earticle

영어

In the first part of this study, I will trace the main outlines of history of philosophical theodicy before moving on, in our second part, to a discussion of Ricoeur's own hermeneutic response to the enigma of evil in terms of a hermeneutical symbol of evil. Theodicy signifies the justification of God. The term was introduced into philosophy by Leibniz, who, in 1710, published a work entitled: "Theodicic Essays on the Benevolence of God, the Free will of man, and the Origin of Evil". The purpose of the essay was to show that the evil in the world does not conflict with the goodness of God, that, indeed, notwithstanding its many evils, the world is the best of all possible worlds. Leibniz himself traced its most famous claim—that this is "the best of all possible worlds"—back to Plato. The related idea that a perfect world is not possible because not all possible things are "compossible" with each other has a Stoic pedigree. Leibniz saw nothing incoherent in the maximal notion of “the most perfect being” and concluded that God existed. Kant criticized arguments for God's existence that departed from the premise that the concept of God is noncontradictory as fallacious hyperrationalism. He claimed there is a reason all possible theodicies must fail: evil is a personal challenge to every human being and can be overcome only by faith. Kant decided that, since the existence of God was unknowable, philosophical effort should be directed to the idea of God, especially the separate functions that the idea of God plays in regulating our moral conduct (judge concept) and our mode of address to the problems of form and function in the organic realm (creator concept.) In an essay entitled 'Evil, A Challenge to Philosophy and Theology'(1985), Ricoeur offers a hermeneutic critique of different discursive responses to evil: myth, wisdom and theodicy. According to Paul Ricoeur, to think through evil is to think through fallibility; because human freedom is summed up as existence prior to evil. The problem of evil was a question which dogged Paul Ricoeur throughout his reflection and his philosophical works. This is a man who has thought about vulnerability in moral evil with both an exemplary profundity and sensitivity.

한국어

플라톤으로부터 시작하여 라이프니츠와 칸트에 이르는 악에 대한 논구들은 신정론이 엄밀한 의미에서 존재신학의 가장 빛나는 보석임을 보였다.** 플라톤을 통해 악이 존재가 아니라 선의 결여이며 신은 악에 책임이 없다는 것이 명확하게 설명되었다. 라이프니츠에 따르면, 우리는 모든 가능한 세계의 최상 속에 살고 있다. 칸트에 의하면, 형이상학 안에서는 악에 대한 이성의 통찰이 그 한계에 부딪칠 뿐이다. 악에 대한 개략적인 설명이 잘 함축되어 있다(플라톤). 그렇다고 악을 논리적 필연성(라이프니츠)으로 허락할 수만도 없지 않는가? 자유의지와 책임문제(칸트)는 최고의 절정판처럼 보였다. 그럼에도 여전히 악의 극복 가능성이 해결해야 할 과제로 남아있는데, 그것은 철학의 책임회피라 생각한다. 리쾨르의 악의 상징 해석학을 통해 그 가능성을 검증하는 것이 필자의 목적이고 바램이다. ‘악’의 상징 해석학은 악에 대한 철학적 설명에 안주하지 말고, 악의 극복 가능성도 철학의 본래 주제임을 각인시킨다.