08_Critical Reson and Faith The Cotnribution.pmd


CRITICAL REASON AND FAITH: THE CONTRIBUTION OF

RICOEUR’S HERMENEUTICS

J.Haryatmoko, S.J.

Sanata Dharma University, Indonesia

º·¤Ñ¤ÂèÍ

Âؤ»Ñ¨¨ØºÑ¹¢Í§ÇÒ·กÃÃÁËÅѧ¹ÇÂؤÁÑก¨ÐàกÕèÂÇ¢éͧกѺกÒÃÇÔ¾ÒกÉì
กÒÃก´¢Õèã¹ÃٻẺµèÒ§ æ «Öè§ÍÒ¨¨Ð»ÃÒก¯ã¹ÃٻẺ¢Í§ÍÀÔàÃ×èͧàÅèÒ ÃÒก°Ò¹
¢Í§¤ÇÒÁ¤Ố áÅФÇÒÁàª×èÍã¹ÃٻẺµèÒ§ æ ¢Í§¤ÇÒÁ¨ÃÔ§·ÕèµÒµÑÇ äÁèÂ×́ ËÂØè¹
áµèÇÒ·กÃÃÁµÒÁ¨ÒÃÕµ·Ò§ÈÒÊ¹Ò «Ö觾ÂÒÂÒÁ·Õè̈ Ðà¢éÒã¨ÈÃÑ·¸ÒáÅÐà˵ؼÅáÅÐ
¾Ö觾ҤÇÒÁ¨ÃÔ§Íѹⴴà´è¹à¾Õ§˹Öè§à´ÕÂÇ ÍÒ¨¹Óä»ÊÙèกÒÃกÅèÒÇËÒÇèÒà»ç¹ÅÑ·¸Ô
»ÃÐกÒÈÔµ¹ÔÂÁä´é »Ñ­ËÒ¨Ö§ÍÂÙè·ÕèÇèÒ ¤ÇÒÁ¤Ô´·Ò§ÈÒʹҹÑé¹¾ÃéÍÁËÃ×ÍäÁè·Õè¨Ð
à»Ô´กÇéÒ§ãËéกѺá¹Ç¤Ô´ËÅѧ¹ÇÂؤ «Öè§ÁÕá¹Çâ¹éÁã¹àªÔ§à»ÃÕºà·Õº ÁÕ¤ÇÒÁ
Â×´ËÂØè¹áÅÐÂÍÁÃѺ ¾ËØÀÒ¾¢Í§¤ÇÒÁËÁÒ º·¤ÇÒÁ¹Õé¨ÐãªéÈÒʵÃìáËè§
กÒõդÇÒÁàªÔ§ÇÔ¾ÒกÉì¢Í§ÃÔàกÍÃìÁÒªèÇÂà¾×èÍáÊ´§ãËéàËç¹ÇèÒÇÒ·กÃÃÁ·Ò§
ÈÒʹҵÒÁ á¹Ç¨ÒÃÕµ¹Ñé¹ÊÒÁÒö»ÃѺãËéà¢éÒกѺÂؤËÅѧ¹ÇÂؤä é́

Abstract

The current age of Postmodernist discourse involves a critique of

various forms of oppression. These can take the form of grand narratives,

foundations, and the belief in various forms of inflexible truth. But the

traditional religious discourse __ with its attempts to understand faith and

reason and its reliance on unique singular truths __ can easily lead to charges

of dogmatism. So the question is whether religion thought is sufficiently

well-equipped for opening itself to postmodern thought which tends to be

analogous, flexible and tolerant of a plurality of meanings. This paper will

enlist the aid of Ricoeur’s critical hermeneutics to show how traditional

religious discourse can adapt to the postmodern age.

Prajna Vihara, Volume 12, Number 1, January-June, 2011, 113-130 113

2000 by Assumption University Pressc

~



One of the great challenges today is how to respond to the ten-

dency toward skepticism and relativism that dominates these changing

times. Such tendencies are engendered by the fact that we have left be-

hind a stable social and cultural order and enter now into circumstances of

profound uncertainty. The idea of progress, which has relied on the sci-

ences and technology has been called into question. Rationality once seen

as emancipatory has failed to deliver its promise. Modern man has be-

come more and more dependent and impulsive. Postmodernism sees con-

temporary culture as ephemeral and individualistic, marked by the insta-

bility of rationality, and the collapse of the great ideologies (G. Lipovetsky,

2004:69) and Grand Narratives.

Are our religions also vulnerable to the criticisms of postmodern

thoughts whose ambition is to deconstruct all kinds of domination, includ-

ing the methods and rationality of religious doctrine? The effort to under-

stand the relation between faith and reason could be suspected as being

an effort to create a Grand Narrative. Such a project would have an

ambition to lay the ultimate foundation of religious belief drawn from rea-

son. This would then lead to the claim of universality leading it into the trap

of dogmatism and of the principles of petition. So the question is whether

religion thought is sufficiently well-equipped for opening itself to postmodern

thought which tends to be analogous, flexible and tolerant of a plurality of

meanings.

The postmodern trend is willing to depart from the exigency of

absolute reason to seek the foundation of truth. This course of thought

constitutes a real challenge to religion whose claims tend to converge on

some form of unique truth. In the postmodern era, all conflicts should be

solved through discussions and negotiations. Therefore, one must elabo-

rate on a way to consensus and solidarity. The consensus must be factual,

contextual and impermanent. It must not be a form of rational consensus

which prevails universally following the illusions and myth of modernism.

Critical hermeneutics is considered as one of the  postmodern approaches.

Critical Hermeneutics and Faith

A more proper approach will make a stand for a critical rational-

114 Prajna Vihara
~ _ _



ity in the form of critical hermeneutics which adopts the argument that a

thesis is never definitive, but should be criticized, revised and improved.

There are two assumptions behind this approach: the first assumption is

that a text contains a plurality of meanings; the second assumption is that a

text can become autonomously detached from its initial production (i.e.,

distanciation of the author’s intention, the initial context, and the origin of

destination). Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutics is the most convenient tool for

us to use to analyze the relation between faith and reason.

Faith must be understood as “the integral response of the human

being to God who reveals himself as Savior. Faith accepts the messages,

promises and commandments of God”. (R.Latourelle, 1995:309). Faith

emphasizes two aspects:  aspects of trust and assent to the message. Faith

is not an alien phenomenon, it concerns us personally. It must be rooted in

ourselves or produced by our powers. At the same time, it has its origin in

God Himself. Therefore, in the person as subject and in its structures

(mind, psychology, all human capacities) are found the conditions required

for the possibility of faith. Its process is not a capitulation of spirit, but a

sovereign exercise in which human beings make the thinking of God their

own (ibid., 310). Reason requires that if persons are to give their assent,

they must have reasons for believing (Fides quaerens intellectum).

Reasons alone confront us with only the power of our own mind

as Latourelle writes: “The signs and his rational knowledge of them, give

man control not of the intrinsic credibility of the divine word but of his own

knowledge of the duty to believe and of his own free decision to be-

lieve…” (ibid., 312). Every message is a sign. Thus, when we deal with a

message we need a tool of analysis which enables us to understand its

content. In so doing, we better understand ourselves. Sign, symbol and

text are the mediation to a better self-comprehension. Therefore, if faith is

well rooted in one’s culture, it has a solid base in which critical reason

enlightens experience and are not alien to human beings’ origin structures.

As a tool of analysis, the role of critical hermeneutics is in line with the four

tasks of the critical reason which are, firstly, to dismantle the relation of

power by which a text is misused to disguise the legitimization of power;

secondly, to enable marginalized voices to articulate and be heard; thirdly,

to bring about a knowledge which is critical toward the complicity of

relation between power-knowledge-truth; and fourthly, to create favor-

J.Haryatmoko, S.J. 115



able conditions to form a new subjectivity whose traits are marked by

openness and tolerance.

The project of history, intended to mobilize our society attracts in

fact only a few adherents. Our society is no longer obsessed with its fu-

ture. It is neither a question of absence of insight nor of vision, but it is

proof that consumerism focuses on the now-life. The meaning of time is

dominated by the changing and ephemeral situations. The optimism of the

progress of history is replaced by the horizon of a shorter time. Today we

face the social era where hic et nunc (the here and now) are considered

pivotal.

How Can Religions Embody Faith in an Era of Uncertainty?

In this era, our society is no longer fooled by the Grand Narrative

(Hegel-Marxism, socialism, evolutionism, universalism, patriarchal ideol-

ogy), but is increasingly determined by life here and now. All these Grand

Narratives, which have promised to bring humanity to a better future,

failed in fulfilling their promise. Finally, the critical discourses manage to

unmask the stratagem of the principle of universality. Behind this doctrine

is a disguised strategy and desire for power.

The claim of the value-free and disinterestedness of knowledge is

precisely what makes us suspect the so-called scientific discourses of

disguising the will to power. The deconstruction of the relation of knowl-

edge-power-truth leads us to call into question the claim of scientific ob-

jectivity (M. Foucault), behind which is the dissimulated interest in the

legitimization of power. In brief, postmodernism enables us to deconstruct

all kinds of unjust dominations, including the most disguised and symbolic

ones.

One of postmodernism’s contributions lies in the structural reor-

ganization of the course of the social and cultural life in the advanced

democratic society (G.Lipovetsky, 2004:70). The sophistication of mass

communication facilitates exchange among nations so that they enrich one

another in the social, economic and cultural domains. But this sophisti-

cated mass media has a two-edged sword. Besides its meaningful side, it

has an ambiguous influence due to the fact that it pushes people to con-

116 Prajna Vihara
~ _ _



sume more and more.

The contemporary main episteme or structure of significance of

life is focused on economy (money). Homo oeconomicus is a fanatical

adherent to individualism motivated by his/her own interests in all aspects

of life (economy, education, politics, sex). How can such individualistic

mode of life’s influence leave a religious aspiration remained intact? Two

main religious values which consist of altruism and disciplinary norms are

called into question. The resistance against the authoritarian and disciplin-

ary norms pushes our society to enter the process of the centralization of

the role of the individual glorifying hedonism. The principles and norms

which rule social life are emptied of their transcendent dimension. There-

fore, religion must face the society’s fierce resistance whenever it inter-

venes too much in the public space. The logic of market prevails more and

more over social and religious norms. Hedonistic culture exalting self-

fulfillment and the immediate satisfaction of desires is in ascendancy. It

incites people to consume more in order to satisfy the urgency of plea-

sure.

The term “urgency” is the keyword in understanding our contem-

porary culture in its relation to time. The speed of communication in com-

bination with the logic of financial market forms an arbitrary instance to

real time. All things must be met immediately with responses. The culture

of urgency prevails in all domains.  The slowness of response to profes-

sional requests constitutes a threat to the development or even the survival

of an institution. Urgency rules over the time schedule. Therefore, the

rhythm of time requires high-speed activities and immediate professional

responses.

The culture of urgency puts in danger a profound discernment

because people find it difficult to distinguish between what is essential and

what is merely an accessory. The high-speed rhythm of activities has a

perilous impact on people’s search for meaning. It empties the question of

the meaning of life. People have no time to put distance between them-

selves and their activities. It is almost impossible to question or to give

meaning to these activities, much less to enter into a critical consideration.

The response of religions would determine the relevance of their role in

this contemporary society.

J.Haryatmoko, S.J. 117



Hermeneutics: Bridging Faith and Reason

Hermeneutics will be a very helpful method to enable us to under-

stand the complexity of the relation between faith and reason. Hermeneu-

tics is not primarily considered a tool to interpret or rediscover the inten-

tion of the author of a text. It is not a question of a reproduction of the

author’s message inserted into the text, but it must be looked at in Ricoeur's

perspective, that is, as an effort to search for the dynamic of the text

aimed by the structures of the work (1986). The ultimate objective is to

find the capacity of self-projection in the text to bring about a new world

which represents the core message.

Using hermeneutics as a method of clarifying the relation between

faith and reason, referring to P.Ricoeur, implies accepting three assump-

tions (1995:35). The first assumption is that a religious faith may be iden-

tified through its language as a kind of discourse. Whatever may be the

nature of the religious experience, it must be articulated in a language. The

second assumption is that this discourse must be understandable and com-

municable, that it be meaningful at least for the community of faith that

uses it. Furthermore, it needs to be communicable for the sake of commu-

nication with others outside of the faith community. The third assumption

is that reason under the banner of philosophy is implied in this inquiry

because this kind of discourse does not merely claim to be meaningful, but

also to be true. According to Ricoeur, philosophy is confronted by a mode

of discourse that displays claims both to meaningfulness and to fulfillment

such that new dimensions of reality and truth are disclosed (1995:36).

The role of hermeneutics is ineluctable in bridging the hiatus be-

tween faith and reason. However, it depends on the capacity to explain

that an understanding is never an immediate knowledge. In other words,

there is no self-transparency. “There is no immediate understanding of

oneself” (C.Oliviera 1990:29). Thus, understanding needs mediation. Phi-

losophy has no ambition to be a total mediation, as if reflection were

identical to intuition. Therefore, understanding does not consist of the en-

counter between “being” and “knowing”. There is a distance between the

subject reflecting and herself/himself. This distance is bridged by the me-

diation of sign, symbol and text (Ricoeur, 1986).

The mediation through sign indicates that the initial condition of

118 Prajna Vihara
~ _ _



human experiences is language: perception and desire have to be expressed

in words; and beauty needs to be described in a communicable way.

Mediation through symbolism means that all expressions could have

equivocal meanings in relation to the designation of the elements of cos-

mos (fire, water, wind); the appellation of dimensions (height, depth); and

the terming of aspects (clarity, obscurity). Finally, text is all discourse fixed

by writing. According to Ricoeur, discourse must be distinguished from

language. There are four conditions for something to be considered a

discourse: firstly, there is a subject who affirms; secondly, there is a con-

tent of the proposition which describes a world that will be represented;

thirdly, a discourse is supposed to have an audience to whom it is ad-

dressed; and fourthly, there is an aspect of temporality or the context of

proposition.

The mediation through sign and symbol is extended and modified

by the mediation through text,  but this extension implies that it uproots the

text from its initial production of discourse. Consequently, a distanciation

linked to the initial production of discourse is created: a work of discourse

becomes an autonomous object at a distance from the authorial intention,

from its initial situation, and from its primitive audience (Ricoeur, 1995:38).

That is why a discourse as a work of art is open to an infinite range of

interpretations.

The hermeneutic category of “distanciation through writing” in com-

bination with the “objectivation through structures” (Ricoeur, 1986:126)

represents the conditions of interpretation in order to enable a text to give

meaning. Both categories make up an objective pole of self-comprehen-

sion, whereas the hermeneutic category of “self-comprehension” draws

an inspiration from the “world of the text”. These last two categories form

the subjective pole of comprehension.

These four hermeneutic categories reflect a concern which does

not content itself with hermeneutics as a method (epistemology), but through

this epistemology, the existence dimension of the interpreter (ontology)

will be disclosed. From this point of view, the task of hermeneutics con-

sists in expliciting the meaning of all types of imaginable being. From the

phenomenological perspective, vision requires the display of the invisible

that is not given in the actual experience, but manifests in the form of

horizon, which is the cradle where vision is born. There is no vision cre-

J.Haryatmoko, S.J. 119



ated exterior to the interpretation. Having a vision means penetrating some-

thing promising, even if it is still dissimulated. It means that an incisive

interpretation will enable us to gain insightful understanding of a text so

that it inspires us with creative ideas.

Objectivation through structural analysis is a logical tool for ex-

plaining the relations, combinations, contradictions and comparisons of

the elements forming the text in order to display its values or richness. The

meaning will be discovered through analysis of the relations that are inter-

dependent so that language becomes a system of signs. This third herme-

neutics category is not limited only to structural analysis, but is also ex-

tended to all forms of explanation of the text. This category includes all

scientific explanations which are contributed by psychology, history, soci-

ology, anthropology, archeology, etc. The reason for this is that, in the

dialectic of explanation and understanding, those sciences serve as an

instrument for the objectivation of text by means of explaining the logical

relations of the text. Thus, their contribution is emphasized on the episte-

mological side. This approach represents the stepping-stone to reach a

better self-comprehension (ontological dimension).

The dialectical relation between explanation and understanding in

the dynamic of comprehension of the text is considered to be completion

of each other. A text has an immanent structures whis is able to be ex-

plained by structural analysis or other scientific analysis. At the same time,

the text has references to extra-linguistic. Ricoeur calls this reference to

the exterior of linguistics the world of the text which stems from neither

psychological intentions nor the breath of God, but from the mediation of

the structures of the text. It means that God’s revelation manifests itself in

the contrasts and convergence of different types of discourse such as

narration, poem, oracle, metaphor, and exhortation which are forged in

the text of the Holy Scripture.

The determining passage between objectivation through struc-

tural analysis and “self-comprehension” is the disclosure of the world of

text. This phase is pivotal because it forms and transforms the reader or

interpreter. In the Bible, this disclosure is called “Good News”, or “King-

dom of God” (P.Ricoeur, 1986). All of these epithets represent the objec-

tivity of the new existence projected by the text. This new world does not

stem from the author’s intention, but it is disclosed through the structures

120 Prajna Vihara
~ _ _



of the text. The narrative style orientates us to the signification that God is

the main actor of the history of man’s salvation. The prophetic style ex-

presses either a God who is threatening or presaging but at the same time

He is giving a promise in spite of the prominent destruction. Both ex-

amples are forms of the Bible’s proposal of the world. The capacity of the

text for disclosing a revelation derives from the contrasts and convergences

of all forms of discourse analyzed together so that hermeneutics leads to

the world proposed by the text. This world of the text will make sense

only if the reader or interpreter appropriates it.

This “appropriation” or “self-comprehension” marks the fusion

between the world proposed by the text and the concrete world of the

reader. Gadamer used the term “fusion of horizons” to refer to the en-

counter between the two worlds that are more than mere worlds. It is

called “fusion” because it is impossible for the reader to expropriate the

world of the text exhaustively and, at the same time, to leave totally the

actual world where he lives. The result is that the reader does not leave

the world intact and he does not refuse the world proposed by the text.

The world of the reader undergoes a real transformation allowing the reader

to transform and understand himself/herself better.

Distanciation: Criticism of Ideology and Deconstruction

In the process of appropriation, the distanciation from her-/him-

self is required in order to avoid a distorted meaning and as a fair effort to

prevent the arbitrariness of interpretation. Contrary to the literal meaning

of the word, distanciation is far from the notion of alienation; it suggests a

creative resolution due to its merit of enriching and purifying self-compre-

hension. The distanciation consists in the form of criticism of ideology,

deconstruction and analogy of the game.

The criticism of religion launched by Marx, Nietzsche and Freud

has a lucid significance for a more purified understanding of faith. It is

constructed exterior to the hermeneutic process. It grows as criticism of

ideology exercising the criticism of the pre-comprehensions and of the

illusions of religion. A religious conviction runs the risk of transforming

itself into an illusion if it is uprooted from the reality of life, as it is then

J.Haryatmoko, S.J. 121



analogous with wishful thinking taken for reality. Linguistically, such wish-

ful thinking is not impossible because language is not only a tool of com-

munication or means of representation. Language as speech-act

(performative utterance) is used as an instrument of action or power. On

the other hand, the social praxis is discursive in the sense that it is orga-

nized discursively by values and representations of human needs. There-

fore, it is logical that language could construct reality behind which is ex-

alted the adagio of the idealistic philosophy that “the real is rational, the

rational is real”.

Such a conviction or faith needs to be confronted with a critical

approach. That is why the thoughts of Nietzsche, Marx and Freud as

philosophy of suspicion will be apt to help to dismantle unjust relations of

power and the surreptitious manipulations. Michel Foucault affirmed that

religious discourse runs a risk of being embedded deep in the relation of

power-knowledge-truth (1976).

For a better hermeneutic understanding that focuses on the text,

these criticisms are taken as an acknowledgement of the ideological as-

sault which could be destructive, but they can be transformed into a tool

of auto-criticism that enables the purification of faith. So, the response to

those criticisms is not an apology, but an effort to domesticate or digest

the wild assaults, which could be harmful, for a better self-comprehen-

sion. This mechanism is a promising exercise because it could pedagogi-

cally bring about an attitude of religious maturity that allows our faith to

grow up and, at the same time become tough because it could disorientate

those who have a limited understanding of faith. In such a mechanism, the

adherents of religion could fall into a trap of spiritual aridity if the intellec-

tual exercise empties the spirituality of her/his lived experiences from the

horizon of faith.

The criticism of ideology defending secular humanism launches a

challenge to religions regarding whether they are able to offer their speci-

ficity in the domain of morality. Does religion enrich ethics? The answer is

that religion must not be understood in terms of enriching ethics; religion

specifies ethical acts because it defends in ethics the uniqueness of indi-

vidual (H.Cohen, 1990). Religion places ethics in a concrete community

with its organization, tradition, rites, institutions, theology and members.

In religious ethics, the beauty tends often to be marginalized or

122 Prajna Vihara
~ _ _



disregarded in favor of a focus on the question of goodness and truth. The

question of aesthetics is not totally ignored, but religion warns not to con-

fuse aesthetical taste with religious awareness. The latter can endure the

concrete individual’s sufferings, whereas aesthetics deals with some styles

that have nothing to do with suffering. Art only knows bad or beautiful

faces in their material expressions. In aesthetics, religion manifests itself

through its capacity for inciting a specific feeling irreducible to a mere

aesthetic feeling because it can transform into empathy, mercy or forgive-

ness. This religious feeling is immediately connected with the idea of God.

It represents an expression of the expectation of liberation or salvation.

Religious feeling and the promise of salvation find their articulation

in prayer. Prayer discloses its meaning when it expresses that expectation

of liberation. Consequently, the convergence between aesthetics and reli-

gion lies in prayer and specifically in mysticism that is desirous of partici-

pating in the infiniteness of the transcendent.

A problem arises because concrete religion tends to mark the law

of separation which founds the relation between God and man. Its follow-

ers will unconsciously unify this separation when they commit unscrupu-

lous violence on behalf of God. From the humanist ethical point of view,

such violence which is motivated by the transcendent reason is totally

unacceptable, while religion is still tempted to give a compromise by founding

the act of violence on the Holy Scripture as symbolical and ideological

legitimization. Accordingly, such a transcendent motivation could not be

taken for the specificity of the religious ethics; otherwise it will be con-

temptuous of humanity and incurs indignation.

In order to mark the specificity of religious ethics, religion needs

to deal with unique experience of the ethical subject that is recognition of

sinfulness, contrary to the secular humanist ethics that insists on freedom

and responsibility. This insistence defines the human as being self-confi-

dent and tending to be arrogant. The vision of religious ethics enables one

to recognize her/his weakness as a human being. Hence, the value of

religion lies in community insofar as salvation that does not in the power of

the individual but in the power of God which is revealed in His promise.

This promise is a guarantee that her/his freedom and her/his respect for

human dignity can not be separated from that process of God’s liberation.

God’s promise lays a strong foundation for the religious disciples to act

J.Haryatmoko, S.J. 123



conforming to moral virtues. That promise will only make sense if it is

guaranteed through institutions and laws that are able to organize one’s

responsibility by imposing sanction. Therefore, authentic religion is re-

quired to be able to translate God’s promise into a system of action. This

system of action must be guaranteed by collectivity because it runs a promi-

nent risk of slipping into pretense of being in a legitimate position to con-

fiscate so-called “God’s will”. Thus, a path of humility must be taken as

contra-measure in which we recognize our weakness.

According to H.Arendt (1958), one of man’s weaknesses lies in

the fact that man’s action is irreversible. When we make an error in typing

on computer, the mistake can easily be erased without leaving any trace.

But when we hurt someone, this victim will not be left intact. He/she is not

protected from an injury that could last a long time. Forgiveness  helps the

perpetrator to resume a new life. To some extent, forgiveness is an act of

forgetting someone’s mistake or of overcoming feeling resentful toward

perpetrator’s for an offense. Forgiveness transcends the rationality of ac-

tion based on the logic of reciprocity. Rather forgiveness bases on the

logic of generosity. For this reason, religion represents a community where

forgiveness becomes a source of life renewal. Only religion integrates for-

giveness as a mechanism of community renewal guaranteed by collectiv-

ity. That collectivity finds its unity by referring to the same Transcendent

whose main nature is full of mercy. Only forgiveness can break the vicious

cycle of evil and dissuade the ruse of reason from being tempted to ma-

nipulate the sacred. In order to prevent manipulation of the sacred in favor

of different vested interests, deconstruction as a tool of analysis will play a

critical role in the process of interpretation.

Deconstruction is another facet of distanciation. It is, in Ricoeur’s

point of view, understood as an effort to dismantle the reader’s interests

and the interpreter’s either conscious or unconscious motivations in front

of the text. The assumption behind this measure is that all human rational

acts are intentional. Consequently, according to the general theory of ac-

tion, an agent will be pushed by motivations or interests to achieve a goal.

The goal determines the choice of means. The means can appear in vari-

ous forms; they can even be dissimulated behind the sacred. Hence,

deconstruction serves to sound the reader out so that all of her/his inter-

ested motivations could be disclosed or unmasked.

124 Prajna Vihara
~ _ _



Such a measure is analogous with Husserl’s eèpocheè which puts
the reader’s interpretation into brackets, and suspends the immediate sei-

zure of the text so that an authentic comprehension can be acquired. By

deconstruction, the conflict or tension between different religions may be

confined within the interested interpretations of all of the protagonists. The

conflict of interests (economy or politics) disguised in a polemic of theo-

logical understandings is a significant sign indicating the lack of legitimiza-

tion.

In principle, the relation of power is asymmetric in the sense that

there is often a deficit of trust that undermines the authority (politics or

religion). The authority requires more than the trust that could be given by

the subordinates. To fill a gap in this relation, the authority misuses religion

as a system of legitimization. What is interpreted and legitimized by reli-

gion is no other pretext than the relation of power because all kinds of

power seek always for legitimization. For this reason, deconstruction plays

an important role in dismantling all vested interests.

The Analogy of the Game: the Creative Dimension of Distanciation

If the criticism of ideology and deconstruction are the negative

faces of distanciation, the analogy of the game is the positive and creative

side of distanciation. A game allows people to find out the new possibili-

ties that are imprisoned by rigid, formal and serious thought. It helps people

to discover in themselves the possibilities to change the fact that they are

restrained by a vision that is merely moral. Thus, a game brings about an

atmosphere that makes initiatives and creativities grow because through

the game, the subject is set free from social norms, social hierarchy and

everyday seriousness.

In an atmosphere of freedom, the essential phenomenon mani-

fests itself; that is the process to give birth to creativities. Ricoeur affirms

that it is primarily in the imagination and not in the will that “a new being” is

born. The capacity to be seized by new possibilities precedes the capac-

ity for choosing and deciding. The imagination represents the dimension of

the subject responding poetically to the text because it creates newness.

Accordingly, the primary destination of the text is imagination. To the imagi-

J.Haryatmoko, S.J. 125



nation, the text has conversation by suggesting new possibilities, and through

imagination the text murmurs the delightful ideas holding the images, which

will set the subject free.

A subject enjoys freedom if she/he is open to new possibilities

and not constrained by the boundaries of doctrine, religion, race or other

factors of social segregation. She/he transcends the social determination.

Such freedom is not always within reach for all people. Some religious

doctrines inculcate in the mind of their followers not to be in communica-

tion with the followers of other religions. Such an exclusive doctrine would

see the other as a threat. Exclusion is an indicator of being uprooted from

the human reality. Even if those doctrines are well-founded scripturally an

objection arises from the human ethics criterion. “According to the gen-

eral ethics standard, a religion would be true and authentic as far as it

expresses human dignity. It does not eliminate nor destroy humanity, but

preserves and promotes humanity” (H.Kung, 1991:244).

The analogy of the game finds its relevance to the plural society in

creating opportunities for informal encounters among religions in the oc-

casion of different events such as sport, theatre, music, camping, festivi-

ties, etc. These informal encounters help break the ice between people of

different religions who are not well acquainted with each other. Such an

encounter will allow people to eliminate the prejudices embedded deep in

their respective minds. When this phase of encounter is attained, a rich

dialogue of theology has the chance to be launched and organized. All

these efforts are to avoid a conflictual relationship among religions and to

build a deeper understanding.

The conflicts among the followers of different religions end in vio-

lence from a lack of religious tolerance. Even if the cause of conflict did

not primarily consist of religious issues, the atmosphere of hatred between

Muslims and Christians (the case in Indonesia) did exist, though a lot of

the members of both groups still have a good relationship and mutual

cooperation. The fundamental problem lies in the difficulty of accepting

the difference of the other. The existential question is how Muslims or

Christians can pay respect to and accept another religion, while at the

same time be convinced of the authenticity of the truth of their own reli-

gion.

The acceptance of plurality comes from an attitude of humility

..

126 Prajna Vihara
~ _ _



acknowledging the limits of human capacity to seize the perfection of God.

The different religious traditions show precisely God’s perfection: “God is

too rich and unlimited so that a religious tradition, which is of course lim-

ited, will not exhaustively be able to dip into the perfection and the fullness

of God” (E.Schillebeeckx 1992:225). The fullness of God will be better

expressed through the plurality of religions than by only one religion. Be-

hind this statement, a dimension of ethics appears as a common ground to

pay respect to human dignity.

An encounter with “the other” represents the moral moment be-

cause the other induces me to responsibility. “L’eèpiphanie du visage (the
appearance of the face) becomes precisely the expression of the unlimit-

edness of the other which reminds me of my obligation and judges me”

(Levinas,1971:215). So, Levinas declared lucidly that “a relation does

not neutralize the other, but preserves the other. The other is not the ob-

ject which is part of us nor becomes similar to us, but the other withdraws

himself to his mystery” (1982:59). The presence of the other allows me to

affirm my uniqueness in which the meaning of life makes sense. So the

presence of the other does not threaten me, but invokes me to take on a

higher task and a human vocation calling me to take responsibility. The

other does not limit my freedom. By invoking my responsibility, the other

legitimizes my freedom.

The philosophical rationality of cultural and religious plurality an-

swers to the basic need of identity. This basic need will not be satisfied

unless it is translated into a concrete policy that defines clearly the prin-

ciples of social praxis accommodating cultural plurality. The main concern

consists of creating the public space allowing the cultural interaction and a

more human communication through which a consensus will be attained.

The public space gets its significance from facilitating different cultures to

share in a strong position thanks to their dignity and self-confidence. Are

all these approaches not to be taken as a trap of relativism? How, then, to

define the mission of each religion if proselytism incurs indignation?

Luc Ferry, a French political philosopher, suggests an interesting

reflection on the vocation of every human being. The main vocation of the

religion’s followers is a concrete-universality (L.Ferry, 1998:246). We

find the analogy of this concrete-universality in works of art. A successful

piece of art is a concrete object which is universally appreciated. This

J.Haryatmoko, S.J. 127



concrete-universality is defined as the reconciliation between the particu-

lar and the universal. One’s life which is sourrounded by his/her commu-

nity represents a collective life still a particular life, but it has significance

for the whole of humanity.

Religions are called to live a similar vocation in the sense of the

invitation to be like an art-work. The vocation to be a work of art means

participating in the life of society contributing a significant meaning to the

whole society. A life as a work of art means opening the access to the

universal precisely through the authentification of the particular. This

authentification is a form of freedom which manages to detach itself from

particularism. World figures such as Mahatma Gandhi, Muhammad Iqbal,

and Mother Theresa are works of art representing the concrete-univer-

sality. These figures are considered universal because they were accepted

and appreciated by all groups of religions, and concrete because their

lives were rooted in the particularity of their own religions. They contrib-

uted to the development of humanity due to their religious education and

they grew up in their own religious environment.

J. Haryatmoko SJ is lecturer in Philosophy at the Sanata Dharma

University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

References

Arendt, Hannah, 1958: The Human Condition, second edition, Chi-

cago: The UCP.

Baudrillard, Jean, 1970: La societeè de consommation, Paris: Folio/Essais
Chryssides, George D.,  Can New Faiths Be Reasonable?, in: Rethink-

ing New Religious Movements, editor M.A.Fuss, Rome, 1998,

pp.11-27.

Cohen, Herman, 1990. La religion dans les limites de la philosophie,

Paris: CERF.

Ferry, Luc, & Comte-Sponville, Andre 1998: La sagesse des modernes,

Paris: Laffont.

Foucault, Michel, 1976: Histoire de la sexualiteè I. La volonteè du savoir,
Paris: Gallimard.

128 Prajna Vihara
~ _ _



Hammond, David, Interpreting Faith and Reason: Denys Turner and

Bernard Lonergan in Conversation, Horizon 35/2 (2008): 191-

202.

Jayme, Virginia L., Emmanuel Levinas’ Philosophy of Responsible Sub-

jectivity, in: Philippiniana Sacra, Vol.XXVI, no.77 (1991),

pp.227-262.

Jeanrond, W. G., & Rike Jennifer L., 1991. Radical Pluralism and Truth,

New York: Crossroad.

Knitter, Paul, 1995: One Earth Many Religions. Multifaith Dialogue

and Global Responsibility, Orbis Books.

Kung, Hans, 1991: Dialogability and Steadfastness: On Two

Complementary Virtues, editor Werner G. Jeanrond and Jenni-

fer L. Rike (New York: Crossroad, 1991.

Latourelle, Reneè, 1995: Dictionary of Fundamental Theology, New
York: Crossroad.

Levinas, Emmanuel,1971. Totaliteè et infini. Essai sur l’exteèrioriteè. La
Haye: M. Nijhoff.

Levinas, Emmanuel, 1982. Ethique et Infini, Paris: Fayard.

Lipovetsky, Gilles, 2004: Les Temps Hypermodernes,  Paris: Grasset

Quilab, Oliver D., Welcoming The Stranger: Levinas’ Ethical Philoso-

phy of Responsibility, in: Diwa 20 (November 1995), pp.97-

116.

Ricoeur, Paul, 1986: Du texte a l’action. Essais d’hermeèneutique II,
Paris: Esprit-Seuil. Ricoeur, Paul, 1991: Soi-meme comme un

autre, Paris: Seuil.

Ricoeur, Paul, 1995: Figuring The Sacred. Religion, Narrative, and Imagi-

nation, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.

Schillebeeckx, Edward, 1992: L’histoire des hommes, reècit de Dieu,
Paris: CERF.

Schmitz, Kenneth L., Faith and Reason: Then and Now, in Communio

26 Fall 1999, International Catholic Review, pp.595-608.

Sennett, Richard, 2006: The Culture of the New Capitalism, New Ha-

ven: Yale UP.

Sutor, Bernhard, 1991: Politische Ethik, Paderborn: Ferdinand

Schoningh.

Thayse, Jean Luc, Fe èconditeè et eèvasion chez Levinas, in: Revue

J.Haryatmoko, S.J. 129

..

..

<

‘



Philosophique de Louvain, 1998 (096:000), pp. 624-659.

Tugendhat, Ernst, 1998: Confeèrences sur l’eèthique, Paris: PUF.
Walsh, David, 1999, Reflections on Faith and Reason, Washington D.C.:

Georgetown University Press.

Westphal, Merold, Levinas and The Immediacy of The Face, in: Faith

and Philosophy, Vol.10, no. 4 October 1993, pp. 486-501.

130 Prajna Vihara
~ _ _