本論文所要處理的是惡的意願與非意願性的辯證。在《惡的象徵》中，悲劇神學和人學的概念便是作為辯證之中介。這兩概念與一種痛苦意識有關，所意識者就是仲裁正義者，亦是違反其正義原則的惡的來源。對「悲劇神學」而言，這個對象就是神；對「悲劇人學」而言，便是意識到人的良知隱藏著惡的可能。可見悲劇神學和人學是一相互依賴的概念。但是由於在呂格爾的象徵系列當中，尤其是玷污及罪的象徵，皆是在神與人的某種關係而論的，因此我們更為凸顯悲劇神學的概念。 第二章主要從情節和美學效果兩途徑，呈現呂格爾如何由古希臘悲劇抽繹出悲劇神學和人學兩概念。 第三章則著重闡述呂格爾《惡的象徵》中的玷汙/罪/罪咎象徵系列，以及突顯悲劇神學和人學如何受制於象徵系列所賦予的意義及角色。藉由象徵系列，奴隸意志的概念得以釐清。其所表達的是，由自由意志的選擇，所造成的自我囚禁之惡。 第四章將悲劇概念放在神話重力場結構及基督論的脈絡中，呈現悲劇的相對位置。針對悲劇神學和人學概念，呂格爾將兩者視為批判和限制的否定性概念。另一方面，藉由基督論，嘗試呈現超克悲劇神學和人學的可能性。值得注意的是，當呂格爾將悲劇神學和人學當成批判性概念的時候，在一定程度上，便具有解構其他象徵(內含的奴隸意志成分)的力道。但是相對於基督論來講，悲劇神學和人學便是等待超越，而有所不足的概念。因此我們可以排列出相對位階：奴隸意志－初步自由(悲劇)－參與之自由(基督論)。 至於結論部分，在《惡的象徵》中，我們已經看到，呂格爾將信仰和知識劃歸不同真理領域的嘗試，也看到需要以信仰或象徵語言為前理解基礎的意義領域。但是，如何在詮釋作為超越之意義領域的基督論之時，肯定其超越性又保持其意義之開放性和模糊性呢？甚至更進一步地，保持相異宗教或象徵語言之真理的可能性呢？這些都是仍待探索的議題。 / This thesis deals with the dialectic of the voluntary and the involuntary of evil. In The Symbolism of Evil, the mediations of the dialectic are tragic theology and tragic anthropology. They are related to the consciousness of suffering. It means awareness of the source of evil that who judges the justice is one violating its own. ‘Tragic theology’ concerns god; for ‘tragic anthropology’, it means the possibility of evil which hides in the conscience of human. One can see that tragic theology and anthropology are mutually-dependent conceptions. Even if Ricoeur’s symbolical series associate much to the relation of god and man, we stress much more the conception of ‘tragic theology’. Chapter two discusses how Ricoeur analyzes these two conceptions of tragic theology and anthropology in ways of plot and aesthetic influences. Chapter three explains the symbolical series of stain, sin, and guilt. It also deals with how tragic theology and anthropology are subject to the meaning and the role of the symbolical series. Moreover, the concept of the servile will can be clarified by means of the symbolical series, which expresses that the will of freedom results in the evil of self-enclosure. Chapter four puts the concept of tragedy in the structure of mythically gravitational space and in the context of Christology to express the unique place of tragedy. Ricoeur regards tragic theology and anthropology as the negative conceptions which is critical and limiting. Moreover, he tries to exhibit the possibility of surpassing tragic theology and anthropology which, noticeably, have the power of deconstructing other symbols (the elements of servile will within) to some extent that Ricoeur regards them as critical conceptions. But in contrast to Christology, they are conceptions which wait for being surpassed and are limited. Thus, we can manifest the hierarchical levels: the servile will－a initial freedom(tragedy)－a freedom of participation(Christology). As to the conclusion, in The Symbolism of Evil, we have seen that Ricoeur tries to divide belief and knowledge into different fields of truth and that he needs the field of meaning which regards belief or symbolical language as the fundamental of pre-understanding. But, how do we assert its transcendence and keep the openness and the ambiguity at the same time that we interpret the Christology as the sphere of transcendental meaning? Even much more, we keep the possibility of truth of different religions and symbolical languages? These are issues waiting for further investigating.