RICOEUR’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY AND THE PATH TO THE DISSOLUTION OF STATES: GLOBAL COMMUNITY OF MAN AND THE END OF HOSTILITIES

INTRODUCTION

     Prior to the rise of globalization and even to statehood people already have the tendency to organize towards a collective. If we were to hypothesize the early man in his primitive state, man as a social being cannot be done away with. There was no point in our history that man was a stand alone, thus the saying ‘no man is an island’ is true. Moreover, in the history of man, he has come to terms with others forming societies that reflects a merger of common interest but to the point that that sociability eventually leads to struggles between societies, whether the agenda be that of racial, economic, class, religious or the political. It cannot be undone that man is a social being and facing the two sides of the coin for survival whether through collective honourable efforts or that of bloody wars.

     This then begs the question of when man can achieve a kind of socialization that is without violence. Even though that man in his organization can do away with war or other forms of violence into the creation of a stable society, there was never a point in history that there was actually a long standing peace. Peace which is borne out from mutual-recognition. Within the global community, there is an attempt to sustain global peaceful relations without violence, but even such the threat looming that there is going to be violence is present as nations in the world even strive to have military might to deter and establish advantages in the negotiation table. Moreover, the researcher contends that violence is not only through physical armaments, but can be through economic sanctions especially the presence of a neo-liberal framework which creates economic atrocities to third world and developing countries.

     Herewith the researcher would like to tackle on the possibilities of a practicable utopia, not just an ideal society to that cannot be realized, but through the germs of Ricoeur’s thought that there is a concrete possibility of it coming to be. Maybe it is time to reawaken the dream of Christ of a Kingdom of God but not as religious vision but a socio-political dream.

THE WORLD WE ARE IN

    It is a cliché to always start the description of the status of the world as either developing progressively or with regards to the bleak aspect of it, wretched with violence and human rights degradation of even gross neglect of the welfare of the environment. However, let us begin to give a description to the phenomena that occurred of which creates the necessity to view the human socio-political field in the light of Ricoeur’s political philosophy.

     We are in the world of nation-states wherein regardless of the origins as laid out in history, we have reached this point of local and global culture wherein we are led to either to re-evaluate existing values or to glorify the ethical wisdom of the past whether through the classics of through what they have provided and crystallized as law.

     We have an interesting moment right now which is a breather from the threat of nuclear apocalypse during the Cold War and of which the turn of the global situation is now defined by alliance making and some aspects of the war are now fought in the digital level through misinformation or the control thereof. We can evenly call the irony of our century of how the plurality of truth leads to a lot of concerted efforts to misuse the media platform to suit the ends of economic giants whether rigging national elections and or shaping public opinion accordingly to some ideology or if not a possible precursor to determine alliances and acceptance of policies. Call it violence to our reason if there is a war in the information field via the media platform.

     The neo-liberal situation desperately creates the tragic scenario for countries which are held under its chains. The results of such policies create economic backlashes of which the views of Karl Marx become a battle cry against the oppression present. Through the manoeuvre of economics and politics that favours the few; we then have social maladies such as poverty that can either results to economic or political alienations. We also have wars that are void of national interests but interests of big corporations in their struggle to gain access to dump and invest surplus capital and such is the case with war torn countries (not to mention treating war as business and a game by the investors).

     The world is rooted on the economic drive which created a lot of socio-political problems and privy matters (pertaining to the conditions which are created which determine even the existential situation of individuals). In an allusion to the Marxist’s view of dialectics between substructure and superstructure wherein necessitates the present conditions of the world we are in, changes can come through the power of what created the condition in the first place and that is another collective movement.

     It is noteworthy to recall historical and contemporary events that led to major changes of which are indeed a product of the collective. The collective in response to the conditions they are in are anchored on principles of which aims to serve the collective and such are the objectives of nationalists, labour unions and etc. We have seen so many protests, demonstrations either against a corporation or for recognition of rights or that which deals with either with national or international scopes. LGBT rights movements, NATO, ASEAN, UN, religious movements and many more have been highlighted in the media and to serve as testaments of people trying to manage themselves as a species. However, we have yet to reach that pinnacle of human achievement wherein all concerted efforts now addresses humanity and now void of national or state interests. No state will sacrifice itself for the existence of the other and that is why there is the dire struggle to exist until such perishes. History witnessed the extinction of social groups, but these groups did not voluntarily elect themselves to be mere remnants and or memories of history. Maximum tolerance is a virtue yet the problem with tolerance is to allow the other to continually render harm to another in a manner that is still acceptable. The world we have is a world of nation-states of which the dream of humanity is still farfetched. Can humanity proceed to far greater collective?

PAUL RICOEUR ON MAN

              A. The Antinomy of Human Reality

     Before proceeding to the idea of a global community of man, let us take into consideration on how Paul Ricoeur viewed man. Ricoeur does not mention of the term nature in an act to define and awkwardly, he acknowledges in The Problem of the Foundation of Moral Philosophy that it was even his first time to use such a term. Nevertheless, he does not give a nature of man but instead give what can be most dealt with in precision and that is the situation of man. In The Antinomy of Human Reality and the Problem of Philosophical Anthropology, man is described to be immersed in a reality of extreme polarities, living in a paradox and thus he calls this the ‘antinomy of human reality’ of which he says that this is “. . . the problem of the inner disproportion within human beings or of their antinomical structure, wherein they find themselves distended between an infinite and a finite pole. . .”[1]

     Ricoeur mentions Plato, Pascal, Kierkegaard and Kant of which these thinkers were pointing to man’s antinomical situation. As for Plato man is between his rational and the irrational, to Pascal is that man is between the infinite and the finite, to Kierkegaard is that man is caught between the infinite and the now. However, Ricoeur cited Kant of which he saw in Kant the very germ of which such an antinomical situation can be overcome through transcendental imagination. This transcendental consideration of the human reality starts when there is a recognition of being the intermediary i.e. to be the recipient of things as they appear and to ascribe meaning. However, the showing of the object (horizon) is singular, but on the how it is going to be interpreted, perceived invites multiplicity and in this ‘perception’ man sees a path towards ‘playing’ (amidst-dialectical) possibilities drafted from the antinomous fact to create his way through such contradiction. Thus, there is a need to reflect for it is only through being conscious of the poles and see one’s self caught between poles can man momentarily liberate himself from a momentary encounter with the two extreme poles.

     Previously, the antinomy spoken of was an antinomy concerned with man’s intellectual capability as it boils down to having a well mediated reflection and when one uses his reason on what is theoretical then theory has to be applied through praxis. “I (Ricoeur) purpose calling the antinomy of character and happiness the form that the disproportion within human beings takes on the level of praxis.”[2] Both pertains to the possibility of practicality in man as it either aims to satisfy one’s self of which is the objective of character (interestingly speaking as this is how Ricoeur would define it) or to satisfy a larger whole is which is happiness. Happiness and character are polar opposites and the mediation leads to a certain task. As character pertains to an individual’s perspective a certain mode or disposition whereas to happiness entails an end for all human beings then finding what is in between call upon a certain mode that a being is ought to be and thus Kant would call it a person. The person has to be realized to be the individual and the other. Being human can only be realized if an ‘other’ recognizes one as such. The meaning of being human can only be achieved in relation with another. Perspective, power and desire dialectically culminates in the ‘infinity’ which is happiness. Thus happiness as the ‘total’ encompasses poles, contraries, contradictories. However, since it is the infinite, it is not privative. The fulfillment thereof must be inclusive to everything that is, inclusive to all humans.

     Feeling is then given an importance by Ricoeur as it is undeniable that within the machinations of reason and the attempt to use it there is still room for feelings (thumos) and the fact that people do live by it. “The reason is found in the most general function of feeling in the constitution of the person.”[3] Feeling is the most intense immersion and relation to the phenomenon of disproportion, thus man’ fallibility. Moreso, it is through feeling that happiness and character further ‘splits’ as it consumes a human being to either polarities and as how it is popularly known that it overrides the rational aspect of man. It is that transition from life to reason. It precedes reason for it gives reason an avenue to exercise its “mediation” towards objects and the self.

     The two poles of man in both situation and in himself in relation to the other, as for Ricoeur, can be well addressed through respect. Respect comes as a bridging the gap between disproportions, especially that from subject to subject. Moreover, it is the expression of mutual recognition between human beings.

     However, prior to respect each individual must be at least ‘worthy’ because if man were to cohabitate with one another then there has to be a primordial consideration into establishing ties. Although man is fallible and is immersed in an antinomical reality it does not mean that he cannot establish relations.

              B.The Fallible Yet Capable Man in Relation to Others and of Institutions

     Man to Ricoeur is fallible because of his preference to feeling. Feeling is the most intense immersion and relation to the phenomenon of disproportion, thus man’ fallibility. Moreso, it is through feeling that happiness and character further ‘splits’ as it consumes a human being to either polarities and as how it is popularly known that it overrides the rational aspect of man. However, it does not mean that man cannot redeem his fallibility. Man has reason of which he uses in order to regulate feelings (thumos). Thus without feeling, man has no point in exercising faculty of reason because it is that transition from life to reason and of which precedes reason for it gives reason an avenue to exercise its “mediation” towards objects and the self. However, when reason is given much emphasis, it creates another dilemma to man. When actions are at the point of being too technical (over emphasis on reason), then the meaning of the actions are dislodged from the person. The tendency of the human beings are partly body (bios) means that it seeks the temporal and particular because the eternal, or the infinite does not mean anything, such as the feeling of everything.

     Regardless of man’s situation as such, he can be a capable individual according to Ricoeur as long as he is able to be the author of his actions. Capability in man “is the capacity of a human agent to designate himself as the author of his acts considerable significance for the subsequent assignment of rights and duties.”[4] Moreover, capacity is linked with the concept of esteem as esteem is about one’s capability. Therefore, if one is capable, one has esteem and thus worthy of respect. “We ourselves are worthy of esteem of respect insofar as we are capable of esteeming as good or bad, or as declaring permitted or forbidden, the actions either of others or of ourselves.”[5] There is esteem within an individual if he or she is capable of ‘evaluating’ his or her own actions, that is, impartially judging the actions committed. “Self-esteem and self-respect are in this way reflexively addressed to a capable subject.”[6] 

There can only be esteem and respect if man is always in relation with an ‘other’ to recognize such value in him. Therefore, what is implied that man is inside the fact that he is with others. Moreover, in this relation with the other is best mediated by a third party, which is an intermediary i.e. institution. But prior to institutions there is just the relation between I and the other of which is points out to the foundations of ethics. The relation of the other must necessitate the mutual exercise of freedom. An ethic also regards the freedom of the second person, the other and not just the freedom of the individual. It is also important to take note that in one’s free act there is the other that willingly or allows your free act to occur and this creates a problem because it is dependent on the other that such freedom can exist. Therefore, between the free exercises of individuality creates the nuance and the tendency to fallibility if ever one fails the other. In Husserlian context, when the individual does not understand that it is an ‘I’ or an ‘ego’, then it cannot understand the other as such. Because if the individual does not understand what it means to be free, how can that individual will it for others? (Genuine freedom is knowing one’s freedom and the other’s capability as well.) This presumption of the other as such in relation to the ‘I’ is an analogy. Thus, in order to ‘regulate’ the course of freedom among individuals then the institution is needed. It is through institutions that freedom is ‘materialized’ or founded.

It may seem that establishment or Ricoeur’s idea on intersubjectivity starts from a perspective of pre-institutions. However, it is through institutions that freedom is ‘materialized’ or founded. There can be never be an individual before an institution; therefore, every individual is in an institution and thus has his or her freedom modified by such institutions. Thus, in order to continue to re-evaluation of ethics within an institution, there is a need to have a dialogue between parties (individual and the second person) into either an addition ‘institutionalization of some sorts’ or a ‘re-evaluation of what has been instituted’.  Freedom according to Hegel “must be mediated by all sorts of practical objects which express themselves in what we are calling in the precise meaning of the word, institutions, whether they be familial, juridic, economic, social or political institutions.”[7] The thought that individuals are always inside a sphere of relations signifies that individuals in their fallibility necessitates the conditions of re-evaluation of the bond that made their relations possible and that is ethics. Moreover, the ethos throughout time becomes manifested through culture of which Ricoeur exhibits another problem.

C. ETHICS, CULTURE, VIOLENCE, POWER and POLITICS

     The relationship between individuals is created by a necessity to mutually exercise each other’s freedom. However, when there be ‘crystallizations’ on the ‘hows’ to allow such avenue to prosper, it consequentially creates nuances such as the ‘prescriptive’ nature of what has been established. Let us again point out that Ricoeur does not point out an origin of societies and to do such is nothing more than to establish fiction. Therefore, one cannot help that man is inside a relation with the other and institutions.

     Man is given inside a condition which is not of his own doing and that is why firstly he accepts the facts before he even can reflect about them. “No one is situated or can situate himself at the zero point of ethics.”[8] Thus, man is immersed in the crystallization of ethics either in law or the norm. Moreover, there is also the presence of ideology that affects the ethical and political plane and majority are immersed in the situation that dialogues are quiet near to impossibility as it would be easier to manage society through what are established.

    

    Man can still change what is given as it is in his capabilities to do so. However, a systemic change cannot be done alone. Systems sometimes deter man’s capability to act as an individual or that of concerted act, thus there is political alienation. When there is such, then even man’s ethical aim will be deterred thus rendering him to a point where he becomes virtually incapable. Alienation such as this thrive overtly in totalitarian regimes and maybe at some point not that seen even in the not so authoritarian regimes. Marx and his famous analysis traces political alienation as a result of a much more fundamental alienation and thus he pertains to what is economic alienation. However, the economic sphere is also defined by political predicament. “The economic life of a nation is incorporated into politics by the decisions made by the state.”[9] Ricoeur, rejects the Marxist premise of the fundamentality of the economic situation that leads to the political situation because even though that economic alienation is addressed and that is to say in amongst societies with highly developed strategies for resource appropriations, political alienation can still exist. A well distributed economy is not a guarantee that people politically engage themselves. Orthodox Marxism always made it a point that political alienation is borne from economic alienation.  Consequently, in order to achieve political liberation, then there is the necessity to economic liberation to occur. This formula is a problem in concrete terms because of the many forms of tyranny that arose into the modifications of attaining economic liberation. (Hinting towards Stalin and other tyrannical socialist and communist regimes.) Moreover, according to Weil there is this ‘dissatisfaction of modern man’. Firstly it is the fact of man being torn between classes and the division thereof creates the sense or feeling of injustice. The division of the classes is a result of the division of labor (reason organizing labor) of which the division is unreasonable. Second is man being alienated to the purpose of his labor, i.e. there is no mere meaning to his labor as it has become mechanistic in a way that it reduces him to an act of mere survival.[10]

Alienation breeds an avenue wherein violence takes place, whether it be on the part of the ruling class to use it to control the masses or the masses who are going to use it to change the ruling class. Either way, violence becomes a necessity towards instigating change, but Ricoeur is not for it. Although he acknowledges states are borne and thrived through violence but it does not follow that states continue on with the usage of it. “The state there appears a certain violence which has all the characteristics of legitimacy”.[11] Ironically, states even use violence in the execution of justice and with legitimacy. Moreover, it can be even used for punitive measures. Thus, the community of man as mutually recognizing each other’s free space is put into question because violence deters the freedom of individuals. The political plane intersects into the ethical plane which is affects it drastically. The ethical plain adhere ‘mutual recognition’. “The ethics of politics consists nothing other than the creation of spaces of freedom.”[12]

Violence as either a rule of the state or the reaction of the oppressed, results to problems pertaining power. Power is power in common and if violence is an exhibition of domination coming from the ruling class, then violence is not considered as power. Ricoeur highlighted the events that happened during his time pertaining to state violence used to quell sources of dissent and the angry mob in reaction to authoritarian states. Amidst the presence of the twofold alienation of the economic and political it created a tension between groups and the most prominent were the Marxist oriented groups.

        The reality of Ricoeur’s time is also present today because of the economic facticity of capitalism that indeed almost anywhere creates social problems and fundamentally economic alienation. Moreover, economic alienation also creates an atmosphere of political alienation as a consequent or sometimes can even exist without economic alienation. But the present is plagued with economic alienations of which gives rise to a lot of social mobilization which indeed is ablaze in the present news. The system still persists and that violence is still a recourse to either the oppressors and or the oppressed.

Moreover, violence has been instigated by those who are considered to be in authority. Authority commonly entails those who are in power but Ricoeur denies such as power is the power in common. Although authority could also follow from such principle that it is something inaugurated from the efforts of the common, but authority differs because of a principle pertaining to legitimation. Not only that, there is a misconception of authority to that of superiority, violence and domination. “The recognition of superiority is therefore what tempers domination by distinguishing it from violence, but also from persuasion”.[13] In absence of recognition then it destabilizes domination for domination will be tantamount as violence.[14]

Authority cannot be tantamount to violence if there is creditability. Because creditability is a form of recognition coming from the people who acknowledge the necessity of such, a credit is given. Authority has to be accredited, and in the accreditation process, there has to be this deliberation of whether to allow authority to reign or not. Thus, accordingly serves the meaning of credit in accrediting.

THE CATEGORIES & THE CATEGORY

I, as much as possible elucidated what needs to be looked into Ricouer’s thoughts that can be used into the consideration of what I want to achieve. Let me formulate a category coming from all categories mentioned. In order to establish the global community of man, there has to be a relation of solicitude between individuals who are deserving of respect due to their self-esteem. The solicitude has to extend to others in a just institution which enact laws and promulgate justice in mutual recognition of the freedom of others and the prevention of utmost harm to all. Moreover, the people have the power to change laws and norms which are not befitting for the situation as power has to be power in common and the change has to be at all times minimal on violence. Authority should be utilized to manifest the power in common and must be continually credited and re-evaluated. Thus politics and ethics must be parallel and mutually functional as one institutionalizes coming from the aims of establishing order in the fulfilment of the good life for all.

GLOBAL COMMUNITY OF MAN, DISSOLUTION OF STATES AND THE END OF HOSTILITIES

Let me jump from the point mentioned above with regards to the makeshift category I made coming from an understanding of Ricoeur’s philosophy. In this title I create a prospect of a universal community of which will reflect Ricoeur’s statements and views of which I noticed can be use to have a framework into how to run such affair. Although it may seem contradictory as he is not really for normalizing, it may appear as such but it is rather more on prescribing a how rather than a what. Ricoeur did not entice a single form of politics or of how society ought to be run. Ironic is it again to create a pattern and a formula coming from his key points.

Man based on solicitude can extend to the point that there is either a continual need for states, but also a radical option of the dissolution thereof into a creation of a new state which is without borders. Although globalization is evidence thereof, but as long as there are states, they act accordingly to protect their collective interest. Or quite worse, the state will be dissolved under an economic alliance amongst elites in every state of which the fundamental concern is the economy with a gross neglect of nationality. However, there can be a dissolution of states that can lead to a community of humanity. This I call the global community of man, wherein solicitude is the ‘rule’ and such rule is boundless as it defines all relationship of persons. Moreover, as how previous states organize themselves through laws, but the status can only embrace all in the sense when there are no more nation borders but a community and the laws must be based on solicitude wherein there has to be a sense of ‘friendship’ with all people. Just like the state of affairs of friends can change to fit a given situation for the better, then so as to how laws should be. Although laws can be changed but not that often as there is a sense of absolutism to it. Laws should reflect the point wherein people should work for the excellence of others, mutual excellence and wherein if the law ceases to be such then there has to be fluidity to its change. The problem with most laws ends up being dissociated from the human context and it is all too legal and dehumanized, because solicitude is missing. Moreover, the global society must continue to assert such bond to the utmost respect of avoiding harm to others. Harm at any sorts as all people are in the bond of solicitude then there can be no power relations pertaining to dominations, whether economic or political. All states will not only dissolve their borders but even the military as well as it is a symbol of domination and enforcement not from good will but by insecurity. Although Ricoeur acknowledges the fallibility of man, but it is a recognition which aim is not to punish but to correct via the virtue of solicitude. The ultimate aim is to bring out the good in order to deliver the good for all.

How then this will appear in our times? Is it high time to abandon all armaments, disarm nuclear weapons, remove economic embargoes, fill in the gaps of respective ‘areas’ in kind? Solicitude brings out excellence, violence brings out vice. As Ricoeur has some touch of Christian undertones in his writings, what is most likely a great description that he has for a kind of community that we both envision is a community called the Kingdom of God. Minus the religious implication, but take it as a symbol of what could be the peak and the highest manifestation of man in relation with others. Man in mutual recognition. Man as oneself for another.

---

[1] Ricoeur, Paul. Philosophical Anthropology, edited by J.Michel and J. Poree, translated by D. Pellauer. Cambridge: Polity Press. 2016. p. 2. Note: Even to the point that Ricoeur mentions Plato’s conception of man as being in between the rational and irrational (I have to place it here after the quote because he placed it in a parenthesis). Although later on he does not take sides onto which to prefer. His method is not an either-or but a merger of the antinomical poles.

[2] Ibid. p.11

[3] Ibid. p.15

[4] Ricoeur, Paul. The Just, translated by David Pellauer. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 2000. p.3

[5] Ibid. p.4

[6] Ibid. p.4

[7]  Ricoeur, Paul. The Problem of the Foundation of Moral Philosophy. Philosophy Today, 22:3. 1978. p.181

[8]  Ibid. P.180

[9]  Ricoeur, Paul. From Text to Action: Essays on Hermeneutics, translated by Kathleen Blamey & John  Thompson. Illinois: Northwestern University Press. 2007.  p.327

[10] Ibid. pp. 326-327.

[11] Ricoeur, Paul. History and Truth, translated by Charles Kelbley. Illinois: Northwestern Univeristy Press. 2007. p.234.

[12] Ricoeur, Paul. From Text to Action: Essays on Hermeneutics, translated by Kathleen Blamey & John  Thompson. Illinois: Northwestern University Press. 2007. p.334

[13] Ricoeur, Paul. In Reflections on the Just, translated by David Pellauer. Chicago: The University of Chicago University Press. 2007. p.93.

[14] But how can recognition of authority be a demarcation between domination and persuasion? As persuasion assumes an equality, but how can recognition of superiority be leading to equality? If maybe perhaps the superior there are not people? This is what Ricoeur failed to address in his works.