Paul Ricoeur on Husserl

Paul Ricoeur was a student of Gabriel Marcel, who translated Husserl. He began to note problems with phenomenology, one of which he describes below:

“We have a direct language to say purpose, motive, and ‘I can,’ but we speak of evil by means of metaphors. . . . It seemed, therefore, that a direct reflection on oneself could not go very far without undertaking a roundabout way, the detour of a hermeneutic of these symbols. I had to introduce a hermeneutic dimension within the structure of reflective thought itself.”

Paul Ricoeur, Fallible Man, trans. Charles Kelbley (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1967), pp. xvii-xix

Exies, "Ugly"

Are you ugly?
A liar like me?
A user, a lost soul?
Someone you don’t know
Money it’s no cure
A Sickness so pure
Are you like me?
Are you ugly?

We are dirt, we are alone
You know we are far from sober!
We are fake, we are afraid
You know it s far from over
We are dirt, we are alone
You know we are far from sober!
Look closer, are you like me?
Are you ugly?

Ihe Exies, “Ugly,” on the album Head for the Door (Virgin Records, 2004).

DBH: On Suffering and the Problem of Evil / Strange Vision

I don’t share his views on the reformed answer (at least not straightforwardly), but I certainly wouldn’t wish to embrace everything reformed people tend to say about how God’s sovereignty manifests itself today. At any rate, I enjoy David Bentley Hart and you’ll probably see why:

Suffering and the problem of evil from CPX on Vimeo.

Nostalgia for a pagan past from CPX on Vimeo.

On Evil, David Bentley Hart

…one is confronted with only this bare choice: either one embraces the mystery of created freedom and accepts that the union of free spiritual creatures with the God of love is a thing so wonderful that the power of creation to enslave itself to death must be permitted by God; or one judges that not even such rational freedom is worth the risk of a cosmic fall and the terrible injustice of the concequences that follow from it. But, then, since there can be no context in
which such a judgment can be meaningfully made, no perspective from which a finite Euclidean mind can weigh eschatological glory in the balance against earthly suffering, the rejection of God on these grounds cannot really be a rational decision, but only a moral pathos.

And yet Ivan’s (Karamozov) argument still cannot be set aside, for a number of reasons: because it is in fact a genuinely moral pathos to which it gives expresion, which means that it is haunted by the declaration in Christ of God’s perfect goodnes; and because it is precisely the finite Euclidean mind that is meant to be transfigured by God’s love and awakened to God’s mercy, and so the restlessness of unquiet heart must not be treated as mere foolish unfaithfulness;”

The Doors of the Sea, David Bentley Hart

Edwards on the Problem of Evil

But God is not culpable for sin Edwards argues. In order to make his case he adopts two key theses from Augustine of Hippo. First he follows Augustine’s line that “evil” per se is nothing. It has no ontological status. What is “evil” in the choice of sin is simply a rejection of or a falling away from the good. Thus the evil is nothing positive, but simply an abandoning of what one ought to have chosen.”

From “Does God cause sin? Anselm of Canterbury versus Jonathan Edwards on human freedom and divine sovereignty” by Katherin Rogers

This sheds light on the topic for me. Romans 3:23 makes sense in this light. One does not say that darkness has a source. The essence of holiness is glory in its fullest, that is the character and nature of God himself. To fall short of that and look elsewhere is to fall short of the glory of God. I’ve never thought of this in this way, interesting… thoughts?