You are on page 1of 51


__________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Philosophy University of Santo Tomas

__________________ In Partial Fulfillment to the Requirements for the Degree A.B. Philosophy


By Sem. Ervin Ray S. Garcia January 2011


To think is to thank

Words are not enough to express my sincerest and profoundest gratitude and appreciation to the following wonderful people who, in one way or the other, have extended their valuable assistance and kindest understanding to make this endeavor possible.

To our Dean, Rev. Dr. Norberto M. Castillo, OP for the valuable advice and guidance given to me as a student of the Ecclesiastical Faculties, Faculty of Philosophy. Thank you po Father!

To the UST Ecclesiastical Faculties Staff: Sir Joel, Kuya Ghie, Kuya Mike, Maam Cecile, and the rest, thank you for the support and patience you have given me.

To my formators in the seminary, Rev. Fr. Reynante B. Balilo, OSA; and Rev. Fr. J. William D. Araa, OSA for all the warm welcome and accommodation given to me, and for all the guidance they have given me in my seminary formation. Muchas Gracias!

To my Augustinian brothers, indeed there was never a dull moment with you. Thank you for all the joy, laughter, and fun. Indeed, these are worthy of remembering. Maraming salamat po!

To my original batch mates at the UST Central Seminary: Paul, Ray Anselmo, and Mark; to my Benedictine best friend Kart (Dom. Leander), thank you for all the good memories that we have shared together. You will always be my batch


To my Cabalen, Prince Tan for allowing me to use his thesis as a guide. It has truly been a great help. Dacal a salamat Kapatad!

To the members of the Vocation Committee of Saint James the Apostles Parish in Betis who supported me in prayers. Dacal pung salamat!

To Ador, Kong Marlon, Ate Lai, thank you for all the moral and spiritual support; and to all my prayer warriors especially Arni and Tintin who unceasingly pray for me. Thank you very much! You will also be in my prayers.

To my Parish Priests, Rev. Fr. Emil Dizon and Rev. Msgr. Cenovio Lumanog for their moral support. Dakal pung salamat, Among!

To all my spiritual and financial benefactors, most especially to Auntie Alma S. Twao, my forever thanks. May the good Lord bless you abundantly for your generosity and kind hearts. Thank you po!

To my fellow seminarians in Guagua who supported me in some ways: Kong Nitoy, Keith, Jolo, CJ, Jerome, and Patrick. Thank you so much!

To my fellow Betis Seminarians: Kong Ferdie, Kong Rolly, Kiko, Philip, and to my wale Luis and Elwin. Heartfelt thanks for the brotherhood and camaraderie.

To Mr. Antonio Pangilinan for those valuable advice and insights, and for introducing me to Dr. Leo. Without him, I would have been at a total lost. Muchas

Gracias Seor!

To my professor and thesis consultant, Mr. Manuel H. David for the time and support. You will always be remembered. Danke Schon!

To my thesis adviser, Dr. Leovino Ma. Garcia for his unreluctant support, patience, and kindness. Thank you Doc for treating me more than an advisee could ever ask for. You are truly a Ricoeurian. Merci beaucoup!

To my dear Archbishop of San Fernando, Pampanga, Most Rev. Paciano B. Aniceto, DD for his never-ending support in nourishing my vocation to the priesthood. Dacal pung salamat, Apu Ceto!

To my loving and caring family: my Mom and Dad, Jon and Jen, Chela and my nephews, and to my brother Andrew, I really cant find the right words to thank you for all the love, care, support, understanding, and inspiration you are giving me all these years. God knows how I truly am grateful for having you all. Indeed, I truly am blessed with you. To all my relatives and friends, and to all those who are inadvertently missed out, my apologies. Maraming salamat po! You will always be in my heart and in my prayers.

To God the Most High, the Absolute and Perfect Being, nothing is impossible. This is for Your glory Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!


To my Family especially to my Dad and to my Mom

And in the memory of Inang, Uncle Doc, & Uncle Mon

this is heartily and lovingly dedicated.


Philosophical anthropology is the philosophical discipline that inquires into the essence of human nature and the human condition. To answer the question of human nature, this discipline seeks to unify or critique philosophically the different scientific methods and humanistic approaches used in this enquiry. Most of the thinkers in the history of philosophy have their own distinctive way or method of understanding human nature. However, philosophical anthropology emerged as a product of the new methods and approaches in philosophy developed recently in the context of the late modern period where these methods and approaches interact with the progress of natural and human sciences. To understand the essential points of philosophical anthropology regarding the nature of human being, we must consider the two basic questions: What is a human being? and Who am I? The first question is what traditional philosophy asked; various answers were given, but the best known philosophical definition remains the one formulated by Aristotle; that of the human being as a rational animal. Similar scientific methodologies applied to the humanities emerged due to the development of the natural sciences in the modern period. This brought the different ways and approaches of distinct disciplines on the question of the nature of the human being. First, in the case of the Darwinian theory of evolution, the nature of the human being is explained on the bases of biological forces. Second, in the case of Karl Marx, the essence of the human being is explained primarily through economic, social, and political forces. Third, the theories of Sigmund Freud explain human nature through psychological forces. Similarly, history and sociology seek to explain the cultural and environmental conditions shaping individuals into a kind of being. But some of these theories are limited in explaining only the cultural context of the human being. To try to explain the nature of the human being with these different disciplines and scientific methods is highly complex. The development of

contemporary phenomenology shows how the question of the essence of the human nature remains problematic. Thus, phenomenology prefers to answer this question through lived or concrete experiences. In phenomenology, concrete descriptive accounts of the different kinds of experiences are offered by the philosopher so that the essential features or aspects are attained, including both the limitations and the possibilities of the human being. Existential phenomenology, in particular opens the question by probing into the essence of the human being from the angle of Who am I? In this enquiry, deeper aspects of the human being are disclosed by exploring the question subjectively, where unique experiences of the human being are brought to light. In this way, possible modes of being human in terms of capabilities are disclosed.

Chapter One The Capable Human Being according to Paul Ricoeur Man is the measure of all things! -Protagoras Introduction Background of the Study What is a human being? What is it that makes us human? Being a Filipino, we are very much familiar with the saying, Madaling maging tao, ngunit mahirap magpakatao. It is easy to be human but more difficult to become a truly human being. To act in a very human manner, we should know first our limitations. To become fully human, we should know ourselves. Socrates dictum Gnothi Seauton! or Know Thyself! became known and popular during his time and even in our present era. In order for us then to understand the essence of our humanity, we should first know ourselves. Among the philosophers who first asked the question about the human being was Socrates (as cited in Festin, 2006, p.4). He focused on the question of human being, his ultimate reality and essence; unlike the naturalists who concerned themselves with the problem of the principle and of the physis of things. According to him: Man is his soul. It is his soul that distinguishes him from other things. By soul, it is the reason and the seat of our intellectual and ethical activities. The soul is the conscious I or the consciousness, and the intellectual and moral personality.

Human Being uses his body as if it were a mere instrument. The body is always at the service of the soul that is man himself. Plato (as cited in Festin, 2006, p.4) however introduced a dualistic conception of human being. The main reason is that the body is understood not as a receptacle but as a tomb or prison of the soul, or as the place of the souls expiation. On a different perspective, Aristotle (ibid, p.6) introduces us to an entirely new approach to the problem of human being. Great importance is given to the reality of the soul. He believes that human being can only be understood in relation to his psychology associated with the psuche or the soul. Mans intellective psuche is then the principle. This principle is not just of intellective activities, but also of vegetative and animal activities. Human Being has only one psuche which reflects and explains all the activities that man does and exhibits. Saint Augustine (ibid, p.10) however could not avoid understanding the reality of being human in accordance with Christian doctrine. He states that Human Being is an image of the Trinitarian God (ibid, p.10). It is important that the manner in which Human Being mirrors the mystery of the Holy Trinity be explained. His magisterium with regards to humans body and soul is much influenced by the principles and doctrine of his Christian faith (as cited in Festin, 2006, p.10), such as the belief in the resurrection of the body and the fundamental truth about Jesus Christ, the Son of God who became man through his incarnation. Saint Augustine also believes that the interior human being is the image of the Trinity that in order to find God, human does not need to investigate the world, but simply dig deeper into the core of his being.

Being an intellective being, man does not only seek to discover and explore the thing around him; he also asks questions about himself since he is capable of self-reflection. He is not only the subject of his activity, but also the object of his cognitive curiosity. As Saint Thomas Aquinas (ibid, p.11) said, The human being is both the material object and the formal object of his selfknowledge. The influence of Aristotles philosophy is apparently manifested in St. Thomas Aquinass anthropological thoughts. This influence is clearly

reflected in the way the latter perceives mans body and soul, where man is not only seen as a psuche or anima, but as a total composition of both body and soul. The human being has a single soul which accounts for all the activities he is capable of doing. As a Human Being, man exists and acts because of his human form, the basis of his being a human. This then explains that mans soul is not representative of who he is. Aquinas views that Human Being is by nature a composite being since there are two (2) principles that compose his being. Pico della Mirandola (as cited in Festin, 2006, p.16) stresses that human being stands unique among all other creatures for having been endowed with the highest intellect which enables him to reason out. This uniqueness of intellect also enables him to decide what and who he wants to become. His being therefore is not decided by a pre-determined nature, but according to some pre-chosen forms. He becomes what and who he wants to be depending on the choices he has to make. Human Being is therefore the creator of being, and that is where the miracle and his greatness lie - Magnum

miraculum est homo - man is a great miracle. Pietro Pomponazzi (ibid, p. 16) stressed that human being is a microcosm in which the entire universe is reflected. Human Being may be a small part of the universe. However, as a composite being, the human soul occupies a very important aspect in the hierarchy of being, and thus, considered divine. Human as an inquisitive being, he investigates practically almost about everything surrounding him. Among all other creatures, he clearly

understands realities other than himself. This quality makes human unique from all other beings. As stated by Jean Paul Sartre (ibid, p.1), mans being is not just an en-soi (a being in itself), but a pour soi (a being for itself); a being that tends to go outside of itself. He now becomes a supposit being, a being for others, a person for. Philosophical Anthropology asks the fundamental question about human existence. The object of its study is the essence of being human. It responds to the question, What does it mean to become human? In this study, the researcher aims to find out the meaning of the Capable Human Being according to Paul Ricoeur. Philosophical anthropology was developed by Paul Ricoeur through a dialectical hermeneutics by combining the phenomenological approach with different empirical or scientific methods. This is brought about by Ricoeurs skepticism that ones philosophy, science or method could be used as a way to cover different essential characteristics or conditions of the person. That

different disciplines could be brought to allow new and unexplored aspects of the person to emerge through some preferred methodology. This, for Ricoeur is merely phenomenological, different from what may actually be real or true about the person. Ricoeur points out that these methods could not be reduced to one universal or supra-method that will surpass all other methods. For this reason, understanding of the human being, although progressing, would always remain limited or finite. However, Ricoeur and other philosophers considered that literature and the arts provide essential insights about human nature and its capacities. Ricoeur brought out the capacities of Capable Human Being - the basic powers that found our humanity. These are the capacity to speak (the ability to produce a reasoned discourse); the capacity to act (the power to produce events in society and in nature); the capacity to narrate or the power to tell stories that reveal to us the hidden possibilities of our life; the capacity to be responsible for our actions; the capacity to promise (the capacity to keep ones word); the capacity to forgive (the power to address a liberating word to the Other) and the capacity to experience a happy memory, with just enough remembering and just enough forgetting. The Capable Human Being does not only have the capacities to speak, to act, to narrate, to feel responsible. S/he also has the capacity to experience a happy memory. (Garcia, 2010, pp. 2-3). Academic Interest Although there are other academic disciplines like sociology, cultural anthropology, and history that deal with the understanding of the human being, this study focuses on the philosophical aspects of the human being that

may contribute to our clear understanding of it. Through this, the limitations and possibilities of being human may be brought out, and eventually be fully understood. Theoretical Framework In this study, the researcher uses the Hermeneutical approach as the theoretical framework. This involves analysis, interpretation, and discussion of certain texts of Paul Ricoeur that thematically deal with the Capable Human Being. Thesis Statement In this study, the researcher presents an exposition of the philosophical and anthropological discussion regarding the meaning of Capable Human Being according to Paul Ricoeur. The question as the main problem of the study therefore, shall be answered: What does it mean to be Capable Human Being? To answer the main problem, it is necessary to address the following specific questions as sub-problems: 1. How did Ricoeur move from vulnerability to capability? 2. What are the capacities of the Capable Human Being? 3. What is the significance of the Capable Human Being in the task of becoming Human?

Main Thesis For Ricoeur, the Human Being is an incarnate spirit endowed with freedom, enabling him to become a member of the nexus. A Human Being has the capacities not only to think but also to speak, to act, to narrate, to be responsible, to remember and to forgive. These capacities make us Human. Sub-Theses 1. The Philosophical Anthropology of Ricoeur stresses both the vulnerability as well as the capability of being Human. 2. The Capable Human Being has the following capacities: to think, to speak, to act, to narrate, to be responsible, to remember and to forgive. 3. Understanding what a Capable Human Being can help us live a truly Human life. Significance of the Study 1. Theoretical Significance The theoretical significance of this study will contribute to the studies of Paul Ricoeur in Philosophical Anthropology and to the study of Paul Ricoeurs concept of the Capable Human Being. Result of this study further adds breadth and depth to the existing concepts that will better enable us to fully explain and eventually understand man as a Capable Human Being.

2. Practical Significance Practically, this study will be significant since results can be used as a baseline data for other academic fields or disciplines like ethics, sociology, philosophy and anthropology. Specifically, people will be able to know and learn these concepts which eventually help them live essentially and practically more capable human lives.

Review of Related Literature Based on the researched data, the researcher found out that there is a considerable number of books that analyze and explain the philosophical anthropology of Paul Ricoeur. These books are of great help to the

researcher since most of Ricoeurs writings are basically difficult to comprehend. To have a much clearer understanding of Ricoeurs concepts and thoughts, the researcher thought of considering other related references and books that analyze and explain man as a Capable Human Being.

Ricoeur, Paul (1996). The Hermeneutics of Action, edited by Richard Kearney. London: Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks. This book presents an overview of Ricoeurs significant contribution to modern thought and to the development of hermeneutics, phenomenology, and ideology critiqued in the human sciences. Specifically, it tackles topics such as hermeneutics of action, narrative force, and the other,

deconstruction. These topics are discussed in the context of contemporary thinkers like Heidegger, Levinas, Arendt, and Gadamer. Ricoeur, Paul (1998). Critique Columbia University Press. and Conviction. New York:

This book presents topics in ethics, metaphysics, psychoanalysis, hermeneutics, and politics. It also provides insights and sources of influence that shaped Ricoeurs philosophical approach and his core concerns, among which is the question of what it is to be a human being. Ricoeur, Paul (1992). Oneself as Another. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. This book is an account of Ricoeurs philosophical ethics which gives way for a further study on metaphysics and morals. The book also provides insights of Ricoeurs development of hermeneutics of the self as it focuses on the concept of personal identity. On Ricoeurs writing of the book, it testifies to the importance of openness to the whole range of thought significantly considered in the history of philosophy. Through this book, Ricoeur brings favorable results for his notable arguments on language, narrative, and discourse. Ricoeur, Paul (1991). From Text to Action. Essays in Hermeneutics II. Translated by Kathleen Blamey and John Thompson. Illinois: Northwestern University Press. In this book, Ricoeur presents his work in constructing a general theory of interpretation in relation to its own philosophical background, considering Hegel, Husserl, Gadamer, and Weber. Moreover, the book also presents Ricoeurs response to contemporary philosophers like K.O. Apel and Jurgen

Habermas as he relates to his theory of ideology to their concepts of ideology. Doing this makes Ricoeur believe that his hermeneutic theory is not just a mere analytic tool or scientific interpretation. This book further presents what Ricoeur calls a gradual reinscription of the theory of texts within the theory of action. Clark, Stephen (1990). Paul Ricoeur. London and New York. This book presents Ricoeurs writings ranging from existentialism through structuralism, psychoanalysis and hermeneutics, to his studies of metaphor and narrative. These writings are presented and surveyed situating them within the context of contemporary post-structuralism. It also includes a discussion of Ricoeurs work Time and Narrative. Reagan, Charles & David Stewart (1978). The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: An Anthology of His Work. Boston: Beacon Press. This book is an essential reading material for those studying contemporary philosophical thought. It presents the richness and complexity of the thought and methodology of Ricoeur who has long been hailed in Europe as one of the greatest thinkers and philosophers of his time. Methods 1. Historical and Descriptive Method This study uses historical and descriptive methods in identifying and describing Ricoeurs Philosophical Anthropology, specifically in understanding the Capable Human Being.


Scope of the Study a. Theoretical Scope i. Disciplinal Scope Other academic disciplines such as Sociology and Ethics touch on the different views of the sudden leap from philosophical to anthropological sphere under the field of Hermeneutics. In this research, the researcher focuses his attention on Hermeneutics, where the Philosophical Anthropology of Paul Ricoeur belongs to. In other words, this study will use the hermeneutical character of the topic to tackle the theories that need to be discussed under the Philosophical Anthropology sphere of Paul Ricoeur. ii. Historical Scope This study primarily focuses on Contemporary Philosophers. However, the researcher cites other philosophers from other periods/eras such as from the Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Philosophy as a point of reference in order to better able trace and discuss points clearly. iii. Thematic Scope This study is an exposition of Paul Ricoeurs Philosophical Anthropology in relation to his Capable Human Being. The researcher mainly limits his investigation on the study of the following works of Ricoeur, namely: Interpretation

Theory; The Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences; From Text to

Action:Essays in Hermeneutics II; and The Course of Recognition. The researcher chooses to do this because these works clearly discuss and thoroughly clarify his philosophy and his notion on the Capable Human Being. b. Textual Scope Ricoeur introduces the question of being with two presuppositions: that of fullness and that of intersubjectivity, experiencing the other as a Capable Human Being who presents himself to his fellow Human Being. 3. Procedure a. Gathering/ Collecting of Data In gathering the data, the researcher visited select libraries. Among them were the University of Santo Tomas (UST) Ecclesiastical Faculties Library, UST Central Library, and the Ateneo De Manila University Rizal Libraries. Moreover, a documentary abstraction guide was used as an instrument in collecting data. Lectures, notes, and related references from the researchers adviser and professors were also used for this study. b. Analysis of Data i. External Analysis The external analysis of his study will be made by ensuring the authenticity of the translation of the primary texts of Paul Ricoeur by

some translators and editors. ii. Internal Analysis This study uses a stylistic analysis of the grammatical and technical construction of the language style of the thinkers texts in the context of their life situation. The focus of the internal analysis is: First Level of Analysis The first level of analysis focuses on the discussion of the Philosophical and Anthropological concept of Paul Ricoeurs Hermeneutics. Second Level of Analysis The second level of analysis exposes the Hermeneutical sphere on the concept of Paul Ricoeur in terms of the study of the Capable Human Being of his texts. In both levels of analysis, the researcher incorporates an analysis of the findings of previous commentators for the researcher to highlight and defend the points of agreement and disagreement with them. 4. Limitation Some of the original texts of Ricoeur are written in French. Admittedly, the researcher is not familiar with some of the French terminologies used by Ricoeur, thus the former finds the latters texts

difficult to understand. Hence, the researcher is limited only to explaining and understanding texts known or familiar to him. 5. Procedure of the Study The new exposition of Philosophical Anthropology: The Capable Human Being according to Paul Ricoeur is exposed and explicated in this study. The researcher used library research. He relies on translated works of Paul Ricoeur with the aid of his thesis adviser who is a Ricoeur specialist. He also consulted commentaries, articles, periodicals and other references pertinent to the philosophy of Paul Ricoeur. Organization of the Study The study consists of five (5) chapters, each with a coherent presentation of the abovementioned subject matter/premise.

Chapter One: Introduction The first chapter is devoted to the introduction of the study. It contains the background of the study, the framework used, the statement of the problem, the thesis statement, the review of related literature, and the methods used in the study. Chapter Two: From Vulnerability, Fallibility and Culpability towards Capability of the Human Being The second chapter discusses the natural tendencies of the Capable Human Being. It gives a clear exposition on vulnerability, fallibility and culpability. And how does the Capable Human Being shift from being vulnerable, fallible and culpable towards being capable. It shows that the Human Being both have these negative and positive qualities. In this chapter, the exposition does not just end on the negative side of the Human Being but it presents how the Human Being shifted from being culpable towards being capable. It also gives an emphasis on the positive qualities of Being Human. Chapter Three: The Capacities of the Capable Human Being The third chapter explains the capacities of the Capable Human Being, these are: the capacity to speak, the capacity to act, the capacity to narrate or tell a story, the capacity to feel responsible, the capacity to promise and to experience a happy memory. In each capacity, there is an explanation to show the meaning of these capacities. Chapter Four: The Significance that we can see upon understanding the Capable Human Being

The fourth chapter is an exposition of the importance of the Capable Human Being. It shows that the Capable Human Being both have negative and positive qualities. What makes him fully human is by having those qualities. In this chapter, we will find out why the Human Being is significant and what makes him important. Chapter Five: Summary and Conclusion The last chapter presents the summary and conclusion of the study on the Capable Human Being according to Paul Ricoeur.

Chapter Two From Vulnerability, Fallibility and Culpability towards Capability of the Human Being

Hope is the courage to imagine the possible. -Paul Ricoeur

Human Being is by nature weak and fragile in a sense that he is limited. He can easily fall and stray from the right path in the process of becoming human. It only shows that there is someone who is superior to us, and that Being is the Supreme and Most Perfect Being who is God. Being vulnerable and fallible are just some of the aspects of being human. As Domenico Jervolino (1995, p. 535) said, Fallibility slips into the core of human reality. We can understand in what sense man is fallible. But fallibility is implied in the disproportion which makes man a fragile being. Disproportion, need for an intermediary, fragility, fallibility, make up a progression full of meaning (Ricoeur, 1978, p. 21). Without denying vulnerability, fallibility and culpability, the human person is also created with innate capabilities. He is capable of so many things because he is a rational and intellectual being. He is the crown of Gods creation and that made him different from other beings. He was given the highest favor by becoming an intellective being. He has the logos which Aristotle translated as reason. This reason is his ability to decide, to think,

and to differentiate things from the other. The condition of human reason is proper to beings who are searchers for the meaning of Being. We are given the task to exist in time, to live historically our liberation as humans, and to live by thinking and to think by living. (Jervolino, 1995, p. 538). He has the freedom and free will to choose his own destiny. These make him different from other creatures. A. The Vulnerability, Fallibility, and Culpability of the Human Being The word Vulnerability comes from the Latin word vulnus, vulnero (Simpson, 1982, p. 650) which literally means wound; to wound or to injure. We are all products of our past, and some of us experienced being wounded by getting injured in the past whether it is physical or emotional. And these wounds must be cured. They must be addressed in order for them not to become serious. We were wounded because, maybe we fell, and we fell because we are not that strong. This shows us that as human beings, it is natural for us to experience failure, and it is natural that out of our humanity we are being trapped into the hole. This trap would mean being tempted to commit sin. To be tempted is not a sin. There is nothing wrong in being tempted. Even Jesus got tempted by the devil when he was fasting in the desert for forty days and forty nights, but he was not able to sin. What makes temptation a sin is when we experience it and we choose to sin rather than to avoid it. After sinning, we will experience the feeling of being guilty. As Ricoeur (as cited in Garcia, 1997, pp. 84-85): Guilt then is not identical with human finitude. Guilt loses its character as a bad use of freedom to become the constitutional limitation of existence. There is no denying the avowal of the fault by guilty human being. Human responsibility for the fault has to be accounted for but it

has to be conjugated with the hope of pardon which restores, and thus presupposes his original innocence, more original than his guilt. The cause of our wound is our fault - the fault that we do not take good care to avoid the error of sinning. According to Ricoeur (as cited in Garcia, 1997, pp. 86-87), fault is a frenzied preoccupation with the self. It is only a self-imposed bondage to Nothing or Vanitybut it also introduces the inauthentic infinite which blocks the manifestation of the authentic infinite or freedom. He admits that the fault is an event with immense possibilities; insofar as it is a discovery of the infinite, an experience of the holy in reverse, of the holy in the demonic Ricoeur mentions something about freedom: what freedom is, and how we can say that man is free. True freedom is to do what is right. It is never right to do wrong to do right. Therefore if we missed the mark by committing an error, we are not free. According to Ricoeur, the fault is only a bad use of freedom and does not belong to the essence of human existence. Human Being was created sinless before the eyes of God. He is basically and essentially good in his nature, and this goodness constitutes his freedom. Similarly, Mencius (1970, p. 19) theorized that the human nature is originally good. Is the very essence of Human Being capable of sinning? For Ricoeur, it is but, there is no necessity to sin. But why is there a sin? Answer to this question can be compared to the story of creation. When God created the world, He gave man freedom to live a life far from sins and from the act of sinning. However, why does man fall into the trap of sinning? This is simply because sins have been created and committed. These sins are committed in more unlikely circumstances. According to Ricoeur, man is basically good

but he falls into the fault of sinning because at times he experiences weaknesses and shortcomings that test his true character. These weaknesses and shortcomings are manifestations of his vulnerability. Being human, man is subject to committing errors since he is fragile; that is, to err is human (Shakespeare, as cited in Cruz, 2004, p.167). Contrarily, it is not through these shortcomings that the very essence of his being human is measured. Despite his erring nature, he is endowed with capabilities that prove his being human. Comparatively, the Human Being is like a fragile jar carefully designed with intricate details. However, due to inadvertence or mere carelessness, this jar may be partly broken. But the essence of its being a jar is still there since it is not completely broken, and it can still be used to serve its purpose despite its broken part. However, the jar can be fixed and restored in its original form and beauty, which therefore maintains it essence. In like manner, the Human Being after having committed faults has also the opportunity to become whole again when he repents on what he has done. Something in particular may be broken because of carelessness and is regarded as the fault the fault of carelessness being the reason of having it broken. Similarly, through the fault he commits in freedom, the human being is broken. Because of this, he becomes less free. Ricoeur (as cited in Garcia, 1997, pp. 82 83) said that the fault can be conceived only as an accident, an interruption, a fall, and does not constitute a part of a system together with the fundamental possibilities contained in willing and the involuntary. Ricoeur further believes that the necessity of bracketing the fault arises from methodological as well as doctrinal considerations. Garcia further points out that: The human essential structures are available to an eidetic description

while actual existence is only available to an empirical reflection. If the possible fulfillment of human existence is added, a poetic discourse is evoked, which creates three parts Eidetics, Empirics, and Poetics that make up the Philosophy of the Will. Eidetics reveals the neutral structures of human existence which the fundamental possibilities offered equally to innocence and to the fault as a common keyboard of human nature. The Empircs, on the other hand, reflects on the concrete existence of faulted human being, prefacing this with an analysis of fallible human being. The Poetics proposes to express in imaginative discourse the promised reconciliation of human existence with the source of creation.

These three parts Eidetics, Empirics, and Poetics form a methodological ensemble designed by Ricoeur to support a certain vision of being human. As a philosopher who vowed to the elucidation of integral human experience, Ricoeur wants to account rationally not only for the reality of faulted Human Being but also for the possibility of fallible Human Being (Garcia, 1997, p. 84). Garcia also points out that the abstraction of transcendence is linked to the abstraction of the fault which implies an affirmation of Transcendence. If fault is the captivity of freedom, transcendence therefore is the liberation of freedom. As Ricoeur stressed that men live transcendence as purification and deliverance of their freedom and salvation (as cited in Garcia, 1997, p. 88). To sum up, the double abstraction of the fault and Transcendence holds the advantage of safeguarding the responsibility and hope of being human by allowing us to delineate first, with clarity and rigor, the fundamental limits and possibilities of being human (Garcia, 1997, p. 90) Culpability originated from the Latin root word Culpa (Simpson, 1982, p. 160) which literally means fault. Human Being is culpable because he has

his own worldly desires and needs that need to be filled. Out of being human, these desires and needs will make him satisfied if he was able to achieve them. As Garcia (1997, pp. 128-129) defines needs as, in a strict sense: refers to alimentary or sexual assimilation, that is to say, appetite. Now appetite shows itself as an indigence and an exigence, an experience lack of and an impulse towards. (Ricoeur, Freedom and Nature, 1966, p. 89). Here, lack and impulse are lived in the invisible unity of an affect. Need is distinguished by these two essential aspects its intentionality and its unity as lacuna and impetus. Need makes us aware of the receptivity of the will to values which it has not posited. In a negative condition, need is a motive if the conduct assuring its fulfillment is not an irresistible reflex. On the other hand, in the positive condition, what makes need a motive is the representation which regulates properly human conduct issuing from need. This representation raises need to the level of a motive for willing. It is thus in imagination the imagination of the absent thing and of the way to attain it-that need attains a form and becomes a motive for the will. Here imagination is understood by Ricoeur as a manner of anticipating an absent reality on the background of the world. (Ricoeur, The Unity of the Voluntary and the Involuntary as a Limiting Idea, 1967, p. 101). Imagination, however, can only give form to the vague experience of need because it assumes, in the absence of the things, the role of perception which appraises it of its object and of the way to attain it.

Needs then become desire the present experience of need as lack and urge extended by the representation of the absent object and by anticipation of pleasure, indicative when one is ready to say, This is good! (Garcia, 1997, p. 129). Human Being by nature has the capacity to become vulnerable, fallible and culpable because he is not a perfect being, and these imperfections make him a completely human, because he will not be a Human Being if he is

absolutely perfect. He will reach the level of Gods perfection if he does not have these imperfections. There is a great distinction between God and man. If Human Being will become perfect as God, therefore he will have the same attributes and qualities similar and comparable with God. But it should not be, because man must be a human in a sense that he is imperfect, but out of this imperfection, he must strive to become perfect as God is perfect. By striving to become perfect, he must avoid the proclivity of sinning. The saints are also Human Beings like us. They are also imperfect like us, but out of their imperfections, they strive to become perfect and holy by avoiding the tendency of committing the fault. Saints would not be saints without their past. Once, they were sinners in the past but they strove to reach perfection out of their imperfection by the process of conversion. It only shows us that Human Being is vulnerable, fallible, and culpable but it does not end here; there are also positive aspects which we will see upon discovering the essence of Being Human, his Capabilities B. The Capabilities of the Human Being Despite mans imperfections, his vulnerability, fallibility, and culpability, we should not discount the fact that he is, among all other creatures, an intellective being. Human Being is created by God in his image and likeness, endowed with the power to reason out and the capacity to do things unlike other creatures unable to do so. Paul Ricoeur (as cited in Garcia, 2010, p. 1) brought out the capacities of Capable Human Being the basic powers that found our humanity. These are: the capacity to say or speak (the ability to produce a reasoned

discourse); the capacity to act (the power to produce events in society and in nature); the capacity to narrate (the power to recount stories that reveal to us the hidden possibilities of our life); the capacity to feel responsible for ones actions (the capacity to ascribe to oneself the consequences of ones actions); the capacity to promise (the ability to keep ones word) and in his last magnum opus, Memory, History, Forgetting; the capacity to forgive (the power to address a liberating word to the Other You are better than your actions); and, the capacity to experience a happy memory, with just enough remembering and just enough forgetting. The Human Being has many capabilities, strengths, talents, skills, abilities that make him unique and higher above all forms of Gods creations. Human Being is the crown of Gods creation; the best masterpiece of it. He is unique in the sense that he was given the special privilege to be created in the image and likeness of God. Besides, Human Being has the power to rule over the whole creation because he has the capability to reason out, to judge and to comprehend. He is a rational being, an intellective being. He has the freedom, the free will and the intellect to make good decision and judgment. Man can know that God exists by reflecting on creation. As we read in the Book of Wisdom, From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator (Wis. 13:5, cf., Rom. 1:20, n. 19). If Human Beings fail to recognize God as the creator of all, it is not because they lack the means to, but because their free will and their sinfulness place an impediment in the way (John Paul II, n. 19). Human Beings intellectual capacity, his ability to reason and to think in abstract terms, is a great gift. Human Being can acquire true knowledge about himself, God and the world.

Human Being is born with a desire to know the truth about him. It is essential that he finds the truth because only by choosing true values by which to live can he be true to his nature and find happiness (ibid., n. 25). No one can avoid the need to address lifes ultimate questions (ibid., n. 27). In fact man can be defined as the one who seeks the truth (ibid., n. 28). The search for the truth about the meaning of life can reach its end only in reaching the absolute because the finite world does not provide a satisfactory answer. Human Being must not only exercise his reason; he must also trust other persons in the search for the ultimate truth. He experiences not only an innate need for the truth but also an innate need for a person to whom he might entrust himself on the journey to find it (ibid., n. 33). Ricoeur states that there is no other way to understand oneself except through the interpretation of the expressions of the self through ones actions, symbols, myths, metaphors and texts. For the person who takes life seriously, the question of the meaning of human existence cannot but remain a fundamental concern. It may be affirmed that the unique vocation of the philosopher is to understand, with the depth and rigor, the significance of being human. (Garcia, 2010, p.1) In these basic capacities of the Capable Human Being, we see that the entire orientation of Paul Ricoeurs philosophy is essentially ethical or to use his own term poetic in the sense that it awakens in us the desire to be or the power to exist creatively. (Garcia, 2010, p. 1). Garcia adds that Paul Ricoeur will always remain as the French philosopher who posed the question What is the meaning of being human?

in all its scope.

Chapter Three The Capacities of the Capable Human Being Whatever Human Beings do is a realization of what they are capable of doing; and what they are capable of doing is a manifestation of what they are. -Edith Stein

Capacities can be observed from the outside, but they are fundamentally felt, lived in the mode of certainty. Human Being can identify himself by his capacities, by what he can do. The individual designates himself as a Capable Human Being, and we must add a suffering human being to emphasize the vulnerability of the human condition. (Ricoeur, Asserting Personal Capacities and Pleading for Mutual Recognition, 2004, p. 1). The capacities that a human agent attributes to himself, and to the other, are required to give this personal identity a social status. Personal identity is marked by a temporality that can be called constitutive. The person is his or her history. The very essence of the human being is measured through his capabilities to do things as expected of him being the highest form of creation. These capacities according to Ricoeur (Garcia, 2010, p.2) are: the capacity to speak, the capacity to act, the capacity to narrate or recount, the capacity to feel responsible, the capacity to promise, the capacity to forgive, and, in the last magnum opus, the capacity to experience happy memory. Ricoeur (The Course of Recognition, 2005, p. 252) said that we ought to undertake a further review of those capacities that, taken together, paint the

portrait of the Capable Human Being. A. The Capacity to Speak According to Ricoeur (Asserting Personal Capacities and Pleading for Mutual Recognition, 2004, pp. 1-2), the power to say may mean a more specific capacity; that is, the ability to spontaneously produce a reasonal discourse where conversants share ideas to each other in accordance with common rules and related communicative conventions that speakers must have to initiate and sustain conversational involvement (Gumperz in Coupland and Jaworski, 1997, p. 40). As Noam Chomsky (as cited in Brown, 2006) contends, Man has an innate capacity for language because according to him, each individual has a language acquisition device LAD (Chomsky, 1960, p. 29) stored in the brain, which enables man to talk and communicate as he associates with other people in his early years. Ricoeur (2005, p. 253) states that to speak presupposes an expectation of being heard where the relation between question and answer is exemplary. However, the power to speak is being burdened when we find difficulty in putting things with words; thus us unable to speak. This inability to speak shows that we can always mistake the underlying motivations that stop our need to say something. Secrets, inhibitions, resistance, disguise, lies, and hypocrisy are among the reasons that make us unable to speak. The way we speak is a reflection of our true color, a revelation of our innermost being. When we say something, we express what is inside us revealing whatever emotion we have. Words can be a source of inspiration;

others can be demoralizing. There is indeed a power in words. As mentioned by Ricoeur, the word is his kingdom and he is not ashamed of it (as cited in Garcia, 2010, p. 1). When we dialogue with someone, we are using language to express our ideas, emotions, experiences, and the like. Garcia (ibid) points out that philosophical reflection and discourse constitute power the power of the world that is capable of challenging the high and the mighty, exposing lies and corruption, and proposing a more humane and just world for everyone. Language is the principal means by which we greet, compliment or even insult one another, and accomplish hundreds of other tasks in a typical day. Actions that are carried out through language are called speech acts (Austin, 1962; Finegan and Basnier, 1989, p. 328). As members of the kingdom of the word, we must contribute to develop an understanding of the power of the word.

B. The Capacity to Act Actions speak louder than words. This is a dictum which may be considered to be true. Truly, ones actions determine his words. This is also an expression of what he feels. Despite no words coming out from ones mouth, one is able to express the message he would like to convey through actions. The Capable Human Being has the capacity to act. According to Ricoeur (Asserting Personal Capacities and Pleading for Mutual Recognition, 2004, p. 2), The power to act is the capacity to produce events in society and in nature. He adds that

the case of being able to act calls for the same kind of complement as does self-designation in the dimension of being able to speak (Ricoeur, The Course of Recognition, 2005, p. 253). To do this capacity, one has to make events happen in a given context of interaction. For Ricoeur, admitting that every capacity has its counterpart of specific incapacity is very easy to accept. The details of these incapacities reveal even more concealed forms of incapacity that lead to self-deception, mistaking oneself for what he is not (ibid., p. 257). C. The Capacity to Narrate or Recount To narrate is a linguistic technique to report events. At its simplest, to narrate recounts the cause and effects of events that take place over space and time to particular people (Clark, 2007, p. 118). This leads to the interweaving of fiction and history, which means that the articulation of our human experience requires the intertwining of history and fiction. Thus, the narrative of our life must use the capacity of both to understand its hidden possibilities. This leads us to the concept of narrative identity (Garcia, 2010, p.7). This allows us to answer when we ask who the agent or author of the action is. It also allows us to include changes in the cohesion of a life which conforms to the dynamic temporal structure coming from the poetic composition of the narrative text. Ricoeur points out that the power to recount occupies a pre-eminent place among the capacities inasmuch as events of every kind become understandable when told in stories. However, emplotment creates a division in identity. Thus in self-identity, change is integrated as peripeteia (Ricoeur,

Asserting Personal Capacities and Pleading for Mutual Recognition, 2004, p.2). Self identity can then be considered, like the narrative that remains unfinished and open to the possibility of being recounted differently by others. In addition, Ricoeur (The Course of Recognition, 2005, p.253) also mentioned that the power to narrate attributes the virtue of designating the who of action in the narrative. The plot weaves together events and characters which should not obliterate the primary reference to the power to act for which self-recognition makes up the attestation. D. The Capacity to Feel Responsible Considering the clich, No man is an island, which means no man can live alone. Man needs someone in order to cope with his weaknesses and shortcomings with the strength of other people. Each of us is

accountable to one another. Similar to the song people always sing: Walang sino man ang nabubuhay para sa sarili lamang. Walang sino man ang namamatay para sa sarili lamang. Tayong lahat ay may pananagutan sa isat isa Contemplating these lines, we are able to realize that indeed we have a responsibility towards other people. Every person is a supposit being a being for, a person for. As Rev. Dr. Enrico Gonzales, OP directly uttered: Each person has the vocation to love and an invitation to be loved. When one asks the question, Why do we love someone/something? he will then realize that one does because he lacks something that someone has. Paraphrasing Aristophaness idea, one loves someone or something because this is what he desires in pursuit of wanting to be complete. This desire can be achieved when a person provides you with it. This is the reason why we

need other people. Upon needing other people, we become accountable for the person (St. Exupery, 1945/2006, p.237). That accountability precedes responsibility towards imputability. For Ricoeur (Asserting Personal

Capacities and Pleading for Mutual Recognition, 2004, p. 2), imputability constitutes what is clearly a moral capacity since the human being is held to be the very author of his acts. Imputability makes him responsible.

Otherwise, if harm is done to others, he is subject to reparation and to final sanction. Ricoeur stresses further that the idea of imputability centers on the power to act over against another person who can be an interrogator, an inquisitor, and an accuser (The Course of Recognition, 2005, p. 254). E. The Capacity to Promise One of the positive qualities that Filipinos possess is the way they value the sense of Palabra de Honor. This means being true and firm to what one says. Being true is being able to do what has been promised no matter what happens. Otherwise, censure is given to the person, which in turn imposes guilt on the doer. The keeping of ones word refers to a holding on to oneself. A promise presupposes a challenge of time. In keeping ones word, one responds to the trust placed by other persons on his fidelity (Garcia, 2010, p. 9). As accorded by Ricoeur (Asserting Personal Capacities and Pleading for Mutual Recognition, 2004, p. 2), promising is possible on this basis of responding to the trust placed by other people on ones fidelity. The promise limits the unpredictability of the future at the risk of betrayal. Man should keep his promise or break it. He then engages the promise of the promise, that of keeping his word, of being faithful.

In the case of promise, the relation between recognition in time and recognition before others turns out to be different. Ricoeur further points out that: It is not only to the other person but for the others good that one makes a promise. Yet, a promise may not be heard or accepted; it can even be refused or rejected subject to suspicion. But the relation to time is not absent. Not only does the promise engage the future, the present credibility of the one making the promise sums up a whole personal history that gives signs of a habitual trustworthiness.

Thus, it can be realized that promise is indeed connected with recognition both of time and of others. F. The Capacity to Forgive and to Experience a Happy Memory In the phenomenology of memory, there are three specific things to be considered to ask: who remembers, what is remembered, and how we remember. According to Ricoeur (Garcia, 2010, p. 10), the capacity to remember is more important than the fear of forgetting or the duty to remember or not to forget. Ricoeur concentrates on the question of how we remember where his approach takes the form of the use and abuse of memory. He identifies three principal forms: blocked memory, manipulated memory, and commanded memory. The use and abuse of memory or compulsive repetition, according to Ricoeur is the true enemy of memory (ibid, pp. 1011). Is forgetting one of the capacities of the Capable Human Being? One may fully understand forgetting if it is interpreted in terms of the memory of

forgetting. For Ricoeur, according to Garcia, the only way to tackle the incommensurable approaches of the neuro-sciences and phenomenology is to be aware of the notion of trace which designates three different things: the written trace, the mnesic trace (cerebral or cortical), and the mnemonic or psychic trace. Forgetting according to Ricoeur should be considered as an art because it consists of recounting the narrative in another way. After

forgetting, one should interpret forgiving as an expression of the Capable Human Being. Ricoeur (Garcia, 2010, p. 13) stresses that: There is forgiveness as there is joy, as there is wisdom, extravagance, and love. Forgiveness should not stop on the institutional or political sphere. The journey of forgiveness ends at the center of selfhood in an ultimate act of trust. Forgiving consists in holding the guilty person capable of something other than his offenses and his faults.

To forgive is to address a liberating word to the other: You are better than your actions. (Garcia, 2010, pp. 1213). This then leads to a reconciled memory with forgiveness as its most eminent form. Happy memory, a reconciled memory, is a carefree memory. In memory as care (ibid.) one is concerned about the past. Carefree memory, on the horizon of concerned memory, is the soul common to memory that forgets and does not forget (Garcia, 2010, pp. 1314).

Chapter Four The Significance of Understanding the Capable Human Being Philosophy must [also] aspire to be a wisdom that seeks to give meaning and richness to the life of a whole people. - Leovino Ma. Garcia In studying the philosophical anthropology of Paul Ricoeur, the researcher discovered the different capacities of the Capable Human Being. He also became aware of the significance of the Capable Human Being. Based on the researchers understanding, the human being presents two aspects that make him a total being. According to Ricoeur, the human being has shortcomings as part of his vulnerability and fallibility; and he also has capabilities. The researchers understanding of Ricoeurs philosophical

anthropology is that the human being can be compared to yin yang which is composed of two colorsblack and white. The white part of theyin

yang represents mans capabilities; and the black part his weaknesses or his shortcomings. One cannot call the yin yang as yin yang when it is only composed of a pure white color; or when it has only the black color. It is

because yin yang is made up of black and white that it is identified as yin yang. The beauty of its composition is seen by anyone who beholds it. It is a common knowledge that white is the opposite of black and black is the opposite of white. In like manner, mans being can be viewed in the way the yin yang is viewed. The Human Being, like the yin yang, becomes complete as a total being with his strengths and weaknesseshis capabilities and his frailties. The human being can never be called human when he is considered only as weak. Also, the human being cannot be called human

when only his strengths and capabilities are considered. The human being is absolutely not a perfect being, and can never be compared to God who, in the truest sense of the word, is absolutely perfect. The human being is human simply because he is by nature vulnerable and capable. Since the human being is by nature not absolutely perfect, he has the capacity to strive to become more perfect by trying to acknowledge and accept his being human and his nature. In what way do we see the value and essence of being human? By the very fact that one is able to reflect on himself, he is able to valuethat he is basically good and has capabilities inherent in him. A human being is unique as he is created by God in His own image and likeness. The human being is endowed with intellect and free will to do good. Through this, one is able to see the basic goodness of man, the way Ricoeur views him. However, due to unexpected circumstances, the human being errs, and commits mistakes that make him deviate from his basic goodness. Through his shortcomings, he may become broken in spirit. However, having been broken in spirit does not necessarily make him a lesser person. He may become whole again when he acknowledges responsibility for his faults, and when he learns to accept his past. In this way, he learns to realize the consequences of his actions. The essence of Capable Human Being can be seen through the fact that he is uniquely endowed with countless abilities and talents. This ultimate essence of Capable Human Being is basically manifested in his capabilities which go beyond shortcomings.

Chapter Five Summary and Conclusion

A philosophy of the subject and a philosophy of transcendence which is what a philosophy of mans limitations is in the last resort are both determined in one and the same movement. - Paul Ricoeur

In focusing on the philosophical anthropology of Paul Ricoeur, the researcher was able to show the significance of the Capable Human Being. That human being is basically good. Of course, one cannot deny the fact that the human being has his weaknesses and shortcomings. Yet, despite these, the Human Being, possesses a basic goodness that enables him to go beyond his shortcomings. In Chapter 1, different explanations and views about the very nature of the Human Being from different philosophers were presented. Through these views, it is understood how important and essential man is as a Human Being. From the views of the Ancient Greek thinkers to the views of Contemporary philosophers, the value of the Human Being was traced. In Chapter 2, certain concepts about the Human Being were presented as explained from the perspective of Paul Ricoeur. In this chapter, we see how the human being strives to overcome his faults and shortcomings by his capabilities. Without denying the fact that the Human Being is vulnerable, fallible and culpable, Ricoeur brings out the capacities that make

him the Capable Human Being capable of. In this chapter, the researcher distinguishes the weaknesses and the strengths of the human being. Human Being is viewed here capable of committing faults simply because of his being fragile. Human Being comes to the point when he is tested by trials in his life, which make him err from the straight path. He is not supposed however to give up when he falls. He needs to stand up because according to Ricoeur, he has the capacity to do so and do good things for others and himself. From the perspective of Ricoeur, the human being has a basic goodness. In Chapter 3, Ricoeurs detailed explanation about the capabilities of the Human Being is presented. He underscores these capabilities by

explaining each of them. First, that Human Being has the capacity to speak. Ricoeur sheds light on the value and importance of language being the primary means of the human being in communicating with other people. Here, one sees how powerful the word is in that it can inspire or demoralize other people. Ricoeur also sheds light on the capacity of Human Being to act. Understanding Ricoeurs view on this aspect, one will realize that mans actions lend themselves to particular interpretations. That is why, actions

speak louder than words. Our actions may have certain meanings to others which are either positive or negative. Ricoeur also points out that Human Being is capable of narrating or recounting. To narrate consists precisely in saying who did what, why, and how, by unfolding in time the connection between these different aspects. In this way, the narrative solves the problems posed by the attribution of an action to an agent. According to Ricoeur, the power to recount occupies a pre-eminent place among the capacities inasmuch as events of every kind become discernible and

intelligible only when recounted in stories. The age-old art of recounting stories, when applied to oneself produces life narratives articulated in the works of historians and literary writers. According to Ricoeur, the Human Being also has the capacity to become responsible. For Ricoeur (Asserting Personal Capacities and Pleading for Mutual Recognition, 2004, p. 2), imputability constitutes what is clearly a moral capacity. A human agent is held to be the genuine author of his acts, regardless of the force of organic and physical causes. Imputability, assumed by the agent, makes him responsible, capable of ascribing to himself his portion of the consequences. If harm is done to others, the way is open to reparation and to final sanction. And last but not least, the Capable Human Being has the capacity to promise. When one promises, he is expected to fulfill this, because someone is hoping for him to fulfill what he has promised. Promises are made not to be broken. Through the views of Ricoeur regarding the capacities of the Capable Human Being to speak, to act, to narrate, to feel responsible, and to promise, one may also become aware that the Human Being is capable of experiencing a happy memory with just enough remembering and just enough forgetting. (Garcia, 2010, p. 3). In Chapter 4, the researcher sheds light on the very essence of the Capable Human Being on the basis of Ricoeurs view of the Human Being. In this chapter, one can realize the value and the essence of the Capable Human Being, emphasizing his basic goodness. Nevertheless, as part of his being human, one cannot deny that he is also fragile. The Human Being can also be viewed as a complex being. The researcher compared him with

the Ying Yang, with its black and white colors symbolically representing the vulnerability and the capability of the Human Being. The Human Being can never be called human when he has only his capabilities or when he has only his flaws. The Human Being is both fragile and capable. He has worth and value because he is unique from all other creatures since he has the capacities that make him the Capable Human Being. Through the study of the philosophical anthropology of Paul Ricoeur, we may be inspired to strive to become Capable Human Beings.


Brown, H. D. (2006). Theories of Language Learning. London: Longman.

Chomsky, Noam (1978). Principles of Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



Clark, Urszula (2007). Studying England: Palgrave MacMillan.

Language: English



de St.-Exupery, Antoine (1945/2006). The Little Prince. London: Egmont.

Festin, Lorenz Moises J. (2006). Course Notes Anthropology. Makati City: San Carlos Seminary.



Finegan, Edward & Niko Besnier (1989). Language: Its structure and use. London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Garcia, Leovino Ma. (2010). Interpreting Hermeneutics of the Text. Unpublished Text.

Life: Paul


_______ (2005). Paul Ricoeur of Happy Memory. Denmark: University of Copenhagen.

_______ (1998). The Meaning of Being Human in Ricoeurs Philosophy

of the Will (Part II). Budhi II, No. 1, pp. 65 103.

_______ (1997). Paul Ricoeur: Philosopher of Responsibility and Hope. Budhi I, No. 2, pp. 129 182.

_______ (1997). The Meaning of Being Human in Ricoeurs Philosophy of the Will (Part II). Budhi I, No. 3, pp.81 154.

Good News Bible, Todays English Version. Manila: Philippine Bible Society.

Gumperz, John J. in Coupland & Jaworski (1997). Sociolinguistics: A reader and coursebook. New York: St. Martins Press.

Jervolino, Domenico (1995). The Depth and Breadth of Paul Ricoeurs Philosophy, in The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn. The Library of Living Philosophers Vol. XXII. Illinois: Opencourt.

John Paul II , Pope (1998). Fides et Ratio. Pasay City: Paulines Publishing House.

Lau, D.C. (1970). Mencius. Great Britain: Penguin Books.

McDougall, Littell (1989). English Literature. Illinois: McDougall, Littell & Co.



Pellauer, David (2007). Ricoeur: A Guide for the Perplexed. London New York: Continuum.

Ricoeur, Paul. (2005). The Course of Recognition, translated by David Pellauer. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

_______ (2004). Asserting Personal Capacities and Pleading for Mutual Recognition. Unpublished Text.

_______ (1966). Fredom and Nature. The Voluntary Involuntary. Illinois: Northwestern University Press.



_______ (1967). The Unity of the Voluntary and the Involuntary as a Limiting Idea, Translated by Daniel OConnor, in Readings in Existential Phenomenology, edited by Nathaniel Lawrence and Daniel OConnor. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1967, pp. 93-112.

Simpson, D. P. (1982). Cassells Latin Dictionary. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Tupas, T. Ruanni F. (2002). Second Language Teaching. Diliman, Quezon City: University of the Philippines Open University.

APPENDIX Sem. Ervin Ray S. Garcia with his thesis adviser Dr. Leovino Ma. Garcia
Leovino Ma. Garcia, Ph.D. Dr. Leovino Ma. Garcia graduated A. B. Humanities cum laude degree from the Ateneo de Manila University in 1965. He obtained a doctorate in philosophy, magna cum laude with a dissertation on Paul Ricoeur from the French-speaking Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium in 1981. His field of expertise is Contemporary French Philosophy, especially the philosophies of Ricoeur and Emmanuel Levinas. Dr. Garcia has applied Ricoeurs hermeneutics in the interpretation of contemporary Philippine paintings and antique Philippine maps. He recently edited Carlos Quirinos Philippine Cartography in 2010. In 1988, he became the first lay Dean of the School of Arts & Sciences of the Ateneo de Manila University, serving for two terms until 1994. He also became the first Dean of the Loyola School of Humanities of the Ateneo from 2000 to 2007. In 2001, as Humanities Dean, Dr. Garcia invited Dr. Nicole Revel, together with Dr. Fernando Zialcita to team-teach a course on Intangible Heritage. He served as President of the Philosophy Circle of the Philippines from 1985 to 1988, President of the Philosophical Association of the Philippines from 1988 to 1998, and President of the Asian Association of Catholic Philosophers from 1992 to1994. In 2004, at the World Congress of Catholic University Institutions of Philosophy (COMIUCAP) in Mexico City, he was elected Vice President for Asia. Through his initiative and efforts, he organized the third COMIUCAP World Congress in Manila in September 2008. At the closing of this Congress, he was elected President/.World of the COMIUCAP. For his work in promoting cultural relations between France and the Philippines, Dr. Garcia has been made Officer, Order of Arts & Letters in 2008 by the French Government. The Loyola Schools of the Ateneo de Manila University honored him with the Lifetime Achievement in the Humanities Award in 2007. He is presently the Chair of the Ateneo Library of Womens Writings.