Ricœur and the Autonomy of Philosophy

Abstract

It is well known that for much of his career Paul Ricoeur held stead- fastly to autonomy of philosophical from theological contamination.1 There may well be deep religious motivations for being a philosopher, he acknowledges, but there is no religious trace in his philosophical arguments themselves.2 The lodestar term to which Ricoeur returns in charac- terising this relation is autonomy: the philosophical I maintain is, as I like to repeat, and bears responsibility for itself.3 The determination to preserve autonomous philosophical discourse of Oneself as Another 4 is eloquently attested by separate publication of his final two Gifford lectures which take a theological approach. This commitment to autonomy of philo- sophical can be traced all way back to Ricoeur's student days when it was commended by Gabriel Marcel at his famous soirees,5 through to Ricoeurian Nachlass, in which he continues to maintain liberty of thought and autonomy-I would even say autarky, self-sufficiency-proper to philosophical investigation and way it structures its discourse.6The question of autonomy of philosophical has also exercised Ricoeur scholars both during his lifetime and since his death in 2004.7 A number of different attempts have been made to suggest that theology, in some way or other, has upper hand in relationship or that philosophical is not, after all, autonomous.Henry Isaac Venema critiques thesis of autonomy of philosophical though he does not interrogate notion of autonomy itself, concluding rather that level [of discourse] opens to other by way of attestation to a surplus of meaning, to more-than-possible of superabundance.8 I will show below why this way of considering relation between philosophy and theology is falsely symmetrical. Merold Westphal argues that philosopher's rationality is not but is rather already shaped by symbols, narratives, and traditions to be interpreted and thus 'contaminated' with contingency and particularity of texts themselves, with result that conflict of interpretations is a debate among theologians.9 Kevin Vanhoozer and David Ford both see Ricoeur philosopher as a latter day John Baptist preparing way for religious proclamation. Whereas for Vanhoozer Ricoeur's philosophy does not itself proclaim Christian message but has the more humble task of 'making space' for this proclamation and of rendering this proclamation intel- ligible by providing philosophical approximations,10 Ford goes further to claim that preparation and proclamation for Ricoeur are not in a relation of either/or but of both/and.11What is missing from each of these discussions is an acknowledgement of full extent to which very relation between philosophy and theology cannot be neutral with regard to their respective claims. This is because, as I will show below, what is at stake in determining nature of relation is same as what is at stake in determining status of philosophy itself, namely autonomy. We can see this clearly when we follow Ricoeur's own counsel to look to structural elements of philosophy and theology rather than to their local motifs.For Ricoeur question of relation between philosophy and theology is not a matter of deploying specific terms, but of overall structure of philosophy and theology. He makes this point emphatically in relation to comparing differ- ent philosophical systems in his 1985 essay Irrationality and Plurality of Philosophical Systems:It is so tempting to make punctual comparisons between systems, concerning alleged eternal problems, such as mind-body relationships, freedom and determinism, place of man in universe, happiness and wisdom, and so on. What is overlooked here is that each philosophy determines, by reason of its immanent efficiency, its way of dealing with basic problems raised by ordinary and by physical and noetic sciences. …