| To examine fully the nature of human beings, Paul Ricoeur crossed disciplinary boundaries in his work, moving from phenomenology to social and political thought, hermeneutics, and ethics. I contend that Ricoeur's work is unified across this wide variety of disciplines by his implicit answer to his question about human beings. Running throughout Ricoeur's work, particularly Fallible Man, Time and Narrative, Oneself as Another, and his shorter pieces on hermeneutics, ethics, and religion, is a theme of the human capacity for hope. Working most closely with the writings of Kant, Kierkegaard, and Moltmann, and indirectly with those of Aquinas and Bloch, Ricoeur implicitly constructs a definition of hope. According to Ricoeur, hope is a disposition of expectation, oriented toward some future action, which aims at a good for self and others. The conditions for the possibility of hope are the unity and difference that exist within the self in transcendental, practical, and effective realms, and the self's ability to narrate, which is made possible by the self's existence within and understanding of time. We are able to understand our capacity for hope via the symbols found in myths and sacred writings. Such writings often center on symbols of evil, but symbols of the good can also be found in the obverse of the symbols of evil. Furthermore, hope is not limited to those who are religious; atheists may be just as hopeful as the devout. Exploring the nature of hope in Ricoeur's work allows for a greater understanding of hope, and greater ability to cultivate hope in oneself and others. |
