human existence. This simply means that mans fallibility, although not directly the source of evil but it is main factor of man’s fault, even though evil has another external source coming into man. But Ricoeur also affirms that evil manifest itself through man’s humanity which is prone to evil.
Evil inheres in the fallible nature of human person. Accepting our faults is leading us of discovery our freedom. But because we are free, it is possible for us to commit mistakes. The fact that the person is fragile, weak and fallible it demands that we take him or her as an end. In the form of person, every man acts for an end.
An end, consequently a goal to which all the means and calculations of means are subordinate; or in other words, an end in itself, that is one whose value is not subordinated to anything else; at the same time an existence that one apprehends, or to be more precise, a presence with which one enters into relations of mutual understanding, exchange, works, sociality.

This rift in man causes him to be fragile, easily broken, thus he needs more respect as his phase of growth. It means we will do more harm to persons by forcing them to grow than when we just allow them to be. Thus the value of reconciliation, understanding, respect, unity, and innate goodness should be surface upon man do battle against man, and man between himself.

A. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

In Ricoeur’s concept of man despite of his brokenness there is a possibility of hope to recognize the unity and goodness within his self. How can man’s fallibility in Paul Ricoeur’s concept be as a way of hoping his innate goodness?
To answer this main question, there are some sub questions below to go deeper to this inquiry. A. Why is man fallible and at the same time innately good? B. How can we reconcile Man’s fallibility and hoping for innate goodness in Ricoeur’s fallible man? C. How can respect for man’s brokenness and trust in his innate goodness be a source of communion?

The above-mentioned questions shall be answered as follows.
Chapter I serve as an introduction of the study where one finds the main statement of the problem, the sub-questions of the main problem, theoretical framework, research methodology, significance of the study, scope and limitation, thesis organization and the reviews of related literature.
Chapter II discusses why is man is fallible at the same time innately good according to the concept of Ricouer, however in the humanist view is that what is good and what is evil is always relative and only to be decided by the viewpoint of human observer. The answer cannot be found in form of rational thought but in pathos, a feeling of searching, perplexity, and misery.
We trip up, we make mistakes, and we know that what we are is not what we are intended to be. Man is certainly, perceiving, and thinking beings, but he also do and act. His thoughts are put out into the world when he speak, when he attempt to make real an ideal that began as an idea, and when he react to the actions of others.
Lastly, man is posses both infinitude and finitude according to Descartes.
Chapter III discusses on how we can cultivate hope for innate goodness despites of man’s fallibility. To hope for self is to recognize that despite of frustrations, despairs that confine to negativity, there is something besides these things around. According to Kant human beings are characterized by the passions of having, power, and worth. In other words he is economic, political, and cultural beings, compelled to determine how to think of themselves and others.
Chapter IV discusses the application of respect in man’s brokenness and
Trust in innate goodness into a communion.
Chapter V is the summary, conclusion and recommendations after discussing why man is fallible at the same time innately good, the hope for innate goodness despites of being fallible, implications and application of fallibility as source of communion. Conclusion and evaluations are formulated to answer the main problem. The idea is to create a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, which is ‘concept of man’s fallibility as a way of hoping innate goodness’. Recommendations are given to aid future researchers of the same subject matter.

B. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research study uses the following methods: descriptive and expository. Library research and textual analysis of the primary source were also done. It begins with the condition of man as fallible. It follows with the discussions of disproportions, disunity, and inequality of human as community. The next chapter discusses the infinitude and the finitude nature of man. This covers the issues of man’s fault as source of evil. Thus, textual analysis is one of the methods, which necessary for the exposition of these topics.

C. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Human beings are more than acting beings, there are more facet of the self must still be accounted for. We are not only of describing action, but also prescribing it.
How do we move from former to latter? Secondly, the self is being existed in time, both changing and remaining the same through. In what ways can person hoping his innate goodness?
According to ricoeur, we make poor choices, and suffer the consequences of the poor choices of others. Moreover, we may seem to suffer at the hand of God, for it is God who allows the choosing poorly to happen. His study, therefore, tries to elucidate that in every man there is the essence of fallibleness, but despite of it, if a person realized his faultiness he will more appreciated the innate goodness within itself.
Thus, this realization creates a new idea, develops new element that may come into existence and from that element a new horizon may evolve. Therefore the importance of this study is to understand why a person commits mistakes, why do we need to respect and understand them, which is being presented in the nature of human as fallible.

D. SCOPE AND LIMITATION

The primary sources of this study is taken from the books, Paul Ricoeur : Fallible Man (Fordham University Press, 1986) Revised Translation by Charles Kelbley. Paul Ricoeur on Hope Expecting the Good (2009 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York) by Huskey, Rebecca Kathleen.
The original edition of this book is French and thus, the researcher on the English translation by the author himself. From the translator’s note, there could be a number of discrepancies with regard to the translation from the original text. Studies related to the philosopher are quite limited in number. Thus with regard to the review of related literature, the researcher finds reliable articles published from international university journals. Man by nature is fallible but they have the capabilities to will overcome their trespasses. Thus, the study on “Paul Ricoeur’s Concept of man’s fallibility as a way of appreciating man’s innate goodness” wide variety of interests. The researcher however, limits his study on the concept of man as fallible discussed by the author.

E. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The following articles were most helpful for the study. The researcher was able to maximize the books, and journals of the Sacred Heart Seminary- Bacolod to gather the most relevant articles from refutable Universities and Schools.

Lamont, Corliss. “The Social Good and Individual Happiness”. Philosophy, Sixth edition (1985), pp 248-273. Published by the Frederick Ungar Publishing Co.

This article discusses that the social good, both in the present and future should be the supreme ethical goal. It is being said that logic alone will not win men’s assent to the social good as the paramount aim in life. For goodness itself, is inherent into individual and it reflects to the social disposition of human. Thus Lamont tries to emphasize the humanist ethics that urge the development of those basic impulses of love, friendliness, and cooperation that impel a person to consider constantly the good of the group and to find his own happiness in working for the happiness of all. Lamont pointed out, that an individual loyalty to the larger social good may under certain circumstances cost his very existence or at least considerable suffering. He added that the unhappiness of other people is cause by the unhappiness of the other. That is why Ricouer tries to highlight that in the fallibility of the others must be a way of hoping innate goodness. Otherwise, the fallibility of the others may be a way of destructing the disposition of the social group or individual. Lamont describes the goodness of individual, as abundant life of individuals hand in hand with economy abundance. For him, the important thing is that we should continue to resist and combat evil men and evil institutions as long as we possess the strength to do so. For both society as a whole and the individuals within it must be prepared to go through of stress and strain and to face emergencies with a valorous spirit and resolute will. Secondly, Lamont quoted Aristotle’s notions of man in his book “A political Animal” thus man is social beings. Therefore they cannot merely set themselves apart to the world. They are essentially and always part of human society. But, for Lamont, understanding the weaknesses of its individual will be dwellings of their communion. Lamont added that the sacrifices in the immediate present by both the individual and the community are sometimes required for the sake of achieving the goals of human which the good. The fact that men are inherently active beings and can therefore discover happiness only in some of the activity.

Jeremy Bentham on “Fallibility and Infallibility.” Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 68, No. 4, (Oct., 2007), pp 563-570. University of Pennsylvania Press. (Accessed on Feb. 04, 2013 from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307).By Melissa Schwartzberg

This article of Melissa Schwartzberg refers to the fallibility and infallibility of man. She quoted the idea of John Stuart Mill’s Democratic Theory. According to Melissa fallibilism also justifies Mills support thought and discussions on liberty. She said that only in recognition their own fallibility both individual and collectively can be a representatives to adopt the critical perspective necessary to undertake the task of being good. For her, we can only adapt the changing circumstances if we know the extend goodness and evilness of a human person. Thus this human behavior leads us to discover the ends of every individual. According to her there are no good or evil people in the world. Perhaps, people however do make choices that are good or evil. A person therefore makes a choice to engage in activities that are considered good or evil. The choices people make are usually dependent on the psychological conditioning they are exposed to, from the moment of fetal conception, to the point of completion of their social/cultural programming. This social/cultural programming is similar to the programming of a computer's processor with data that is considered to be factual. The computer then compares all incoming data against its programmed intelligence, in order to generate a conclusion. Melissa pointed out, similarly the human intellect processes incoming data based on the morals/values they have been conditioned with. Some of these morals/values are inherited from genetic sources and the others are learned from the environment to which the absorptive mind is exposed. The concept of what’s 'good' and what’s' evil' is our own human made concept which we judge ourselves and, even other animals by. Man by nature is wild, an animal, and animals are neither good or evil they are just animals in the wild that's acceptable but in civilized society it’s not. It's just not that simple. You can’t just take the animal out of us, it’s there it will probably always be there. All we can do is try to live our lives by the rules we created for ourselves and be civilized much as we can to live in this society and hope that along the way nothing happens to us that may have us judged as evil because of something it made us do. She added that hope is one of the loftiest emotions we can experience; we must trust in our art hope that will not fail. For whatever we lack hope, our fruits will be lacking. Only he who can do something hopes; he who can do nothing has no hope, but only doubts. And he who knows something and hopes does not go astray, nor he doubt. CHAPTER II concept of man’s FALLIBILITY AND his Disproportion

What is meant by calling man as fallible and the same time innately good? Essentially that the possibility of moral evil is inherent in man’s constitutions. This reply calls for two kinds of clarifications. It may be asked, indeed, in what features of this primordial constitution the possibility of failing resides more particularly. Ricouer stress out in his book fallible man that there is always the possibility of human error, even on terrible and existential scales. Nevertheless, there is also always the possibility of doing Good. Each person has the ability to think about thinking, about action, and about feeling. Each person has his own point of view, but it is also able to transgress this point of view. These abilities are made manifest by means of the capacity for language and the ability to analyze it. It is thus that each person can expect something new possibilities better than himself. Ricoeur corrects Descartes saying that a more accurate description of the between-ness of human beings is that can catch within themselves. According to him the finite and the infinite are within us, yet they are neither one nor the other. Because human posses infinitude and finitude, they have infinite possibilities, infinite combinations and permutations of relationships, activities, reactions and like. However human has finite resources, finite time which to use them, and finite capacity of understanding. Each person has a capability of judging and being judged. Moreover, because an individual never has a complete and thoroughgoing understanding of himself, there is always something new to discover about the self. We are also able to expect future good from ourselves because of our ability to create and understand symbols, both evil and good.

Fallibility and limitation of man indicates the occasion of moral evil.

A. Man’s inclination towards Evil Human beings cannot avoid of not committing errors. Besides, it is already part of our lives, since then in our ancestors. Thus these are the implication that man consider has an evil deeds. If a man crossed the boundaries of what people believing that is good, automatically he is a bad person. Each person has its own limitation and finitude in terms of looking every event that happened in our lives. The symbols of evil Ricouer puts before us can be used to sketch a symbolism of the good which will further highlight the possibilities that we may find before us. It is not sufficient to say that evil produces certain reactions in an individual or in human beings as a whole. There exists countless expressions of those reactions, symbols which are worthy of attention. The significant symbol of evil is sin according to Ricoeur. Thus for him sin is the violation of a covenant, reminding human that in each story where covenant is broken the relationship of them to God still remain. As we create stories that describe a possible beginning of evil, we also create possibilities for transcending evil. These possibilities are one avenue of expectation of some future good. Because by acknowledging the evil things in our life we are giving the opportunity of goodness to rise up. In Ricoeur’s book Fallible Man, he gives emphasis to the awareness of man to his error, thus if a man is being aware of his being fallible, he might be expecting or hoping for something good that will happen to him. The symbol of good which corresponds to sin as a symbolism of evil would be the sincerity with which acts of repentance are done.

B. Myth of evil in a fall of man According to Ricouer through myth we consider the possibilities that we might be united with the divine, however awesome experience or existence may be, and we thus further learn to expect manifestations of this divine power from ourselves and others. One way that we could able to understand the whole reality of human being is through myth, by means of reminiscence and an expectation. It is then, that recounting how these things began and how they will end, the myth places the experience of man in a whole that receives orientation and meaning from the narration. Thus, this narrative is a way of knowing something what it means to be human that they could have known otherwise. The more that the person becomes aware of his evilness the more that he recognize his goodness. Through myth we are bringing the past into the present, living with it and recognizing its phenomenon happens during the past. The fall of man narrates in the bible story is one of the phenomenon happens in human reality, which enable us to understand why man is fallible. The myth doesn’t tell us the specifically how everything from the ancient world came about. But, tells us about being human that lost in our consciousness and memory. The Adamic myth which Ricoeur’s uses in his book ‘The symbolism of evil’ refers to a deviation of man or going astray. Man in nature is good, it inheres in individual person. At the same time the possibility of moral evil is inheres to every individual. Meaning human has always possibilities of doing good, but because of his fallibleness he is always prone of committing errors. As Ricoeur, explains the concept of the fallibleness of man, it’s always going back to the penetration of evil through human beings. Human is weak, fragile and broken, but this is because their poor choices towards good.

a. Evil as privation For St. Thomas Aquinas evil is such a purely negative. That is why it says that it has no formal cause, because its form would be the privation or absence of good. “The material cause of evil on the other hand, is the bearer of the privation, namely a being, an actual being, which as such is good. But it happens to be material cause of something evil. No being therefore can be thoroughly evil, and there degrees of evil just as degrees of good.” Charles Hartshorne’s explanation of his idea about evil is that it is by-product of chance because it is in no way willed by God’s providence. He added that “change is inseparable aspect of freedom”. Hartshorne points out that our experiences of physical pain or suffering is but a form of participation to our cellular pain. For Hartshorne, evil in the world is not divergence to God’s total goodness. False belief in knowledge about the power of God, brings into a crises concerning about evil. Ricouer points out, that sins are the symbolism of evil. It is only the symbols that bears us the idea that humans do something wrong; not only with others but even against the one who created them. Therefore, Ricoeur agree that defilement is not really sufficient to described evil. It is only externality of leading human into a symbol of evil which is sin. Thus, for Ricouer even though man detached his personal attachment to God, this ongoing relationship gives a chance of expecting some future good. In reality the relationship of man and God is evolving. It invites the people to revise their own history. Every being is good, therefore evil is cannot be a being; it must be an absence of some good, some perfection in a being which posses it; therefore evil is privation. CHAPTER III THE SYMBOLISM OF MAN’S INNATE GOODNESS A symbolism of the good is implicit, even in the preliminaries of Ricoeur’s work. Good is what all things desire. To the extent that things tend to their perfection is called good. Goodness is the perfection of being according to Thomas Aquinas, therefore, goodness is founded on being, springs from it reverts to it, because it makes being a being. In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men. Thus, the human beings are innately good, but because of the freedom which God had been given them to secure their needs, they are now divided. This would the claim of Ricoeur that humans are fallible but it is important to understand and to respect individual fallibility so that the unity will rise up and it will help to develop sense of community. The goodness of man is already there in itself, the only thing is to develop and acknowledge by way of hoping. Ricoeur added that symbolism of good of every man will be in actual if and only he will recognized his own fault. It is significant that we are not mute in suffering, for instance Ricoeur elaborated in his book symbolism of evil the recognition of man’s fault through confession. That in our experience and articulation of blindness, we realize that to know blindness, we must also realize what it means to see. To understand ambiguity, we must have sense of clarity of purpose and communication. To comprehend the scandalous harshness of punishment that befalls to every sinful man, we must also have a sense of justice. Thus, this faultiness of man would be a venue of hoping innate goodness. CHAPTER IV DISPROPORTION OF MAN’S FINITUDE AND INFINITUDE Ricoeur contrasting to the analysis of Descartes in fourth meditation about the finitude of man, “human mind can know nothing more evident and more certain.” This refers to the limitedness of human thinking on knowing such things. Human commits mistakes because of his participation to the nothingness of non-being. Because the only supreme being which really perfect is God, according to Descartes. No doubt regarding this matter would remain, but the fact that it seems to follow from this that I never capable of making a mistake. For if everything that it is in me I got from God, and he gave me no faculty for making mistakes, it seems I am capable of ever erring. And thus as long as I think exclusively about God and focus my attention back on myself, I nevertheless experience that I am subject to countless errors. Fault or is not a pure negation, but rather a privation of lack of some knowledge that somehow ought to a human being. Ricoeur’s new analysis was different to what Descartes trying to lead our understanding of man’s fallibility. It is the object itself on how it occurs to us. It’s the perspectival of every individual which expressing the point of view to such object. The faultiness comes from the one sidedness looking of everything or individual. Human’s perspective is limited only to the other side of the object and the situation, which will be the cause of committing error. Human often times judges, the thing they do not see but they know, it’s a one sided kind of decision according to Ricoeur. There must be a universal point of view of every individual so that human can omit error. a. Character The finitude aspect of man that can be understood on the basis of transcendental notion of finite may be summed up in the notion of character. But the notion of character must itself be approached by degrees. Indeed, character is, in a way, a totalization of all aspects of finitude. To avoid turning character into a thing or a fate, it must be carefully composed the notion of it, beginning with the perspective. One of the various aspects of finitude in the notion of character is the perspective. The limitation of one’s perspective is known both affectively and practically. Character is the limited openness of human existence as a whole, according to Ricoeur. It is inherent in the mediating function of one’s own body, the primal narrowness of human openness. It can be molded, yet it is always our own. It will never change so much as to be that of other person. Each Person thus has the practical expectation of continuity within his character. a. Happiness Happiness is a material principle of the faculty of desiring. In short it would be not a totality of meaning and contentment, but merely a sum of pleasure. In this sense happiness is not the fulfillment of our own personal desires, but the horizon toward which all motivation, including our own works. People wish and strive for what they believe will make them happy, good health, attractive looks, an ideal marriage, children, comfortable homes, success, fame, financial independence, and fullness of life. The world is the horizon of all things and the happiness is the horizon from every point of view. Every person wishes to be feel contented, desires basic things and they wants to be able to understand what he and others do, think and feel. Happiness is the infinitude of the entire human the human aims, the termination of human beings as a whole. Ricoeur pointed out that only happiness is the infinity in human as creation. They don’t have any contentment, in a sense that everybody wanted to be fulfilled and happy. The additional demand of reason is the union of character and happiness. Man should not desire to be happy, rather he is to be worthy of being happy. If man is aware of this horizon before him, and because reason requires the union of character and happiness, it has a natural disposition of expectation for continual movement towards the horizon and for the mediation between character and happiness. This image makes us understand that happiness is not given in any experience; it is only adumbrated in a consciousness of direction. No act gives happiness, but the encounters of our life that are most worthy of being called events indicate the direction of happiness. Thus, for the synthesis of character and happiness is found in the person, more specifically in the self.

CHAPTER V NOTION OF HOPE – TOWARDS FUTURE GOOD Hope is an expectation of some future good, but it is also more than this. If hope were merely expectation, then we could say that those individuals who gaze reflectively to the horizon, standing as a stone are as hopeful as those who move towards the horizon, pursuing that for which they hope. This expectation would recognize our innate goodness. Hopeful individuals realize that that they are not only thinking and feeling creatures, but creatures capable of acting. Each person is both divided and united; each person has a capability of judging and being judge. But because individual never has a complete detailed understanding of himself, there is always something new to discover about the self. Man often look for something that can fulfill his desire, they search for answers to the questions of their essence and of their ultimate destiny. From early on, they want to get to themselves, but they don’t know who they are. Despite of being fallible man tries to get over from it. a. Hope and Possibility For the purpose of hope is to task the self to freely become itself. Man is always becoming. He creates his own possibility through imagination. A self who has no hope for possibility is in despair, and so in turn is the self which has no future good. Hope influences our thinking about thinking in the abstract, and also our more personal, concrete thoughts and actions. If I hope for a certain event to occur, then that hope will compel me to do whatever I can bring about that event. Admittedly, there may be times when the most I can do is fervently hope; circumstances may bind me and prevent me from doing anything further. The act of hoping is nevertheless acts which move me in the direction of the desired good. The statement of Kierkegaard brings us the idea of the possibility of goodness which is inherent to human being. For him hope seeks out possibility, and the person who hopes relates himself eagerly the possibility of the good. A result to this is that hope is a proper relation to the self to itself. According to Kierkegaard, there is an ordinary sense of hope and one which surpasses the ordinary, one which leads to possibility and the eternal. Beyond this ordinary sense of hope, however, there is an act which leads to possibility of the good and eternal. In this sense, hope for Kierkegaard is for a more permanent good, a good which is not subject to the changes of the finite world. He also tells us that this richer notion of hope will not lead a person astray. A person who is hoping in the right way will never be put to shame, for if one hopes for something for which it is shameful to hope, then this not a genuine hope. For instance a person hope that the piano will falls to the head of a person he do not like, it is not a genuine hope. The possibility regenerates or renews the capacity of person for genuine hope. Ricoeur’s work agrees with the emphasis of Kierkegaard on the importance of decision and choice, and the fragile nature of hope. The freedom that the man posses will allow him to choose how he will molds his life. Man has its passion for new possibilities and the ability to decide which abilities he will pursue. “The freedom made possible by hope can be a curse or a blessing.” It is hard to know what the good is, and even hard to choose it at times. We are called to move towards an even retreating horizon, wanting to rejoice in the progress we make, but also feeling frustrated at times because we never reach the final goal. Meaning goodness itself is already there in human’s capacity, but in order to acknowledge it is to create some possibilities that will come up. Through freedom and correct choice human can attain and reach his good end. b. Hope as Horizon Hope is a capacity concerned with seeking some good, but it is also function as a horizon of philosophical dialogue. For Kant hoping is one way of gathering ideas and making it possible. Human beings are capable of creating something, not directly in reality but pass it first through the mind. Human beings look towards the fulfillment brought by the future good with regard to their relationships with others, to the world and to God. Doing goodness to others needs a proper disposition and correct choices. After examining Kant’s first two critiques, it founds out that human knowledge and will are limited. A person may be overcome by evil, and may have decision to reform his maxims, and undertakes the gradual, perhaps difficult process of changing his person, and then he can reasonably hope to go from evil to good. “Hope is a hope for resurrection.” In the case of theology, Ricoeur explain that hope is the capacity to look beyond the physical and temporal, took that which is beyond us for salvation for the trials of here and now. Hope for the resurrection may be of the body of people from oppression and brokenness of the spirit. In terms of philosophy hope for Ricoeur is the capacity to look beyond what reason will allow, yet ideally still adhering to the guideline of reason. Hope as a capacity colors how human think, including the thinking about thinking according to Kant. Whether human will consider the movement beyond the limits of situation or beyond the limits of their infinite reason, it is the capacity of expectation that makes possible that movement. Human expect something beyond limits of reason and beyond the limits of their wills, but the more they push themselves to that limit the more they realized that limits themselves are having retreat. The disposition of hope continues to push us to the continually retreating horizon of philosophical discourse. This active hope can be cultivated within oneself and others. Furthermore, hope is directed towards some good. c. Hope for the self Ricoeur explains the meaning of which man can cultivate his hope within himself, by focusing the idea of Human as created in image and likeness of God and human as having passion power and worth. Human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, a person may cultivate hope in and for himself by seeing himself as a co creator with God, and by pursuing the refinement of his passions. Our freedom may seem to be too uncertain, but it may be in our freedom and our creativity that we are most like God, according to Ricoeur. Each person is free to act upon his own power, free to determine what he will be most permanently, free to affirm his own level of worth. Man renews the image of God within himself by acting in his freedom to continually recreate himself. Each person can recognize within him or herself the role that possessions, power, and value plays, whether this role takes place the form of a presence or lack. Each can also reflect on his own tendencies to be lured by the new, bright and colorful and resist the pull that those things have upon her. Moreover, man can desire within others for the same, and at work at creating an environment in which possessions are shared and in which more lasting things valued. Thus human can able also to reflect on his own measure of self worth, and to what degree he seeks approval from others. As co creators of God human must also recognize a certain innate duality, the evilness and goodness of every individual. Human in nature are fixed and moveable, predetermined and determined. They are made with certain passions and tendencies, but they are also shape and mold those tendencies for the benefits of themselves and others. Ricoeur examine the self as linguistic being, an acting being, a narrating and narrate-able being and responsible being. He concludes that the “other” doesn’t not exist solely outside of the self, but also within the self. He implies that the otherness to such an intimate degree that one cannot be thought of without the other. To conclude this, the notion of hope for the possibility is the ability to recognize the unity and division that exists within the self. Each person is unique, yet each person possesses un-sameness, a common claim to this uniqueness. In each aspect, the self is diverse and yet unity. It is the unity of diversity and unity which allows the self to be hopeful. d. Hope for the “others” Though man would be co-creator of himself, examining his own capacities and deciding upon his own courses of action, must still acknowledge the role of the others plays in the world of everybody. Interacting with others is a way of creating the self and the reality as well. The relationships to others are complex; it means that sometimes man can feel independent that wishes to have a little need of the others. Because humans are corporate and communal beings, they can develop hopeful capacities corporately and communally or fail to do so. Whether he expect some future good for another, solely for the benefit of those others. In the either case, human do looking for the good of others. Hoping for the others is one way of accepting that a person needs someone to be united for. Man is communal being as Ricouer said, they cannot stand alone, and they need the other in order to live life in fullness. Fusion of the otherness of the other can made man human.

CHAPTER VI HOPING INNATE GOODNESS IN RELATION TO THE SOCIETY

The previous chapters discuss the concept of hoping innate goodness despite of being fallible. In many aspects of life individual fallibility is the main source of destruction in a certain relationship. Brokenness and fragility brings us into a chaos kind of rapport. But knowing that human being has its own innate goodness this would be a source of communion to each other. Many people born in different backgrounds, different cultures and race but if they are not aware of their beginnings neither ends, they are not capable of united each other. Ricoeur acknowledges human failures to realize genuine human community as recounted throughout history and as experienced in many manifestations in contemporary times. There are a lot of numbers and types of institutions that comprise our society, one’s daily interaction might include dealing with governmental, educational, medical, financial, spiritual and corporate institutions. An investigation into the nature of man as fallible as a way of hoping innate goodness will not be complete without paying attention to the different areas of our society, which the researcher do believe that would be very helpful. a. Religion From the beginning Christian revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions, thereby demonstrating the unity of human kind with regard to the eternal and ultimate destiny of man. The council document speaks of unity and links it with the current trend to bring humanity closer together through the resources available to our civilization. The church sees the promotion of this unity as one of its duties; there is only one community and it consists of all peoples. People struggling the disunity and harmony in terms of religious groups, in by way of performing their beliefs and how they worship. Nowadays, there are a lot of religious groups and congregations who are competing to each other. They are claiming that they are the one who is good and right in terms of worship. Kant does also say that certain religious formalities, which are not necessarily directly to the performance of duty, can nevertheless assist in the performance of duty. They are good sensible mediators that serve as schemata for the duties, thus awakening and sustaining our attention to the true service of God. The church is supposedly the venue of commonwealth of the good. Precisely how this church should come about, the person who belongs to it, and in what way its members conduct the business of the church provides much food for thought. Having many Religions in our society is not bad, but often becomes something far from what it ought to be. Additionally, religions offers a sense of continuity, a sense of community and works towards the aim of promoting the moral good, however it goes sometimes in different way. The abuses of the church leaders today are very cautionary. But despite of the potential reality of abuse, the religious institutions are still firm in doing good business in terms of duty. In the work if Ricoeur, he really expect a utopian union of religions and believers, nor should he. Thus, religions are fallible itself, because it is govern by the fallible human, but the thing is, they are supposedly upbringing the positive possibilities for the people of different beliefs and practices. If the members of the belief system can only see that similar calls and promises are being issued, but in an infinite variety of ways, then they can collectively and peacefully come together in response to such calls for service. Even how scandalous the issue with regards to some of our church leaders, there must be an area of doing some good possibilities. Man is always the same. The systems that he creates are always imperfect, and the more imperfect they are, the more he is sure of himself. The aim of hoping innate goodness into religions is that despite of the differences in terms, worship, beliefs, and practices they have the common ground, which is to answer different calls of service. b. Secular Institutions Our society is composed of several pieces on the nature of government and individual’s role. We are under in accompanying of such bane kind of government. Many people says that money is one of the sources how evil manifest within the humanity. Sad to say, but this is what happening to our present world today. When people heard about politics and government leaders, one thing they are expecting for, the corruption which it is already embedded in their mindset. The power which most of our government leaders wishes to have is supposed to be used for bringing something good. But mostly they are observed as having an attitude of being materialistic. Which is the selfishness is the main factor of having this attitude. Man in nature is political, which means we are capable of communion to each other. But Ricoeur finds out that there will always be tension within the state because of politics. Politics is not evil itself, rather it develop public administrations that really work for the good of all. As, Aristotle’s axiom is that all acts work towards some good. In order to have this freedom to critique, we must able to analyze, criticize, and improve upon whatever might hinder these very events. Poetic thinking assists us in reforming and formulating our existence without regard for what critique it may encounter. To the very extent that a man of culture is not concerned of the problem arises with the political realization of his ideas, he opens up the horizon of possibilities. In this way he co-operates in the promotion of a new man without putting someone in a box. The possibilities of hoping something good would determine us to the extent of fully goodness of a man. Human beings, as citizens of a community or members of an institution, can cultivate hope of goodness for themselves and for others by creating possibilities, and the creation of these possibilities is made possible by the human capacities for critique and creativity. The perspective image of a person into such things brings him into a character that building up his future. So, the more that we think about the fallibleness of the political issues the more that we created negative environment regarding political society. The betterment of the society is depending on how people allow to it to happen. The recognizing of the faultiness of every individual is the spring board of reaching success and improvement. Therefore it is really healthy to acknowledge the nothingness of a person so that he can develop his capability to create. c. Prisoners One of the most outcast groups in our society is the community of the prisoners. They are judge according to what they did which is not good, and not of what the good they failed to do. The limitedness of the prison represents the limitedness view point of every individual to the prisoners. They don’t have a power to prove that they are only victims of such circumstances. Our judgment oftentimes based on our personal likes and dislikes; consequently, our private prejudices can easily overshadow our sound thinking. The prisoners sometimes are being rejected by the society because of what people saw them. Every stages of life man desires to be his own person, to find love, communion with the others, even during his youth he never desires to have a miserable life. No single prisoners wanted to be in their situations, besides they wish to have a freedom. They are just like a child that needs guide and comforts. We often portrayed their image according to what we want, but failed to view the image of what they want. They could be considering as the weakest link of the society in terms of freedom. This community is unique; it is the unity of all neglected people. They are abandoned by their freedom and power to govern their respective responsibilities. Ricoeur points out that even though man do different things in each stage of life, and appear differently as he grow and age, he is nevertheless the same person. Each person is unique, yet each person possesses ipseity, a common claim to this uniqueness, in each aspect, the self is diverse and yet unity. Aggression, hatred, and anger are those behavior which oftentimes covering the innate goodness of a person. We cannot see the other side of such thing if we don’t really go beyond our imagination. Perhaps, we are blinded by our limited perspectival view of different things. In any acts human desires something good will happen to him or even in his family. Therefore there is no person who is really bad in reality. The attitude they possesses are just inculcated to their natures, status in life, problems of the society, family, and even by their faith. This hoping for innate goodness is one way of discovering the remaining goodness of a person since then in his childhood. Sometimes we determined the future of a person because of his single act. But this would be a door for everyone to heal the wounds which being created by the society. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION A. SUMMARY Paul Ricoeur’s concept of Man’s Fallibility as way of Hoping Innate Goodness is identifying the Man’s symbolism of Good and Evil and his disproportion, the notion of hope towards goodness and the relevance and application to the society. The discussions of the symbolism of good and evil and his disproportion begin with the exposition of the evilness of man, how does it acquired by human beings. From the discussion it refers to the myth, which enables us to relay the history of evil in humanity. For Ricoeur it is because of the evilness of man which inheres in him puts him to become fallible. Through myth, the awareness of the ancient events would be narrated and re told. Therefore the characteristics of being fallible would be able to recognize. It means that by acknowledging and accepting the faultiness of every individual will brings us to unity. The following reasons why man is fallible it’s because of the penetration of evil in man’s freedom, and of the disproportion of man as finitude and infinitude. For in the character and happiness always human found pulling each pole. The dualism between the pole of finitude and the pole infinitude. This would be the reason why man hardly recovering the union within as an important step in communion in community. The discussion about hope towards goodness is very important, because in this sense man will use his creativeness of acting and hoping for something. In this discussion we also emphasized the view of Kierkegaard with it regards to hope. Thus this hope would be a venue to human of making possibilities through image that we are portraying. Part of the discussion of Hope for Innate Goodness is by explaining the importance of it. Using different areas of our imagination man can cultivate hope through self, and others. Indeed, hoping for the self is mediation of bringing into communion. Allowing the self to communicate with itself is an awareness of the each existence. Hoping for the other means being intended to have respect for the personality and needs of others. Lastly, the importance of hoping innate goodness is applied to some areas of society, which much needed the understanding of community. Religion for instance, has a basic need of allowing this hope for innate goodness in order for them to continuously answering the call, which is to serve. Thus this hope for innate goodness would be venue of understanding why people having difficult for uniting each other. Man is always challenged to go beyond what we are used to do, in order for us have a sense of possibilities. B. CONCLUSION Takes pain to be patient in bearing the faults and weaknesses of others, for us to have many flaws those others must put up with. We would willingly have others be perfect, and yet we fail to correct our own faults. We want others to be strictly corrected, and yet we are willing to be corrected ourselves. Therefore respect is very important. We consider respect as an answer of never ending question, why people doesn’t have a sense of unity sometimes. Reconciling disproportion of man, its attitudes, its point of view are very hard to things to do. Cultures, environment, genes, attractions, even desires are the factors why man is still forgoing into destruction. Hoping for innate goodness is just a way of showing up the ability a person to act, to interact, to create and to organize our ideas towards goodness. Knowing that a certain person or a thing possesses a value of goodness we tend to care of it because it might be stolen and fade. Hoping for innate goodness requires freedom, responsibility and self awareness to avail this spirituality and to choose for a better decision. Society forms man to be socially inclined, but it is difficult to do if someone within the society or even in the self is disrupted. Thus the value of respect creates man to bridges to communion. Knowing and understanding the otherness of others will create new horizon of thinking. C. RECOMMENDATION

--------------------------------------------
[ 2 ]. Medieval Latin fallibilis, equivalent to Latin fall ( ī ) (passive of fallere to deceive) + -ibilis -ible meaning liable to be erroneous or false; not accurate, http://dictionary.reference.com
[ 3 ]. Perkinson, Henry J. “Flight from fallibility” Praeger publisher, 88 Post Road Westpost greenwood publishing Inc.
[ 4 ]. Fr. Domingo Rafael A. Alimajen Jr. M.A.T. Philo, “A philosophy of community” The Regional Philosophical Symposium [Jaro, Iloilo city] 29 Nov. 2004 (pp 5)
[ 5 ]. Paul Ricoeur, Fallible Man, Revised translation by Charles A. Kelbley Introduction by Walter J. Lows. (p-1)
[ 6 ]. http://home.sandiego.edu/~janderso/10/descart.html
[ 7 ]. Charles Journet “The meaning of evil, translated by G. chapman, London 1963(pp 16)
[ 8 ]. http://www.scribd.com/doc/48780360/Ricoeur-Fallible-Man
[ 9 ]. Fr. Domingo Rafael A. Alimajen Jr. M.A.T. Philo, “A philosophy of community” The Regional Philosophical Symposium [Jaro, Iloilo city] 29 Nov. 2004
[ 10 ]. Paul Ricoeur, A translation of L'Homme faillible
(Paris: Aubier - Éditions Montaigne, 1960); originally published in 1965 by Henry Regnery Co.,
[ 11 ]. Fr. Domingo Rafael A. Alimajen Jr. M.A.T. Philo, “A philosophy of community” The Regional Philosophical Symposium [Jaro, Iloilo city] 29 Nov. 2004
[ 12 ]. Joseph M. de Torre, “Christian Philosopy” Third Edition, Sinag Tala Publishers, Manila. (pp 214)
[ 13 ]. http://www.scribd.com/doc/48780360/Ricoeur-Fallible-Man (pp 67)
[ 14 ]. Rebecca K. Huskey, Paul Ricoeur on Hope expecting the good. 2009 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. New York. (pp 119)
[ 15 ]. “One condition for the possibility of hope is the self’s ability to recognize the unity and division that exists within the self. We have the ability and sometimes responsibility to changes our actions, our speech, and our thinking, yet we are nevertheless contiguous and the same individuals as we endure through time. We come to understand our own lives via the stories we tell about ourselves over time, and we have the power to mold and shape both the content of that story and the way it is told. We also create a corporate narrative, and through them we endeavor to understand ourselves as human beings exploring not just the possibility of error, but actuality of it as well.” From Paul Ricoeur translated by Rebecca K. Huskey, Hope expecting the good. 2009. (Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. New York). P. 141.
[ 16 ]. HEG p.142.
[ 17 ]. For researches and other related literature reviews, kindly log on to www.jstor.org.
[ 18 ]. Catastrophic, great disaster or misfortune. Webster American English Dictionary (Springfield, Massachusetts, 1983)
[ 19 ]. FM. p. 59
[ 20 ]. FM. p. 35
[ 21 ]. HEG, p.143. from Joseph M. de Torre on “Christian Philosphy” (Sinag-tala publishers, Manila, 1980) p. 178, Since the object of the will is the good, it includes the good of man. The will, therefore, directs man towards his good. St Thomas said that the will is the queen of all human faculties. The result of the will’s attainment of the good is joy and happiness. Happiness is the sense of satisfaction hat follows the possession of the good that fills all the desire of the will.” From Erich Fromm and Ramon Xirau, “The Nature of Man” , Problem of the philosophy series. The Macmillan Company, New York 1968), p. 147, “Baruch Spinoza site that as for the terms good and evil, they indicate no positive quality in things regarded in themselves, but they are merely modes thinking, or notions which form from the comparison of things one with another. Thus one and the same thing can be at the same time good, evil and indifferent.
[ 22 ]. Ibid.,
[ 23 ]. Ibid.,
[ 24 ]. Ibid p. 169
[ 25 ]. Paul Ricouer. The symbolism of evil.(Harper and Row Publishers Incorporated, 1967), p. 6. Thus the account of the fall in the bible, even if it comes from the traditions older than the preaching of the prophets of Israel, gets only from the experience of sin which is itself an attainment of Jewish piety. Thus the speculation of the original sin sends us back to the myth of the fall. In its turn, sends us back to the confessions of sins. The myth of the fall is so far from being the cornerstone of the Judeo-Christian conception of sin that figure of Adam and Eve, placed by the myth at the origin of the history of human evil.
[ 26 ]. Stephen J. Pope. The Ethics of Thomas Aquinas, (Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C. 2002)
[ 27 ]. Joseph M. de Torre on “Christian Philosphy” (Sinag-tala publishers, Manila, 1980). P211. From Stephen J. Pope “The ethics of Aquinas” (Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C. 2002) p. 95, the object or description of the action, often includes an intention in it-an intention for a proximate end. By virtue of their object, and apart from circumstances and intention, a disordered character that makes them intrinsically evil.
[ 28 ]. Ibid. p 211
[ 29 ]. Charles Hartshorne. “Omnipotence and other Theological Mistakes., p 69. Evil springs from universal creativity, because a particular situation or event is never in its entirely decided by a single purposive agent, but always a result of this interaction of various individuals, including God. Ibid.
[ 30 ]. Catechism for the Catholic Church, (published by Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. 1540 Broadway, New York, New York 10036). p., 636
[ 31 ]. Rene Descartes, “Meditations on First Philosophy” translated from the Latin by Donald A. Cress. (Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, 1993) p. 36
[ 32 ]. Ibid.,
[ 33 ]. Ibid. p 50
[ 34 ]. Ibid. p. 59. The perspective was the perceptual finitude, that is the finite aspect of human openness onto the world taken as a world of things. The notion of perspective designated the human finitude relative to the thingness of the thing. Perspective therefore is the finitude for the thing. From Rebecca K. Huskey, “Paul Ricoeur on Hope expecting the good. ( 2009 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. New York.) p. 52-53.
[ 35 ]. Affective perspective is what attaches man to himself. From Paul Ricoeur, Fallible Man, Revised translation by Charles A. Kelbley Introduction by Walter J. Lowe. (Fordham University Press, New York, 2002) I realize that there are points of view besides my own, and I become attached to makes me myself. Practical perspective provides a balance for the human desires, which makes the power of human impotence. In other words, as man developed habits of acting, He is also developing habits of not doing certain things.
[ 36 ]. Emmanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, “The Regulative Employment of the Ideas of Pure Reason, “ p. 656.
[ 37 ]. HEG. p, 52
[ 38 ]. FM. p.68
[ 39 ]. HEG, p. 81-82. That man is also expecting some future good from himself, because of his ability to create and understand symbols, both for evil and good.
[ 40 ]. Kierkegaard, Soren. The Sickness Unto Death. Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1983) p. 347
[ 41 ]. Ibid. p 27, In an ordinary sense, hope can entail desire, longing, or longing-filled expectancy, and this sort of hope comes easily to a young person, but difficult in adult.
[ 42 ]. HEG, p. 30. Man can count himself as free to serve and free to determine his own destiny, or he can find himself paralyzed by choice and possible outcomes of his decisions.
[ 43 ]. Emmanuel Kant ( to be quoted)
[ 44 ]. HEG, p. 26
[ 45 ]. Critique of pure reason
[ 46 ]. Ibid, p. 88
[ 47 ]. Ibid, p. 92
[ 48 ]. Crossing the Threshold of hope..........
[ 49 ]. HEG., p., 99
[ 50 ]. HEG., p. 98
[ 51 ]. Pope John Paul II............ c/o threshold of hope-----------( to be quoted)
[ 52 ]. Meaning individual identity( to be quoted)