THE PHILOSOPHY OF

PAUL RICOEUR IN
THE CONTEXT OF
THE MOVIE: FAIL
SAFE (2000)
Submitted by: Katrina Dominica C. Fregillana

4LM2

November 26, 2018

PHL 104
 Paul Ricoeur is known for having a teleological foundation for his moral

philosophy. Ethics is conceived by Ricoeur in a sense that it is related to the “selfhood”

of man. He maintains that man seeks for an end which is self-esteem. The concept of

self-esteem as argued by Paul Ricoeur is to be entitled to a good life. Self-esteem as Paul

Ricoeur would put it is a two-way stream. He also invokes that man takes responsibility

of his own actions. The ethical life according to Paul Ricoeur is attained by living well

with others in just institutions. Therefore, the achievement of an ethical life would be

dependent on how man deal and live with each other. It is important to acknowledge

self-responsibility at the same time the limitations of a person. Furthermore, he

emphasized our indebtedness to others, our responsibility of taking care of others, and

importance of self-respect to be able to attain and preserve self-esteem. It is therefore

imperative for every human being to not only be responsive of his need but also the

needs of others. It is therefore concluded that his philosophy is heavily grounded on

religion. Ricoeur puts his ethical perspective as “Aiming at the good life, with and for

others, in just institutions”.

Paul Ricoeur authored an article with the title: “The Historical Presence of Non-

Violence”. In this article he laid down the possibility of the existence of non-violence in

the realm of history. He further laid down in this article how human intervention played

a big part in shaping history. “History and not the purity of our intentions, it is what we

will have done to other, that will determine the complete meaning of what we shall have

willed”. It is important to set the concept of violence to be able to have a grasp of what is

non-violence. As Ricoeur puts it, non-violence tends to penetrate violence in a

constrained manner. History lays down the progression and nature violence. It has been

engraved in history how the people who belonged to the upper class took advantage of
the less privileged people. Furthermore violence has paved way for the establishment

and fall of empires as history laid it down.

History was already founded terror according to Ricoeur: “Terror becomes

history while history nourishes itself with terror”. In the course of time, history has

become a structure of terror; in which Ricoeur pertains to as an organized type of

violence. The course of history has been founded by series of deaths which may be

perceived as victory for the others. Death of the other is considered as the endpoint of

violence. No two parties can be considered as victorious if the death of the other has not

been actualized.

Violence is not only prevalent in terms of mass destructions or killings but also in

terms of laws and policies enforced by the state. In the context of a state, it is important

to establish who commands and those who are subordinate for politics is founded by

power. Violence is further triggered when those who are subordinate to the system is

awakened by the oppression that they are subjected to. Their ideals and aspirations is

expressed by means of revolution and uprisings.

“The tortured man still be there in order to bear the conscious wound of his

degradation and to endure not only destruction of his body, but the very core of his dignity,

his value, and his joy.” History has already been founded by violence and terror and

history is being altered by virtue of human nature.

If there is something to go against history being connected to violence that would

be conscience and ethics. History has been promoting violence while conscience is

promoting love.

It is therefore a lingering question, is non-violence possible to exist in the course

of history? Paul Ricoeur explains that this is deeply rooted in the faith of man. “History

descends on man as an alienated destiny, but nevertheless it is man who makes history”,
therefore the existence of a “non-violent man” as Paul Ricoeur would put it makes it

possible for non-violence to exist. It is important for man to be humane and have a

concept of justice as well as friendship so as to prevent history from regressing. To aim

for a non-violent trend in history would definitely be a game-changer in the course of

history. Such can only be made possible if man is being vigilant with his actions. One

must learn to refuse war and resistance to be able to promote peace. The promotion of

non-violence would vary for every situation especially in the context of state. To be able

to effectuate non-violence it must be imbibed in each person that it is a duty and must

be founded on faith.

To further expound on such idea, Stinnette (1966) reviewed the philosophy of

Paul Ricoeur and was able to deduce that moral evil is ingrained in human beings. This

flaw of human being paves way for man to discover his meaning. Man is a composition

of an “infinity of imperfections”. The fallibility of man is the gap between the

“pathetique” and the “transcendental”. Stinnette (1966) further expounded that the

human body being the primordial opening on the world as he would put it, would pave

way for the idea that man is limited. It was also further emphasized that the idea of

disproportion would shift the discussion from theoretical to practical. Disproportion

would actualize knowledge through will. Ricoeur goes against the idea of reductionism

and stresses the human character of will and by diverting human personality towards

the ultimate goal which is happiness.

Anderson (1993) on the other hand leaned on the Philosophy of Ricoeur as

regards “Hermeneutics of the Self”. Ricoeur has always questioned the realm of modern

tradition. The concept of modern was explained by Anderson (1993) as “ to the tradition

whose foundation remains the thinking subject”. The relevance of the philosophy of

Ricoeur is flexible with respect to time especially when it comes to ethical concerns. It
was further emphasized how Paul Ricoeur would always root from human nature. It

revolves around the question in which when the subject perishes who will take

responsibility?

To further delve in the idea of the Narrative Identity as premised by Ricoeur, it is

important to distinguish the concept of Idem and Ipse. In line with the narrative identity,

aporia of temporality was introduced. This pertains to the contradiction of history and

fiction. On the other hand, man attains his identity by virtue of the community in which

he thrives. Such premise is placed under practical category for the attributes of man is

based on the attributes of his surroundings.

The philosophy of Ricoeur is also relevant in the context of the state for it has

aided the ethical considerations surrounding institutions around the world. Deslandes

(2012) emphasized the feasibility of having “practical wisdom” in the realm of

institutions by focusing on the narrative processes in deducing the identity of man.

Taking in the context of the state, it was argued that domination is an

unavoidable construct in the context of organizations and institutions. Such domination

may go against alienation provided that those operating within are endowed with moral

intelligence. Possessing such moral intelligence would allow them to discharge their

duties and responsibilities.

Mcguire (1981) interpreted the philosophy of Paul Ricoeur as heavily founded by

hermeneutics. The philosophy of Paul Ricoeur tends to depart from the idea of

structuralism as premised by de Saussure and Levi-Strauss. Structuralism is perceived

by Ricoeur as a science and not as a philosophy.

It was earlier mentioned that man plays a big role in shaping history. The way

man decides and deals with other people would greatly affect history. History therefore
moves in the dynamics that the death of the other would mean victory for the other.

“Each one more powerful than what we dropped on Hiroshima.” “No comparison.”

The lives claimed by Hiroshima Bombing signified victory on the part of United

States. Such victory on the part of the United States built their self-esteem as a nation

that they would be able to conquer and prevail as powerful. The United States as

projected in the movie “Fail Safe” and even in the course of history already had a

twisted notion of what victory is which is the death of the other.

“What Colonel Cascio meant was that we bypass human error” “Even the best

people make mistakes. We've got the very best.”

It is therefore concluded in these lines that man is fallible. Man has the tendency

to make mistakes no matter how acclaimed he is. Taking the philosophy of Paul Ricoeur

in the context of the leaders of the United States the men who are fallible, no matter how

powerful the nation appears the people operating are flawed for being limited is

engraved in the nature of man. Furthermore, according to Paul Ricoeur, it is important

for man to acknowledge the fact that he is limited. It is through the acknowledgement

of being limited that man gets to have that sense of responsibility for his actions. The

“bypass of human error” would connote the sense of responsibility of man in cases that

he may have the tendency to fall in vain.

“Without that order, they come home. ” “No bomber can proceed on its own

discretion.”

Man tends to operate within a system. The nature is man defined by how the

system works. The philosophy of Ricoeur in the context of the movie “Fail Safe” goes to

show that man has to abide to the orders given to him to be able to live and thrive in just

institutions. The order in this dialogue could be interpreted as the policies implemented

by the institutions that man lives in. These policies would pull men together. It would
promote peace and order for it is the main goal of such laws and policies. This

acknowledges the fact that man is limited. The discretion posted by man cannot be

trusted at all times since there could be a tendency for man to falter.

“Why don't you just give them a direct verbal yes or no” “...and save

yourselves all this trouble?”

In this dialogue, it evident that man has the tendency to escape his liability. This

could be one of the reasons why violence is prevalent in the context of history. Man

cannot and fails to own up his mistakes, for man always seeks for an easy way out. It is

through this indifference and loss of sense of responsibility that the culture of terror

supports the trend of violence in history. This roots from the protection of personal

interests and selfishness of man. Furthermore, Paul Ricoeur argued that man is

responsible of other people within the society. As leaders of the state, so much is

expected from them. They shall have sense of responsibility with their actions. Leaders

are expected to provide protection and assurance to their constituents.

“... - - million people, more or less, would be killed.” “A - - million or more?”

“Yes, Mr. Secretary.” “That would be nothing but a tragedy…” “...nobody here denies

that.”

History is already founded by deaths and tragedies. Paul Ricoeur described

history being nourished by terror. Every war, battle, revolution is characterized by the

deaths of millions of people. By virtue of deaths, the oppressors of the people who died

will be able to attain “self-esteem” in terms of power and leadership. They will emerge

as victorious because of the death of the others. The protection of interest at the

expense of the other. For as Paul Ricoeur would put it: “Not every man is tolerable to

every other; certain of them represent an excess to others”. Russia and the United
States failed to tolerate each other in the context of the film which led to mass

destruction.

“Every war, even a thermonuclear war, must have a victor and a

vanquished.”

Since Paul Ricoeur puts history in a context of violence, this dialogue would best

embody such premise. There will always be two sides of the coin in times of war and in

the greater scheme of things in the context of history; the victor and the vanquished.

Taking from the premise of Ricoeur that history has been embedded by terror such will

never be inevitable. Nothing in the context of history has been resolved by virtue of

peaceful means. It was also mentioned by Paul Ricoeur that peace is a tedious status quo

to maintain therefore it is not anymore surprising on why the oppressed usually resort

to revolts and uprisings.

“History tells us that the culture which is best prepared…” “...has the best

retaliation, and the best defense…” “...will have an ancient and classical advantage.”

It is indeed terror which makes history. In the movie, the people behind the

mechanism of a fail safe cites history; that having a good retaliation plan and best

defense would pave way for them to emerge as victorious. The notion of having the

upper hand when utilizing violence during war is instilled in history as a victory. People

learn from history in a negative manner, that is using the notion of violence to protect

their interests and to their advantage. History is therefore regressing. It defeats its

purpose to teach people and systems to take the right path in resolving conflicts. It is

therefore undeniable that history merely repeats itself.

“To be victorious?” “Yes. It would be the victor in that it would be less

damaged than its enemy.” “We would be the victor.” “That would be our hope.”
 The existence of non-violence in history, as Ricoeur would put it, is therefore not

possible in attaining victory. Victory, in the context of history, would mean damage to

the other. Hope for the victor but blood and death to the oppressed. Such defeats the

philosophy of Ricoeur that everybody is entitled to the good life. Man fails to live in a

harmonious way with other people. Domination is inevitable especially in the context of

state and institutions. I history, it would always be a bloody and violent battle of who

will dominate.

“Your argument doesn't recognize that thermonuclear war…” “ ...is not the

extension of policy…” “...it is the end of everything: People, policy, institutions--”

It was discussed by Ricoeur in his article that there is an existence of violence in

law and order. People have been consumed by the utilization of violence to come up

with a resolution. History has glamorized the idea of destruction in the establishment of

empires and states. No matter how many lives it may cost what would matter is how

history is going to write and present it.

“Culture? With most of its people dead?” “It's vegetation burned off?” “War is

still the resolution of economic and political conflict.”

As Paul Ricoeur would put it: history would determine on how people dealt with

each other. Lives have been compromised in the course of history. History has already

established a culture of death and violence. The death and oppression of one is being

enjoyed by those who emerged for the political phenomenon always comes into play in

justifying the use of violence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Atkins, K. (N.D.). Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005). Retrieved from:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/ricoeur/
Anderson, P (1993). Having it both ways: Ricoeur’s hermeneutics of the self. Edinburgh
University Press 15(1/2). 227-252.

Deslandes, G (2012). Power, profits, and practical wisdom: Ricoeur’s perspectives on

the possibility of ethics in institutions. Philosophy Documentation Center 31(1). 1-24.

Lowe, W.J. (1981). The coherence of paul ricoeur. The University of Chicago Press
Journals 61(4). 384-402.

Ricoeur, P. & Al, L. (1964). The historical presence of non-violence. Wiley 14(1). 15-23

Stinnette Jr., C.R. (1966). Reviewed works: Fallible man by paul ricoeur and charles
kelbley. The University of Chicago Press Journals 46(1). 60-61.