Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne, 2005, T. 18

Stały URI dla kolekcjihttps://theo-logos.pl/handle/123456789/42983

Przeglądaj

Przeglądaj Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne, 2005, T. 18 wg Autor "Jechalska, Magdalena"

Wpisz kilka pierwszych liter i kliknij przycisk przeglądania
Teraz wyświetlane 1 - 1 z 1
  • Brak miniatury
    Pozycja
    Analiza rozumienia cierpienia według Paul Ricœura
    Jechalska, Magdalena (Wydawnictwo Archidiecezji Warszawskiej, 2006)
    Question of suffering can not be discussed in Paul Ricœur’s philosophy in irrelevance from holistic vision of man. Diversity of aspect of human subsistence has allowed to differ kinds and types of suffering inciting wounds of man imperfection. Therefore, imperfection of human existence could become understood due to indication behind author of “Philosophy of will” on its source which is physical and moral evil. Ricœur understand man that he does not act only, but also experiences, hence conception of indifference and issue of “who-is-himself” alike, are essential in discussion about suffering. Presentation of these problems has been indispensable for comprehension of sense of suffering, which Ricœur has defined yet as experiencing, bearing and which characterizes inaction of experiencing. French philosopher is trying to explain essence of man, appeals for what for person is immanent, causing ipso facto, that human being becomes measure for oneself. Possible because of it, he has rejected subsistence and it has suspended – in consequence – a question about meaning of suffering. Ricœur considers that source of suffering is “unfree will” of man, which existence is caused by physical evil. By the reason of separation of problems of suffering from question of moral evil, French philosopher fails to answer on question of what suffering teach us. In this meaning, we can make a bid for statement that conception of suffering presented here bears burden of nihilism, because there is no place for only the one image of suffering man, penancing in suffer, and therefore there is no place for suffering only as whole sense of fulfillment. Ricœur’s conception of sin, guilty and punishment is interesting, because it is cause of suffering, partly from that reason, that attempt to indication of manners of surmounting of suffering has led Ricœur on theological field.