A Philosophical Perspective of The Fall in Paul Ricoeur Submission (By PST I. O. Wealth)
A Philosophical Perspective of The Fall in Paul Ricoeur Submission (By PST I. O. Wealth)
A Philosophical Perspective of The Fall in Paul Ricoeur Submission (By PST I. O. Wealth)
By
1
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Fault 9
Man is fallible 13
Sin must have deprived man but does not destroyed the image of God in Man 13
Conclusion 15
Bibliography 16
2
INTRODUCTION
The fall of man is a term used in to describe the transition of the first man and woman
doctrine of the Fall comes from a biblical interpretation of Genesis, chapters 1-3. At
first, Adam and Eve lived with God in the Garden of Eden, but the serpent tempted
them into eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which God had
forbidden. After doing so, they became ashamed of their nakedness and God expelled
them from the Garden to prevent them from eating from the tree of life and becoming
immortal.
The biblical story of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3) recounts the story of the first
human sin and its consequences. The traditional story of the fall of Adam and Eve
does not seem consistent with either an evolutionary account of human origins or
questions about the historicity of the Fall are not properly philosophical questions at
all. Yet it does seem like a properly philosophical task to articulate a doctrine of the
fall that is both internally consistent and consistent with other things we know to be
true. Moreover, the doctrine of the Fall is conceptually connected to other aspects of
There are philosophical questions raised by nearly all Christian doctrines and
practices with respect to the fall of man, and so there are many fertile areas of inquiry
that still remain comparatively underexplored. This brief survey has focused on a
philosophical perspective of the Fall in Paul Ricoeur submission and its implication
culture of the mind. It is also “men” in general, the human race taken as a unit. Most
philosophers defined as any human being endowed with reason. What man is the
man was defined as a rational being, which includes an ability to think, to form
ascertained further that man is both rational and social beings, and that the rationality
affirmed by philosophers, who have seen man as the creature of God, made in God’s
image, possessing of a soul, which become corrupted after the fall and not been able
to attain the original potential without divine assistance. 3 The above definition sees
man as being that have the ability to reason and not gender based.
According to Genesis 2, God created the first man, Adam, and placed him in
the Garden of Eden. He caused all kinds of trees to grow in the Garden, including two
special trees: the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God told
Adam that he was free to eat of any tree in the garden, but not of the Tree of the
Knowledge of Good and Evil. "In the day you eat of it, you will die," God warned
(Gen. 2:17). Seeing that Adam was alone, God then created Eve out of his rib (Gen.
2:22). Adam names the animals and calls Eve "woman." They are both "naked and
unashamed."
However, one day, a serpent came to Eve and persuaded her to eat it. "God
knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened," he told her, "and you will be
like God, knowing good and evil." The serpent showed Eve that the fruit was, "good
2
Geert Keil and Nora Kreft ed., Aristotle’s Anthropology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2019), 25.
3
Anthony Harrison-Batbet, Mastering Philosophy (New York: Palgrave Publishers, 2001)
405-406.
4
for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom," and so she
ate it. She then gave some of the fruit to Adam, and he too ate. Adam and Eve
immediately realized that they were naked, and became of ashamed of this, using fig
leaves to cover their private parts. Lewis and Demarest opined that, if Adam and Eve
had done otherwise instead of disobeying the instruction of God and the result would
have been positive instead of the negative.4 Enlightenment thinking describes sin, evil
and redemption as creation of man’s imbecility and misery. Amoran has this to say
spiritually.5 The fall of man has a cause and of course, God wouldn’t have been the
cause of the fall, it definitely will be traced to the wilful desire of human to disobey
the order of God, having been deceived by Satan, which was disguised as a serpent,
Soon after, God walked through the Garden looking for Adam and Eve, but he
could not find them, because they were hiding from him. God called out to Adam:
"Where are you" (Gen. 3:9). Adam responded, "I heard your voice, and I was afraid,
because I was naked." God replied: "How did you know you were naked? Did you eat
of the fruit of the tree I told you not to eat of?" By asking a question instead of
judging and condemning him, God gave Adam the opportunity to own up to what he
had done and repent. However Adam did not take responsibility for his action and
instead put the blame on Eve. When God asked Eve a question, she too failed to take
responsibility and instead she blamed the serpent. Since freedom and responsibility go
4
Gordon R. Lewis & Bruse A. Demarest, Integrative Theology, Historical, Biblical,
Systematic, Apologetic-Practical. (Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996) 77.
5
Oluwafemi Samuel Amoran, “ Philosophical Proposition of Determinism and its Ad-
Judgement of Sin and Evil in the Church” Ogbomoso Journal of Theology XX, 3 (2017): 1-12.
5
hand in hand, when Adam and Eve denied they were responsible for their own
actions, they denied they were free beings. In this way also they indicated that they
As a result of these events, God cursed all three of the characters in the drama:
The serpent must crawl on his belly and eat dust; the woman must suffer increased
pain in childbearing and be ruled by her husband; and the man must labor for his food
instead of eating freely of what grows in the Garden, for the land too is cursed. (Gen.
3:14-19) These curses can be seen as analogues to the blessings given earlier in Gen.
1:28.
However, the curse upon the serpent contains what Christian exegetes have
long regarded as a hidden prophecy of Christ to come in the words, "He (the woman's
seed) will bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." (Gen. 3:15) This is said to
foretell the crucifixion, by which Christ will strike the head of Satan while taking
God recognizes that man has eaten the forbidden fruit: "The man has now
become like one of us, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:21) To prevent Adam from
also partaking of the Tree of Life and living forever, God casts him out of the Garden,
posting cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the entrance. The death that Adam
and Eve underwent when they ate the fruit was a spiritual death—separation from
God and His blessings. Physically, they lived for many more years.
Apostle Paul is often credited for propounding the first definite doctrine of the
Fall. "For as in Adam all die," he wrote, "so in Christ all will be made alive." (1
6
John P. Newport, Life’s Ultimate Questions, A Contemporary Philosophy of Religion
(Dallas: Word Publishing, 1989) 189-190.
7
Norman l. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume One, p 1036
6
Corinthians 15:22) Although earlier Jewish writers had alluded to similar themes, the
human inability to obey God's Law is a frequent and central theme in Paul's writings.
Catholic and Orthodox teaching hold to this basic Pauline doctrine of the Fall,
drastically the Fall affected human nature. The formal doctrine of Original Sin, as
articulated by Saint Augustine, holds that the Fall resulted in a fundamental change in
human nature, so that all descendants of Adam and Eve are born in sin, which is
transmitted through sexual intercourse. Humans are thus basically depraved and can
only be redeemed by divine grace. The Eastern tradition generally took a somewhat
more optimistic view holding that human nature was not totally depraved, while
agreeing that without the Church and its sacraments, salvation is impossible. 8 The
Western tradition firmly rejected the even more optimistic view of Pelagianism,
which taught that the Christian believer could attain spiritual perfection through moral
efforts.
Augustinian viewpoint, criticizing the Catholic Church for teaching that "works"—
sin, rather than "grace alone."9 Reformers such as John Wesley and his Methodism
provided a greater role for human efforts in transforming one's character into a more
Christ-like one. Nevertheless, they held that these efforts are efficacious only because
they are grounded in Christ's saving grace, who by his sacrifice on the Cross redeems
8
Kenneth John Ryan, ed. The Confessions of Saint Augustine by of Hippo Saint Augustine
(New York: Doubleday, a division of Random House, Inc., 1960), 138.
9
Ibid., 139.
7
Contemporary Protestants hold a variety of views on the issue. Mainstream
liberal theologians tend to interpret the Fall allegorically rather than historically.
Some recent movements such as Christian Science reject the doctrine of the Fall
altogether. Others, such as the Unification Church, reaffirm the importance of the Fall
SUBMISSION
If Paul Ricoeur remains to be a philosopher who seeks the meaning of being human,
then this philosophy of the Will is properly understood within this ‘search.’ With the
idea of the will, one may presuppose that man is, first and foremost, an ens volens,
that is, a willing being. One do not assume that Ricoeur simply defines or describes
the nature of man as to answer the perennial questions, “What is man?” or “Why is
man like this or that?” One could rather settle with a conviction that Ricoeur deals
with the nature of man’s nature. In this sense, the understanding of (or the attempt to
understand) man as the one who wills shall naturally focus on his willing aspect. To
ask, “How is it to be human? is not to address his nature to will but to know the nature
of his will. I shall try to confirm my claim by going through the perflexed Ricoeur’s
three-volume work: first, Freedom and Nature." The Voluntary and the Involuntary;
10
Wendell Allan A. Marinay, Paul Ricoeur’s Philosophy of the Will (The PhilPapers
Foundation, 2015), 1
8
secondly, Finitude and Culpahility which appears in two parts namely Fallible Man
and The Symbolism of Evil; and Poetics of the Will. Ricoeur “begins with a
phenomenological style concerning the empirical facts of the Will in Volume Two.
the elusive unwritten third volume, the Poetics of the Will.” One can say that Ricoeur
focuses first on the forms (not the contents) of human action, that is, primarily
describing or knowing the conditions or structures of the will before gaining insight
into the constitution of the (one) willing or actual existence of man. Ricoeur proceeds
into the reality of human freedom (or human will) by way of a rigid approach of
inquiry by some kind of a rational, pure description of the voluntary and the
involuntary aspects of human existence. This twofold notion of the voluntary and the
involuntary connotes complementarity rather than duality. Indeed, they differ from
each other but they are not totally different. Their distinction points to a dynamism
11
Marcel and Merleau-Ponty “Incarnation, Situation and the Problem of History” Human
Studies, 10, no. 2 (1987): 225-245, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20008998 ?seq=1#metadata_ info_tab
_contents, accessed November, 2021.
12
Ricoeur, 83
9
that gives meaning to being human. The idea of reciprocity between voluntary and the
involuntary comes into the picture to imply a harmony, not seamless though.13
Garcia puts it this way, “This relation of reciprocity implies that the voluntary
has no meaning of its own. It asserts that only the relation of the voluntary and the
involuntary is intelligible.” In same vein, Pellauer asserts that “the very idea of the
that is unnamable. If one can in fact call it the involuntary, it is because we already
involuntary is such a bloody affair. It points to a real task to reflect on, to recognize,
realize. To begin with, we shall deal with the affairs, or at least a glimpse, of the
voluntary understood from the idea of the human action. Seen in the light of deciding,
human action is a capacity to plan out things and to act upon the plan. 16 As a human
capability, deciding is being decisive implying both thought and action in the process.
So also, deciding does not happen out of the blue. We assume a factor that moves man
to decide knowing quite well that man deliberatively decides for a reason, that is, with
reason’ entails something ‘good’ that motivates him to decide. This is the same reason
which leads him to perform intentionally and un-intentionally. With the idea of need
13
Bartholomew. Craig, G. and Goheen, Michael W. Christian Philosophy A Systematic and
Narrative Introduction. Grand Rapid, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2013.
14
David Pellauer, A Guide for the Perplexed (London: Continuum International Publishing
Group, 2007), 26.
15
Leovino Garcia, Paul Ricoeur: Philosopher of Responsibility and Hope, Chicago:
Northwestern University Press, 1971), 57.
16
Allan, 12
10
and pleasure, we understand how man ‘thinks’ and ‘acts’ within and without of
himself.
As embodied, man needs something for his body. And such a need is driven
out of lack which can be fully satisfied with a decisive choice. However, before this
actual decision (or choice), there was still no choice. This is because man is impeded
by hesitation. But as soon as man decides, the apprehension fades away and
decisiveness enters into the picture. While it is true that the “exploration of the will
the voluntary subject emerges only out of a descriptive analysis of the involuntary,”
the philosophical quest must also continue to taking a “new phenomenology that
would disclose a ‘living being which from all time has, as the horizon of all its
intentions, a World, the world,’ and not merely ‘an idealist subject locked within its
systems of meanings”17
Fault:
Moving to the question of the human condition, the discussion on evil is set forth into
various phases beginning from Fallible Man wherein evil is still apparent until
Symbolism of Evil where evil is already evident. And the phases carry on certain
one basic question of life that is embedded in the language of the people. As such, it
is, for Pellauer, a “concrete mythics,” that needs to be understood from how the
people talk about it. This means that it is something real and true and that speaks of
the life of man since time immemorial. It is not therefore mythical in today’s usage
17
Ibid., 14
18
Simon Kouessan Degbe, “Sin, Evil and Redemption in Public Spirituality- Examples from
Ghana” Ogbomoso Journal of Theology XX11, 1 (2017) 1-26.
11
that is something fictional or untrue. This myth on evil was science for the people,
although not that scientific in contemporary language. This means that myth is
something true. But then, it uses a language that needs to be understood from a certain
direction and angle. Man, more specifically, the fallible man is the locus of such
inconsistent. This is not something or someone other than himself. This pertains to
something in relation to his own self. The Fallible man is already there in attentive
man - and this also is the case for what the late Ricoeur will call the “capable human
being.19 In other words, man is by nature fallible. With this make-up, there is the
possibility of evil. This is more than just the physical make-up that man is confronted
here. This is about the strong tendency to go against himself. This tendency does not
make but unmake him, hence, something that brings about his suffering, his disregard
say that the emergence of evil can be made impossible by virtue of his capability. For
instance, we can view and re-view things. Our viewing or perspective is not only true
in thought but also in our deeds. An ‘aha’ experience can actually change our course,
and rightly so, the direction of our life. 21 The evil in man can in turn be out of sight,
not in terms of existence but as long as man is capable of overcoming it. By enabling
19
Paul Ricoeur, Philosophical Anthropology, English edition (Cambridge UK: Polity Press,
2013), xii
20
Garcia, 58
21
Simon A. Kolawole, “Sin and Evil in the Contemporary Society” Ogbomoso Journal of
Theology, 11, 2017: 28-49.
12
himself, man gains his self (again).
the reality of evil. The actual existence of evil is tried and tested under the symbolic
auspices. With such a symbolical and mythical backing, the reality of evil is to be
lens, the existence of evil is not portrayed as an ugly, two-horned devil, with a tail.
Evil exists in our consciousness in different forms: cosmic, oneiric, and poetic. The
The fall of man, to a large extent had exposed that frangibility and fallibility is an
inherent nature of man. This section will therefore explores the implication of the fall
and lessons contemporary Christians can learn from it for a healthy Christian living.
view of the human condition, thus justifying philosophical criticism in the name of
reason and emancipation.22 However, the question that arises is whether the unity
between religion and misery is constitutive or not. Ricoeur asserts that an assiduous
reading of religious traditions leads to the conclusion that such unity cannot be
considered so fatal, and that the image of the mankind who looms is not ambiguous.
Therefore, religion plays a role in defense of the human condition, against the
view of the human condition, the selfdeprecation of human capacities that go hand in
hand with the magnificence of God's power. It is precisely against this backdrop and
analyzes that Ricoeur takes the defense of the “able man” (l'homme capable) through
rigor. And it is precisely in his book Soimême comme un autre, where he answers and
explains what the is able man: it is the answer to the question of I can speak, I can do,
I can tell and imputable. In any case, it is the question: who can speak, who can do,
who can be counted, who can be counted on his own actions, and thus Ricoeur takes
in time) e Ipséité (principal of change ane novelty) the socalled hermeneutics of self.23
Ricoeur's effort consists in giving the guilty man access to the “able man”. 24
Hence, the idea “I can speak” is located in the active and suffering subjects of the
epic, tragedy and Aristotelian theory of action, where the subjects are interlocutors.
For example, Homeric characters and tragic heroes do not stop talking about their
actions. They are named when they make themselves known, the philosopher makes
them speak of their actions. The ego is not a lexical term of the system of a language,
the other. A subject capable of saying: “I, so and so, my name is Paul Ricoeur.” 26 The
23
Paul Ricoeur, Soimême comme un autre, (Paris: Seuil, 1990), 167.
24
Gerardo Loja, Paul Ricoeur and Religion (Paul Ricouer E A Religião), AUFKLÄRUNG,
JoãoPessoa, 5, no 1,(2018): 29-38.
25
Ricoeur, 170
26
Ibid., 146
14
establishment of “able man” means that he or she is able to speak, act, be responsible
Man is fallible:
Man can fall at any point no matter how upright and righteous he may be. Man is
never beyond mistake, this is dues to the fallibility in the nature of man. Adam and
Eve Fall due to the human nature in them. Therefore it is pertinent for all Christians to
be cautioned against the schemes of the devil, and not to be over confidence of
themselves. Hence Apostle Paul affirm in 1 Corinthians 10:12 “so if you think you are
Christian life. Adam and Eve lost their fellowship and communion with God as a
result of their sin in the Garden of Eden. 28 In the same way, when Christians sin
today the presence of God which they enjoy in communion through Holy Spirit is
lost. It is worthy of note that separation from God brings about a spiritual death.
Sin must have deprived man but does not destroyed the image of God in Man:
Although sin can bring about a separation between God and man, but the
image of God cannot be destroyed by sin. To this, Augustine holds a contrary view,
he believed that "the act of sin by which the soul cuts loose from God brought it under
an evil necessity. As a result of the entrance of sin into the world, man can no more
27
The Holy Bible, New International Version
28
L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapid, Michigan: W. M. B. Eerdmans Publishing
CO, 1977) 225-226.
15
will the true good..." He also believed in “Total Depravity” 29 that sin affected man in
the totality of his nature so that no element or faculty can be eliminated from his
fallen condition. Image also affirmed that “Augustine see the Fall as having changed
human nature, for example when he says the habit of sin has been turned into nature
(in naturam versa) by Adam’s sin.”30 This view of Augustine with respect to total
depravity. Total depravity is “the claim that no aspect of our humanity is untouched
Humanity was created in the image of God, good and upright, but fell from its
original sinless state through willful disobedience, leaving humanity in the
state of total depravity, sinful, separated from God, and under the sentence of
divine condemnation (Rom 3:23; 6:23; Eph 2:1- 3). Total depravity does not
mean that human beings are as bad as they could be, but that sin impacts every
part of a person’s being and that people now have a sinful nature with a
natural inclination toward sin.32
Grudem traditionally sees “total depravity” as a total lack of spiritual good and
inability to do good before God. However, to use the phrase “total depravity” is easily
subject to misunderstanding.33 It can give the impression that no good in any sense
can be done by unbelievers, a meaning that is certainly not intended by that term or by
29
Kenneth John Ryan, ed. The Confessions of Saint Augustine by of Hippo Saint Augustine
(New York: Doubleday, a division of Random House, Inc., 1960), 148.
30
Image Isabella, The Human Condition in Hilary of Poitiers: The Will and Original Sin
between Origen and Augustine, 95.
31
McFarland, In Adam’s Fall: A Meditation on the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin, p x.
32
Brian Abasciano, The FACTS of Salvation: A Summary of Arminian Theology/the Biblical
Doctrines of Grace. Articles of the Remonstrance. Retrieved from http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-
five-articlesofremonstrance/ accessed September, 2021
33
Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Bible Doctrine, p 430.
16
God created man to live eternally, but not without a condition. Scripture
records that, “the Lord God commanded the man, ‘you are free to eat from any fruit in
the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,’ for
when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Gen. 2:16-17, NIV). Unfortunately, man
disobeyed the instruction not to eat the fruit in the middle of the Garden and wilfully
choose death. Apostle Paul in his doctrine of the Fall reaffirm this, "for as in Adam
all die," he wrote, "so in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22).
God did not leave the fallen man helpless; He made provision for his
redemption in the account of the fall. For God said, the Seed of the woman shall
crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). This is God’s redemption plan for the fallen
man initiated. Later in the New covenant God sent His son who died for the
redemption of man and who so ever believe in Him the same shall be save.
17
CONCLUSION
emphatically said that the fall of man was due to his intentional choice of what he did
with his free will. Man responded to impulse on hearing what he will gain if he eat of
the forbidden fruit (not knowing it was a deceit) and thus, paid attention to the wrong
person (devil) and object (the forbidden fruit) instead of God’s command. To be
redeemed from the fall, man will have to intentionally choose to be saved. To be
saved is an intentional act by man with the help of the Holy Spirit. This is why Jesus
said to them “if any man wants to follow me, let him deny himself and take up his
cross daily and follow me.” (Luke 9:23). The actions such as self-denier and to take-
up one’s cross as listed in the above Bible passage are intentional actions and these
actions could not be taken as response to impulse but to attention. Therefore, if man
had wilfully chosen to fall, man have to intentionally chose to be save (through the
18
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abasciano Brian, The Facts of Salvation: A Summary of Arminian Theology/the
Biblical Doctrines of Grace. Articles of the Remonstrance. Retrieved from
http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-five-articlesofremonstrance/ accessed
November, 2021
Degbe Simon Kouessan, “Sin, Evil and Redemption in Public Spirituality- Examples
from Ghana” Ogbomoso Journal of Theology XX11, 1 (2017) 1-26.
Isabella Image, The Human Condition in Hilary of Poitiers: The Will and Original Sin
between Origen and Augustine, 1995.
Keil Geert and Kreft Nora ed., Aristotle’s Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2019.
Kolawole Simon A., “Sin and Evil in the Contemporary Society” Ogbomoso Journal
of Theology, 11, 2017: 28-49.
19
Lewis R. Gordon & Demarest A. Bruse, Integrative Theology, Historical, Biblical,
Systematic, Apologetic-Practical. Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1996.
Marinay Wendell Allan, Paul Ricoeur’s Philosophy of the Will. The PhilPapers
Foundation, 2015.
Ryan Kenneth John, ed. The Confessions of Saint Augustine by of Hippo Saint
Augustine. New York: Doubleday, a division of Random House, Inc., 1960.
Schweiker William, Paul Ricoeur and the Return of Humanism. Journal of French
Philosophy. 16, no 2. (2006): 21-41
20