FILM879 -
Christelike filosofie - 2013
Aantekeninge
Student:
Mr. M.D. Pienaar (23990163)
CONTENTS
Frankenberry,
Nancy, "Feminist Philosophy of Religion", The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/feminist-religion/>.
"Discussion
of the problem of God is standard fare for all schools of
philosophy of religion. Long a lynchpin holding up other
structures of patriarchal rule, the concept of a male God has
been judged by every major feminist thinker, including Mary
Daly, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Naomi Goldenberg, Daphne
Hampson, Judith Plaskow, Julia Kristeva, and Luce Irigaray, to
be both humanly oppressive and, on the part of believers,
religiously idolatrous according to the terms of their own
theologies."[1]
"Divine
existence is said to be completely self-sufficient and
sovereign. It is what it is independently of any and all
creatures, and its relations to these others are external
relations only. But, according to feminist critics, in the
absence of internal or constitutive relations that would
affect or qualify the divine aseity, real relatedness to
creatures is ruled out and a one-sided glorification of
impassivity over change regulates the model of God and the
world."[2]
Frankenberry
emphasizes the male dominant references to divinity with
regard to Anglo-American and Continental contexts without
explicitly referring to the obvious Mother of God thought of
Catholicism. Irigaray envisioned a more balanced view of
divinities by including men and ladies united without
exclusive references to Female or Male. In Frankenberry's
philosophy, divinities are identified with physical
creativities of process philosophy (Whitehead & Co.).
Becoming and being (present participle) are emphasized and not
cowardly being (noun). Her paper brings other important
dimensions about philosophy of religion, apart from
neo-Calvinist traditions to the forefront. Thoughts about
repetition of the Middle-Eastern history of scantilly clad
lady priestesses the one time and long dresses of Islam
ladies the next time were caused by the reading of her
paper. If women cannot limit their sexual power and men
their muscle power, extremes manifest in times.[3]
TROOST,
A. 1994. The idea of creation order in Western thought. (In
God's order for creation. Potchefstroom: IRS study-pamphlets
No. 324. pp. 2-15.) [13p.]
The
topic creation order is currently not widely studied except
for some Lutheran theologists in Germany and Catholic
ethicists. Troost divides his view into three eras namely
pre-Christian pagan, early Christian and Protestant
Christian.[4]
"In paganism, in all
the ancient world religions and in many tribal religions, the
idea of a more or less divine order or world law was
recognized. It was the idea which we in our time, in a more
differentiated way, would call a physical, biotic, social,
ethical, juridical and ritual order in which divine powers
were active. All that existed was therefore directed and
adjudicated with reward and/or punishment."[5]
There was not a sharp
distinction between "God and the gods" on a side and the
"world order" on another side.[6]
The world order was called a ' "divine" ' world order.
' "Divine" ' referred to either the creation being
from God but not part of God and therefore "not divine" or the
creation and things in "it" being part of God and therefore
"it" and parts had "divine nature".[7]
Pantheism was dominant
and images of gods were not gods themselves because of lacking
identification but also the images functioned as gods.[8]
The modern differentiation between symbols and what its
represented was not well developed.[9]
Reformed theology and
philosophy view the "relation" between "God" and "creature" of
utmost importance. The "relation" is largely "unconscious" and
takes place "underground" and the thoughts about the relation
are presupposed.[10]
Early Christianity
opposed "Stoic paganism" with "deistic" principles but not a
"deistic idea" of God because the idea of God included
continuous providence by "God". "God" according to the new
Christian philosophy did not appear in the form of persons but
were removed from our lives by a "substantialistic view" of
reality. The
Athenian pagan demythologized view found inroads under the new
Christians. The inroads had a negative impact on Christian
science. <self:
I doubt the negative impact because the Christian world was at
the forefront of scientific development. It probably relates
to my postulate that "Truth" was good for Western science, but
need now to be expanded because "One" cannot be the only
creator any more to sustain the world with large
populations.> Troost explains he means negative in
comparison to the Western philosophical origins of Western
science. [11]
It seems
thus he means truths faltered with the origins of
Christianity, maybe he meant current truths.
Western science
originated under an elite Western group of philosophers at the
same time that secularization started amongst the masses.
Before Christianity everything was regarded as under control
of "gods". People thus went about their daily lives according
to fixed rituals, which mimicked the myths of creation.[12]
<self: Troost probably means here that it was not accepted
for people to be creative. Zeus punished Prometheus because he
gave fire to the people after Zeus hid it from people,[13]
therefore in the mythological view, even gods could be
punished if they disturbed the creation order by dispersing
current technology to others. That raises the question about
what the belief was when something was newly created.
According to Toynbee[14] new creations also cause opposing actions by
ruling powers.>
The early Greek
philosophers for example Xenophanes, the first theologian, and
Hesiod, Homer and Democritus started to criticize gods in
conjunction with new scientific developments and creations.
The critique however was dangerous. <self: Socrates for
example was sentenced to suicide partly because he swore in
the name of the "dog"[15] and not the gods.> The early scholars could
not directly oppose pantheism and mythology. [16]
<self: When Troost say the ancient philosophers opposed
pantheism and mythology it does not immediately make sense
because pantheism is an opposition to the religion of
mythology whereby gods were God. According to pantheism all is
God, therefore pantheism is already an opposition to God of
mythology. The ancient philosophers for example Xenophanes was
according to my knowledge more in line with pantheism against
God of mythology.> Reason or ' "logos" ' as
defined by Heraclitus started to oppose the gods of mythology.[17]
The Stoics with their
doctrine about "moral natural rights" also referred to logos
and this influenced Christianity before the Reformation.
Protestantism did something similar with ' "theology of
creation orders" ' at the beginning of the 20th
century and end of the 19th century. The effect of
the Sophists who disregarded reason and emphasized the
difference between what nature requires of us
(' "physis" ') and what gods' laws
(' "nomos" ') require of us, needs to be understood.
They emphasized medical knowledge of the time about necessary
actions, which could lead to punishment. Today everyone knows
about this but some Christians do not respect that "the will of our Creator
God makes itself known and confronts us in normative
directives with authority."[18]
The first principle of
the Stoics was to live according to the requirements of
"nature". Laws, an opposing force, which opposed individualism
for social order stood in contrast to the Stoics.[19]
<self: It seams thus that the law givers at the time wrote
the laws to benefit themselves and not society because
creativities of individualism benefits society at large with
new resulting free time as result of new creativities.>
Ones can either regard necessities of nature higher than human
laws or regard laws higher than necessities of human nature.[20]
The ' "nature of
man" ' was used to motivate different kinds of laws,
which sometimes benefitted the honest and sometimes deceivers.
These different laws were represented by different systems for
example democracy and imperialism. A few "imperatives" or
universal laws were formulated, which most people could agree
to. However the ' "positivists" ' of the time of
whom many were Sophists, opposed the laws, which were not
universal because "nature of man" was not a universal concept.
They wanted positive laws, which could be generalized as good
to all people. The problem was that they did not know of the
criteria or did not respect the criteria of universality for
laws. A German philosopher of law, H.A. Roman wrote a book in
1934, which postulated reconstructions a necessity of nature.
[21]
<self: Kant expanded the concept of universality, which
Jesus talked about when he said we should treat others like we
want to be treated. Jesus referred to another individual. Kant
explained universality as asking before acting, whether our
actions will hurt others. Kant's question, before acting, was
not a question of greatest communal happiness of a group but
was more in reference to other individuals in line with
Jesus's thought. If greatest communal happiness of a group as
imperative is universalized, according to utilitarian
philosophy, human sacrifice can be motivated and therefore
creativities, a necessity of nature in groups, can be
hampered. It seams from Troost's writing that positivists are
analogized with Sophists. It does not make sense to me because
according to my knowledge Sophists did not emphasize honesty,
but positivists according to my knowledge do emphasize
honesties partly, especially with regard to physical matters
because positivist science cannot proceed without physical
certainty as starting point.>
Current human rights
are sometimes seen as the basic ethical rule of our
time, which were derived from pre-Christian philosophy.[22]
<self: In our constitution a human right of free speech is
included, which includes explicitly, imparting of ideas.
Imparting of ideas can however be equated with human sacrifice
because creators do not get paid for work they did when their
ideas are being systematically imparted. Human rights have to
be therefore rights in development, which is expanded
according to the philosophy of timely reconstruction per the
book of H.A. Roman. [23] Atonement in
the senses of sacrificing and reparations for sacrificing is
relevant.>
Early Christian thought
inherited the pre-Christian thoughts but rejected mythology
because of the pantheistic nature.[24]
<self: See my earlier rejection of this statement.
Pantheism and mythology cannot be regarded as similar because
its are opposing thoughts.>
"God reveals himself in
the works of His hands.
The Chrsitian idea of
God's providential control and world plan was therefore a
better answer than the pagan mythology with its stories of
gods and creation."[25]
<From this statement of Troost i gathered that Troost was
also blinded by the singularity of "God Himself[26] Who cannot lie"[27]. His primary opposition is thus against
mythology instead of against pantheism. Maybe this difference
is an important difference between Protestants and Catholics.
If i remember correctly Aquinas was on the borderline between
Catholic religion and pantheism. It can be assumed with
uncertainty that pantheism as opposition against mythology
promoted sacrifices of creator gods in order to appropriate
creativities for the all, which is God according to pantheism.
"Most important, it was
recognized that God is the Creator of all cosmic reality,
including human life and its normativity. But that recognition
should have resulted in breaking with the pagan philosophical view of
reality. In the non-pantheistic philosophies of that era this
view has been secularized,
rather de-mythologized, and thus desacralized and became self
existent. The various philosophers of that time, even while
they were faithful in their pagan worship, had banned the
mythical stories from their scientific thought. In philosophy
people thought of reality as if there were no God or gods.
This caused a break between the gods and daily existence."[28]
<self: This statement by Troost made me think of Derrida's
deconstruction because Troost here admits that God is partly
gods but elsewhere Troost opposes such a view. Troost's view
can thus be deconstructed between two opposing opinions, which
he renders.>
Pagan philosophical
theology removed gods as part of God from theology, which
later became deism as part of secularization.[29]
<The gods according to this secularized deism only appear
when reconstruction is needed it seems.>
The early Christians
sided with the Stoics because in them they recognized a
similar opposing view against pantheism. The pagan Stoic
views, which removed people (gods) as part of God, were
incorporated in the early Christian views. This lead to a
removal of God from our every day lives with negative effects.
God's ' "immanence" ' thus became exclusively
recognized through providence. Augustine is an example of
this.[30]
Troost argues that the
Stoics' "logos" was a concept, which excluded gods and
goddesses being honest and this was accepted as true in early
Christianity's "creation
order". He mentions Seneca and Cicero who's writings
were used by early Christian thinkers. Christianity was a
"hellenizing" with the Stoic idea of eternal incorporeal God.[31]
<self: Seneca, like Socrates were sentenced to suicide and
thus sacrificed for his belief. Cicero was also murdered and
thus sacrificed for his beliefs, by Antony if i remember
correctly. Troost's opinion makes sense if the Stoics promoted
a belief that God is not anthropomorphic, but they lived that
belief in an anthropomorphic manner. Troost thus refers only
to the writings of the Stoics but not their living and
doing.>
The tensions, which are
caused by combining (combination called "lex eterna" which
Cicero called the "lex
aeterna"); eternal divinity with temporal divinity; ex nihilo creations
and natural creations, into one "logos", were inherited by the
Catholic Church from the Stoics. The tension is evident in the
split between nature and grace.[32]
The eternal nature of God as a whole was strengthened by
leaning on thoughts of Jewish Philo of Alexandria's
"helenistic" (one l) philosophy, which postulated logos
between people and God. People could thus partake in the
logos, which is divine. This strain of thought can be followed
from Heraclitus to the stoics and from them to early
Christianity. [33]
"It was not incidental
that at this historical junction, where the Jewish and the
Greek thinking about law collided with the Pauline gospel of
Christian freedom, that these three different traditions
regarding the norms of life found agreement. Finally the
intellectualizing and the juridicizing of morality which
gradually assumed a position of control in present day Roman
Catholic and Protestant orthodoxy finds here one of its
historical roots."[34]
After Thomas of Aquinas
the Aristotelian influence, which disregarded reason in favor
of natural rights[35]
became dominant ("under the name of rational natural right"),
which caused the "great Reformation" and "nominalism".[36]
During the first half
of this century P. Althaus, G, Waensch, W. Wiesner, W.
Kunneth, E. Brenner, W. Elert, F. Lace and R. Gebhardt had
theological conceptions about creation order. Neither Luther
nor Calvin distanced them from "natural law" nor were they
completely uncritical.[37]
To Luther and Calvin natural law was opposed by grace and they
put the emphasis on Jesus's commandment to love one another
according to John 13:34.[38]
The emphasis on Jesus's love caused theological contradictions
between love (complying to written laws) and natural order (no
written laws, divine nature); also between grace (written
laws) and nature (no written laws); also between laws and
freedom (no laws).[39]
Attempts were made to
specify the Ten Commandments[40]
as normative but Protestant people did not accept this due to
influences of sophistic legal arguments by "experts". At the
beginning of the 20th century various philosophies
with regard to creation order existed. The norms of
creativity, which existed before the fall into sin have been
rejected and currently easy to understand explanations about
the logic of the creation order before the fall into sin does
not exist. Many current arguments are subjective and
arbitrary.[41]
During the middle of 20th
century "sovereignty of Christ", based on Luther's "two
kingdom teaching", was used to annul creation ordinances.
Currently the many views contain truths but are not combined
in a coherent creation order that surpasses the different
opinions. Dualism is a similarity, which exists amongst the
different views. Conservative views can be compared to the
Roman Catholic syntheses of early Christianity and more
liberal views can be found in syntheses between Protestantism
and modern philosophy.[42]
20 March 2014
WOLTERS,
AM. 1994. Creation order: A historical
look at our heritage. (In: God's order for
creation. Potchefstroom: Scientific Contributions of the PU
for CHE, Series F: Institute for Reformational Studies, Series
F1: IFRS study-pamphlets, Study pamphlet no. 324, 42-61)
"In
the modern West, with the breakup of the medieval synthesis of
the Bible and Greek philosophy, we see the rise of "humanisn",
here defined as the increasingly secular and anthropocentric
mindset of modernity, with its emphasis on autonomous human
freedom. In the basic outlook of humanisn, two fundamental
themes of the biblical tradition were increasingly
marginalized: creation of God-ordained order, and antithesis
as the religious opposition with respect to that order.[43]
This process of marginalization culminized in Kant's
"Copernican revolution" and its heirs in German idealism and
in what Alvin Plantinga calls the "creative anti-realism" of
much contemporary thought. Whatever order there is in the
world is posited by man,[44]
not God, and the antithesis of biblical religion is
domesticated or privatized, if not denied altogether."[45]
"Neo-Calvinism opposed the humanist
tradition (especially as embodied in Neo-Kantianism) by
seeking to recapture the biblical view of reality. It did this
by strongly reasserting the twin biblical themes which
humanism had marginalized, namely creation and antithesis,
with the latter defined in terms of the former. Initially, the
Neo-Calvinists looked upon the Greek philosophical heritage as
an ally in their struggle against contemporary humanism (for
example in adopting the tradition of Logos speculation), but
increasingly they sought to distance themselves from this
tradition as well (especially in the work of Vollenhoven and
Dooyeweerd)."[46]
"When Kuyper became Prime Minister of
the Netherlands in 1901, and assigned to his colleague Geesink
the task of writing a series of articles outlining the basic
contours of a Calvinistic worls and life view, the latter did
so under the characteristic title (also assigned by Kuyper)
Van's Heeren Ordinatiën, "On the Ordinances of the Lord".[47]"[48]
Bartholomew,
CG. 1994. Response to Al Wolter's
paper. (In: God's order for creation.
Potchefstroom: Scientific Contributions of the PU for CHE,
Series F: Institute for Reformational Studies, Series F1: IFRS
study-pamphlets, Study pamphlet no. 324, 61-70)
"certainly
from an Old Testament perspective it would seem to me that
creation order can be, and ought to be, used in all sorts of
ways to undermine the apartheid ideology. As an example of
this I think of the possibility that in Genesis 1:26-28 we
have a democratisation of the image. In ancient Near East
thought the monarg was the image bearer whereas in Isreal this
is democratised to include every human being![49]"[50]
WOLTERS,
A.M. 1995. Creation order: a historical look at our
heritage. (In Walsh, BJ., Hart, 1995, H. VanderVennen, R.E.
eds. An ethos of compassion and the integrity of creation.
Lanham: University Press of America, pp. 33-48). [13p.]
Herman
Bavinck postulated salvation to be a reparation of "creation
in all its fullness".[51]
Organizational structures have since ancient
times in Egypt and Mesopotamia existed to structure society
around orders of creating. In Egypt it was called "Ma'at" usually
translated as ' "truth" ' or ' "justice" '
and in Mesopotamia the same concept was called "me".[52]
The gods were subject to this order and wisdom[53]
was needed to understand this order.[54]
In Proverbs 1 and 8 an argument is made for honest work to
survive. Plunder is not accepted therefore selves have to
build according to the argument. Nothing is said about ideas.
The arguments are in favor of written laws, which support
honest work. In the ancient Middle East a "transcendent and
sovereign Creator" gave the order of creating.[55]
For Israel, there is nothing divine that is subject to, or
identified with, the cosmic order."[56]
A dualism exists in Israeli wisdom with regard to
wisdom (fear of the LORD – hokma – conformation to laws) on
one side and violations (nebala) of laws especially with
regard to sexuality on another side. In Greek thought a
correlation existed initially between wisdom and complying to
written or spoken laws as given by gods. Later with Heraclitus
and Stoics the laws of gods were replaced by "logos", which
could be rationally determined. Natural laws, which could be
logically determined by philosophers, became dominant over
gods' laws.[57]
God thus changed from anthropomorphic character
to incorporeal nature but the incorporeal nature still had to
be interpreted by logical thinkers, who were the philosophers
who opposed the old order. The descendants of the gods upheld
the old order, according to their traditions. Plato was one of
the descendants and his family was part of the despotic
aristocratic descendants of the gods. Socrates, who mixed with
the young aristocracy like Glaucon in the Republic, was
sentenced to suicide, partly because he influenced young
aristocrats against God (ancient gods in the air) of
democrats. It seems thus that democrats definitely, and
aristocrats maybe used ancient traditions to create order.
After Socrates's sacrifice, aristocrats took control of Athens
from democrats, probably partly as revenge for the sentencing
of Socrates, their friend.
In recent times "humanism" rose, which can be
recognized by marginalization of the right to oppose order,
which are given by new "gods". Alvin Plantinga called this
' "creative antirealism" '.[58]
There are different views about what humanism is, which cause
confusion.
Neo-Calvinism relates to "Vollenhoven",
Dooyeweerd, Bavinck, Kuyper, and Guillaume Groen van
Prinsterer. They had three reference points namely, Greek,
humanistic and "biblical notions of order". Neo-Calvinism
opposed humanism as postulated by Neo-Kantianism because
Neo-Kantians promoted the logos (human reason) as the giver of
order.[59]
Wolters use seven headings to explain
Neo-Calvinism. They are "law, scope, dynamism, knowledge,
constancy, history and differentiation"[60]
The law of "God"
creates order in society. Kuyper was Prime Minister of the
Netherlands at the beginning of the 20th century
and he and his compatriates like Geesink laid down the law.[61]
There was a clear distinction between creation ordinances and
subjects ("creatures"). Creating was accepted as norm and
different positivised apllications with regard to creating was
expected of creatures. The creaturely nature to create is not
a sin but it needed to be controlled.[62]
The law of "God" and
all of creation was first in the "thoughts" of God.
Everything in creation was created by "God" who is separate
from "Creation". His
law applies to everything in creation.[63]
This is the type of statements, which cannot be accepted as
reality because it removes people from their creativities and
in effect monopolize the benefits of creativities under the
control of "God", who has representatives, that control all of
creation including,
creativities of subjects. God who creates out of nothing (ex nihilo) and
creaturely creations are combined in one pool, which is not
reality, especially if people are dependent on the values of
their creativities. Of course it depends on the order (laws),
as laid down by the representatives of "God", who are
politicians and their representatives, for fairness.
The comprehensiveness
of scope; the whole "reality", was explained by "Vollenhoven"
with two Dutch words, "werkelijkheid"
(part of realiteit) and "realiteit".
"God"
created the structures of society, similar to the thinking of
the ancient Middle East.[64]
How does this work in practice? Creatures have ideas about
things to be created. The ideas then spread from creatures to
the rest of society but the Calvinist belief ascribes all of
creation to "God", which implies creatures have not rights to
remuneration after creating. Creatures live thus dependent on
the grace of the representatives of "God" because they have
not rights to their creativities. Only rights to hourly wages
and salaries exist since changes after the 17th
century revolutions. Some ideas are worth millions and
obviously the value of those ideas also are controlled and
enjoyed by the representatives of "God" who control those
creativities. Individuals who conceive ideas have no power
against the representatives of "God" unless powers, similar to
rights to salaries and wages are written into the creation
order by laws. Experience shows that fears exist that creative
creatures will benefit too much if they benefit from their
ideas but that fear currently leads to creative creatures not
benefitting from their creativities and they are kept like
animals by the representatives of "God".
The created order's
restraining power "curbs and checks sin and its effects". The
"Maker and Sustainer of all things prescribes for his
creatures and subjects"[65].
Kuyper and Bavinck repeatedly made the same point. [66]
Creation order includes laws with regard to all kinds of
transgressions against society but that wide scope and
"dynamism" caused that creatures get "sacrificed" because
their creativities are removed from them by the "Maker and
Sustainer". The result is that the "Maker and Sustainer" is
transgressing common sense logos, which was also mentioned in
the Decalogue of the Bible. Copies should not be made or,
maybe not without remunerating creatures. This issue was also
an issue in ancient Greece and Aristotle made the following
statement in the Metaphysics in favor of the "Maker and
Sustainer" against the logic of Plato. "So we can do away with the business of Forms
Being Established As Templates. After all, if there were such
Forms they would surely apply to natural entities, which are
the ones that are substances in the fullest way. Rather, all
we need is that it is the producer that does the making and,
in the matter, is the cause of the form."[67]
Reasonably interpreted the statement of Aristotle is against
creatures who initiate unique ideas or forms because all
creation is ascribed to the "Maker and Sustainer". The
statement is not only against creatures who initiate but also
against society as a whole, which depend on initiatives of
citizens to be competitive in a world economy.
Knowledge of rulers and
Universities are contrived from "general revelation", which
Kuyper stated specifically is read in nature and not only in
scripture.[68]
Kuyper thus referred to the logos although other
Neo-Calvinists rejected Neo-Kantian logos. It seams thus
amongst the Neo-Calvinists different opinions existed with
regard to the impact and importance of human reason because
earlier it was stated that they opposed human reason (logos).
They analogized artists
and children and their intuitive creative abilities.[69]
According to me this "intuitive" ability of creators and
children exist because of their honest minds, which has not
been filled with falsities, which cannot be assembled.
Groen, Kuyper and
Bavinck identified constancy of the creation order above
written law as eternal.[70]
Their thinking could be more readily analogized with Plato's
Forms than other Calvinists who opposed Neo-Kantian
philosophy. Vollenhoven for example based his reasoning about
God exclusively[71] on divine scripture. If laws of constancy are
above written law and above reason it implies that constancy
was unrealizable, unless they postulated themselves to be part
of God or maybe even individually as Christ.
Dooyeweerd initially
called this constancy, natural law but later in his life
argued against natural law.
[72]
History is the result
of constancy laws and operative effects of humans who received
a "cultural" mandate to subdue Earth during its progress from
Eden to the New Jerusalem.[73]
An important concept
which Kuyper raised to a "principle" relates to "sphere
sovereignty" According to the principle, which was developed
by Dooyeweerd natural separations exist in the creation. Each
sphere has its own "sovereignty". An effect this had was that
new creations were easier to accept because new things, which
did not fit in with the previous were seen as separate spheres
with own sovereignty.[74]
This concept is a bit contradictory with the idea of cultural
mandate to subdue all of creation according to "History" and
"Dynamism". The only reconciling thought i think of now is
that the God they postulated promotes a system whereby spheres
are allowed by representatives of "God" into the Calvinist
order and then set free and maybe supported to set their own
rules.
Salvation and
redemption of Christianity are important concepts on the way
to restoration of the world to a world, which can be
analogized with the world before the fall into sin. Normative
creating is important.[75]
There are similarities between the myth of Pan and myths about
Greek gods and the excommunicated Lucifer. Pan's philosophy
opposed the gods because he postulated the whole of the cosmos
as divine. Pan grew horns and hooves, which show further
similarities between Lucifer or rather the devil's horns and
Pan's horns.
Wolters identifies
historicism as one of the greatest dangers to Christianity. He
also wonders how the normativity concept of Calvinism can be
reconciled with "sphere sovereignty" of new forms.
Subjectivity with regards to normativity is a problem.[76]
HART, H. 1995. Creation order in our
philosophical tradition: critique and refinement. (In Walsh,
BJ., Hart, H., VanderVennen, R.E. eds. An ethos of
compassion and the integrity of creation. Lanham: University
Press of America, pp. 67-96). [10p.]
p.67
…The New Testament
expects the church, body of Christ, to be a community whose
ethos is embodied in compassion. Such compassion is not a
feeling, but a divine
act of sacrificial love, God's self giving
love towards creation in Christ, who on the cross embodied
fully what he began in his shepherding, healing, and feeding
of sheep-like crowds without a shepherd: harassed, sick and
hungry people."[77]
<self: This statement probably relates to ex nihilo creation
or miracles in another word, with reference to the fish Jesus
fed to the hungry. Ex nihilo creation is not relevant, except
for distinguishing such growing forming from reduced forming
out of matter. By reduced i mean the final product is less but
more aesthetic than the matter it was made of. The miracle
fishes (sic) Jesus gave to people came from matter but it was
an increased mass of matter fed.>
Compassion does what law or order cannot accomplish.
Its ethos allows us to act redemptively where established
ethical order would destructively enforce its authority. … It
frees creation from bondage and gives us the liberty of Gods
(sic?) children to cry Abba."[78]
<self: the redeeming or atoning side of this statement
makes me think that Hart, 1995 is/was involved with things he
should pay atonement for but not in the sense of "the High Priest offered the
sacrifice as atonement
for all the sins of Israel."[79]
In a way his statement is atonement but not transparent
enough to be redeemed by incorporeal part of God, Metaphysical
truth (Mett), if i understand him correctly.>
Followers of Jesus, not
Christ (the church is the body of Christ), are not bound by
laws, for their reason, without claiming to realize elemental
reason leads them.[80]
… The Roman Catholic and Reformed static creation order
needs to be reformed to include compassion.)[81]
… Realizing there is no fixed creation order causes
fearing and cowardice, due to unbelief, by the non-realizers
of this truth.)[82]
… Postmodern philosophy
criticizes Reformed creation order with good reason.)[83]
… Reason defines faith and "rationality" is
materialism, which limits the Word in its function to help
show reality.)[84]
… The "universal law of
reason" is under attack by dogmatic "rationalism" which
hijacked Christianity as "a-historic" motivation to sacrifice
creators and appropriate and develop their ideas without
compensation.)[85]
… "The God" that we saw "in Jesus", who is not eternal,
is in realism, which is impossible to fathom and therefore
falsely described. "God's compassion, who is willing to be
embodied in the church as living and hence changing presence of
compassion" could resign as member of the church and not
start a new denomination.)[86]
… The God of rationalism is identified in deism and
philosophies with ontological descriptions of eternal order;
justifying traditions with an eternal creation order, taken
from uncertain predictions, which 'shall' be justified by
future empirical realization, leads to evil. The "Bible's
wisdom" however shows that all of God can never be derived
from rational empirical evidence.)[87]
… Creation order from Reformation writings was partly
derived from empirical evidence of the past. The ideas formed
were then imported into readings of the Bible, whilst the
present is excluded from rationality. Reasoning also cannot
realize eternal ontologies. New concepts of the now and future
form the future and therefore eternal creation order cannot be
derived.)[88]
In this way both Reformed creation order and Thomistic
eternal law are a species of philosophical realism, of the
Platonic heritage inside the Christian tradition." …
Deconstructed parts of Aquinas's and Calvin's writings
legitimize change in creation order like Kuitert did
explicitly. Dooyeweerd opined that obstructing change in
creation order is pagan.)[89]
… Reason should not be
used to predict with finality nor should reason and words of
the past be used by Us like Jesus used words to act out
predictions. Past predictions and current predictions of the
future should be relativized in order to realize the weakness
of reason even when reason includes divine transcendence.)[90]
… Reason and Faith need not be separated to identify a
"chosen one", because not one of these traditions complied
with compassion of Christianity. "Conceptual truths" do not
exist therefore the disempowered a-normative should be
included in the order of centered creation.)[91]
… "As agents of freedom in the image of God, Jesus'
(sic: Jesus's) followers are responsible for creating new
order as God's co-workers. And the God in whose presence and
under whose guidance we work is not immutable. When in the
process of changing, as agents of redemption, we move away
from certain practices, convictions, and norms, we do not
thereby reject our past, but accept present needs as different
enough not to be helped by a past which is the same, by the
generalizations and concepts generated in the past." …
Reasoning is relative but reason is above relativity. If
reason has not the last say, violence will prevail and
subjective violence will be equated with authenticity and the
absolute, which it is not.)[92]
If reasoning as idol is
relativized and the sorrows of gods and goddesses are not
understood, how do we find ways to be blessed? "How will God
and people be one?
… We are free to impart ideas because goodness is
identified in the fruits of development. Our evil can be seen
in our oppressions of gods and goddesses, but we have to find
"our own salvation"
in creators. …
… "by God (church orders, moral laws). ...")[93]
… Once we have left
behind Greek metaphysics and the notion of an eternal creation
order to which it gave rise, what objection is there to
accepting the contemporary inspiration of God's children,
guided by God's compassionate presence in Christ in whom
creation, the Bible, and the story of the church all have
their meaning." We cannot distinguish between good and evil. …
We are, with respect to Heidelberg, inclined to seek our own
luxuries. Utilitarian happiness is our objective. Now we avoid
evil, which we know is coming, but cannot see coming.
We should create the
law and explain the universal justification for our creations
because if we make mistakes the "sons of God"[94]
will be redeemed. Atonement by our lords will free us from not
seeing our own evils.
Our freedom 'in Christ' to
reorder "the compassion God seeks" is visible in absolute
redemption if we fail, which will give us the power to try
again.)[95]
Reason is important but
not the truth. Our reason should be lead by compassion and
what we experience and portray with "creaturely integrity". We
should not sacrifice others to our logic because of public
reason of the Enlightenment.)[96]
… Followers of Jesus,
as restored image bearers of God, as children of God, as
divine offspring, as co-workers with God are free to create
boundaries for life, to be like God, image
bearers. We trust
that this can be done redemptively, but only in a spirit of
compassion, the spirit of Christ."[97]
Faith is to show mercy
to others through compassion and to live freely according to
belief in God's redemption.)[98]
HART, H. 2000. Notes on Dooyeweerd,
reason, and order. (In Strauss, D.F.M. & Botting, M.
Contemporary reflections on the philosophy of Herman
Dooyeweerd. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, pp. 125-146.) [22
p.]
Dooyeweerd wrote Reformation is "perennial" and
claimed that claiming that theoretical reason has rational
autonomy is pretentious.[99]
<self: This idea is similar to that of Wilhelm von Humboldt
with regard to universities, except for the pretentious part.
Isn't it contradictory to say Reformation is perennial and
theoretical reason has autonomy? No, because dialogical
Reformation is important. Then no party has autonomy because
all are interdependent.>
Reason in the context of order has the following
characteristics: "universality, totality, sameness (identity),
constancy (permanence, immutability, invariance), aprioricity,
centrality and encompassing presence." Terms used to name
reason or order are: "structure, pattern, form, regularity,
order; law, limit, constraint, boundary, condition; command,
rule, norm, principle, standard, measure; essence, nature,
necessity, possibility, ground; sameness, identity, being;
concept, proposition, definition, logic, reason; and language,
text, grammar, conversation." <self: Some of these words
relate not to totality, which he stated in the Introduction as
characteristic of the reason, which Reformers oppose.>
These terms in the context of ' "rational order" '
refer to individuality, subjectivity and disorder. <self:
There are definitely not consistency in the meanings of
"rational" and "reason" in the Calvinist dialogues because i,
up to now (15 August 2013), have been influenced to think that
rationalists (empiricism) like Aristotle claim that reason
(Kant's) contains narcissism. Above Hart claims
' "rational order" ' refers to individuality and
subjectivity and disorder. Empiricists claim transcendental
honest people are irrational because they do not accept
empirical facts. The term, which has the most constancy in
Calvinist thought is individuality, which is postulated by all
the Calvinists, evil, whether they refer to reason or
rationality makes not much difference. This opposition against
individuality i postulate is a result of the Caiaphas
syndrome, which is a societal cultural syndrome. A distinction
can be made between empirical reason, which started with
Aristotle and transcendental reason, which started at Plato,
for practical purposes. Empirical reason (rationality)
includes Aristotle's sophisms and Transcendental reason
(rationality) includes Plato's honesties. Whilst
defining the word 'false' Aristotle wrote in parenthesis, when
quoting a deceptive argument in the Hippias as follows: 'that
the man who is able to speak false is false
(and this, of course, is the man of knowledge and good sense)'[100].>[101]
Dooyeweerd rejected rational autonomy in
totality. It seems he rejected realism and nominalism.[102]
<self: It is contradicting to reject reason in total
because it is in total reason, which makes the rejection. It
is self-referentially incoherent, unless Dooyeweerd meant that
one or the other cannot be chosen.> He argued:
-
(Reason's "direction" cannot
be absolutized.
-
Reductionist reason
identifies not reality.
-
Order is relative and below
God's covenant. <self: But isn't it human reason, which
interpreted God's covenant. My interpretation is not similar
to that of Calvinists. Back to groups' interpretations versus
individuals'. According to Sociology of knowledge new Reformed
interpretations start with individuals. The question is thus
up to what level should individuals be sacrificed before their
reformed interpretations are accepted. In a sense it is an
academic competitive process amongst individuals, competing
for groups' acceptances into academic debates.>
-
Dooyeweerd claims selves
have their identities in relation to one another in a
community and in relation to an origin outside of that
community.)[103]
Dooyeweerd claimed rational autonomy is religious
bias. He basically said we do not know what truth is, which is
similar to Karl Jaspers' endlessness of reality.[104]
<self: What was the effect of the realization that
definitions of words for definitions of words differ ad
infinitum? Did it make Dooyeweerd more or less honest? His
opposition to Kant makes me think it made him less honest than
before the realization. Kant made the same realization because
he critiqued pure reason, but the realization made him more
honest to reduce the relativity of reason.>
Early in his career he argued against autonomous
thinking subjects.[105]
<self: He used Kant as his target but he really was arguing
against himself (Dooyeweerd) being Christ and therefore he
sacrificed Kant who was honest. That is how the societal
Caiaphas syndrome effects individuals (Dooyeweerd and Kant as
individuals were affected differently.>
Dooyeweerd had postmodern type thoughts and
critiques.[106]
Reformational philosophy tries to reform the
West's reason-order tradition and not to dismiss the
tradition.[107]
<self: What is the reform? It seems it is an Aristotle type
reform to say "reasonable lying" should be accepted or did it
never get to the point where a choice is made between
excluding deceits or not. The opposition to Kant makes it look
as if the choice was made to not exclude deceits as part of
the reform process. Maybe the opposition against Kant has its
origin in his identification of the term "noumenon", because
in effect it rejects immanence to an absolute certain extent,
but because of that increased honesties will according to Kant
reduce the relative noumenon character of immanent things.
Noumenon and honesties are therefore related and can be
understood in conjunction.>
Vollenhoven said Plato identified the law
correctly as outside of thinkers. <self: Constancy was very
important to Vollenhoven.[108]
Dooyeweerd wrote Reformation is "perennial" and claimed that
claiming that theoretical reason has rational autonomy is
pretentious.[109]
> Dooyeweerd supported theoretical realizations as
important and seems to have also identified its problematic as
not being immanence.[110]
<self: Clouser's The
myth of religious neutrality, which was influenced by
Dooyeweerd, has an Aristotelian side with regards to the
book's theory of reality but it excludes essence and substance[111]
in its individuality as pagan. Aristotle however identified
different substances: "1. Our whole investigation is into
substance. For what we are really seeking is the principles
and causes of the substances. … 2. Now there are three
substances, of which: (a) one sort is sensible, of which: (i)
the one is eternal and (ii) the other destructible (This
substance, that of plants and animals, is universally
acknowledged, and we must grasp its elements and decide
whether they are one or many.), and (b) the other is unmoved.
(This substance is sometimes asserted to be separable; some
philosophers divide it into two, while others assign both
Forms and mathematicals to the same nature, and still others
only admit mathematicals from this group.)"[112]
Clouser's book emphasizes the law-framework[113]
of reality. It seems now to me that the law framework outside
of thinkers was postulated by all the reformers as important
but also accepting the necessity of change. People only can
perceive the laws? A distinction can be made between natural
laws and written laws. Logically the changing written laws
should try to comprehend the natural given law as changed
perception.>
Reason is relative because "God's covenantal law
cannot be grasped in a concept." Dooyeweerd did not explicitly
state this opinion of Van der Hoeven and Fowler, which opposes
immanence philosophy. As motivation Van der Hoeven supported
Levinas's critique against totalization. But postulating
inability to grasp the law is problematic because how can
something be postulated to exist without postulating the
concept that exist.[114]
Dooyeweerd in the Western tradition correlated reason with
order and rejected metaphysical speculation. Dooyeweerd
identified ". Truth" in a priori stable theoretical
presuppositions.[115]
Mekkes was the first Reformer who wanted to exclude human
influence totally as causal effect in God's law's influence on
us.[116]
The relations perceived amongst "truth", "logic" and
"knowledge" placed Hart on the same "wavelength" than Mekkes.[117]
<self: It seems to me now that the opposition the Reformers
like Mekkes showed against Western conceptions of reason
relates to my thoughts about the idea of the "Messiah" or
"Christ" being false. A difference is that they attack the
concept truths and i say the concept is valid but the
possibility of the Person is not.> Hart refers to the "..
Egocentricity of Western thought"[118],
which could mean he rejects people who are honest, because of
the Caiaphas syndrome at work, as thinking they each are
"One". Hart identifies Plato's influence as negative and
replaces the negativity with ideas of grace, mercy, patience
and kindness.[119]
<self: Is he saying that in Jesus's narrative both Jesus
and Caiaphas were wrong for upholding their relative "truths"
they believed in, which caused unnecessary friction?>
Hart asks many questions, which relate to
uncertainties that metaphorical language causes when used in
contexts of important issues.[120]
<self: His questions proves the unsuitability of using
metaphors constructively in dialogue, meaning that metaphors
evade the real answers if such real answers exist.>
Dooyeweerd did not distinguish between God's law
and creaturely laws. Hart says this is problematic because
Dooyeweerd does not acknowledge the creaturely nature of
written law. Vollenhoven and later Troost distinguished two
types of laws.[121]
<self: This side of the God-Law-ruler-law-ruled
relationships is important because the facts of the
relationships relate to the psychologies of society and
individuals to remove humans (selves and others) as gods and
goddesses to be left only with God-Law-subjects relationships,
which are not factual. If the facts are not presupposed truer
answers cannot be found to problems. This reality is clear to
see and if it is not, it probably relates to the blinding
effect of the idea of "One" (rulers) between Law and law.>
A problem with regard
to God's law is that it is in fact humans' interpretations of
divine law. This leads to divination of the law-side of
creation, whilst in fact, the interpretations are not divine
because its resulted from human fallible reason.[122]
Hart identifies further reformation in the
direction of laws not being final order. Love requires change
to new circumstances. Constancy should not be divinized.[123]
Another direction for reformation could be to identify, like
Vollenhoven, divine constant laws of love and changing
immanent laws in creation. Dooyeweerd also centered his work
on the law of love. This
law as reflected by Jesus's life could require further
development. [124]
<self: The progress with regard to laws about love relates
to different meanings for "love". Jesus defined his love
as—complying to laws—and English dictionaries define love not
in that sense. Love is defined in English dictionaries as
affection. In Greek a clear distinction was made between for
example "eros" and "agape", which is not portrayed in the use
of the word "love", which when used in the context of "agape"
the meaning meant falsely relates more to affection,
identified in words like mercy, redemption, atonement. These
meanings of mercy relate to thoughts in humans (devils?) as
redeemers of "Christ", whilst the reformers who postulate
these thoughts postulate the "Other", who needs mercy as
"God". Jesus-like people as "Others", who postulate compliance
to laws, place themselves, as subjects, below laws. In the
following sentence two types of love can be identified, which
certainly causes confusion during dialogical arguments. Hart's
reference in 2000 to "Christ" and "love of God" is not to
Jesus of Nazareth's whole love and Mekkes's reference is to
Jesus of Nazareth's whole love. According to the perceived
definitions ascribed to "love" in the following two quotation
it looks as if Hart had a change of belief from 1995 to
2000.> "If we think just of the fact that in Christ the
love of God is expressed as compassion for the fallen
creature, we may appreciate why Mekkes thought that following
the love of the Crucified requires and ever renewed and
renewing order."[125]
"Compassion is
sacrificial love …The New Testament expects the church, body
of Christ, to be a community whose ethos is embodied in
compassion. Such compassion is not a feeling, but a divine act of
sacrificial love, God's
self giving love towards creation in Christ, who on the cross
embodied fully what he began in his shepherding, healing, and
feeding of sheep-like crowds without a shepherd: harassed,
sick and hungry people."[126]
"The relation of God to
creation in the Calvinian tradition is especially articulated
as that of a sovereign
lawgiver, a
ruler [own bold to emphasize false singularity of
ruling]." Criticizing this belief is not acceptable because
critique will be "undermining God's relation to creation." [127]
Dooyeweerd had two main points of critique to the Calvinist
creation order. It was that (1) order is not "primarily
(rational) logical but total" and that (2) is not "absolute
and independent but God given." Hart differ and agree when
writing that order is not total and order is relative.[128]
The absolute or
immutability of God was not taken from the Bible and has its
origins in Greek thinking. Immutability of God arose due the
rejection of the temporal as not divine. According to Hart it
implies a faith, which is "not rooted in trust in God". "What
is true, of course, is that in any and all relationships, only
Yahweh is truly God." Malachi in the Bible is often quoted to
support the Greek idea of God but the Bible as a whole shows
that change is sometimes from God. "In fact, one can even find
God changing about firm promises." <self: This view of Hart
supports Tarnas's opinion[130]
that John and Jesus were influenced by Greek philosophy
because did Jesus not say promises should never be made or we
should never swear oaths?> "If virtually all of the
dimensions of God's good creation play a role in our knowing
God, why should God's good
creature [own bold to emphasize negative influences of
singularity in Hart's influences] known as change not play
such a role?" "But what is god about God cannot be clearly and
definitely said in terms of what creatures are or are not.
Definitions of God or authoritative and definitive lists of
God's perfections or attributes do not occur in the Bible."
<self: I disagree with Hart here because due to the
creative effects of truths, honesties make people gods and
goddesses, becoming together, Creator, physical parts of
God.> The Bible does not inspire "(theo-)logical"
identities of God with the Bible's imagery of God. "In
creation change is fundamental. Not only life, but even
material things cannot exist except on a physical foundation
that includes change. Creation's temporality, thorough as it
is, makes change pervasive. And, indeed Christians have never
thought of the world and anything in it as eternal and
unchanging." If ' "God is immutable" ', exclusively,
then it could be argued that change is evil. When they at
times say ' "God does not change" ', they mean it
creatiomorphily. Hart identifies mathematical realities as the
only stable part of creating. If God is defined negatively in
relation to numbers it is not acceptable in the reformation
tradition it is not acceptable because it is reductionist.
Although Hart writes that change can only be recognized in
relation to something stable he writes that the stability in
relation to which change is identified, is changing. There is
thus nothing of reality that is absolute except as metaphor
for God. <self: I do not agree because Metaphysical truth
(Mett), the concept of honesties, is unchanging and divine.
Mett shows, via truths, where improvements in creation order
are required. This unchanging concept causes changes and
requires gods and goddesses who transcend and surpass
empiricist necessities of deceit as necessity of survival
(Lying to show ones are not part of God). The Anomaly of Plato
is not understood by Hart according to me. The immutability of
God cannot be reconciled with the word creators (Creator)
because creating implies change. The-created change
constantly, partly caused by creators who also changes
constantly, therefore the immutability of God refers only to
the Metaphysical part of God, which is understood and called
Mett.> Hart argues against the Greek postulate of numbers
being constant and therefore against part of Greek religious
constancy, with the stars. The units, which numbers represent
is not constant, therefore mathematics is not immutable.
Numbers and stars are therefore not part of "religious trust".
<self: It seems thus that although Truths were important in
Greek philosophy, for example in Plato's philosophy, Truths
was not divine in Greek thought as it is in the Bible.>
Immutability can only be predicated negatively and nothing
immutable can be positively identified. Metaphors like
' "immutability" ' and ' "absoluteness" '
can be used in a limited religious sense with regard to
relative trust. Outside of that it becomes replacements for a
"god" [own bold to
emphasize negative influences of singularity in Hart's
influences], which we project to outside of the cosmos, which
is our responsibility. Such projections return via downscaling
to the cosmos in "institutions, persons or acts" who lay down
their own rules but hide their reasons behind claims of divine
representation. <self: References to a god implies
justifications of human sacrifice in Christianity, therefore a
reasonable conclusion can be drawn that Hart justifies human
sacrifice of men until the "Authentic" one is found.>
Constitutions of
countries can be looked at in analogical religious manner by
accepting the importance of constancy without unwanted
rigidity, which can exclude necessary change due to new
realized[131]
realities.[132]
Why must Yahweh[133]
be different? Is Yahweh "the
same as the Abba of Jesus", or is Yahweh and Jesus's God
not the same because of historical changes in our conceptions
of God.?
VAN DER HOEVEN, J. 1995. Portrayal of
reformational philosophy seems unfair. (In Walsh, B.J.,
Hart, H., VanderVennen, R.E. eds. An ethos of compassion and
the integrity of creation. Lanham: University Press of
America, pp. 109-114). [5p.]
Van
der Hoeven agrees with Hart that "legalism" is a "permanent
threat", which was identified in the Old and New Testaments.[134] ' "Knowing" ' in Vollenhofen is
more than "logical thinking" especially with regard to the
' "creation order" '. The law of love, which
Vollenhofen focused on, cannot be prescribed in written laws
because it is an unwritten law, which Jesus applied when he
refused to break the written laws of the Romans up to the
point of being sacrificed by his own people. Paul and
Jeremiah also did not break the written laws because laws
are written to be not broken.[135]
Hart puts too much emphasis on the "freedom"
'believers' have over order of material creations, due to
Hart's interpretation of the law of "love".[136]
WOLTERSTORFF, N. 1995. Points of unease
with the creation order tradition. (In Walsh, B.J., Hart,
H., VanderVennen, R.E. eds. An ethos of compassion and the integrity
of creation. Lanham: University Press of America, pp.
62-66). [5p.]
Wolters's paper made Wolterstorff and his fellows
feel uncomfortable. "Could it be that our heart is not really
in it when we confess on Sundays that God is the Creator, and
that our discomfort comes from being confronted with our
unbelief."[137]
"The belief in God the Creator is fundamental to my thought,
not superficial"[138]
" ..‘to Him are all
things’, that everything belongs to Him, and that He is the
Sovereign over all that He has created."[139]
<self: Does feeling uncomfortable relate to
something else being wrong or self being wrong?> According
to Wolterstorff there could be synthesis possible between his
interpretation of the covenant with God in the beginning of
time with his interpretation of the law of nature, which he
also identified in Kuyper's and Bavinck's writings.[140]
Wolterstorff feels uncomfortable with Wolters's
postulation of the law as functions, which make it easier to
be creators. In stead, he prefers that the use of creations be
seen as a blessing from creators.[141]
<self: He probably refers to imparting of ideas, which is a
forced appropriation from creators.> "Gratitude springs
from enjoying and finding beneficial the creatures and
creations around you."[142]
<self: When i read this sentence i thought of a man in a
dominantly matriarchal system.> "In my own thinking I have
found it more fruitful to think in terms of shalom than in
terms of creation-orders; and that too is connected."
<self: This sentence partly confirms my thoughts about a
matriarchal system because the Jewish system is
matriarchal.> Wolterstorff plays the sex card when it comes
to the "God the Creator" and creating like empiricists often
do.[143]
Wolterstorff does not appreciate it when reference is made to
"the norms for
states" because states are social artifacts.[144]
<self: It implies that Wolterstorff could, like Hart,
over-emphasize the "freedoms" of "believers" to enjoy the
creations or blessings of creators. There is thus a
utilitarian acceptance of happiness as the highest good, even
if that mean that individuals could be sacrificed for the
happiness of society.> "Or perhaps I and I alone was
feeling uncomfortable!"[145]
Datum van klas:
27 Julie 2013
Werksopdrag
Skryf OF (met
inagneming van die informasie in die sekondêre tekste) ‘n
opstel van ongeveer ‘n 1000 woorde waarin ‘n opsomming en
kritiek weergegee word van die Afrikaanse of Engelse artikels
oor: “Die grondslae van die Calvinistiese of Skrifmatige
filosofie” OF Skryf ‘n
opstel van ongeveer 1000 woorde oor “Vollenhoven se
besondere bydrae tot diepere insig in die ontwikkeling van
die Westerse denke deur middel van sy konsekwent
probleem-hisitoriese metode”.
'Skryf ‘n opstel van ongeveer 1000 woorde oor
“Vollenhoven se besondere bydrae tot diepere insig in die
ontwikkeling van die Westerse denke deur middel van sy
konsekwent probleem-hisitoriese metode”.'
The question is what '.. diepere insig in die
ontwikkeling van Westerse denke ..' is. An object in the
"development of Western thoughts" should be identified to make
the problem identified more communicable.
The subject of anthropomorphism relates to '..
diepere insig ..' in the developments of Western thoughts.
What contribution did Vollenhoven's work make to better
understand this difficult object of thought?
Using Vollenhoven's dialectic as follows: seven
papers, listed under references, were studied, quoted,
paraphrased and commented on. The relevant quotations,
paraphrases and comments made during reading, were later typed
in the Background section as Vollenhoven's pre-thesis.
Vollenhoven's pre-thesis (belief) was then dialectically
questioned in the Discussion section. The Conclusion section
explains the awareness, which Vollenhoven's work caused with
regard to a deeper insight into development of Western
thought. The Conclusion relates to author's pre-thesis.
Vollenhoven distinguished two main parts
according to author in Vollenhoven's thoughts. The two parts
are God and the cosmos. God consisted of Him and his law. The
cosmos consisted of rulers, their laws and the populace. God's
powerful word from the unseen is identified in 'him'[146]
who is clearly distinguishable from the unseen things on Earth
and in heaven. A visible human leader, who was not referred to
with a capital H of 'Him', was thus an important part of
Vollenhoven's thoughts as part of the cosmos. The relationship
between a king and the populace is normally unacceptable
because in his law he is usually placed above his law. No
human is above God's law and therefore God's law is the border
between God and the cosmos.[147]
Humans could not be the givers of laws and subjects to the
laws.[148]
The 'him' in Vollenhoven's work and interpretations of his
work by Van der Walt raises questions.
According to Vander Walt, Vollenhoven identifies
God and creation with laws about no human participation in God
as the bridge between God and creation. A new society is
postulated in sociology.[149]
'Furthermore God subjects the world to His law: loving
obedience is the first which is required of everybody.'[150]
The definition of God in philosophy vary allot
and therefore the definition should be found in the Bible.[151]
Who is Creator of everything? Where is the dividing line
between Creator and cosmos?
Vollenhoven searched for answers to these questions in
the Bible. [152]
Scripture is divine. God created the whole of the cosmos and
nothing, including idols in the cosmos is divine.[153]
Van der Walt opines that Vollenhoven broke significantly with
the Western pagan belief in plural[154]
God as represented by human gods. The simple definition of the
whole God-law-cosmos makes this break with pagan philosophy
possible. Vollenhoven found his definition of God as
completely separate from the cosmos in Scripture. [155]
God is above kings' laws. [156]
Vollenhoven opines there is a substantial hierarchical element
present in different philosophical opinions, which represents
orderly creation in society. The law of God is important and
applies only to subjects but not to God Who is outside the
cosmos.
Postmodernity is in a crisis because of the law
which is not given by any party. Van der Walt asks what is the
Christian answer to the postmodern problem.[157]
Although different fields and aspects operate
'free' from the other there are many relations between
everything that exist in time, which we cannot predict
accurately. Individualism sometimes does not respect these
relations enough when individuals do not respect
subject-to-subjects relations and the effects those ways have
on other subjects.[158]
Positive law in the cosmos is a way by which God enforces his
negative universal laws. People are only subject to the
positive laws as long as they are part of the society in which
the positive laws are enforced.[159]
Vollenhoven objected to the rationalist approach as to
autonomous. He appreciated the emphasis rationalists place on
truth but did not appreciate the view of Hartmann, an atheist,
who placed human reason above all.[160]
A king or other sovereign may not prohibit a Christian to
serve God according to the Word of God. ".. only Good is the
creator of all things and of every reality."[161]
Functionalists say evolutionary changes take place from lower
to higher forms but Calvinist philosophy does not generalize
the direction. When something new comes to being when an
object is excreted from another object the new form should not
be judged because such changes take place as a result of God's
divine being.[162]
Philosophy from the Bible regards religion as
"Unio foederalis", which was known to humans before the fall
into sin by Word revelation. Calvinist religion argues
herewith against a functionalist change or evolution into
godly form.[163]
Laws of science seek regularity and are subject
to God's law. Scientific laws are not the same as God's law
because scientific laws are not timeless. Worldly laws can be
in concordance with God's laws or against God's laws,
therefore regularity exists and irregularity exists in
scientific laws. Love and hate are opposites. [164]
The two laws; one of God and the other in the cosmos cannot be
separated because irregularity of an in-cosmos law shows the
lack of correspondence to God's laws and thus incoherence,
which proves its human fallaciousness.[165]
The first reformers used dialectic in the form of
thesis-antithesis-synthesis instead of
pre-thesis=thesis=antithesis.[166]
The question about a human or humans, being part
of God or being God, relates to the question about laws and to
the use of capital letters and small letters in references to
God.
Vollenhofen used "H" and "h" in his references to
God in the singular only. The "h" refers to the human part of
God and the "H" to the metaphysical part of God. The singular
and the "h" show a strong belief in Jesus Christ and the
"Messiah" because Vollenhofen states nothing in the cosmos is
divine but yet use a small "h". Concluded that the "h" refers
to the "Messiah".
After reading Vollenhofen's prescribed work i
came to the conclusion that he distinguished between God,
God's law, rulers, rulers' laws and the-ruled. Van der Walt
however states that Vollenhofen postulated God, laws and
the-ruled. Rulers and rulers' laws were thus collapsed into
God and/or the-ruled, to leave only God and the-ruled with
contradicting[167]
laws the dividing line. The reduction can only be explained if
rulers become part of God or part of the-ruled or if rulers
are terminated. Rulers becoming part of the-ruled or being
terminated implies Adam Smith's deism where natural laws
reign, without explicit human influence. All written law can
be postulated as undesirable if deism is accepted. Heuristic
experience shows this reduction is not feasible because of the
tendency of deceiving groups to overpower honest individuals
by sacrificing them for the benefit of groups. Honesties cause
creativities. Sacrificing creativities eventually leads to
colonization by more creative groups who did not sacrifice
their creators to the same extent, by for example, pushing
them into[168]
armed forces, which is apparently what happened in USA during
the last century. The result is a strong USA armed force with
very creative weapons, which could colonize large parts of the
globe.
God's natural laws and rulers' written laws can
become one law when Natural laws are included in the cosmos as
scientific objects as is, currently the case. That could imply
God are almost completely human and they write good laws for
"samelewings" to the best of their (our) knowledge. This
postulate usually leads to totalitarian states in which rulers
eventually[169]
sacrifice creators' creativities, which are seen as dangers,
due to own in-creativities.
Vollenhoven's method implies dialectics in own
minds, because his method starts with a pre-thesis, which is
ones' own Christian presuppositions, taken from scripture
alone. Knowledge of scripture is thus knowledge of invisible
laws, which becomes presuppositions, because the visible part
of scripture is not divine. Only the reading "between the
lines" is from divine origin. Logically pre-theses in ones'
selves, imply inner dialectics. The whole process of
Vollenhoven's method takes place in selves and makes use of
the scene of the cosmos in each step to reach out for
redemption. Stating own pre-theses requires transparencies and
honesties, which imply courage from Metaphysical truth (Mett).
Self-investigations and pre-theses relates to Parmenides's
"consciousness-god".[170]
The two current contradictory laws of God and the
cosmos are combined in a future postulated environment.
Plato's philosopher king (the "Messiah") is relevant, not in
the plural though, a contradiction, because of the weakness of
singularity. Vollenhoven thought in a Western way and was
influenced by Western thinkers and he did not emphasize
sexuality enough.[171]
Vollenhoven hoped for more coherence by excluding rationalists
for the existence of only One rationalist, as leader. The
highest authority on Earth is the unseen laws in scripture, as
showed by Jesus of Nazareth in scripture, because everything
in the cosmos is spoilt, except Jesus of Nazareth and the
future "Messiah" after "reason as queen ('Rede as leidster')
[heading's bold removed]"[172]
will have been "sacrificed". Tarnas wrote in Plato's view:
'divine Reason is "the king of heaven and earth." '[173]
The emphasis on "Him" and "him" could imply that Vollenhoven
did not overcome self in his God thoughts, to realize the
reality of plural God before the fall into sin, as mentioned
in Gen.1:26 of the Bible. Humans were created in the same
plural form as God's. The fall into sin was thus a movement
away from God's form. The movement away from God's form could
be argued to be from actual plural form to a false belief in
singular form.[174]
The false belief in the return of Christ thus could have
skewed Vollenhofen's thoughts, because maybe he could not
remove himself from being the "Messiah". Maybe he had to use
the word "God" explicitly when talking to his wife about an
umbrella to pretend and show that he did not think he is God.
He thus probably had to sin to prove to himself he is not God.
References to God in the singular with a small "h" imply he
did not realize that one man is not God.
If nothing in the cosmos is divine it implies the
divine part of scripture is found by 'reading between the
lines'.[175]
Identifying the fallacies in Vollenhofen's
philosophy becomes easier when the struggle between
rationalists and empiricists are accepted. The postulate of
empiricists that rationalists place reason above God and thus
believe they themselves are singular God, is false, because
rationalists place honesties above their own reasoning.
Honesties are results of courage, which is received from
Metaphysical truth (Mett). References to reason as "queen" is
false because men are normally more courageous than women.
Honesties are results of courage under varied conditions.
Empiricists and irrationalists place their reasonings above
Mett, because they use consequentialist reasoning and they
justify their consequentialist reasoning and actions with
religious rites. They for example trust in their own reasoning
for deciding when deceit should be used to overpower others
with consequentialism and utilitarianism. It is irreligious
reasoning.
The question could critically be asked how
The-plural, before the fall into sin, and the-singular form of
God, after the fall into sin, can be reconciled. Is belief in
the-singular form not perhaps a result of consequentialism and
utilitarianism after the fall into sin? Maybe the principle of
"Unio foederalis" does not sufficiently consider the weakness
of singularity.
The more people realize that God (gods and
goddesses plus Mett), for all practical purposes are humans,
the better it will be for societies. The nature of plural God
is an honest group, which can be named the-honest or
'eerlikes'. The traditional meaning of a god or a goddess,
being human with superpowers and super-beauty is not
applicable any more because Christianity showed that only
truths and thus honesties make people part of God. Any human
with faith can thus be part of God and thus be a god or a
goddess. Honesties are natural law, which limits rulers and
the-ruled to misuse their powers. One or a few honest people
can never be God because of the weakness of singularity. God
cannot be, at least currently, completely separate from the
cosmos, due to overpowering deceiving groups, which sacrifice
creators for their own gains according to the philosophy of
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Charles Taylor. God is thus a
necessity in the cosmos to enforce and give written laws with
honesties.
The elthaught, which is inherent to references
for God in singular fashion, ("he" and "He") is relevant. The
elthaught was relevant in Caiaphas's thoughts, for example,
when he decided to sacrifice Jesus Christ. Basically the
elthaught causes a phenomenon whereby groups sacrifice
creative individuals when their honesties become dangerous or
useful as explained by Toynbee[176].
A difference between Jewish religion and Christianity is that
Christianity made the connection between truths and
creativities and The-creators clear. Religious hatred of
honest ones is relevant. The phenomenon is clearly visible
when empiricists accuse rationalists of thinking they are God
or in other words "place reason above God", because of
rationalists' honesties. The empiricist accusation is partly a
result of empiricist mimesis about a "singular God", which
they portray as religious symbolism, but in fact, the success
of the elthaught resulted from power (not belief) of groups
over individuals and the current inability of most people to
remove them from-in the postulate of singular God. This belief
originated in postulating the "Messiah", which is false,
because singularity cannot have the power of God. The idea of
the "Messiah" causes methodologies of mimesis to sacrifice
courageous individuals for groups.
My pre-thesis after studying Vollenhofen is still
the same. God is all honest men and women plus Mett, which
give courage and endurance to be honest in deceiving
societies. God have not a sexual character because men and
women are part of God in the words god and goddess. Devil is
an asexual word because, as far as my knowledge goes, "devils"
has not male and female words like god and goddess in it. A
metaphysical God only, without human parts, implies a belief
in, primarily, redemption. People, who do not postulate humans
as part of God, probably have not heuristic experience during
which circumstances necessitated honest humans upholding the
law. Belief is much more substantial when trust is placed in
Others-than-only-selves to uphold the laws, which make it
possible for citizens of countries to live as individuals in
service of fellow citizens without sacrificing selves.
AQUINAS,
T. 1273 CE. Summa theologica: treatise on the
theological virtues: of the act of faith, article 4: whether
it is necessary to believe those things which can be proved by
natural reason? (From: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum257.htm
on 19 June 2013.)
ARISTOTLE. 384-322
BC. The
metaphysics. (Translated by Lawson-Tancred,
H. London, England: Penguin. 2004)
CLOUSER, R.A.
The myth of religious neutrality: an essay on the hidden role
of religious belief in theories.
(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. 2005
revised edition).
PLATO. 427-347BC. The
republic. (Translated by Desmond Lee. London:
Penguin, 2007)
TARNAS, R. ©1991. The passion of the
western mind: understanding the ideas that have shaped our
world view. (New
York: Ballantine Books, 1st Ballantine Books
edition, 1993)
Unknown. Chapter
5. A new paradigm for doing Christian philosophy: D.H.Th.
Vollenhofen (1892-1978). (Digital filename: <1b. A new
paradigm for doing Christian Philosophy (.pdf> received by
e-mail on 11July 2013 from North-West University.)
Van der Walt,
B.J. A
Scripturally-orientated perspective on the history of Western
intellectual thought: the origin and contours of and questions
about the consistent problem-historical method. (In Tydskrif vir
Geestewetenskappe. Planned
for Sept. 2013. Digital file name: < 6. Skrifmatige perspektief op gesk vd
Westerse filos denke.docx> received by e-mail on 2 June
2013 from North-West University)
VAN
DER WALT, B.J., 2013, Die Christelike filosofie van D.H.Th.
Vollenhoven (1892– 1978): Hoe dit ontstaan en verder ontwikkel
het (In die
Skriflig/In Luce Verbi 47(1), Art. #80, 13 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v47i1.80
. Digital file name: <1. Christelike filos v Vollenhoven -
Hoe dit ontstaan & ontwikkel het.pdf > received by
e-mail on 2 June 2013 from North-West University)
VAN DER WALT,
B.J. Hoe om die
geskiedenis van die filosofie weer te gee: 'n verkenning van
wysgerige historiografiese probleme en metodes. (In Tydskrif vir
Geesteswetenskappe, p.1-13.
Jaargang 53, nr 1, Maart 2013. Digital file name:
<5. Hoe om die gesk vd filos weer te gee.pdf> received
by e-mail on 2 June 2013 from North-West University)
Venter, J.J. World pictures and world
views. (In North-West
University. Geskiedenis van die filosofie: studiegids vir
PHIL221 PAC, p. 5 - 98. Potchefstroom, South
Africa. 2012c.)
Vollenhoven,
D. H. Th. Die
grondslae van die Calvinistiese of skrifmatige filosofie.
[Translated] (Digital
file name: <2a. Die grondslae van die Calvinistiese of
skrifmatige filosofie.pdf> received by e-mail on 2 June
2013 from North-West University)
Vollenhoven,
D.H.Th. 1953. Scripture use and
philosophy [Translated].
(In
Mededelingen van het Vereniging voor Calvinistisch
Wijsbegeerte, p. 6-9. Sept. 1953. Digital file name: <3.
Scripture use and philosophy.pdf> received by e-mail on 2
June 2013 from North-West University)
Vollenhoven,
D.H.Th. The
foundations of Calvinist thought. [Translated]
(Digital file name: <2b. The foundations calvinist
thought.pdf> received by e-mail on 2 June 2013 from
North-West University)
Aanhalings uit voorgeskrewe leeswerk per epos
ontvang.
Verwysing:
Van der Walt, B.J., 2013, ‘Die Christelike filosofie van
D.H.Th. Vollenhoven (1892– 1978): Hoe dit ontstaan en verder
ontwikkel het’, In die Skriflig/In Luce Verbi 47(1),
Art. #80, 13 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v47i1.80
(Digital file name: <1. Christelike filos v Vollenhoven -
Hoe dit ontstaan & ontwikkel het.pdf > received by
e-mail on 2 June 2013 from North-West University)
P.3
The Bible as Word of God and empiricism inspired
Vollenhoven and rational transcendental Christian matters
inspired Dooyeweerd. At the end of their lives Vollenhoven
thus interweaved empirical issues and Dooyeweerd rational
philosophical issues with their religions. Dooyeweerd was
schooled in law and Vollenhoven had philosophical schooling.
P.4
Vollenhoven distinguished God, law and cosmos.
Dooyeweerd distinguished God and cosmos. At cosmos Dooyeweerd
saw the law-side and the subject-side (singular). Vollenhoven
did not believe the view of Dooyeweerd about the afterlife.
The two issues caused division between students of the two.
The three, Dooyeweerd, Vollenhoven and Stoker
lived during a period during which late rationalism[177]
(neo-idealism) was changing over to irrationalism.
All three wrote that objective communication by
subjects was not possible, they thus identified
postmodernistic thought during their times. They were
irrational in the sense that a contradiction was relevant to
them. Humans could not be the giver of laws and subjects to
the laws.
Van der Walt describes the process of knowledge
by identifying parts of the process: 1) The subject 2)
activity of knowing 3) methodology 4) object 5) knowledge as
result. During the time of the three gentlemen emphasis was
placed on the activity (reason) and methodology, whereas
through time the emphasis was either on subjects or objects.
An important question behind the epistemology is
what is known with emphasis on natural law. Searching for the
natural laws has been ongoing for the last 2500 years.
Plato's truth was transcendental and empirical
observation was opinion. After Plato empirical ideas, which
searched for truths in the objects became dominant.
Subjectivism thus became dominant whereas Plato was objective.
Self
The above implies that Van der Walt and i agree
about Plato's honesty because other wise it would not be
possible for both of us to call Plato objective and time after
Plato subjective. Honesties refer to objective language.
Objective language about metaphysical concepts become however
a problem normally because of God thoughts.
P.5
Normative thought followed, which was qualified
by a priori concepts and rationalism was given the value of
God's reasoning from 1600-1900. The reasoning was teleological
with progress in mind to utopian societies.
Beginning of the 1900 rationalism (reason as
Godly) changed into irrationalism (reason by way of might
('mag'), freedom ('vryheid') and utility ('nuttigheid').
Theoretical reasoning changed into pragmatic reasoning but
reason of humans was still placed above [immaterial: own
insert] God. These normative ways of thinking caused
catastrophic problems for example two world wars. Other
pointers should thus be looked for because humans needs
pointers or ways to live responsible.
Not language, reason, social nor neo scholastic
studies can give normative force to knowledge. The only
possibility is that new 'fasets' of 'the creation' possibly
could be 'absolutized' into new values.
Postmodernity is in a crisis because of the law
which is not given by any party. Van der Walt asks what is the
Christian answer to the postmodern problem.
Self
Earlier Van der Walt argued negatively against
human law giving, who should then give the law?
p.5
Christianity influenced Vollenhoven and although
he thought subjective presuppositions are important, he
realized others influenced him for example Bergson (fourfold
intuition). Initially, according to Tol (2010), Vollenhoven's
philosophy was semi-scholastic and semi-realistic.
p.6
Poincare and Bergson traces can be found in work
of Vollenhoven. He also read other philosophers and
Vollenhoven acknowledged he was influenced by Husserl and the
Neo-Kantian Marburgers.
The three men said Calvin influenced them.
Shortly after Calvin the reformation theology changed back to
a scholastic character and in the late 1800 to 1950 a renewal
took place called the the Réveil (Die Réveil).
The Réveil, a spiritual renewal, took place in
Middle and Western Europe according to Kluit (1960: 627-629
and 1970). It was a reaction against Deistic rationalism,
theological dogmatism and downtrodden church life. Bible study
and being reborn was important to appreciate ones' fellow
human beings. The philosophers emphasized anti-revolutionary
reformation, which manifested in Kuyper's (1899) philosophy.
Anti-revolutionary ways of Jesus was emphasized with
references to "Him".
p.7
Runner (1982) emphasized the redeeming nature of
the reformation. The three gentlemen could add a fifth aspect
to the reformation (p.6: First four was being reborn, many
people showed new interest in Christianity, a unique life view
formed at Christians, Kuypers reformation followed as the
fourth) The fifth level was the scientific level where
Christian presuppositions were recognized as influential over
philosophy and other sciences.
Vollenhoven said aspects of Kuyper's work did not
correspond to the Word of God.
Nijhoff (2011a) showed Vollenhoven criticized
Woltjer for identifying logocentric transcendence between
creators and God. According to Vollenhoven, being subject to
laws of God, by subjects and objects, was not acknowledged by
Nijhoff. The later philosophy of Woltjer was though accepted
more readily by Vollenhoven. This later philosophy was based
on pneumatological wisselwerking.
"pneumatology
|ˌn(y)oōməˈtäləjē|
noun
the branch of
Christian theology concerned with the Holy Spirit.
DERIVATIVES
pneumatological |ˌn(y)oōmədəˈläjəkəl| adjective"
(New)
Klapwijk (1980: 545 and 456) says
Geesink already identified the God-law-cosmos distinctions and
therefore Vollenhoven built on that. Tol (2010) questions
that.
A. Janse van Biggekerke's (Janse)
biblical human view influenced Vollenhoven in contrast to the
dogmatic dichotomous (soul and body) trichotomous (soul, body
and spirit) views. Vollenhoven accepted Janse's view with much
influence later for his philosophy.
Van der Walt will emphasize the new of
Vollenhoven's philosophy especially his contribution to
'sistematiek' and the history of philosophy.
Vollenhoven identified a Christian way of doing
science, away neutral scientific presuppositions, before
irrationalism and postmodernism. He rejected the dualistic
view of scholastic Christianity between nature and genade and
knowledge and belief and implications thereof.
p.8
He criticized dualistic and monistic philosophy,
which usually ended in deism and panteism. He identifies God,
creation and God's laws for the creation ('die skepping'). His
distinction between God's love requirement, structural laws
and positivized norms (as bridge between the first two) is
important.
In anthropology he broke with the dichotomous and
trichotomous views of scholastic Christianity.
His facets functions and modalities, he developed
with Dooyeweerd and Stoker is an important practical
contribution to sistematiek as viewing.
A new sociology with emphasis on differentiated
duties and relationships identifying position (amp), calling,
authority, might and responsibility.
His epistemology does not emphasise only subject
or only object but identify the differences amongst and
relationships amongst subject, object, methodology and
knowledge.
He did not believe religion and science should be
synthesized but used a anti-synthetical methodology which
emphasized a Christian presupposed belief which must be tested
against realities of history of philosophy. Although the
presupposition is very important it could be positively
affected by the new information learnt in history. Christian
presuppositions cause an acceptance or rejection of opinions
in Western History of philosophy if presuppositions are not
adjusted. The result is a reformatted enlightened view of
Christian reality.
Brings us to the second important contribution
Vollenhoven made to Historicism.
He did not want to apply historiography, which
only looks at chronological and geographic events. Rather he
wanted to have a Christian philosophic interpretation of
history.
With his method the following can be determined:
-
The attitude towards the Bible of a historian
(Three attitudes were identified, attitudes before and during
synthetized views and during the anti-synthesized views.)
-
How the attitudes interconnect with the zeitgeist
(philosophical) of the time.
-
The relation of the attitude to a typical
historical anthropological, ontological understanding.
The normative (standardized) views of reality
changes all the time and therefore Van der Walt identifies
reason, the queen as leader.
The different types of theories of reality are
however limited to basic forms which can change in time from
the one to the other.
The attitude of the historians can be classified
as:
-
a religious against-each-other interpretation
(pagan) of history, or Christian view which distinguish
between secularism and religion from the Renaissance and
Reformation.
-
Second a to-each-other attitude. Chronological
normative schools.
-
Parallel attitudes of different types of
philosophy about differing theories of reality.
The method gives deeper insight than a global
view of history. It identifies the (1) different religious
presuppositions, which were made by each historian in his
interpretation of history, <p.9>
according to which we (2) identify own normative views and in
the (3) light of own views (4) each look at reality in his own
way. Augustine said people pray to idols, become like them and
then shape the world according to own views because they
became like the idols.
p.9
Hearts are emphasized instead of intellect to
realize own and others' revelations of God.
Christian thinkers should therefore distinguish
themselves from normative postmodern thinking.
Another benefit of the historiography is that it
can be used in other sciences like aesthetics, economics and
sociology for example.
He worked long hours and up to a late age gave
private classes and kept record of philosophers he met. His
drive came form the belief that the synthetized views of
Christianity could be shown by Reformatoriese optrede. The
synthesized views he believed was a mix with non-Christian
pagan views.
Self
But was Jesus not influenced by pagan truths of
Plato?
p.9
Vollenhoven said: "Moet nooit sweer by die woorde
van 'n mens nie"
He thought in a Western way and was influenced by
Western thinkers.
He did not emphasize sexuality enough.
Self
Is this sexuality between male and female or is
it Van der Walt's reference to homosexuality as queen
(leidster/reason).
p.9
His problematic-historic approach does not look
at more recent philsophers although he died in 1978.
He identified more with some Western philosophies
than others because he said those philosophies reflect
realities more precise.
p.9-10
His interest was more cosmogenetic than
cosmological because he was more interested in the birth and
development of the universe than rational understanding of the
cosmos.
His anthropology included pneumatology as
important ingredient and the inner and outer existence of
humans were distinguished. His pneumatology referred to
empirical facts like breath and not to the world-spirit of
neoplatonism for example.
Verwysing: Vollenhoven, D. H. Th.. Die grondslae van
die Calvinistiese of skrifmatige filosofie. (Digital file name:
<2a. Die grondslae van die calvinistiese of skrifmatige
filosofie.pdf> received by e-mail on 2 June 2013 from
North-West University)
Introduction by Mülheim Rott and Wilhelm Rott.
P1-2
Vollenhoven was a church minister and then became
a lecturer of philosophy. Although a lecturer of philosophy
much theology was included in his philosophy.
Self
There could have been thus a lack of appreciation
from his side for theology because why would he change to
philosophy. See p.4
Referaat deur Vollenhoven
p.3
Philosophy should find its way in the Bible as
Augustinus did.
p.4
Philosophy should be reformed according to
insights derived from the Bible.
The Calvinist understanding of the Bible
highlights the following:
-
A distinction between God the sovereign and the
creation of God.
-
"Unio foederalis" which was known as covenant to
humans before the fall.
-
Total fall into sin, death as the penalty of sin,
redemption of the "soewereine God in die Middelaar".
p.5
The first presupposition is the distinction
between God and His creation and from there the following
realizations follow:
-
The definition of God in philosophy vary allot
and therefore the definition should be found in the Bible.
-
God's powerful word from the unseen is identified
in 'him' who is clearly distinguishable from the unseen things
on Earth and in heaven.
-
God, His law, the cosmos being a king and his law
and the populace are identified. The relationship between a
king and the populace is normally unacceptable because in his
law he is usually placed above his law. No human is above
God's law and therefore God's law is the border between God
and the cosmos.
p.6
-
God is above the king's law but that does not
mean that reformed Christians who are subject to the rulers of
this world, do not accept the authority of the rulers because
reformation and revolution is clearly distinguished in
Calvin's reformation philosophy.
p.6-7
-
Calvin accepted an understanding similar to
Socrates's and Kant's by saying the world in which God is
present is understood as very complicated and can therefore
not be described simplistically by viewing God and cosmos in
just a few distinctions for example the Scholastic dualistic
differentiation between nature and God's grace.
p.7
By placing oneself under the law of God, freedom
is identified from the power of a king and his helpers. This
freedom rejects revolution against a king and his helpers and
accepts sovereignty in different fields for example free
universities, free religious institutions etc. Different
aspects, similar to Clouser's aspects, which can be identified
as 'free' from other aspects are relevant.
p.9-12
-
Although different fields and aspects operate
'free' from the other there are many relations between
everything that exist in time, which we cannot predict
accurately. Individualism sometimes does not respect these
relations enough when an individual does not respect
subject-to-subjects relations and the effects that ways have
on other subjects.
<P.10-12>
Relations amongst
objects and subjects are important as well. When identifying
things, objects can be inter-related and with intra-relations.
Predictions about these perceived relations should be done
carefully or not at all. Functionalists say evolutionary
changes take place from lower to higher forms but Calvinist
philosophy does not generalize the direction. When something
new comes to being when an object is excreted from another
object the new form should not be judged as of value because
such changes take place as a result of God's divine being.
p.12
II
Philosophy from the Bible regards religion as
"Unio foederalis", which was known to humans before the fall
into sin by Word revelation.
-
Calvinist religion argues herewith against a
functionalist change or evolution into godly form. Religion is
not a result of knowledge, which existed before religion
because religion was a covenant from the beginning of time in
Genesis. If such a functionalist approach is used, thoughts
lead to universalism, which does not distinguish between
religious and irreligious.
P12-13
An important difference
between Calvinism and Rome's way is that Rome views
'religious' as submitting to the views of the church
authorities. Rome however also rejects universalism.
P. 14
III
Understanding total
fall into sin, death as the penalty of sin and redemption of
the "soewereine God in die Middelaar".
p.14-15
Humans are completely
sinners who hates from the Hart, 1995 after the fall into sin.
p.15
Death in scripture
means the first death and second death. The 1st
death is death of flesh and the 2nd death is the
eternal hell if a person was not saved through the grace of
Jesus Christ. In antique philosophy two deaths were also
identified. After 1st death the soul migrates to
the moon and after the 2nd death the soul migrates
to the sun.
p.17
Grace is understood
primarily as Jesus Christ explained it.
Verwysing:
Vollenhoven, D.H.Th., The
foundations of Calvinist thought. (Digital file name:
<2b. The foundations calvinist thought.pdf> received by
e-mail on 2 June 2013 from North-West University)
p.4
".. only Good is the creator of all things and of
every reality."
A king or other sovereign may not prohibit a
Christian to serve God according to the Word of God.
p.5
There are no antinomies in the cosmos because
everything is subject to the law of God. … "Paganistic thought
has always accepted antinomies".
Self
A complete coherence is thus postulated that
excludes any contradictions, however elsewhere knowing of not
knowing was mentioned (Read in the Afrikaans version)
p.8
'The Philosophy Measured against Scripture views
religion as a covenant, an "unio foederalis", which was known
to the human race by Word revelation, even before the fall
into sin.
1.
With this statement the Calvinist philosophy
directs itself for once against every attempt to interpret
religion as a substantial of functional submerging of the
human being into God. For this reason even here religion is
treated as a separate topic, for which there would have been
no ground if one could associate yourself with the current
conceptions, according to which religion can be subsumed under
that which has already been discussed. But exactly this we
cannot do. If one does equate life in the divine covenant with
one or other function, then one ends – whether one wants or
not - in universalism: faith, spiritual life, conscience or
whatever one wants to name it, becomes rays of the divine
being, crystallization of the logos, or something of the kind.
Faith and unbelief can then no more be understood as strict
oppositions; … The fateful denial of the coherence between
thinking and faith is then the inevitable result.'
Self
In the above section Vollenhoven, with his
opposition against rationalism places religion above other
functions but yet argues coherence between faith and thinking.
Reason (thinking) is thus subject to faith, which is subject
to the covenant mentioned above. The highest authority on
Earth is therefore scripture according to Vollenhoven. The
fall into sin took place when they ate from the tree of
knowledge of good and evil against the instructions of God.
According to Clouser it was because they wanted to be like God
that they ate of the tree. It could also be asked, without
being unreasonably critical, whether Vollenhoven's
self-as-God, because he was probably an honest man, did not
become so prominent that postulating God totally out of the
cosmos, was his way of staying sane. The more prominent the
idea of self-being-God with consequential sacrificial thoughts
of Christianity become, the more severe the actions become to
nullify those fears. Aquinas's "God Himself who cannot lie"[178]
and Revelation 19:11 obviously affect honest people more than
deceivers initially until they realize God is plural and not
singular.
p.9
'This covenant is not a bond which one has to
find within the boundaries of the cosmos. It is a relationship
between God, who in no way, and the human being, who in every
way, belongs to the cosmos.'
Vollenhoven, D.H.Th. 1953. Scripture use and
philosophy [Translated].
(In
Mededelingen van het Vereniging voor Calvinistisch
Wijsbegeerte, p. 6-9. Sept. 1953. Digital file name: <3.
Scripture use and philosophy.pdf> received by e-mail on 2
June 2013 from North-West University)
P.1
Scripture is divine.
'Secondly: this Word makes us see the totality of
the world, as God creates it. It tells us that world is
created by God, and that we should never hold anything in the
world as divine. Also this is in the first place intended for
practice: no idolizing, neither of things not of human
beings!'
Self
The above statement about human forming of things
is not based on rational thinking. It is based on a
subconscious fear of being the Almighty 'Sacrificed One' and
being sacrificed. Pre-knowledge proves that forming are partly
a result of studies and experience, which are hard earned
attributes. When Vollenhoven claims no human effort, which
justifies no remuneration after forming, it is not rational
thinking. By saying only God creates and humans are not part
of God, he effectively promotes a utilitarian argument that
motivates appropriations of formations without remuneration.
P.1
'Furthermore God subjects the world to His law:
loving obedience is the first which is required of everybody.'
p.2
p.3
Synthetic thinking
during the early Christian period was most original.
Scholastic Christianity synthesized the previous works
scholarly. The pre-reformation synthesis tried to
re-institute the early Christian thoughts but could not.
Self
Tarnas explained how early Christian thinking was
a synthesis between Hellenism and Jewish thought.
P101 (Page
references to Tarnas)
'The
correspondence between this conception of Christ and that of
the Greek Logos did not go unnoticed by Hellenistic
Christians. The remarkable Hellenistic Jewish philosopher
Philo of Alexandria, an older contemporary of Jesus and Paul,
had already broached a Judaic-Greek synthesis pivoted on the
term "Logos."[179]
But it was with the opening words of the Gospel according to
John, "In the beginning was the Logos," that Christianity's
relationship to Hellenic philosophy was potently initiated.
Soon afterward, an extraordinary convergence of Greek thought
and Christian theology was in progress that would leave both
transformed.'
P102
'In their
understanding of Christ as the incarnate Logos, early
Christian theologians synthesized the Greek philosophical
doctrine of the intelligible divine rationality of the world
with the Judaic religious doctrine of the creative Word of
God, which manifested a personal God's providential will and
gave to human history its salvational meaning. In Christ the
Logos became man: the historical and the timeless, the
absolute and the personal, the human and the divine became
one.'
P105
' "And the
Logos became flesh and dwelt among us." '
p114
'Despite his
erudition and appreciation for the intellectual and scientific
achievements of the Greeks, Augustine proclaimed: "… It is
enough for the Christian to believe that the only cause of all
created things, whether heavenly or earthly, whether visible
or invisible, is the goodness of the Creator, the one true
God; and that nothing exists but Himself that does not derive
its existence from Him." '[180]
P103
'As Clement of
Alexandria announced, "By the Logos, the whole world is now
become Athens and Greece." '
It is well known that
Scholastic thinking was basically Aristotelian. It seems
there is a pattern. Christianity went through the same
phases that actual philosophy went. First Plato's truths and
after Plato, Aristotle's deceits were important. Capra and
Toynbee also explained[181]
this pattern as a process of birth, flourishing and decline.
A creative group takes the lead with the birth. Then the
ruling powers smother creativity to protect their interests
and a downhill period starts. At the same time a creative
minority arise, which forms and develops new ways of dealing
with the challenges. The old ruling powers, stays in control
and suppresses the new forms but eventually the new forms
will replace the old and the cycle will repeat.
p.3
Vollenhoven identifies three different types of
synthesis during the early Christian period.
p.3
Vollenhoven's three could be honesties, deceits
and a synthesis between those. It is first a method whereby
truths are truths due to its universality, whether pagans or
Christians explain truths, truths stay the same. The second
method is that of Aristotle whereby deceits are explained as
right. The third is the synthesis between honesties and
deceits, which lead to deniable conflicts within the person
who tries to synthesize truths and deceits (fallacies).
Vollenhoven explains a first synthesis during
early Christianity as the process whereby a pagan reads the
whole Bible in Greek. When he reads the term 'Logos' in John 1
he then reads his pagan understanding of the term logos, which
exists in pagan philosophy. He thus places unconsciously an
old meaning of logos into his reading of the Bible. This way
of reading pagan 'logos' into the Bible caused many factions;
the Catholic Church accepted some of them and some not. This
can be avoided by finding the universal meaning of truths in
the Old Testament and in pagan philosophy.
Secondly some early pagan Christians wanted to
believe Scripture but really believed pagan philosophy as the
only truths. They perceived the synthesis as paradoxical but
by being politically correct they accepted the paradox.
Tertullian is an example.
The third was a paradox between ' "nature and
grace" '. Adam received super-nature but rejected it and God's
grace gave his descendants the opportunity to regain
super-nature. It is in effect a pagan conception because God
and humans are intermingled.
p.4
The '
"nature and grace" ' idea was triumphant in Roman Catholic
thinking and protestant thinking. Biblical humanists use the
logos conception through the "inlaying-exegesis" method and
Kierkegaard developed Tertullian's method.
p.4
Vollenhoven explains that scriptural philosophy
is something that happens when the Word of God formed a child
from a young age. He explains that children are born with
trust and love. Trust in their parents as God and love of
their parents as God. The knowledge that persons get in their
early years are non-scientific and that stays with them.
Non-scientific knowledge is a life-and-world view and is
expressed in humanism, Calvinism, Lutheranism and Catholicism.
People are 'being' Calvinists, Catholics etc. when they do not
study further. Against this being Vollenhoven identifies being
with scientific knowledge after studying.
Self
This non-scientific knowledge Vollenhoven talks
about has to include deceits because scientific knowledge is
based on reality theoretically. If children are brought up
with emphasis on truths and honesties from a young age their
heuristic scientific knowledge starts from a young age. Taking
myself as an example. When i told my first lie to protect or
defend myself my mother gave me a big hiding and since then i
have been honest. Realities filled my mind from a young age
and therefore my upbringing was scientific. The causes were
however not always beneficial to me, nor directly to
deceivers. When i entered the working 'world' after completing
my scientific journey at University i became manic because of
the deceiving influences my mind had to endure. My connection
to truths however made me realize that Jesus of Nazareth and
other Manichaean philosophers could have been manic due to
truthful upbringing and the deceiving world. If Jesus was
human he could have been a Manichaean. After being diagnosed
manic, until today, psychiatrists and society, accuse me of
thinking i am God because this thought of being God has been
entrenched in psychiatry as a symptom of mania. The
entrenchment of the being-God thought in Abrahamic religions
and Christianity and consequentially psychiatric science
however took place by pre-supposing the false pre-scientific
Calvinist, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and Protestant belief,
that one human can be God. Paradoxically thus society and
psychiatrists, which make the accusation, have that belief
subconsciously inside them and they project it onto honest
people who knows mania, because they do not live close enough
to reality to realize that one cannot be God and to realize
that God is plural.
p.4
Studying can be of a specific subject field or of
philosophy, which is studying that includes all subject fields
because philosophy is an inquiry of wholes. Calvinism etc. are
thus the subjects of scientific philosophical inquiry.
Pre-scientific knowledge causes the presuppositions for
scientific knowledge.
p.5
Non-scientific knowledge stays with persons as
presuppositions of philosophy and other science.
P.5
p.6
God and world are separate.
The law needs subjects.
The Ten Commandments are norms of Christians
after Jesus Christ fulfilled them.
The Ten Commandments are above and outside of us.
Calvinist also accepts the other law of the world
as positive law.
Self
Does he mean that the negative laws; 'thou shalt
not', which are written into constitutions etc. are not valid?
Laws of science seek regularity and are subject
to God's law. Scientific laws are not the same as God's law
because scientific laws are not timeless. Worldly laws can be
in concordance with God's laws or against God's laws,
therefore regularity exists and irregularity exists in
scientific laws. Love and hate are opposites.
Self
Love and hate is not opposites because when
Jesus's definition of love is accepted hate and love can be
coincidental. A Christian can for example hate the material
world but still do not break the universal negative laws of
God, which is a sign of trying to be "loving". When Jesus said
we should love our enemies he just meant we should not break
universal negative laws against enemies. He did not mean we
should have affection for enemies.
p.6
The two laws; one of God and the other in the
cosmos cannot be separated because irregularity of an
in-cosmos law shows the lack of correspondence to God's laws
and thus incoherence, which proves its human fallaciousness.
p.6-7
Positive law in the cosmos is a way by which God
enforces his negative universal laws. People are only subject
to the positive laws as long as they are part of the society
in which the positive laws are enforced.
Self
Vollenhoven uses references to God in the
singular for example 'His' and 'Him'. He thus presupposed a
fallacious singular nature of God, which must be present in
Calvinism as well. When he attributes absolute values to the
Bible the question arises how the plural form of God before
(Gen. 1:26) the fall into sin can be reconciled with the
singular form of God after the fall into sin. After the fall
into sin the references to God in the Bible are mostly in the
singular except if the Afrikaans Bible's 'Here' can be read as
more than one man, but that is derogatory because the
Afrikaans Bible speaks of 'Here Jesus Christus'.
Verwysing: Van der Walt, B.J. Hoe om die
geskiedenis van die filosofie weer te gee: 'n Verkenning van
wysgerige historiografiese probleme en metodes. (In Tydskrif vir
Geesteswetenskappe, p.1-13.
Jaargang 53, nr 1, Maart 2013.
Digital file name: <5. Hoe om die gesk vd
filos weer te gee.pdf> received by e-mail on 2 June 2013
from North-West University)
Volgens die artikel blyk dit prof. Van der Walt
het die konsekwent probleem-historiese metode geprioritiseer
as sy gekose metode om geskiedenis van filosofie weer te gee.
Verwysing: Van der
Walt, B.J. A
Scripturally-orientated perspective on the history of Western
intellectual thought: the origin and contours of and questions
about the consistent problem-historical method. (In Tydskrif vir
Geestewetenskappe. Planned
for Sept. 2013. Digital file name: < 6. Skrifmatige perspektief op gesk vd
Westerse filos denke.docx> received by e-mail on 2 June
2013 from North-West University)
P.2
Vollenhoven divided history of philosophy into
three periods. The periods were (1) pre-Christian with
emphasis on Hellenistic philosophy, (2) period of
Christian-pagan synthesis (This period has to include
Jewish-pagan syntheses, which was Christianity) and (3)
anti-synthetic Reformation period, which was a drive to use
only the Bible as Word of God without pagan influence.
p.4
Two neo-Kantian philosophers from Marburg
influenced Vollenhoven allot. They were N. Hart, 1995mann and
R. Höningswald.
p.6
Vollenhoven said the following about his own
methodology:
-
He did not agree with a simplistic analysis of
thinking, i.e. that philosophy had basic presuppositions.
Philosophy should not be historicized with starting point a
historiographer's own philosophical stream. The current can
only be understood with the past as the causes of the current.
-
He could not remove his own Christian belief,
including rationalism from his history as presuppositions.
-
A methodology cannot be used in a stable manner
because the history has to be found as ones go along. A fixed
methodology would be to restricting to find the history. This
was reflected in his methodology, which changed form time to
time.
-
The different ontic, anthropological,
epistemological and normative streams, the individual
philosophers were part of is important, especially with regard
to their beliefs about creativities.
p.7
-
He acknowledges that philosophers do not write
enough to answer all possible questions he would ask them.
-
He called his method the constant
problem-historical method because the constancy refers to his
own belief in God as the constant factor. The constancy does
not refer to his way but to his presuppositions because he
accepted that his method should be adaptable to find the
different historical problems he wanted to investigate.
'Problem' refers to the contours/patterns he identified.
-
He distinguishes between historical actualities
(factual events) and opinions (conceptual thinking about the
events).
p.7-8
They believed objective rationalist
presuppositions are important because then a historiographer
can identify the incoherencies of information (descriptions of
reality) and in doing that improve the accuracy of history
explained systematically. A historiographer is thus not a
compiler of historical events from previous recordings (true
and false).
p.8
Irrational philosophers reacted against the
honesties of the rationalist philosophers by emphasizing the
fact that reality cannot be known completely. They thus
emphasized the practical utilitarian views of pragmatism. Also
relevant were the existentialist philosophers who said that
rationalism overemphasize the past and under-value the wills
of philosophers who change the course of history. Historical
philosophic problems is therefore not as important as thought
by the neo-Kantian philosophers according to the irrationals.
p.8-9
Vollenhoven objected to the rationalist approach
as to autonomic. He appreciated the emphasis rationalists
place on truth but did not appreciate the view of Hart,
1995mann, an atheist, who placed human reason above all.
p.10
He called his method a thetic-critical
("teties-krities") method. Thetic refers to his own
sistematiek and thus his religious presuppositions. Critical
refers to his approach to philosophy. Questioning and learning
is a dualistic process of learning.
Self
His opposition against synthetic Christianity
thus refers more to the inclusion of pagan ideas than to a
method because his questioning and learning process can be
described as antithesis followed by synthesis.
p.10-11
Kok, a student of Vollenhoven commented:
Vollenhoven said that Christians often position
themselves without positive statements about their belief and
by negating what non-Christian philosophers say. They
therefore do not have constant presuppositions of belief,
which will give constancy to their work. These thetic
presuppositions should however be reconsidered in order to
adjust our beliefs according to new information. Critique can
include negation but with reasons, which explain the critique.
Thetic-critic techniques have the benefit of a defining
constant belief and a critique based on reason.
Thetic-critical cannot be divided between faith and reason as
to separate concepts because reasonable purposeful critique
originates from Christian faith.
Self
The above implies perhaps that although
Vollenhoven believed he should positively explain his belief
the following: when he stated that his belief could change, he
had not reached a level of religious constancy.
p.12
Persons' lives as wholes are determined through
religion.
p.12
Philosophers should ask:
(1) In which God/gods does he/she believe, (Who
is Creator of everything) (2) what can he/she know of the
cosmos (what was created in relation to the Creator) and (3) Which norms and
measuring methods should direct thinking and living (where is
the dividing line between Creator and cosmos)?
Vollenhoven searched for answers to these
questions in the Bible.
p.12-13
The approach was not biblisistic ('biblisisties')
because biblisism happens when readers read their own
revelations into ('eisegese') the Bible and then qualify
(eksegese) the revelations with Biblical influence.
p.13
Vollenhoven's answers to the three questions
were: (1) The living sovereign God, (2) the cosmos is
completely dependent on God and (3) the border between God and
cosmos is God's will as represented in his law, which all
creatures are subject to.
Vollenhoven warns that more should not be
ascribed to a definition of God than can be found in
Scripture. If people do not acknowledge God of the Bible they
will rely on something else, which will eventually represent
something in the cosmos, which will be an idol and not the
'Him'.
Self
The emphasis on "Him" could imply that
Vollenhoven did not overcome self in his God thoughts to
realize the reality of plural God as mentioned in Gen.1:26.
The question could critically be asked how The-plural, before
the fall into sin, and the-singular form of God, after the
fall into sin, can be reconciled if at all. Is belief in
the-singular form not perhaps a result of the fall into sin,
we could ask?
p.13
Van der Walt opines that Vollenhoven broke
significantly with the Western pagan belief in plural God as
represented by human gods. The simple definition of the whole
God-law-cosmos makes this break with pagan philosophy
possible. Vollenhoven found his definition of God as
completely separate from the cosmos in Scripture.
Self
See earlier where two types of laws were
identified. Jesus as human must be a once-off occurrence
according to Vollenhoven. It raises again the question about
others being part of God for example Enoch.
p.13
Chronology is important to understand reality as
showed by history.
p.13-15
Vollenhoven asks each thinker what their
relationship is with God's revelation. His three answers was:
(1) Antiwue philosophers would have answered that God's
revelation was not known to them. (2) Scholastic Christians
read God's revelation but interpreted it in the context of
antique philosophy. (3) During modernity some reformed
philosophers broke with the synthesis of Scholastic
Christianity but most reformed theologians did not break the
mold because of two reasons: (a) The first reformers did not
consider philosophy but put emphasis only on theology. (b)
They used dialectic in the form of thesis-antithesis-synthesis
instead of prethesis-thesis-antithesis.
p.15-16
Vollenhoven opines there is a substantial
hierarchical element present in different philosophical
opinions, which represents orderly creation in society. The
law of God is important and applies only to subjects but not
to God Who is outside the cosmos. Problems with regard to
understanding Vollenhoven's orderly creation exist because of
three reasons: (1) Creation orders develops chronologically
territorially (2) humans placed themselves above the law,
which Vollenhoven implicitly mentioned (3) Vollenhoven did not
self 'develop' his own philosophy well enough for it to be
very clear to understand.
p.16
Vollenhoven identified a vertical line in the
history of the cosmos. The cosmic order with much equality has
to be clearly understood as structural order. This cosmic
reality consists of many opinions with regard to ontic,
anthropological and epistemological categories. Three views of
Vollenhoven are important: (1) Opinions are not limited to
specific epochs and they can change slightly from epoch to
epoch, (2) Vollenhoven's opinion includes his critique and is
therefore not only positive opinion (3) Vollenhoven used the
same definitions for words of definitions for words to opine
about different epochs and streams.
p.16-17
Although Vollenhoven did not complete the
development of his methodology, enough recorded material exist
and teaching took place to students to have used his method as
understood and to increase research about his method and to
promote his method together with the research of Dooyeweerd
and Stoker. The objective of promotion is an
integrated-Christian philosophy as explained by languages of
today, especially English.
p.17-18
Vollenhoven's methodology can be presented
schematically with horizontal and vertical squares in the form
of crosses. Pre-thesis (Antique philosophy), Thesis
(Scholastic Christianity), and antithesis (Modernity) appear
to the right of the three horizontal lines. To the left of the
horizontal lines main streams of philosophy are identified.
The squares of the vertical line(s) represent individual
philosophers' opinions about basic ontic problems.
Vollenhoven's methodology's schematic representation contains
opinions by philosophers and other scientists.
p.18-24
The main critique against Vollenhoven's approach
is that it was too analytical and thus an empiricist
utilitarian pragmatic nature shows, which was criticized by
philosophers of the rationalist tradition.
Self
It is strange that the main critique against
Vollenhoven is that he was an empiricist because he was
influenced much by Marburgers of the rationalist tradition.
The only explanation I can think of is that presuppositions of
his Christian pre-scientific knowledge must have made an
empiricist of him. Although there was something deeper of
rationalism, which wanted to break through, his empirical
upbringing did not allow his pagan side to show itself. It
does not however mean that a pagan honest side was not
present.
A lecture by Prof.
Griffioen was attended for which no assignment or reading
needed to be completed.
"Already in ancient
times the word philosopheoo embraced the notion of
“practising the sciences”, “to be scientifically involved in”,
“to carefully study or investigate something and / or to treat
it scientifically”; philosophia had the meaning of
“love of science”, “love for scientific practice”; philosophos:
“belover of science” “a friend of learned
investigations”.
In those times,
philosophy embraced science in its totality; an example of
this is Aristoteles’ philosophy that embraced Theology,
Philosophy in its essential meaning as used in this
discussion, as well as special science investigations.
Philosophy and Theology only parted ways during the
Middle-Ages, with tension occasionally mounting thereafter
between them. … Subjects such as Sociology and Psychology
succeeded in liberating themselves from the womb of Philosophy
only as recently as the second half of the 19th century to
become self-standing disciplines (i.e. having distinct
features)."[182]
A "primordial idion" is
the knowable to which basic questions of knowledge refer.
These basic questions question the every day words we use when
not thinking more intensely about their natures. What is an
event? What is a date like 1652? What is? How? Where? What is
"where" and "how" etc.? "Is" is important when we try to
answer these questions. What is "is", "are", "was", "were"
etc.? The most important difference between the word "idion"
from Greek origin and other terms like "gegenstand" and
"phenomena" is that an idion does not have plurality. [183]
"The recognition of
idions (each insufficient in itself) does not lead us to
accept pluralism. ... 'Triune God Himself'
[184]
is not an idion".[185]
"(God does not challenge people)"[186]
The science of
investigating idions and their coherence is the responsibility
of philosophers.[187]
Idions, which are each a singularity, without plurality has
each their origin from God.[188]
New science is mining
in the totality of Kant's noumena. Science can be
distinguished from pre-scientific or "naïve" knowledge, which is the result of perceiving
forms of gegenstande.[189]
Diafanerotic studies refer to the study of idions in
phenomena.[190]
<self: Logically each idion has an essence, which cannot be
named with one word, but can only be defined with more than
one word. The plural of idion (idions) does not refer to the
plural of a unit. "Idions" refers only to the plural of
"idion", the word (i+d+i+o+n). An idion cannot be a unit,
because each idion is radical difference from another idion.
"Idions" refer to the plural of the word "idion", but idions
cannot be counted for mathematics, because counting implies
units, which each, has the name "one". "Three" is normally,
three ones of similar nature, but three idions can only be
counted with the understanding that idions cannot be 'weighed'
figuratively. Mathematics about idions cannot exist, because
three idions cannot be divided into three equal units and one
idion cannot be duplicated to form two times the identified
idion. "Idion" could be understood as something close to a
synonym of "definition" because an idion cannot have one word
as a name.>
Calvin realized two
"truths" which are relevant for Calvinistic Philosophy. First,
the "Word of God" helps us to see realities. Second, Stoker's
God, that he refers to as "Him" is the only "Sovereign" of
all.[191]
" ..‘to Him are all
things’, that everything belongs to Him, and that He is the
Sovereign over all that He has created."[192]
"Calvinistic Philosophy strives to be radically Christian in
the religious sense, in other words as an extensive or
comprehensive serving of God, as a response to the Divine
calling according to the revelation of God in his Word."[193]
<self: In the above
two quotations it can be seen that Stoker also referred to God
with a capital "H" and a small "h". I conclude that also in
his view God included Metaphysical and human parts.>
Stoker draws a strong
distinction between Theology, which has as subject
Metaphysical "God's revelation of Himself", and Calvinist
philosophy, which postulate "God in his Word".[194]
It seems Stoker referred to God with capital letters[195]
when he mentioned Theology and small letters when he mentioned
Calvinist philosophy, interpreted together with my
interpretation of his stance that Philosophy is a
rational-empirical science and Theology a science of
supernature.[196]
Theologians, philosophers and other scientists should respect
the borders between sciences by using the findings of
not-their-own sciences and by not infringing on not-their-own
sciences.[197]
Dooyeweerd was very
interested in Anthropology.[198]
<self: The manner Dooyeweerd went about his Anthropology
will determine much in my mind about Dooyeweerd's science,
because if he studied his own being then it would mean the
starting point of his studies was acceptable anthropology.
Another approach of anthropology, which regards
Others-than-only-selves as secret subjects of study, postulate
different natures for such humans; "bats" and "rats", and is
therefore not acceptable. The findings of such studies, even
if regarded as helping humans, could be of negative value to
humanity because of the perverse origins.>
Stoker wrote he uses "a
priori" differently than Kant. He describes his "a priori" as
ontic te-al given by God Himself.[199]
<self: The differences my pre-thesis have with Calvinist
philosophy's pre-thesis relates to different word usages and
plural form. Calvin's presupposition that all is singular
God's creation is false because singular God who is referred
to as "him" or "Him", does not exist according to my
pre-thesis. Where i refer to Metaphysical truth (Mett),
Calvinist philosophers refers to God Himself. Mett cannot be
referred to with human pronouns, even if capital letters are
used because of the metaphorical
pronounced references to metaphysical phenomena, which
Calvinist philosophers remove in total from the cosmos. The
pronounced references by Calvinist philosophers to God, with
pronouns and small letters differ from my references to God,
primarily with regard to singularity. Where Calvinist
philosophers use only singular pronouns with small letters i
use mostly plural pronouns with small letters i.e "they". When
i use the word "god" it can be used with "a" and not "the"
before "god"; the same with "goddess". I use "gods" and
"goddesses" as well, which are not in the vocabulary of
Calvinist philosophers due to their singularity belief about
immanence. Mett a singular metaphysical part of God is a
singular concept of Intequinism. Mett is understood
specifically with regard to the courages Mett gives to gods
and goddesses to be honest. When i refer to "God" with a
capital letter other words will not be used in "God"'s stead.
"God" thus refers in Intequinism to triune Mett, gods and
goddesses. Mett, gods and goddesses must be used together to
define God. Intequinism's God cannot be referred to by using
part of God, for example by capitalizing "goddesses" or "gods"
or "him" or "her" or by only referring to Mett. Maybe Mett
should not be capitalized because only "God" should be
capitalized. "God" refers to being of all God's parts
together.>
"He follows this approach
because nothing of God (including his omnipresence, immanence
and presence) is part of creation (creaturely), and nothing in
the cosmos is identical with God."[200]
"Theology might attempt to
understand the cosmos by approaching it from the
perspective of its theo-centricity; by contrast, the
Calvinistic philosopher investigates the cosmos as cosmos in
its theo-centricity (in its theo-centric grounded-ness)."[201]
"The recognition of this
plurality of radical diversity does not amount to pluralism,
however, because every radically distinguishable idion64, or
cosmic ‘given’ is in-self- sufficient, created and
law-subjected, and all of them together find their
trans-cosmic unity in God; also, because of the mutual and
relational65 coherence of the radical diversity. And this
coherence is another te-al ontic a priori of the
cosmos, because it also finds its origin in God. The
Calvinistic philosopher will attempt to trace this coherence
in the radical diversity, at the same time taking care not to
violate it."[202]
Stoker's
conception[203]
of the te-al cosmic a-priori order giving laws places him in a
position of part of God, because how else can he be aware of
the laws he explains? It can be argued that he became aware of
the cosmic te-al a-priori laws after his Transcendent's
revelatory giving, due to immanent[204]
transcendence.
"The abovementioned te-al
cosmic a prioris also applies to the human being.
Because the human being belongs to the cosmos, and the cosmos
to the human being."[205]
"He or she has a particular
place and role in the cosmos. He or she has been appointed mandator
Dei in the cosmos. God gave him / her vocation to
govern over nature, to form culture, to lovingly care for his
/ her fellow human being and for him- / herself, to love,
serve, respect and honour God and to fulfil his / her
creaturely task of helping the cosmos reaching its destination
(that God has determined for it)."[206]
It could be that "mandator
Dei" above is similar to my gods and goddesses plus
metaphysical truth (mett). The capital D is not represented in
my conception with a capital letter but with the words "gods"
and "goddesses". "Dei" is probably the root of deity.
deity |ˈdēitē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
a god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion) :
a deity of ancient Greece.
• divine status, quality, or nature : a ruler
driven by delusions of deity.
• (usu. the Deity) the creator and
supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as
Christianity).
• a representation of a god or goddess, such as a
statue or carving.
ORIGIN Middle English (denoting the divine nature
of God): from Old French deite, from
ecclesiastical Latin deitas (translating Greek
theotēs), from deus ‘god.’ [207]
"..Calvinistic Philosophy
is an open system that acknowledges all the diversity and
coherence in the cosmos just as it is, and accepts aspects of
truth in other philosophical systems (freed from their
‘-ism-ic’ falsehoods) and assign to them their rightful
places. In principle, it does not suffer from any form of
reductionism (such as can be found among the ‘–ism-ic’
Philosophies). The Calvinistic philosopher therefore also
wishes to engage in open and critical conversation with
dissidents in order to help him / her penetrate the final
grounds of mutual differences.[208]
I guess
Calvinistic philosophers will criticize Intequinism because of
its "ism-ic" character if they do not accept the subject
specific field it originated in, being accounting, economics
and business experience.
"1.a. In the section above,
we distinguished between four main tasks of Philosophy (See
section I. b. vi.).
i. Understanding the cosmos
as cosmos (created reality as such); the quest for the
encompassing fundamental nature and meaning of the cosmos.
This task includes the quest for the te-al a priori,
particularly because the cosmos as such is creaturely,
in-self- sufficient, law-subjected, and so on, and therefore
points beyond itself to its Origin (God, the Archê). This is
the quest for the radical fundamental75, the actual,
ground-question of Philosophy. It ‘sees’ the cosmos in its
relatedness as cosmos with the Archê (its Origin, God, the
Absolute and Totally All-sufficient). This totality issue is
the philosophical ground question in its primary sense. The
answer to this question is called the ground- idea of
Philosophy.
ii. Understanding the
(mutually irreducible, i.e.) radical diversity of and in the
cosmos. This question pertains to the cosmic origins (the
cosmic original, the primordial idions, the archai). With this
question, each cosmic original or primordial idion is
investigated in its cosmic irreducible (to anything else)
fundamental nature or essence and/or meaning.
iii. Understanding the
coherence of the radical diversity in the cosmic totality,
while pursuing all the (mutually irreducible) types of
coherence (relationships, connections, intertwinements, and so
forth) between primordial idions, and how they have been
‘woven’ together in the totality of the cosmos. This is the
quest for the cosmic totality in its secondary sense.
iv. Understanding the
fundamental nature and meaning of a primordial idion –
radically distinguishable and irreducible to any other
primordial idion – and its place and role in the totality of
the cosmos (in the mutually connected double meaning of
‘totality’).
1.b. Philosophical
disciplines can be sub-divided in different ways..
The main division is:
Philosophical Systematics (or Systematic Philosophy), History
of Philosophy and Philosophical Movements (Approaches,
Schools, Directions, etc.).
Philosophical Systematics
(to which this article is limited) investigates the four
questions mentioned above, and can in turn be sub-divided into
General Philosophical Cosmology and Special Philosophical
Disciplines."[209]
"Systematic
Philosophy" explained above and my memory about my first
reading of Stoker's creation idea causes conflict with
Intequinism because Intequinism is a "Philosophical Movement".
Philosophical Systematics ascribes all of creation
(creativities) to the 'Creator'. Its totalitarian
(cosmonomic?) nature does not value the creativities of
individual creators and places the economy in a state where
creativities as necessities of survival are not remunerated
close to origins. How can this problem be overcome? Must the
Philosophical Systematics fit in and follow the awareness
caused by Intequinism as "direction" of philosophy or should
Intequinism follow and fit in with Systematics, which
philosophizes only about one Creator, which causes the
unsustainable remuneration traditions of the Calvinist
economy? Maybe the answer is somewhere in Stoker's idions
because he philosophized that idions are radically different.
If a new true idion (definition) is identified it could change
Systematic Philosophy. According to Sociology of Knowledge,
cultures change from within when individuals originate new
culture; this is another argument in favor of a change of
Systematic Philosophy as part of philosophy and through
Intequinism as new 'direction", new 'school' and new
'approach'. Accounting of ideas is a new idion (definition)
and new approach to look at creativities.
"The first main task of
Philosophy (III.A.l.a.i. above), namely the theory of te-al
cosmic a priori, in my opinion, confronts one with the
key problem that could lead to an understanding or disclosure
of the cosmos (as totality and as coherent radical diversity).
The other philosophical problems are seen, approached and
investigated, and philosophical disciplines are constructed,
in terms of this key. In fundamental terms (and therefore in
broad outline), the findings and conclusions that are made in
this respect determine the results of all philosophical
inquiry.. Some regard the choice of this key as an existential
decision. If one looked deeper, however, one would see this
choice fundamentally as one of religious conviction.. This
choice is also inextricably interwoven with the particular
life- and world-view.. This key presents us with the first (or
last, highest or deepest, as the case may be)
(pre-)suppositions from which Philosophy departs – whether
explicitly or implicitly, consciously or not, critically
responsibly or not. We are dealing here with the fundamental
question of Philosophy, a question profoundly related to what
Dooyeweerd called the religious ground-motive of Philosophy.
This fundamental question
should first be stated, then meticulously analysed and
answered before we attend to the other tasks of Philosophy –
and this must be done in a conscious, explicit and critically
responsible way. But let me say at once that this fundamental
question cannot be answered once and for all, because
Philosophy also progresses (has its own history); philosophers
constantly find themselves confronted with new problems in
connection with this fundamental question."[210]
1.a. The two
possibilities
We can search for the key,
for the answer to the ground-question, within the
cosmos. That would give us an internal- (or inside) cosmic
vision of the cosmos. Or we can go looking for it outside
the cosmos itself, which would give us an external- (or
outside) cosmic vision of the cosmos. ... For this distinction
between the external and internal cosmic visions of the
cosmos, see B. en M. We commence with an
external-cosmic vision of the cosmos, and this is why we call
our Philosophy theocentric. In the light of this we then
proceed to our internal-cosmic investigation of the cosmos. A
philosopher who fails to engage an external-cosmic vision of
the cosmos, and tries to investigate the cosmos from the
beginning from an internal-cosmic vision, practises a
cosmocentric Philosophy. What we distinguish as theocentric
versus cosmocentric Philosophy is distinguished (in a
different sense) by the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea as
transcendence versus immanence Philosophy."[211]
".. the Word of God reveals
to us that although all things are from, through and to God,
God does not form part of the cosmos.., that the cosmos (the
earthly created universe) and everything that belongs to the
cosmos are creatures, in-self-sufficient and subject to the
divine will and law. This key is external-cosmic and therefore
gives us an external-cosmic vision of the cosmos. Allow me to
explain this in anthropomorphic terms: with this key we see
and gain insight into the cosmos with a divine eye-view, the
way God sees it. Let
us not forget that this vision remains a human one
(creaturely, in-self-sufficient, law- or rather norm-bound)
[own bold]; we
cannot know the cosmos the way God does. A human being can see
the cosmos from outside in a creaturely manner, in other
words, a creaturely manner from God’s perspective, because God
has created him or her with a religious faith faculty, and
revealed Himself (and his relationship with all things) to
human beings in a creaturely manner. With this external-
cosmic key we need not absolutise anything in the cosmos, or
relativise the radical diversity in the cosmos, or deplete it.
On the contrary, we can avail ourselves of a multilateral
(universal) view of the cosmos, thereby doing justice to all
the respective types of coherence of the radical diversity,
and also fully acknowledging the ontic order of and for the
cosmos (which also finds its origins in God) in its rich,
coherent variety.
There are still other
questions that can be viewed from either an exclusively
internal- cosmic or a primarily external-cosmic vision; I will
limit myself to mentioning only that of good and evil, that of
selection and choice of methods.., that of truth, and so on..
... God is the Origin of
everything. [own
bold] Once we have justified our choice for this
external-cosmic vision of the cosmos (the ground-question), we
can proceed to an internal-cosmic investigation of the cosmos
in light of the first vision. In other words, we can determine
what the cosmos (in its in-self- sufficiency,
'creatureliness', and law-subjectedness) offers us; in other
words, proceed to the other tasks of Philosophy that we
mentioned above."[212]
Where
does this postulate come from that "God" originates
"everything"; where in the Bible? The Bible could also be
interpreted to mean that God gave the Earth to humans
(including creators) to use in their creativities, which
allows remuneration closer to origins and actually require
remunerations closer to origins.
"1.b. Two external-cosmic
approaches
According to his Word
revelation, God made the earth (the ‘earthly’ created
universe) in the beginning and it was good, very good indeed.
Let us call this (to borrow Calvin’s term) ‘the order of
creation’. In our current dispensation, the human being is a
sinner, however, and the world replete with evil."[213]
Stoker
explains that Dooyweerd for example wrote the law is in our
current human state "sine qua non". We can understand the
world (cosmos) from the good state before the fall into sin or
from the evil state after the fall into sin. After Jesus of
Nazareth's revelation the world was put on track to recover
into a good state. Stoker prefers to argue from 'the order of
creation', the good human state, which was a state of
creating; the fall into sin chronologically followed the
'good' human state in the beginning and we are on our way back
to such a state.[214]
The acknowledgement of the
te-al and of the religious ontic a priori (of the
cosmos (the world) and the human being respectively) is –
according to the Word of God – fundamental to the Calvinistic
life- and world-view and in casu to Calvinistic
Philosophy. This is our position in opposition to the a
priori of philosophers who depart from the belief
statement that the cosmos has always fundamentally (in
‘principial’ sense) been the way it currently is. This means
that their philosophies would have to be different from that
of Calvinists."[215]
"2.
Some Calvinistic answers to the ground-question
about the cosmos as cosmos
In approaching this problem
according to the order of creation, we selectively and
relevantly put aside the fact that God (in Christ) is the
Merciful, the Redeemer, the Re- creator, the Pre-destinator,
et cetera, and depart from the fact that God is the Creator,
the Law-giver, the Revealer, the Sovereign and Dispensator and
Completor of our created universe. There are still more such
relationships between God and cosmos, such as we find in the
notions of God as Love, as the Totally Good, the Omniscient,
the Omnipotent, and so on. Each of these relationships of God
with the cosmos casts a particular light on the cosmos as
cosmos, and helps us understand the cosmos as cosmos in a
particular respect. The Calvinistic philosopher has to take
account of all of them. But, when asking what the cosmos is
(in other words, what its fundamental nature and meaning could
be), the philosopher is confronted with the question which of
all these te-al a prioris of the cosmos is the most
encompassing for his / her philosophical task. An examination
of the nuances of Calvinistic Philosophy reveals in my opinion
only three answers to the principal key question, namely those
of the Philosophies of the Revelation Idea, the Cosmonomic
Idea and of the Creation Idea."[216]
2.b.
The Revelation Idea as Ground-Idea
The final key of knowledge
(including scientific knowledge) cannot be discovered in synthesis
(by the human selfness of the logical with the
non-logical, as propounded by Dooyeweerd with his
transcendental analysis of thought in the case of theoretical
— i.e. scientific — knowledge), but rather in revelation,
in the given-ness of the revealed, and the encounter with,
reception and exploitation of this given-ness by means of the
knowing ability of the human being. It is our contention that
we should not commence with a transcendental examination of
thinking / thought (the way Dooyeweerd did), but rather with a
diafanerotic examination of knowing and knowledge, and only
then in the light of the results of such examination proceed
to a transcendental examination of knowing as answering."[217]
"2.c. The law idea as
ground-idea
i. In our opinion, the
philosophical ground-idea of the cosmos is not the revelation
idea but rather the creation idea. The cosmos as cosmos is a
creation of God. In contrast to this, the Philosophy of the
Cosmonomic Idea (and in casu Dooyeweerd, to whose
criticism on our views regarding the creation idea we will
largely limit ourselves) posits the law idea as the
philosophical ground-idea."[218]
"It is particularly important in my opinion that,
in the case of difference of opinion among Calvinistic
philosophers, one should first attempt to determine what they
seem to agree about, and then to look at the differences, with
the things they agree about in the back of one’s mind. ...
Concerning
the
law idea, all Calvinists accept inter alia what God’s
Word reveals to us about the law (or rather the cosmic order /
ontic-order) of God; that God as absolute sovereign Legislator
and Sovereign has given the law for all of the cosmos, with no
exception; that the law may neither be absolutised nor
subjectivised; that the law (or cosmic-order) of God
constitutes a distinctive boundary between God and the cosmos
(matter, plant, animal and human being) that cannot be
transcended by the cosmos (including the human being)"[219]
"ii.Understanding
idea as ‘mode of being’ / modality, and law as
‘manner of actioning and functioning’, and by stating that
every science / discipline not only discovers and formulates
laws, but also should ascend through these laws to the ideas,
and from the ideas to the thoughts of God and even to God
Himself[220]
— a vision co-determined by Bavinck’s (in
my opinion, controversial) duality of ideality and reality —
results in a narrowing down of the law idea. The ‘modes of
being’ / the modalities are subject also to the will and law
of God."[221]
Under iii
Stoker discusses the "law-idea" of Vollenhoven. He does not
agree with Vollenhoven because Vollenhoven conceives three
parts in all; God, laws and cosmos. Stoker conceives of God as
"Creator and Law-giver" and the cosmos. The cosmos includes
all laws. Stoker postulates two parts in all. Stoker opines
his creation-idea encompasses the laws in the cosmos and is
therefore more encompassing than the law-idea.[222]
There is not enough distinctions, about the different natures
of different types of laws in the philosophies of Vollenhoven,
Dooyeweerd and Van Riessen to reflect reality.[223]
Popma developed "creation law as building plan", which Stoker
opines is a stretching of the law idea.[224]
Stoker opines the law-idea of Dooyeweerd as ground-idea found
its origin in the transcendental method.[225]
"Let me put it clearly: It
is obvious that all Calvinistic philosophers accept
revelation, law and creation the way they are
pre-scientifically revealed in God’s Word, and that the
particular ground-idea of the cosmos (the revelation-, law-
and creation-ideas) find their origins there. The problem that
we are dealing with here is: which of these three aspects
(revelation, law and creation — accepted by all) should be
regarded as the most encompassing and therefore the actual
ground-idea of Calvinistic Philosophy?"[226]
"For this grounding and
delineation of the ground-idea as creation (elicited from the
perceived in-self-sufficiency and law-subjectedness of the
cosmos, with its inclination to point towards God) I apply the
diafanerotic method.., and Dooyeweerd the transcendental
method (e.g. in his criticism of thought and of philosophical
systems, as well as in his philosophical grounding of the
law-idea as ground-idea). This does not contradict the fact
that Dooyeweerd’s conception of the law, and my conception of
the creation, both find their origins in our pre-scientific
faith in God’s Word revelation."[227]
Stoker
explains the debate between Dooyeweerd and him about the
relevance of the law-idea or the creation-idea as the
ground-idea of Calvinist philosophy.[228]
<self: In Clouser's book The myth of religious
neutrality he refuted the presupposition about a
ground-idea from which all philosophy grows as pagan
reduction. He postulated his non-reductionist theory of
reality as the starting point of science. Dooyeweerd primarily
influenced Clouser. The argument of Stoker about a ground-idea
is sufficiently refuted by Clouser, except for the fact that
they all used truth as their ground-idea. It could be argued
that their arguments are reduced to truths. Truths were the
common denominator, which served as arbiter for debates. What
type of truth should be prioritized? Correspondence primarily
and coherence as far as coherence is possible. Logically
coherence cannot be prioritized over correspondence because a
coherent cosmos cannot be a datum. A counter argument against
correspondence as first principle of science is value of
lives. What if correspondence causes predictions that nature
will destroy life, for example a prediction about an illness,
which will spread from individuals? In such cases individuals
are normally placed under quarantine to save the lives of
others. Correspondence we could argue disadvantaged
individuals in this example. It is best when regarding extreme
examples not to generalize. The first principle of science,
being truth, cannot be generalized to all circumstances. It
regards again the question whether there should be an
overarching idea above everything, which functions as starting
point of all philosophy? Maybe their should not be such an
overarching idea because it implies totalitarianism.>
"the distinction between
God, the totally self-sufficient, the absolute, totally wise,
totally good, omnipotent and sovereign Creator, and the
totally in-self-sufficient creaturely cosmos, depending in
everything on God and determined by God’s ontic order, in
other words, the cosmos as creation, is a positive distinction
between both of them. A negative limitation flows from this
perspective: the cosmos (matter, plant, animal and human
being) cannot transcend its in-self-sufficient and law-
subjected creatureliness; and God is not creaturely in any
sense. This perspective allows us to distinguish just as
keenly between a Calvinistic Philosophy that respects the creatureliness
of the cosmos as a totality and its radical diversity, and
other Philosophies that regard the cosmos or something in the
cosmos as independent and in opposition to God, in the process
absolutising it; but also between un-Christian
Philosophies, of which one for example sees reason
(Rationalism) and others something else as independent, or
absolutises it. Let me put this clearly: Dooyeweerd correctly
says that rationalists absolutise the law of reason; I would
add that they also absolutise reason itself; the creation idea
does justice to both forms of absolutisation (in their mutual
correlational complementation); the law-criterion only does
justice to one of them. By means of the creation idea, we can
likewise illustrate materialists’ absolutising of both matter
and the matter-law (in their mutual connectedness), whereas
the law-criterion only draws attention to their absolutising
of the matter-law."[229]
"Philosophy
has
the totality of created cosmos with its coherent radical
diversity as its field of investigation, it cannot, given this
mandate, slide down the trajectories of the special
disciplines. Regarding falling back into pre-scientific
thinking (I would rather say ‘knowing’) associated with naïve
experience, the philosopher should with his or her findings
and conclusions constantly return to the ‘given’ (the idions)
of ‘naïve experience’ for testing them; he or she may never
relinquish the connection with ‘naïve experience’, despite the
extent that they might differ from each other."[230]
<self:
The above quote means that Stoker did not prioritize coherence
above correspondence. He acknowledged the priority of
correspondence over our imperfect conceptions of coherence.
The first principle of science, which is prioritized above any
"ground-idea" are correspondences with realities.
Correspondences with realities can be confirmed by honest
agreements amongst more than one.>
The main
difference between Dooyeweerd and Stoker, according to Stoker
is Dooyeweerd's emphasis on Platonic transcendence and
Stoker's emphasis (fanerotic) on correspondences to material
realities.[231]
<self:
Possibly they did not realize that basically their approaches
are the same but that their conditions differed. Stoker
postulated correspondences (honesties) without realizing
necessary transcendent courage to be honest to God. Dooyeweerd
found his honest to God courage in transcendence. The crux is
honesties and the highest possible level of honesties and
truths, which can be attained through Platonic transcendence,
after devils started their isolations and alienations, after
having traced transcendence. The influence of devils differs
from situation to situation and consequential transcendence
differs from situation to situation in order to overcome
devils' influences. It is clear
that devils, exposed in the Republic, are not aware of the
disadvantages caused to society, by devils' sacrificing of
creativities, probably because of devils' methodologies to
attain financial security, which means, being out of touch
with wider societies' problems.[232]>
"Certainly if miracles be
the command over nature, they appear most in adversity."[233]
Griffioen
referred to knowledge about the "noodleuen", which is
currently studied in Korea.
Stoker
referred to the cosmos with "creation" and Dooyeweerd with
"meaning". Stoker opined the creation has meaning and the
creation is not meaning. Dooyeweerd replied it is not
important because they refer to the same thing. Dooyeweerd
also opined the name[234]
they use for the ground-idea of philosophy is not important.[235]
<self: It seems thus that the philosophers prioritized
different aspects of that, which are. Dooyeweerd prioritized
"meaning" of the creation and Stoker prioritized "being"
(noun) of the creation. Dooyeweerd's word is closer to truth
here because "being" of the creation (the all as datum) cannot
be perceived, but we can attach meanings to the creation.
Stoker uses an example about an apricot tree to explain his
argument and compares a tree with the all, which is not a
valid comparison. A tree's "being" can easily be perceived but
not the being of creation as all.[236]
"The difference between
actual existence and meaning persists, including when
continued meaning analysis of actual existence (events) make
use of meaning distinctions. For this reason, the actual
creation of an artwork remains an actual event"[237]
<self:
Stoker here use creation as a verb, which is good. At this
time of reading I started to think that Stoker and Dooyeweerd
used different approaches, which relates to their immanence
(Stoker) and transcendental (Dooyeweerd) methodologies.
Stoker's methodology is closer to mine because he tries to
find the meaning of everything, like Kant, whilst progressing
from correspondences to higher transcendental realizations.
Dooyeweerd, although he postulated transcendence as priority,
currently is not clear to me. If Dooyeweerd postulated
honesties, a result of his transcendental method, it would
place him in the same category of philosophers as Stoker
because Stoker prioritized correspondences. It is important
though, when looking at the two persons, which is not my
emphasis because i think it would be a perverted
anthropological approach, to know at what stage of pressure
will "noodleuens" become relevant for them.
"In sum: in my opinion, the
tree (in other words, the cosmos) is not meaning, but
possesses meaning (in other words, the cosmos has meaning).
According to Dooyeweerd, the tree (in other words, the cosmos)
is meaning."[238]
<self:
The "gelykenis" between a tree and the cosmos is wrong,
because the objects of thought are totally different as part
(tree) and whole (cosmos). It seems not Stoker nor Dooyeweerd
realized this. Stoker emphasized throughout his book the term
"in-self-sufficient"[239],
meaning "creaturely" cosmos, "inside" self-sufficient God. God
being divinely independent is "all around"[240]
the dependent cosmos, in which we are dependent.[241]
Maybe "dependent" (cosmos) and "independent" (God) explains
better what Stoker meant.>
"But
we
should also take care not to relativise this relationship
between God and cosmos. Because then we would be inclined to
speak of the distinction between God and cosmos in relative
terms, such as more or less. Panentheism (the doctrine that
everything — including the cosmos — is in God) and
Panencosmism (the doctrine that everything — including God —
is in the cosmos), for instance, both relativise the
distinction between God and cosmos, despite acknowledging God
as the higher, and the rest as the lower part (in respectively
God or the cosmos)."[242]
"All
of
this requires further penetrative and encompassing inquiry —
that will have to continue into the distant future, because
the issue of the cosmos as cosmos (including its nature and
meaning) and its concomitant Origin, origin and boundary
issues will remain unfathomable. However, in the meantime, the
external-cosmic vision provides us with the insight that the
cosmos was created by God and that it points towards the
Archê, the Origin, God, in its creaturely, in-self- sufficient
law-subjectedness."[243]
"This
vision
allows us to see the cosmos as it really and truly is, and
prevents us from derailings such as we detect in Philosophies
that, for instance and inter alia, see the cosmos (or
something in the cosmos) as self-sufficient, in the process
absolutising it, or relativising or ‘essentially’ wiping out
the differences between God and cosmos."[244]
<self:
I think Stoker contradicts himself here because elsewhere he
said we cannot envisage the cosmos as it is.>
"With
the
aid of the external-cosmic vision of the cosmos as creation we
now have to examine the cosmos from the inside out
(internal-cosmic). For such an internal-cosmic investigation,
it seems to me essential for us to repeatedly commence with
the concrete reality, to constantly bear in mind the
connection with the concrete, and verify the results of our
investigations by referring back to the concrete reality. ...
This
is hardly possible in terms of Dooyeweerd’s epistemological
doctrine of ‘Gegenstand’. See my article on Die
kosmiese dimensie van gebeurtenisse in this vol II
of O EN R. Also H. van Riessen does not accept
Dooyeweerd’s view of ‘Gegenstand’."[245]
<self:
This is a Kantian approach because Stoker accepts the primary
transcendental truth about importance of correspondence as
first principle of normal science. Enquiries about
"noodleuens" are not applicable to normal science.>
a. Hapantic qualifications should be
distinguished from cosmic dimensions (about which more later).
Hapantic qualifications pertain to the cosmos in its entirety.
Greek: hapas (all together) is a strong form of pas
(each). Cosmic dimensions pertain to the whole of the
cosmos from a particular side or perspective; hapantic
qualifications have to do with the entire cosmos.
b. If we allow our eye to roam over the cosmos,
we will perceive127,
or encounter: a large number of idions128
among
which (in alphabetical order) actions, apples, chairs,
colours, emotions, gnats, human beings, movements, sounds,
states, thoughts, wishes, words, and so on. (The circumstance)
that the cosmos consists of idions is a hapantic
qualification."[246]
a. The key to the philosophical understanding of
the cosmos, namely the ground-idea of Philosophy, is that the
cosmos as cosmos (as a totality in all its different
components and aspects) is a creation of God that cannot exist
on its own (independently), but depends in its creaturely,
in-self-sufficient and law-determined ‘own-stance’ /
‘selfstandingness’ for everything on its Origin and in doing
so, points beyond itself to its Origin."[247]
"a. This
stone (an idion) is b. spatially extensive (an
idion), it moves (an idion), has weight / mass (an idion), is
blue (an idion), and so on. a. This rose (an idion),
b. is spatial (an idion), physical-chemical (an
idion), lives (an idion), grows (an idion), is red (an idion),
is beautiful (an idion), and so on. a. This dog (an
idion), b. lives (an idion), barks (an idion), runs
(an idion), is intelligent (an idion), and so on. a. This
human being (an idion), b. has a body (an idion),
enjoys (an idion), thinks (an idion), speaks (an idion), buys
(an idion), loves (an idion), wills (an idion), marries (an
idion), governs (an idion), and so on."[248]
<self: Any word is also an idion according to this
quotation. Previously i thought idions are only definitions
without the specific words being defined. A word can have
different definitions but one definition cannot be the same as
another definition. Previously Stoker wrote idions are unique
and "radically different" if i remember correctly.>
"An examination of the idions mentioned under b
reveals that they all respectively pertain to the idions
mentioned under a. We therefore call them appertaining
idions. ... Appertaining
idions
are not characteristics only. ... We cannot, however, say the same of the idions
mentioned under a, i.e. that they belong or pertain to
other idions since each of them constitutes its own compact
(but not isolated133) whole, each has a compact (not independence but
rather) ‘own stance / own thereness’. We call them
idiostances. ... I
previously used the term ‘substances’ for ‘idiostances’. I
return to this point later."[249]
<self:
This is where i read and concluded that Stoker gave a name,
"idiostances" to the distinctions and forms of "matter",
"plant", "animal" and "human" of Aristotle.>
"This is indeed a serious point of difference.
According to him, the cosmos has an internal- cosmic centre;
in my view – from the perspective of the order of creation –
the cosmos does not have any such centre. The difference is
that in my opinion – according to the order of fall into sin
(evil) and redemption (recreation) – Christ is King but not
the Centre of the cosmos, and according to the order of
creation, the human being is the head and not the (subjective)
centre of the cosmos, whereas Dooyeweerd has developed a
Christocentrically founded anthropocentric view of the cosmos.
This is indeed a serious difference about foundations that
co-determines the broad outlines of the construction of these
two philosophical approaches."[250]
"We are dealing here, according to God’s Word,
with a sequence. God initially created his creation good, very
good indeed, but then sin and evil made their entry into it.
With his redemptive death, Christ in principle saved the human
being from sin, and recreated the cosmos, in the process
bringing about a new order, ‘renewing’ all things. With his
kindness (or ‘general grace’) God still maintains his
creation. This tells us that we have to begin with the ‘order
of creation’, and only then should we examine the creation (in
casu the cosmos) according to the ‘order of sin (and
evil) and redemption (and recreation)’. Beginning with the
latter would have made a difference because with the latter
Christ receives a particular emphasis, which is not the case
in terms of the former because there the cosmos (matter,
plant, animal and human being) is placed in an immediate
relationship with the Triune God. In other words, a Philosophy
would then be primarily theocentric (and only secondarily
Christocentric); in the latter case, a Philosophy would be
primarily Christocentric (and only secondarily theocentric)."[251]
"When we turn our attention to the radical
diversity of appertaining idions, it strikes us that
some are particular and others universal in
nature. In my opinion, this distinction provides us with the
key for ‘seeing’ the (apparent) labyrinth of cosmic diversity
as a survey-able garden in which we can wander around."[252]
"We refer to this universal diversity as cosmic
dimensions. ... We can also see them as universal facets (or,
less appropriately, as universal sides) of the cosmos. We do
not refer to them as universal aspects of the cosmos because
‘aspect’ is only an aspect for the person that observes,
offering only a vision from a particular orientation and not a
full-blown ontic survey provided by the cosmos itself. Each
cosmic dimension allows us to see the entire cosmos (the
entire created universe), and therefore also matter and plant
and animal and human being, from a specific facet or side, and
can therefore be regarded as universal."[253]
"Dooyeweerd distinguishes between three dimensions
of the horizon of human experience, viz. of time, modality and
individuality structure. We distinguish four cosmic
dimensions, viz. modality, events, (individual and social)
idiostantic structures, and values. Dooyeweerd and we have two
in common, viz. of modality and individuality (or rather
idiostantic) structures. Whereas we distinguish between
modality and events, Dooyeweerd allows them to coincide and
conflate; according to him, modality and meaning-dynamic
should be seen as distinctions within the dimension of
modalities (aspects or meaning-sides of the cosmos). In our
opinion, time is not a separate dimension, as in Dooyeweerd’s
case. In our opinion, time is revealed in the context of the
cosmic dimension of events; where in concreto we find
an event (the dynamic, also embracing the static) there is
also time; where in concreto we find time, there is
also event."[254]
"The first question to address is: which
radically distinguishable (irreducible) modalities (or ‘modal
‘law-spheres’) can be discerned? The reply of the Philosophy
of the Cosmonomic Idea is: fourteen (Dooyeweerd
proposed a fifteenth), namely the arithmetical (number), the
spatial (extensity), the physical (movement) — in Dooyeweerd’s
opinion: movement and energy — the biotic (life), the psychic
(feeling), the logical (analytical), the historic (cultural
development), the lingual (language or symbolic signage), the
social (intercourse), the economic (saving), the aesthetic
(beauty, harmony), the juridical (retribution), the moral /
ethical (love in temporal relationships) and the pisteutic
(faith)."[255]
" ...
We therefore retain twelve — coherent, but
radically distinctive — modal spheres (or modalities), namely
number, space, the ‘physical’, the biotic, (or ‘life’), the
‘psychic’, and then three that cohere in a particular sense:
the logical, the lingual and the aesthetic; then another three
that particularly cohere: the economic, the juridical and the
ethical; and then, finally, worship. There might of course be
more than these twelve mutually and radically distinctive
modal spheres or modalities. For the time being, we ‘see’ only
these twelve."[256]
<self:
Stoker's "modalities" are called aspects in Clouser's The Myth
of religious neutrality.>
"To stay with this example: in our opinion,
taking care of / caring for the other (person) is the
fundamental nature of the moral / ethical152.
Taking care of / having concern for the person embraces both
the ethically / morally good (compliance with the ethical law
requiring one to love one’s fellow human being as one loves
oneself), in other words love for the person, as well as the
ethically / morally bad, i.e. unlove for the person ( ethical
or moral behaviour that does not comply with the stipulations
of the ethical / moral law)."[257]
"Feeling, as such, belongs to the psychic modal
sphere whereas a feeling of physical power and of vitality
refers beyond itself to lower (in terms of the hierarchy)
modal spheres, and logical feeling, linguistic feeling,
artistic feeling, juridical feeling, ethical feeling and so on
refer to higher (in terms of hierarchy) modal spheres. Such
references to lower spheres are referred to as retrocipations,
whereas references to higher spheres are known as
anticipations."[258]
...
a.
Any examination of events has to commence with idiostances." [259]
<self: This totalitarian type prescription is
a generalization, which can be doubted unless proof of its
truth is seen.>
"b.
In the second place, we have to examine the coherent diversity
of the law-order for dynamic events in matter, plant, animal
and humankind."[260]
"
It strikes us that in the cosmic dimension of events we can
also distinguish two directions — regarding events, namely
causes (dynamic designations a tergo) and purposes
(dynamic designations ad finem)."[261]
"
The cosmic dimension of modalities is subject (as the
Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea has correctly indicated) to
respectively the principles of ‘sphere sovereignty’ and
‘sphere- universality’."[262]
"
f. Finally we encounter time in the cosmic dimension of
events. The entire cosmos is conditioned by time"[263]
"
At any rate, where there is time, there is event; where there
is event, there is also time. We can know event and time (in
their differences as well as in their internal coherence) to a
certain degree only by approaching it from the cosmic
dimension of events. The cosmic dimension of modalities cannot
reveal time to us."[264]
"
Because we cannot separate cosmic dimensions and because one
cosmic dimension refers to another, we have to find out how
the cosmic dimension of modalities (in modally qualified
fashion) refers to events and therefore also to time, such as
we find in, for example, the sequence of premise and
conclusion in logical argument, or in the functional
determination of the moral result of a human act
following a moral motive."[265]
"Our
outline
of what we could encounter in terms of the cosmic dimension of
(individual and social) idiostantic structures has been
sketchy; its purpose was mainly to help us discover the
relevant issues rather than trying to solve them. In the
process, we have seen that this is a huge field that awaits
intensive and extensive examination"[267]
" a. We already noted that structuredness is a
hapantic qualification of the cosmos. Our discussion of the
cosmic dimension of (individual and social) idiostantic
structures has to begin once again with the concrete
idiostances — matter, plant, animal and human being — more to
the point, with an investigation into their structuredness."[268]
<self: At 6 (events) i mentioned a negative side to
totalitarian prescriptions but here my thoughts moved to a
positive side, which relates to cooperation and agreement
because if we do not start our investigations at the same
point, it could exclude comparison and consequential
confirmation by agreement.>
"b.i.
We
commence by considering some of the distinctions made by the Philosophy
of
the Cosmonomic Idea. From an idiostantic-structural
viewpoint, we can distinguish between matter, plant, animal
and human being as radical types. In plants and
animals, we can distinguish genotypes within each
radical type. We can also distinguish variability (or
‘pheno-’) types in plants, animals and human beings."[269]
" One side cannot be isolated from the other. We should
therefore not understand a human being primarily as either an
individual ‘being’, or primarily as a social ‘being’; he or
she is an individual- social particularity.
It
is clear from the above, that ‘social’ should be understood as
a relationship (a structural stipulation) among idiostances, in
casu among human beings; that the social is no modal
capacity (a mode of being), and that we should not search for
it in the cosmic dimension of modalities, but rather in that
of idiostantic structures."[270]<self:
This is an important distinction from Clouser's modalities
(aspects), which includes a social modality. It seems that in
Clouser's work society was prioritized above individuality. It
could thus be argued that societal Caiaphas syndrome could
originate easier from Clouser's theory of reality. Stoker
ascribed social dynamics to plant and animal life as well but
Clouser ascribed social dynamics only to human life between
his economic and linguistic aspects.[271]
The social aspect (modality), which does not appear in
Stoker's theory as modality, relates to the fiduciary aspect,
which also do not appear in Stoker's theory but does appear in
Clouser's theory. Clouser states that the importance of the
fiduciary (honesties and trust) aspect; his highest aspect,
relates to societal security because when trust falters
society "disintegrate rapidly"[272].
An expectation that inclusion of a social modality could
invoke societal Caiaphas syndrome is thus repudiated by
specifying the congruence between human societal and fiduciary
aspects. Stoker's highest aspect is a religious[273]
aspect, which it seems does not include anthropomorphic
(centric) trust. This difference between Clouser's and
Stoker's ontologies could relate to thoughts about honest God,
because Stoker differed primarily from Dooyeweerd, Van Peursen
and Others because of "Christocentric" "anthropocentric"[274]
philosophies. Concluded that Caiaphas syndrome is more
prevalent from Stoker's ontology. Caiaphas syndrome is
identified when accusations are made that an "Other" thinks
"he" or "she" is the "Father", or "Mother" of God or "God
Himself Who cannot lie"[275].>
"We
may
refer to the symbiosis among plants and animals (such as
plant- and animal colonies, the parasitical coexistence of
host and guest, etc.) as ‘social’"[276]
<self: Parasitic relationships in Clouser's social aspect
relates to the Caiaphas syndrome and the Eucharist. Apparently
Roman Catholics accused Protestants during the reformation
that Protestants believed they have to sin purposefully to
show they believe in the grace of God. This Protestant belief
was part of a general movement in Europe at the time, which
can be identified with wills to power as explained by
Machiavelli and Hobbes. When the 'Creator's' 'body' is eaten
and 'His' 'blood' is drank, as methodology of survival, only
part of society benefits from the trading of goods and
imparting of ideas, which is motivated with the symbolism,
relating to Jesus's mantic behavior at the temple's[277]
market. I identify with this experience of Jesus personally
because from 1999 to 2001, i shared knowledge and ideas about
exorbitant profits, relating to Chinese goods to the market.
My ideas included transferring part of the profits to
consumers, via lower prices and new trading relationships. At
that time most goods were imported via monopoly agents.
Consequentially, i was excommunicated, like "Lucifer" and my
life has been hell from 1999 onwards. This heuristic
experience has much academic value for research, relating to
accounting of ideas, but currently academics who accepted
Aristotle's deceiving methodology, dismissed me from paid
academic life, partly because they accused me of thinking i am
"God, like Jesus". It is no fallacy that honest people are
sacrificed by societies, because of societies' Caiaphas
syndromes.
"The
state
as an idiostantic structure is therefore an inherently
coherent unity of vertical, dynamic and horizontal
structural qualification. ... I learnt the method of a vertical structural
analysis of a social relationship from the Philosophy of
the Cosmonomic Idea. But because this Philosophy (in
casu Dooyeweerd) conflates the modally fixed and
dynamic, the dynamic structural unity of a social
relationship can hardly become a particular problem (i.e.
different from a structure-analytical problem); this
Philosophy does not, in fact, accept the cosmic dimension of
events. In this Philosophy, the horizontal structural
unity of a social relationship is approached from the vertical
and therefore cannot be done justice to; this is evident from
its analysis of authority. ... What we see here with respect to the state, we
will find mutatis mutandis also in the case of other
human social / societal structures or relationships; not only
in those of human beings, but also in those of the other
idiostances.."[278]
It could
be argued that the necessity and "dogmatic" requirements about
trust got lost in Stoker's horizontal and dynamic dimensions.
Post-modern wills to power against societies' interests is a
result. Nietzsche showed parts of
societies accept not, in contrast with Kant, necessities about
"dogmatic" truths as one of God's commandments.[279]
The simple one-sided
vertical structure of Clouser's theory highlights prioritized[280]
honesties and trust as the highest "Christocentric"
"anthropocentric" aspect. Stoker is correct when he implies
with his philosophy that Jesus of Nazareth is not the center
and that God has more content than only Jesus. Stoker's
philosophy however gives not justice to the priority of the
concept, truths, due to non-anthropocentrism.
Honesties
and consequential creating, which is important in the long
term, to stay in a territory and to not be colonized, is not
enhanced with the symbolism of the Eucharist, partly because
of its anti-humanistic[281]
stance. My statement can be read together with Wolterstorff's
statement: "Gratitude springs from enjoying and finding
beneficial the creatures and creations around you"[282]
(Read note), and Matthew
26: 29: "I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the
vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you
in my Father's kingdom.">
"c.ii. As far as the dynamic idiostantic structural
unity is concerned — and once again, we will
limit our attention to the human being — we note that the
unity of the human person is determined by hereditary,
environmental and milieu factors, by his or her specific
talents and ‘experience’, and by his or her inherited or
acquired character traits, the complex interplay of
endogenous, dynamic factors (including e.g. that of
inclination, feeling, will, intelligence, etc.), and in which
the initiative of his or her ego as well as servitude to
certain factors, and so on, should be recognized. We are not
dealing here with everything revealed by the cosmic dimension
of events as such but only with the dynamic idiostantic
structural unity thereof, in other words, with the dynamic
structural unity of a particular human being."[283]
<self: This quotation relates to my thoughts that certain
pathological conditions for example manic depression relates
to inherent honesties, which could be related to phylogenetic,
family-cultural, early forming years of children and "reason
as queen"[284].
Augustine's involvement with Manichaeism was explained as
follows by Venter[285]:
" In his earliest works after his
conversion (like the Soliloquia), he showed a considerable
trust in reason. All he wanted, he said, was rational
knowledge of God and the soul. Probably because he was
confronted with the Manicheans (he had a dear friend who
belonged to this sect), Augustine realised that the ideal of
rational knowledge of God and the soul was not a totally safe
one for a Christian. The Manicheans pretended to be Christians
and also to have rational knowledge of God. ... Through this
debate, probably, Augustine shifted his position somewhat,
stressing faith as the starting point of all knowledge.
In a letter to his
Manichean friend, which he published as a booklet entitled On
the Advantage of Believing, he stresses that all
rational insights have their starting point in God's authority."
Socrates
had the following to say:
"But it is worthwhile to
adduce the point that among the ancients too those who gave
things their names did not regard madness as shameful or a
matter for reproach; otherwise they would not have connected
this very word with the finest of the sciences, that by which
the future is judged, and named it “manic”. No, they gave it
this name thinking madness a fine thing, when it comes by
divine dispensation; whereas people now crudely throw in the
extra t and call it “mantic”. So too when the ancients gave a
name to the investigation which sane men make of the future by
means of birds and the other signs which they use, they called
it “oionoistic”, because its proponents in a rational way
provide insight (nous) and information (historia) for human
thinking (oiēsis); while the modern generation now call it
“oiōnistic”, making it more high-sounding with the long o. So
then the ancients testify to the fact that god-sent madness is
a finer thing than man-made sanity, by the degree that mantic
is a more perfect and more valuable thing than oionistic, both
when name is measured against name, and when effect is
measured against effect."[286]
"The
office
connected with authority is a structural principle of a
particular social / communal relationship. In terms of its
structure, the particular relationship/group requires persons
bearing authority and others obedient to authority. The
relationship of authority forms an inherent ‘ingredient’ of
the creaturely order of the particular social/communal
relationship / group as such."[287]
<self:
It seems the concept of authority in Stoker's philosophy is
prioritized over the concept truths because of his emphasis on
"mandator Dei"[288].
Clouser's theory however includes truths as concept in his
fiduciary highest aspect as natural check on powers of human
authority. I believe Locke emphasized truths and the right to
revolution when authorities have lost their respect, in
contrast to Kant, for truths.
The
reason for the difference between Stoker's and Clouser's
philosophy can partly be found in Stoker's interpretations
about singular wills to power in postmodern philosophy and
Jewish religion. In Stoker's philosophy one of his two
principles of the dimensions is " 'freedom according to
its competence' ". This includes "unbridled activity",
which logically postulates despotic rulers, not bridled by
truths.[289]
I assume it relates to religious superstitions about a 2nd
coming and a messiah, which history has shown is false, due to
the weakness of singularity. In
Altizer, Spirit is antithesis of Jesus of Nazareth due to a
dialectical development of Spirit from being peaceful to
having wills to immanent power. The "death of God" implies
death of God of the beyond to become ones again, immanent in
this world.[290]
"a We begin once again with concrete matter, plant,
animal and humankind. They are good or bad, depending on what
they are or what they do. The qualification ‘good’ and ‘bad’
are called values. Values can be either positive (‘good’) or
negative / worthless (‘bad’). We already posited (in section
C.4.b.vii.) that the entire cosmos (matter, plant, animal and
humankind) shares in value (positive and / or negative value).
Values also form a universal side of the cosmos. There is a
cosmic dimension of values.
The
above
implies the ontic existence of values. They also exist
independently from human knowledge
or desire. Theories that subjectivise values as
such by regarding them as dependent on human knowledge or
desire (and even will) are mistaken. ... Values may not be
‘autonomised’ (made independent) and still less be
absolutised; they enjoy no independent and absolute existence,
such as for instance has been supposed to be the case in the
speculative Platonic realm of ideas."[292]
"e.
Values
(both positive and negative) are not principles
.., but
rather ‘endings’, in other words, resulting qualifications of
whether a bearer has met with the requirements of its own
fundamental nature, its destination and law, or not. Values as
such can therefore not serve as criteria or measures for human
actions. Compliance with the fundamental nature (among which
principles), destination and law are the true criteria for
that. Norms or ‘complying with the law’ should therefore never
be mistaken for values / identified with values."[293]
Stoker
groups "irrational" with trust in "progression" as value, a
negative concept.[294]
This belief of Stoker places him in the same category of
philosopher as Rousseau and Aristotle, who is against
creativities. The "Creator" logically then becomes an
incorporeal God. Rulers are despotic agents who rule on his
and his society's behalf creators infringe on the monopoly of
God to create. His philosophy motivates imparting of ideas and
utilitarian development. It seems now i can be sure that
Stoker's belief is against accounting of ideas.
"The
human
being is accountable, responsible and destined to be free, and
in these respects find him- or herself subject to norms
(injunctions, cultural norms) which they can either obey or
disobey. Matter, plant and animal, on the other hand, are not
accountable, responsible and destined to be free182
and are subject to natural laws that they cannot
transgress."[297]
"The
human
being who totally and absolutely yields to matter, plant,
animal and the human being, creates idols of these creatures
of God. For this and other reasons, it has always disturbed me
when somebody regards religion as part of culture. However, it
is clear that we have to distinguish between religion in the
form of liturgical or cultic worship and religion in a wider
sense."[298]
"The theory of the law-order is known as Nomology. It
can be developed as a separate philosophical discipline. In
their task and in their subjectedness to the normative
law-order, human beings find themselves faced with duties,
among which the overarching duty of fulfilling a calling. This
theory regarding duty is known as Deontology. This also
deserves to be developed as a separate philosophical
discipline."[299]
"Three
points
are relevant here: a. the cosmos finds its origin (as
total cosmos) in God; God is Creator, Legislator, Maintainer,
Ruler, Guide and Omega of the entire cosmos; b. in
its in-self-sufficiency, creatureliness and law-
subjectedness, the cosmos points beyond itself to God; c.
the epicentre or absolute nodal point / unison of the
cosmos is trans-cosmic (external to itself); the cosmos is
therefore centred — radically, theocentrically — in the Triune
God."[301]
"
as we pre-supposed — that the cosmos as coherence of radical
diversity ex origine, in other words, right from the
beginning, has to be viewed in the light of the totality of
the cosmos in a primary sense, in other words, as a creation
of God. Obviously, this brings us to the limits of human
knowledge (and in casu to that of philosophical
inquiry). Accepting the cosmos as a creation of God is only
possible on the grounds of a religious faith action aimed at
and bounded in by the Word revelation of God. ... One has to
be God himself[302]
to be able to fathom this mystery."[303]
<self:
The power ascribed to Scripture to give us access to a
realistic view of the cosmos is maybe not from Scripture.
Where in Scripture was it written that studying of Scripture
will give us a realistic view of the cosmos and that this view
can be used as presupposition for all other science? We can
however abstract truths as a concept from Scripture as first
principle of science.>
Being
(noun with capital B) refers to God's transcendent side and
being (present participle verb with lower case b) refers to
humans' beings. Realized when reading Stoker[304].
"We
should,
however, not forget that the creation exists of the heaven
(with the angels) and the earth (the cosmos), that heaven and
earth parted ways but will be reunited in the new
dispensation. The totality of God’s creation therefore
embraces more than the totality of only the cosmos."[305]
"The
cosmos
consists of mutual (connected in many ways) idiostances, but
is itself no idiostance. Let me say this as follows: the
primary totality of the cosmos is ‘formal’ but that of an
idiostance ‘material’. The primary totality of an idiostance
is essentially a ‘materially’ intrinsic, integral whole. The
cosmos as creation, as primary totality, forms a ‘formal’
unity of mutually connected and intertwined idiostances
(creatures); it does not form a super-idiostance."[306]
"I
did
not construe a metaphysical concept, did not search for
metaphysical being with my substance concept; in other words,
I did not lapse into speculation; I did not search for any
hidden being, hidden power, substantial core, ontic unit
behind, above or outside of creative reality. I only attempted
to examine and describe matter, plant, animal and the human
being as they reveal themselves to us."[307]
"
I learnt much (with careful distinction) from Von Scheler, but
I fail to see in my substance concept in those times any
Schelerian after- effects, and also any irrationalistic
features."[308]
"
the appertaining idions appear to be categorised into the four
cosmic dimensions (of modalities, events, individual and
social idiostantic structures, and values)."[309]
"Our
Calvinistic
Philosophy is still so very young — barely older than
three-quarters of a century — and there is still immensely
much to do. But — I am convinced — its inevitability has been
understood; Calvinistic Philosophy has come to stay. May it
persist into the distant future with its quest for the truth!"[310]
"Bavinck se ontologie"
"Word ‘mens’ as ’n deel van die
kosmos beskou, dan bly vir Bavinck uiteindelik net twee
werklikhede oor, naamlik God en kosmos. Hy huldig dus ’n
twee-faktor of dualistiese ontologie (vgl. Bavinck 1908[311]:17–18,
waar
Bavinck Skepper en skepping onderskei: God is transendent,
maar nie van die kosmos geskei nie. Hy is ook immanent in die
skepping)."[312]
"Thomistiese invloede"
"Thomas van Aquino (1224–1274)
onderskei ook net tussen God en kosmos en hy plaas die wette
(of wat Bavinck ‘beginsels’ noem) ante rem in God, in
rebus in die geskape werklikheid en post rem in
die menslike rede."[313]
"Dit is bekend dat die logosspekulasie by die figure
wat Stoker noem (bv. Woltjer, Hepp asook Bavinck) ’n
belangrike rol gespeel het. Soos hierbo genoem, is God die
hoogste Logos wat die logoi spermatikoi (redekieme) in die
dinge inskep, wat dan deur die mens se logos (rede) uit die
dinge geabstraheer word om logiese kennis te bereik. Deur die
goddelike kieme in die skepping openbaar God homself. Hierdie
goddelike openbaring (in die dinge en in die menslike
verstand) verseker dat daar ooreenstemming tussen die kenbare
en die kenresultaat by die kenner sal wees, dat ware kennis
gevind is.
Hierdie skolastieke
invloede op Bavinck is deur talle latere teoloë erken."[314]
"In Vollenhoven (2000:257)[315] word die filosofie van Bavinck,
as grondslag van sy teologie, soos volg beskryf: Hy hoort tot
die finale neo-idealistiese stroming binne die latere
rasionalisme. Sy tipe filosofie word volgens Vollenhoven se
probleem-historiese metode beskryf as louter kosmologies,
dualisties, ’n Aristoteles-interpretasie, vertikale
gedeeltelike universalisme en Platoniserende
subsistensieteorie."[316] "
"Natuur-genade-tema"
"Ek kry die indruk dat Bavinck nie
so sterk as by Thomas ’n ontologiese vervolmaking van die
natuur deur die genade gehuldig het nie, maar meer ’n
religieuse vernuwing – ’n meer Bybelse visie dus. Die regte
oplossing sou myns insiens egter gewees het om die hele
natuur-genade en geloof-wete dualisme te verwerp."[317]
"Bavinck oor teologie en
filosofie"
"In ooreenstemming met
tweërlei openbaring en sy rede- geloof onderskeid aanvaar
Bavinck ook twee teologieë: ’n theologia naturalis (waarin
die rede belangrik is) en ’n theologia supernaturalis (waarin
geloof ter sprake kom). Laasgenoemde is ’n studie van God soos
Hy Homself in sy Woord geopenbaar het, terwyl eersgenoemde die
skepping in sy verhouding tot God bestudeer."[318]
"Gevolgtrekking"
"Bavinck was nie
genoegsaam bewus van die gevare van die sintesedenke van die
Thomisme en Thomisties- gekleurde Gereformeerde Ortodoksie van
ongeveer 1550– 1700 en selfs daarna nie. Dit het sy
reformatoriese bedoeling ongelukkig ernstig belemmer."[319]
"Tweefaktor ontologie
se implikasies"
"Dit wil lyk of al
verskil tussen Stoker en Bavinck is dat Stoker nie, soos
Bavinck, by die teologie langer ’n onderskeid tussen ’n
bonatuurlike en natuurlike teologie maak nie. Stoker vat wat
Bavinck onderskei het (God se openbaring oor homself as veld
vir ’n bonatuurlike teologie en sy verhouding tot die kosmos
as ’n natuurlike teologie) saam tot die dubbele veld van één
teologie."[320]
"Aangesien daar vanuit die ander kringe van die
reformatoriese filosofie in Nederland en elders reeds
indringende kritiek op Stoker se visie op die onderskeie take
van filosofie en teologie gelewer is, word hier nie verder
daarop ingegaan nie. Veral Stoker se gedagte dat ander
Christenwetenskaplikes (filosowe ingesluit) nie selfstandig ’n
eie eksegese van die Skrif mag maak nie, maar dit van die
teologie moet leen, is wyd en skerp in dié tradisie
veroordeel. Dit skep die indruk dat Stoker sy Christelike
filosofie op ’n Christelike teologie wou fundeer, terwyl ander
reformatoriese denkers presies die omgekeerde beklemtoon het,
naamlik dat elke teologie nolens volens van
filosofiese vooronderstellings uitgaan."[321]
"Mensbeskouing"
"Uit dieselfde opstel oor
die mens as beeld van God blyk ook duidelik hoe Stoker deur
die Thomistiese leer van die analogia entis beïnvloed
is. Die beeldskap van God sou volgens hom wel nie op
’n egte analogiese verhouding tussen God en mens dui
nie, maar dit bly nogtans ’n soort analogie. Nuwere insigte in
die Skrif toon egter aan dat so ’n visie op die beeldskap nie
volgens die Bybel regverdigbaar is nie (vgl. Van der Walt
2010a:325 e.v.)[322]
" [323]
"Geen isolasie nie
Dit is ook nie waar dat
reformatoriese filosowe niks van buitestanders wou leer nie.
Reformatoriese denkers dink wel duidelik antisinteties,
omdat hulle ’n werklike bybels- georiënteerde, Christelike
filosofie voorstaan, maar beslis nie antiteties nie.
Soos duidelik uit die voorafgaande bladsye oor byvoorbeeld
Stoker blyk, kon hulle, omdat almal van hulle ook kinders van
hulle eie tyd was, egter nie volledig daarin slaag om hulle
van vreemde, selfs nie-bybelse invloede te bevry nie."[324]
The study
guide was changed by e-mail from Ms. Jacobs on 10 September
2013
Uitkoms:
Na afloop
van hierdie leereenheid sal studente instaat wees om die
konsep "transendentale analise en kritiek" wat 'n prominente
rol binne die (veral Dooyeweerd se) Reformatoriese filosofie
speel, te kan verduidelik, evalueer en toepas.
Dooyeweerd
se transendentale krítiek
Primêre
teks
(a)
DOOYEWEERD, H. 1948. Transcendental problems of philosophic
thought. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. pp. 15-26 & 29-60.)
[39p.]
(b)
DOOYEWEERD, H. 1996. Christian philosophy: An Exploration.
Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press. pp. 1-23.
Werksopdrag
·
Skryf (met
verwysing ook na informasie in die sekondêre tekste) 'n
opsomming en kritiek van ongeveer 1000 woorde van teks (b)
hierbo. [Teks (a) is 'n ouer weergawe van dieselfde tema.
Studente moet defnitief (a) ook deurlees omdat dit op sommige
punte meer verduidelikend is. 'n Goeie opsomming sal inderdaad
albei bronne aanhaal.]
·
Die sin
daarvan om die teks in ongeveer drie bladsye op te som en
kritiseer, is om jou te oefen in die kuns om die inhoud
(hoofargument) van 'n teks raak te vat en reg te interpreteer
- d.i. om tot die essensie deur te boor en om jou te dwing om
ekonomies te kan formuleer.
·
Sorg asb.
dat jou naam, studentenommer en die besonderhede van die teks
waaroor die opsomming / kritiek handel, bo-aan die werkstuk
verskyn. Maak 'n rekenaaruitdruk van die opdrag en handig dit
nie later as ongeveer 'n week ná die kontakgeleentheid in.
Evaluering
en uitbou van Dooyeweerd se transendentale metode
Die
transendentale posisie en argumentering
RORTY, R.
1982. Professionalized philosophy and transcendentalist
culture. [11 p.]
TAYLOR, C.
1995. The validity of transcendental arguments. (In Taylor, C.
Philosophical arguments. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, pp. 20-33.) [14p.]
Verduideliking
en kritiek van Dooyeweerd se transendentale kritiek
ZUIDERVAART,
L. 2004. The great turning point: religion and rationality in
Dooyeweerd's transcendental critique. Faith and Philosophy,
21(1):65-89. [17p.]
GEERTSEMA,
H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental critique: transforming
it hermeneutically. (In Strauss, D.F.M. & Sotting, M. eds.
Contemporary reflections on the philosophy of Herman
Dooyeweerd. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, pp. 83-108)
[23p.]
KNUDSEN, R.
Transcendental method in Dooyeweerd. pp. 301-309
KNUDSEN, R. The
religious foundation of Dooyeweerds transcendental method. p.
311-326
KNUDSEN, R.
Dooyeweerd's philosophical method. pp. 327-349.
Answer
Summary
and critique of Dooyeweerd's Christian philosophy
Introduction
Background
Dooyeweerd uses the Bible and Western
philosophy with much emphasis on Kant as bases to construct
his Christian philosophy. He however rejects Kant's
philosophy and he gave as reason the usual critique that
Kant placed human reason above God. This usual critique that
Dooyeweerd shares with empiricists is false because Kant
placed honesties above his own reason and any human reason.
Kant is probably criticized due to the Caiaphas syndrome
because of Kant's emphasis on honesties and Christian
teachings that God does not lie. Dooyeweerd's emphasis on
Kant's reasoning up high is probably Dooyweerd's way of
showing that Kant was not God, which is true, but why use
false ad hominem critique against Kant. Another concept of
Kant, Dooyeweerd criticizes is the "I think" from where Kant
reasoned. Kant postulated the "I think" at the center of all
reasoning, apart from the truths we can realize about
ourselves for example human singular weakness. Kant's
postulate of the "I think" as a mode of apperception, which
cannot be described, should be understood in opposition to
Aristotle's ethics of means and methodological deceit.
Aristotle looked towards and not away from centers in his
attempts to realize balanced opinions. Means however do not
exist always, in language, because there are not always
words to explain the phenomena of means. There is for
example not a word, which can pinpoint a position between a
threatening and a warning. Aristotle's philosophy has to
include methodologies of deceit to try and explain means
because, what can be put into words according to Aristotle's
philosophy, is that what surrounds means. Methodologies of
"beating around the bush" were a result of Aristotle. Kant's
philosophy opposes Aristotelian philosophy because according
to Kant people place their "I think" in the center in order
to, with equidistance from phenomena, view their surrounds
so that the most objective true words can be used when
communicating and thinking about experiencing.
Gegenstand[325] refers to objects; "no living beings" we
sense. Phenomena refer to the percepts in our minds of
gegenstande. According to Aristotle's De Anima we can only form phenomena (Kant's word) of
the forms the gegenstande are in. The actual matters of
gegenstande are noumena (Kant's word) according to Aristotle
and Kant. We can realize truths about parts of noumena
through scientific studies to decrease the unknown content
of noumena by replacing parts of noumena with phenomena.
Geologists for example know more than me about noumena of
stones. Theologians know more than me about noumena of a
white stone[326] with a name on it. Kant's position is logical
because when "I think" is in the middle (i assumed Kant
postulated this logically) i, can distinguish much better
between, i.e. a warning and a threatening because i can view
both concepts without searching for a middle, which do not
exist for me, at least currently (11 September 2013) because
a word does not exist in my mind nor an unnamed thought,
which can refer to such a middle. If people try to find
gegenstande, which do not exist, between a warning and a
threatening, by generalizing Socrates's and Aristotle's
finding of a mean, i.e., between blind courage and
cowardice, they will not be able to see the danger of a
threatening coming, after a warning. They could perceive
warnings as threatenings and instead of reducing their risks
they will increase their risks, contrary to the meaning of
warnings. Not blind courage, nor cowardice of selves will be
relevant because when risks are out of hand nothing can stop
the demise of selves.
Problem
What or who is God in Dooyeweerd's Christian
philosophy?
Statement to solve problem
Dooyeweerd definition of God is unexplainable
metaphysical Self.
Methodology
I read the two prescribed papers, (a) and (b)
by Dooyeweerd once, then wrote the answer without
references. My plan was to add the references during a
second reading of the texts and a first reading of the
additional texts. An e-mail was then sent, which informed us
that we should prepare Stoker instead, for a lecture by
Prof. Bennie Van der Walt on 21 September 2013.
Discussion
Dooyweerd emphasized, according to my memory
the "Self". He referred to the problematic of Christian
idols and probably meant that Jesus was not God. The main
difference between Dooyweerd's and my belief is that
Dooyeweerd does not reject the singularity belief about God
whereas i reject singularity due to weakness of singularity.
I belief that God is partly more than one honest humans plus
Metaphysical truths (Mett), that gives courage to be honest.
Conclusion
Without looking into Dooyeweerd's philosophy
further i concluded my postulate about Dooyeweerd's
philosophy of "Self" as God is correct. Singularity of God
is false because of the weakness of singularity.
(a)
DOOYEWEERD, H. 1948.
Transcendental problems of philosophic thought. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans. Pp. 15-26 & 29-60.) [39p.]
Dooyweerd mentions the
differences between the Thomist philosophers and the Kantian
philosophers. The Kantian philosophers do not agree with the
metaphysical uncertainties of the Thomists.[327]
Heidegger's "Existenzphilosophy", a "phenomenological
ontology" depreciates the value of empirical science and in a
similar manner as Aristotelian and Thomist philosophy
postulates a total reality.[328]
The truth of presuppositions of philosophical thought should
be considered.[329]
Kantian philosophy is based on dogmatic presuppositions "ruled
by a basic prejudice, that turns out to have no philosophical
character at all, and that should be unmasked by a real
transcendental criticism of philosophical thought". Kant's "basic
prejudice" is his ontological base
of knowledge.[330]
Aristotle also wrote knowledge equals correspondence to
reality.[331]
Dooyweerd finds Pythagorean knowledge of the "Divine"
("theoria") as opposed to Greek "pistis
(faith)" and "doxa
(opinion)" problematic. Theoria
eventually entered via Neo-Platonism into a struggle with
Protestant Christian philosophy. According to Roman
Catholicism natural knowledge is subject to metaphysics.[332]
Dooyeweerd's thesis is that in theoretical knowledge a basic
transcendental faulty presupposition could exist.[333]
Kant's critique of metaphysics is based on the possibility of
knowing reality, which is a problematic postulate. If it can
be shown that knowledge of realities is not possible Kant's
critique of metaphysics cannot be true.[334]
It seems i differ again with regard to our understandings of
Kant. I understand Kant to have said that because we cannot
know noumena we should make an effort to be honest so that we
can reduce noumena by forming new phenomena in minds. It seems
Dooyeweerd wrote that Kant's critique is not valid because
correspondence to reality is not possible and Kant did not
realize this. Dooyeweerd thus takes a sceptic approach similar
to the opposition Descartes experienced.
Dooyeweerd refers to
his methodology as ' "Philosophy
of the Idea of Law" '.[335]
The original reference was to the "Wetsidee". Observation does not "at
all" correspond to reality.[336]
Pre-theoretical or naïve perception is subject to our inner
generalizations we were genetically encoded to make.
Theoretical perception relates to an awareness of different
aspectual abstractions, which can be made about a reality.
Theoretical thought can however fall back to the naïve
perception if science focuses on a specific aspect, which
relates to a specific view for example only biology or
economics. Results are non-self-critical 'isms'.[337]
It seems the criticism of Kant could relate to an expansion of
his philosophy. Dooyeweerd promotes enhancement of truths
through fewer generalizations and fewer "isms".[338]
Reality consists of
modal individualities when subjective opinions are given about
reality. Each reality has a nuclear moment, which cannot be
explained. These 'nuclear "moments" ' relate to foundational numbers, sensation, and
faith.[339]
Sensations are qualitative and use quantitative realizations.[340]
Realizations of aspectual views expand the original nuclear
unitary moments. Kant was aware of the subjectivity of "isms" and he sought to find a valid starting point of
knowledge. Kant's starting point was critical knowledge by
individuals about our selves.[341]
Kant said the ' "I think" ' can never be the "gegenstand" of thought. Our thoughts can be thought about
and can be objects of thought but the inner self cannot be
thought. This critical part of self, is the starting point of
knowledge. He called the ' "I
think" ' the ' "transcendental
unity
of (logical) apperception" '.[342]
I regard this to mean the belief that one man can never be
God, due to the weakness of singularity. Dooyeweerd contend
Kant did not succeed in finding a starting point for knowledge
because the "I think"
cannot be identified logically as gegenstand.[343]
Maybe it means Dooyeweerd never realized critically in belief
his weak self. For Dooyeweerd the "Gegenstand" is a product of the non-logical in opposition to
the logical.[344]
"Der Gegenstand als solcher ist ein
sprachlich verwendeter Begriff von einer kognitiven
Manifestation, die durch Sinnesreize und durch Denkprozesse
ausgelöst wird. Das Erkennen eines Gegenstands ist
Ausgangsbedingung für den weiteren Erkenntnisgewinn, für die
Anwendung des Gegenstands oder für die Kommunikation über den
Gegenstand. Der Begriff kann „alles meinen, wovon überhaupt
die Rede ist“.[1] Üblicherweise bezeichnet der Begriff keine
Lebewesen." = "The object as such is a
term used by a
cognitive linguistic
manifestation, which
is triggered by sensory stimuli
and thought
processes. The recognition of an
object is the
starting condition for the further insights
for the
application of the subject
or for
communication on the subject.
The term can also "my
everything, which
is actually the
talk". [1] Usually, the
term no living beings." [345]
Self-knowledge is
correlative to knowledge of God but Kant postulated
self-knowledge to Reason. Selves, according to Kant could be
moral without God's laws being enforced on selves.[346]
I disagree with Dooyeweerd because, where did Kant get the
honesty law of the highest good from? According to Dooyeweerd
true self-knowledge is not possible.[347]
It implies he believes falsely in the possibility of being God
self and not being part of God. It seems the thoughts of
Dooyeweerd could have triggered Caiaphas syndrome because he
said knowledge of the Self equals knowledge of God but he also
said knowledge of God is not possible. The contradiction could
make him react like Caiaphas did to Jesus's postulates. After
Reading Stoker's creation idea however it seemed that
Dooyeweerd did not let Caiaphas syndrome take hold of him.
Dooyeweerd was subject to the "Godsindroom", a word recently
used by a "gereformeerde" church minister. I however opined to
the church minister there could not be something like a
"Godsindroom" because "syndrome" means something negative. I
meant that "theosyndrome" could be used to show unwarranted
belief in Self, but not "Godsyndrome" because God refers to
"good". Stoker maybe let Caiaphas syndrome take hold of "himself" because Stoker often critiqued Dooyeweerd for
using "anthropocentric" and christ-centric philosophy.
(b)
DOOYEWEERD, H. 1996.
Cristian philosophy: An Exploration. (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen
Press, pp. 1-23.)
"Kuyper found that
insight into these implications had been best expressed by
Calvin, and so for lack of a better term began to speak of
“Calvinism” as an all-embracing world view which was clearly
distinguishable from both Roman Catholicism and Humanism."[348]
"His (Kuyper's) deepest concern was for a life and thought
rooted in the central unity of Holy Scripture which is above
the divergence of human ideas and interpretations."[349]
Is
Kant's promotion of honesties as highest good compatible with
Scripture? If yes, why reject Kant. Kant said that honesty is
the highest good. If Christians disagree with Kant it means
they say that honesty is not the highest good according to the
Bible. Probably then they postulate love to be the highest
good. Love can however be shown to mean compliance to laws.
Honesty is a law and therefore loving implies honesty. If
loving (compliance to laws) is prioritized above honesties the
postulate requires loving and being honest. If honesties are
prioritized above love it does not imply love (compliance to
all laws). The crux of Dooyeweerd's critique against Kant
could be that Kant prioritized honesties above love
(compliance to all laws). Honesties do not include compliance
to all laws and therefore Kant was wrong and Jesus right
according to the Bible. It could also mean that Kant did
postulate love highest in the sense that in the compliance to
laws (love) Kant prioritized the laws and found honesty to be
the prioritized law. Other laws for example no-theft was thus
less important than honesties because honesties include
no-theft. Clouser also postulated honesty (trust-fiduciary[350])
as the highest aspect and did not postulate love[351]
an aspect. Such a view could correlate with Kant's view.
According to my view honesties is the highest value because
only by being honest can an individual see the reality that
one human cannot be God and that Jesus alone was not God and
that there never could be a Messiah in human form. Deceits
taint minds and make this realization impossible because of
theological indoctrination. Own indoctrinations can only be
realized by having truths in minds. "By following Abraham Kuyper in
this purely biblical line of thought, the philosophy of the
cosmonomic idea accepts that by virtue of the central,
radical, and integral ground-motive of Holy Scripture (i.e.,
that of creation-fall-redemption by Christ Jesus, the
Incarnate Word), “the key of knowledge” is not dependent on
human beings; instead, it takes command over them." [352] I differ with this view because compliance to
laws has not only origins in total plural God, it also has
origins in individuals, and, existence of individual wills to
truths, as parts of God, implies the vocal grounds exist, on
which, knowledge can be attained. Being saved and gaining
knowledge is not the same. Minds with fallacies in it can be
saved by faiths, but deceived abilities, acquiring knowledge,
are less than abilities, acquiring knowledge via truths,
because of the lack of coherence of thoughts in minds that
include fallacies. "This philosophy is not a closed system. It does
not claim to have a monopoly on truth in the sphere of
philosophical reflection, nor that the provisional conclusions
of its inquiries have been made sacrosanct be- cause of the
central biblical motive which motivates and controls it." [353]
"The deepest impulse of Kant’s thought took him, in his
critical period, toward “practical metaphysics.” He aimed to
investigate only the limits and a priori conditions of
scientific knowledge, limiting the latter, moreover, to the
mathematical-physical, and rejecting its metaphysical claims."
[354] I differ with this view because i think Kant's
emphasis on honesties was metaphysical in nature. "This interpretation is
accepted by all who proceed axiomatically from the autonomy of
philosophical theoretical thought. For them the possi- bility
of scientific philosophical debate stands or falls with the
acceptance or rejection of the “axiom” of autonomy." [355] This is false about Kant because he prioritized
like Clouser the fiduciary aspect highest below love, which is
not an aspect in Clouser's theory of reality.
3 October 2013
Santayana accused "genteels" of "palming" their guilt and conscience with metaphysical
postulates.[356]
It made me think of the Caiaphas syndrome and the joke about ' "1 000 against 1, and boy, how did we, the
1 000, bugger up 'The one' " '. The metaphysical postulate of "The one"[357]
allows Caiaphas and his group to destroy individuals because
in their view, their struggle is not against one human at a
time but maybe against a metaphysical superpower, palmed from
superstitious ideas about miracles etc. Without superstitious
ideas it would have been not acceptable to 'sacrifice' ones
because then cowardly acts of ganging up against one at a time
would be clearly visible to those who do not suffer from
Caiaphas syndrome anymore. Maybe however Santayana is part of
the "1000" referring to genteels as The ones, which need to be
'sacrificed' according to Santayana. Not sure.[358]
The
pragmatists beat the "genteel tradition" and Emerson[359]
beat the Calvinists. Maybe Dewey was a follower of Caiaphas
because if i recall correctly from a previous page his
sociology was influential between the 1st and 2nd world wars.
Here Rorty wrote that Dewey got rid of Cartesian postulates,
which means to me correspondence was removed as criteria of
truth due to Caiaphas syndrome. Rorty wrote Dewey predicted
the replacement of verification with interpretation, which
happened in Continental philosophy and in "American highbrow
literary culture".[360]
The highbrow literary culture follows methods similar to poets
whom Plato accused of lacking seriousness. Platonic truth was
correspondence ("accuracy of representation").[361]
"the prohetic Deweyan
period"[362]
After
reading this essay by Rorty once i thought he wrote that
America and he promoted a stance of transcendental truth in a
non centric way with not any essences, whether a style, a
philosophy, any essence taking central importance. His view
could be compared with aspectual views, without generalizing,
away from "highbrow" 1000s of subjective interpretations, thus
between Platonic truths and metaphoric literary
non-seriousness.
Taylor explains that "they" who use Kant's
methods think from correspondence to higher awareness.[363]
The next step after realizing correspondence is coherence of
representation, which Taylor regards as a first step of
transcendence. Another method would be to regard "the need for a coherent unity" as the "obvious" first step. Kant wrote the awareness that each "I
think" is
subjective is an important realization to help ensure
coherence. Kant postulated the categories as common ground to
"alone" cohere
different subjective coherences.[364]
This need of coherence in societies is
materialized with similar categories, but honesties, which
forms coherence of subjective coherences, according to me and
probably Kant also, is important as well. Taylor does not
mention the most obvious part of societal coherence,
honesties, although Kant emphasized honesties as "highest
good". Why doesn't Taylor mention this most obvious part of
Kant's work? Probably because of Caiaphas syndrome.
Taylor regards his investigation into subjects
each as "embodied agent" as a continuation of Kant's work, to instill
transcendence. "Embodied" does not refer for Taylor to our physicality but
refers to the "nature" of our selves in order to be "embodied agents".[365] Physical
up and down is perceived because of truths like gravity and
because our bodies are subject to gravity. Our perceptions are
subject to our places in time and territories and our
interactions with other subjects, as embodied agents.[366]
". His being and embodied agent helps to
constitute his field." [367]
Taylor writes "they attempt to convince us" with a
regressive argument that perception is thus dependent on
material objects outside of us, and our selves being embodied.
Without these two parts perception is not possible. These
arguments ("they") mean to
Taylor dualism would not be valid if it's true that embodiment
is a condition for perception.[368]
Coherence to Taylor means for example experiencing the world
as up and down physically.[369]
Taylor defines not coherence like i do. My understanding of
coherence relates more to integration of different experiences
and all knowledge acquired into phenomena in minds, which
equate to realities in the world. Lies (phenomena) in minds
cannot cohere with realities in the world because lies are not
similar to realities in the world, except for existing as lies
in minds.
Apodictic certainty
relates to the deductive relations amongst a priori phenomena
in minds "of " a priori
realities in the world according to a priori categories due to
a priori embodied agents. Taylor asks why is it then difficult
to prove the apodictic certainty of experience.[370]
Taylor relates the difficulty to prove experience to points of
activity and being aware of the points, for example the point
in playing chess would be the constitutive rules of the game,
without which chess could not be played. He then analogizes
the game of chess with life and finds certainty about his
existence in life in the rules of life similarly to being
aware of playing chess.[371]
May i then infer that where Descartes and Kant had certainty
of their existence in cogito ergo sum, Taylor found certainty
of his existence in being aware of rules? Taylor emphasized
awareness of rules, cognition of rules and memories of rules.
Kant and Descartes emphasized thinking with the percepts of
the cognized, which included rules.
Taylor thinks Kant's
a priori categories are not necessarily true for everyone.[372]
For Taylor transcendental thought means philosophical
enquiries about things we do not think of normally for example
how is it possible to perceive something. To make sense of
transcendental thinking postulates like the "I think" is
important.[373]
Hugo Meynell complained about fideism and
anti-foundationalism present in Dooyeweerd's philosophy.
Zuidervaart quoted Dooyeweerd where he stated that Christian
philosophy cannot be reconciled with a philosophy, which
postulates independence of human reason. Dooyeweerd based his
philosophy initially on Kant's and Husserl's until he decided
that the emphasis on reason should be replaced by a
prioritized faith.[374]
This is so far the most important difference
between my faith and Calvinists' faiths. Kant's faith gave him
the courage to be honest and honesties lead to better reason.
Courages to be honest are from faiths. Kant did not prioritize
reason above faith because Kant prioritized honesties above
reason.
Dooyeweerd based his opinion primarily on the
importance of human hearts on the Bible. Theologians did not
agree with Dooyeweerd because they thought emphasis on hearts
is not reconcilable with usual distinctions between bodies and
souls.[375]
Dooyeweerd based theoretical thought on three
foundations. First, a gegenstand relation is needed, which is
in abstractions of the field of study with proper definitions
of the abstracted. The abstractions do not correspond strictly
to reality, nor are the abstractions a mental construct
without regard of realities.
[376]
The field of the abstractions probably needs to be coherent as
a whole, so that the theoretical study can proceed.
The 2nd foundational realization is that the
coherence of a theory (abstraction) and reality cannot take
place from either the side of reality (materialism) nor form
the side of the theory (idealism). Coherence between theories
and realities has origin in a transcendental point, which is
not the "I think" of Kant and Descarte.[377]
The 3rd foundational realization of Dooyeweerd's
transcendentalism is that the point (line) is between God's
parts, outside of selves and our hearts inside selves. Self is
for Dooyeweerd not a cogito ergo sum, but a connected whole
with "someone" outside of our selves.[378]
Any philosophy or faith or political statement
has three ' "groundmotives" ', which have relations
with religion. They are (1) "coherence", (2) "totality or
radical unity" (3) 'origin of "all meaning" .. i.e., of all
creation.' Combined the three groundmotives makes up the
' "cosmonomic idea" (wetsidee) or "transcendental
ground-idea" '. Any theoretical thought presupposes the
three groundmotives according to Dooyeweerd.[379]
Dooyeweerd prioritized religion above faith,
which could make up an argument that Dooyeweerd was not a
fideist.[380]
'For Dooyeweerd, "rationality" is a limited but
important aspect of human life as God has created this. Like
all such aspects, rationality is made possible by God's law
and sustained by God's Spirit. When exercised by human beings
in community, rationality is no less susceptible to evil and
no less open to redemption than any other aspect of human
life.'[381]
Whilst i read page 74
i realized that Calvinists, like Dooyeweerd, who critiqued
Kant's reasons, are probably dishonest because they do not
agree with Kant's postulate of honesty as highest good as good
enough. It either means they are more honest than Kant or less
honest. More honest makes not sense because they do not
acknowledge Kant's postulates about honesties. Another
possibility is that God thoughts, which appear together with
own honesties, took hold of them, in a more substantial way
than Kant. If that is true then, what explains the differences
between Calvinists and Kant, whom they all seem to have
studied? Is it genetics, financial security or parents'
influence before age two? Common sense says it is the entities
they relied on for financial security and sustenance. The
entities' appearances can be known through the choice between
honesties and deceits.
The use of the word
"outworkings" in this paper could be radically misunderstood
by an English person because "uitwerk" in Afrikaans and
probably Dutch means to abstract and theorize about.[382]
Zuidervaart wrote
Meynell's understanding of "the human subject" is individual
humans but for Dooyeweerd it was a transcendental subject
(vak).[383]
Prof. Meynell, a Roman Catholic
thinker, believes a ' "honest seeker" ' is not
necessarily an ' "apostate" ' like most Calvinists
believe.[384]
Dooyweerd's opined that
clear philosophizing is dependent on coherence (unity) of
meaning for which the subject's thought is dependent on
Origin.[385]
Coherence of meaning is an individual subjective percept
because we all have different definitions for words of
definitions for words. I agree and disagree with Dooyeweerd.
Coherence is important for theoretical thinking and therefore
correspondence must be prioritized above coherence otherwise
communications will develop into babel. Is it not already
happening with English and languages aside of English? The
crux of the difference is mercy versus truth relating to
rights of silence. Mercy is not directly relevant at everyday
events therefore correspondence must be prioritized. The
"noodleuen", being studied in Korea according to Prof.
Griffioen is not an everyday affair. A distinction can
therefore be made between "nood" and everyday activities and
an argument can be made that if in "nood" something wrong is
the reason, which could be sought or let go due to too much
mercy or the right level of mercy.
Zuidervaart opines
Dooyeweerd postulated fathoming of total coherence of aspects
before abstraction takes place, and dependence on Origin,
preceded by self-reflection; self-referentially incoherent
because his "critique" claims to do what it claims is
impossible.[386]
This is the same issue i had with Stoker and is related to
ambivalent realism. It is self referentially incoherent to
prioritize coherence above correspondence because
correspondence was given to us by God through our senses. We
must first accept correspondence before we can advance to
coherence. After critiquing Stoker's idea of creation order,
however, i started to think Stoker's way of thinking could be
good for theorizing if correspondence is prioritized above
coherence because it would minimize incomparable
generalizations due to different phenomena in minds, which
deceits cause. Different members of a group could have similar
views due to one theory of reality they subscribe to.
Plurality thinking and communicating can then achieve more
with a similar background for all who are thinking. Also, if a
theory of reality is substantially faulty it could lead to
problems for the whole group. That leads to questioning the
correspondence and coherence of a theory. Clouser's theory
prioritizes first implicitly singular truth (he refers to
things being true or not without emphasizing correspondence),
and second, explicit, love above all, which makes his theory
acceptable to that point, except for the lack of explicit
emphasizing of correspondence (this with his use of singular
"truth" implies coherence takes precedence in Clouser's
theory). After or at the same time as "coherence" (his truth)
and "love", law was prioritized. Totality of aspects, which
are adjectives, must then be cognized, before abstraction
starts. My question is whether the adjectives take not groups'
thoughts further away from realities because material things
have precise forms. Does adjectival thinking not take us
closer to babel because adjectives have not precise forms? It
depends what the objectives are. For Deleuze and his colleague
the objective was to write a book, therefore non-material
concepts and adjectives can be prioritized above physicality.
Maybe for most activities today adjectives are most important
because adjectives relate to qualities, which are important as
part of competence. On the other hand each subject field has
its own priorities and possibly a theory of reality could
emphasize the wrong priorities. That means a theory of reality
before it can be generalized must be as comprehensive as
possible so that each subject field can find the abstractions
they need to make within the comprehensiveness of the theory.
Zuidervaart's 2nd point
of critique relates to Dooyeweerd's presupposition of
coherence, without which, according to postulates in
Dooyeweerd's theory, ' "gegenstand-relation" '
cannot be perceived. Zuidervaart says it is a circular
argument. The critique refers to Origin and own thinking.
Zuidervaart does not agree with the logic of Dooyeweerd's
postulates about absolute dependence on Origin.[387]
I agree with Zuidervaart because i think correspondence should
be prioritized otherwise coherence is not possible as
explained above. Also Dooyeweerd seems to have overemphasized
his dependence on Origin according to Zuidervaart. Stoker
wrote in his creation idea that Dooyeweerd underemphasized
Origin of all. It could mean that Stoker would have critiqued
Zuidervaart's opinion about anthropomorphism more severe than
he critiqued Dooyeweerd's because if i understand Zuidervaart
correct, he says Dooyeweerd lacks anthropomorphism or lack
acknowledging it and that makes his theory incoherent.
Zuidervaart does not
agree with us that religion gives presuppositions of science.
"When push comes to shove, however, Dooyeweerd's
notion of religion privileges unity, universality, and
transcendence over diversity, particularity, and historical
phenomena." It leads to
mysticism and illogical incoherencies.[388]
Hendrik Hart and Clouser had significantly
different opinions about religion and Dooyeweerd.[389]
According to Dooyeweerd
the causal relation between religion and theoretical thought
are found in the ' "transcendental
ground-idea" ' with "its
three elements (the ideas of origin, unity and of coherence in
diversity)".[390]
Previously i did not see the difference between the 2nd and
3rd and wrote about two ideas. The 2nd and 3rd can be
distinguished by diversity but yet coherency, which is unity.
I regarded the unity and coherency as repetition because
coherency implies diversity and unity. The idea of "one" can
imply unity of a singular, without considering coherency
because no diversity exists in the "one". The idea of "one" or
"unity" as distinguished
from "coherency in diversity" currently exists not for me. Does it refer to
the "I think" of Kant, which Dooyeweerd discussed? If it does
i would include it as a part in "coherency
in diversity". My logic reduce thus
the three "elements"
again to two; namely origin (correspondence) and coherence (in
diversity). Correspondence is a comparison between objects in
the world, phenomena in minds and words representing the
objects in the world and words representing phenomena in
minds; thus the objective nature, with origin outside of
selves. Coherence can only be something in one mind at a time
because of vastly different experiences, each mind sense; thus
the subjective nature of coherence. What is the possibility of
different minds' phenomena in mind cohering, similar to the
Greek ideas of emanation from one universal mind? It seems
unlikely due to the radical difference i experience between my
mind and others' minds. My coherence and someone else's
coherence are not the same. If coherencies were the same there
would not have been any reason to talk or write. Do all dogs
have through telepathy maybe the same coherencies? I doubt
that a dog in the East can have the same phenomena in mind as
all dogs in the East and the West. We humans can however try
and get coherencies more comparable with theories for example
Clouser's non-reductionist theory of reality. Such theories
can however not be postulated to make us experience the whole
world as the same datum, because of the radical diversities
each human experience differently. Coherencies are therefore
data, being in minds. Each individual's mind has a subjective
view of his/her own coherency.
Dooyeweerd discovered
the "religious root of thought in the
heart as the religious root of human existence as such (1953,
v)."[391]
"The heart"
could be perhaps the unity without diversity, which relates
not to coherence and diversity, but each person has an
individual heart. I guess it relates to Revelation's[392]
and the rest of the Bible's references about God,
investigating hearts and minds. It means probably that each
human heart has a connection to God, which unifies all
believers in a singular sense, without diversity. The "unity"
element is thus a religious concept, which can divide people
due to the Myth of religious neutrality (Clouser). In order to
exclude the possibility of divisions, focus could be placed on
the other two elements, which logically include
correspondences. Correspondences (honesties) need not be part
of the "unity" element because honesties (correspondences) are
a scientific concept. Experiences, with regard to Caiaphas
syndromes, have however shown that honesties are not possible
without faiths, therefore honesties of Kant, primarily relates
to the "unity" element of Dooyeweerd. Dooyeweerd however
postulated not honesties into his "unity" element because he
did not acknowledge the "highest good" of Kant's work. That is
why there was religious difference between Dooyeweerd and Kant
and thus also resultant different theoretical views.
Dooyeweerd's "unity" element seems to relate to how his
actions made his heart feel. A pain in his heart for example
probably made him connect an own action to the pain, like i
do. Such connections relate not to honesties per se but rather
to a wider concept than honesties, related to "meaning" and
God. Such connections made internally are however subjective,
relating to own coherencies, which brings me back at
coherencies of diversity. There seems to thus be, according to
Dooyeweerd's transcendental critique a circular, electric type
current, between metaphysical truths (incorporeal parts of
God), individual hearts and coherencies in minds.
Dooyeweerd had two
transcendental ideas. First the totality as meaning and second
the ground-idea about three elements.[393]
Recently "meaning", which Prof. Goudzwaard also emphasized
influenced me to see meaning, very subjectively though, in
little things like expressions, occurrence of events:
synchronicity type evaluations of meaning. Such evaluations of
subjective meaning can easily become superstitious due to the
subjective nature of own coherencies. Often, others showed
they belief their own thoughts, which are not based on hard
facts, are true. Thinking what others think, leads to
problems. It is the main problem of Caiaphas syndromes,
whereby individuals are accused of suffering from
"Godsindroom", which in my case was false, but it nevertheless
influenced my life significantly negatively. Logically there
could not be something like "Godsindroom" because God is good
and syndromes are bad. The "Godsindroom" is thus based on
false definitions of God and therefore it is not "Godsindroom"
but rather "devilssyndrome". Let's say a person has feelings
of being part of God in a true sense, which benefits societies
and self through creativities. A syndrome cannot be relevant
because syndromes are not beneficial to selves or to
societies. Caiaphas syndromes can be good for societies in the
short term, at the expense of individuals, according to
utilitarian consequentialist sacrificing. In the long term it
however leads to colonization or emigration of the society,
which had Caiaphas syndrome.
Geertsema also states
that the idea about meaning could not be used scientifically
because of its subjective nature, therefore he focused on the
ground-idea about three elements.[394]
Gegenstand-relation was
important for Dooyeweerd with regards to the "opposition" between logical and non-logical thought. The
opposition is inherent to theoretical thinking. Logical
thought related to direct experience of objects and
non-logical related to analytical abstraction of aspects from
all aspects of reality as a whole. The abstractions are
non-logical because of abstractions not being part of a
coherent whole. Dooyeweerd was not always very clear in his
writings about logical or non-logical. According to Dooyeweerd
a synthesis was needed between logical and non-logical
thinking. In a sense non-logical is the same as logical
because logical experience of objects is abstraction
naturally.[395]
According to Clouser's theory experiences of nouns objectively
is not the same as abstraction of adjectival aspects. In the
Philosophy of religion class about alterity in my class
presentation the difference between singularity of adjectival
nouns for example honesty and plurality of nouns experienced
came forward. "Non-logical" could relate more to adjectival
thinking with logical thinking relating to objects being
things, events etc.
The
objects of experience (things, events, relations, states of
affairs, persons, etc.) will be spoken of as existing or
functioning ' "in an aspect"
' or ' "under the laws of an aspect" '.[396]
Another
problem about the Gegenstand-relation is the interaction and
opposition amongst aspects.[397]
According
to Strauss the "logical subject-object relation"
and gegenstand-relation is not the same. Gegenstand is
something apart from subject-object. If logical subject-object
relations are perceived according to Strauss there is no need
for "Gegenstand"
and no need of an "opposition to overcome".
Did Dooyeweerd mean this?[398]
According
to Geertsema's reading of Dooyeweerd "logical subject-object"
relates to pre-theoretical thinking. Gegenstand-relations
relate to logical subject-object relations but not
pre-theoretical thinking. Gegenstand-relations relate to
theoretical thinking.[399]
It seems
Dooyeweerd viewed Gegenstand as reality as a whole from which
he abstracted theoretical "objects". His view was that the
difference between theoretical and pre-theoretical thought is
that the need for coherence in theoretical thought is found in
the subject thinking and in pre-theoretical thought coherence
is found in the objects, which appear in "continuity of cosmic time".
Theoretical thinking applies abstractions from the continuity
of cosmic time. Theoretical thinking is ' "intentional,"
not ontic'. Theoretical thinking should be sought in the
"unity of the person".[400]
It sounds
very similar to Jaspers's view of the subject-object dichotomy
where transcendence takes place between subject and object,
especially in relation to thinking about "God himself", which
does not exist. Is it worth it to experience transcendence
about something that does not exist due to a "leuenstelling"?
Would it not be better to find transcendence in something that
exists, for example my current definition of God and current
belief, from the start? If society and i found transcendence
in my current belief, from a young age there would have been
more cooperation and materializations of ideas and a wealthier
and healthier society.
Strauss
did not explain the difference between non-theoretical and
theoretical thinking because Strauss did not identify the
transcendence between subject and object, which takes place by
postulating concepts: consequential phenomena in minds, which
portray realities in the world. Strauss identified theoretical
thinking during the analytic process of abstraction and
investigation, which is similar to logical subject-object
thinking.[401]
The most important concept according to me, which causes
transcendence between subjects, objects and the transcendent,
is truths: that is primary correspondences and secondary
coherences. It requires discipline, through being honest to
uphold the similarities. If similarities are not relevant due
to lies and deceit transcendence also falters. Primary
correspondence, a concept, precedes logical subject-object
thinking, without which theoretical thinking is not possible.
It makes creativities possible. Plato and Jesus identified the
primary constant importance of truths over secondary opinions.
Jesus lived more truthfully than Plato though, which is the
reason he was sacrificed. The more accurate the
correspondences are the more accurate are opinions (subjective
coherencies), which can have negative social implications.
Dooyeweerd
had a turning point in thought when he realized the heart is
the root of religious and theoretical thought. He correlated
it with "Christ as the new root of
created reality."[402]
To say a person has a lot of heart means the person has
courage. Maybe Dooyeweerd was thinking of the courage of
"Christ" and Socrates also to be honest with others and self.
The
"unity" element relates to the "I-ness", which is the only
point form where a synthesis can take place between the
opposition between logical pre-theoretical and non-logical
theoretical thinking. The "totality of meaning"
is crucial. An Archimidean center must be found in the
totality of meaning from where theoretical thinking must take
place. Our egos are not part of the self (I-ness, center
point) but part of the totality we perceive. The parts of us,
for example egos, which are part of the totality is the cause
of the lack of religious neutrality.[403]
It seems Dooyeweerd also prioritized subjective coherencies
above universal correspondences, which is the main difference
between me and Calvinist philosophers it seems in general. The
difference relates to ambivalent realism and true realism as
explained in my Christian philosophy examination paper.
Subjective coherencies are subject to universal
correspondences.
The self
needs to be understood, following from the coherency of
meaning in the mind, which is of primary importance.[404]
The
first
strength is the emphasis Dooyeweerd placed on the human
subject and reason in relation to religion. The
' "ego" ' and emphasis on its place when reasoning
contributed to well-being.[405]
The second strength is the three elements of the ground idea.
Faith should not be externally connected to reason because it
is an internal conception, which relates to the element of
unity in between the other two elements, origin and coherence
in diversity.[406]
Geertsema
accepts
the three elements as actual but differs with Dooyeweerd's
opinion about necessary transcendence. Geertsema regards "God
the Creator" outside of himself and him not part of God. Jesus
Christ is Lord for Geertsema and understanding self has to be
based on objective facts.[407]
Geertsema gave me the
impression here that he did not factor into his thought the
reality that human being (present participle verb) and his own
human being can only be understood by considering
transcendence because human being, one idea, is outside of him
and part of himself. Human being therefor cannot be understood
in an objective manner. If true that Geertsema does not regard
human being as transcendental concept it could imply his
philosophy could be classified under perverse anthropological
philosophy, without considering Jesus's statement that we
treat another, as we want to be treated.
"In
relation to being human the metaphor also takes on literal
meaning."[408]
The metaphor is His Lord Jesus Christ. "As
human beings we are called to live responsibly. At the same
time the promise-command to be determines us in our very
being. The promise part relates to our deep longing for human
fulfillment. The command element indicates that responsibility
characterizes us as being human. Sin and suffering shape our
being."[409]
The "Sin and suffering" Geertsema experiences needs expanding on.
Geertsema places extreme emphasis on "Himself", "His works",
"His Word", "of Himself is His word", "He", "His Name" and
"His love".[410]
Concluded, albeit maybe subjectively wrong, Geertsema suffers
from Caiaphas syndrome. Geertsema's emphasis on the obvious
structure, "being human"[411],
shows his Caiaphas syndrome. It implies hypocrisy and
patronage. I used "human being (present participle verb)",
which is a struggle due to his Caiaphas syndrome. He calls his
philosophy "hermeneutical philosophy" and then explains his anti-realist Continental
stance.[412]
"The orderliness of the world is a given that
answers the ordering of God's creative word."[413]
Geertsema emphasizes "normativity".[414]
"Instead
... Within the subject there is an increasing tension between
the rational part, which is characterized by the use of
objective method and can therefore lay claim to universally
valid knowledge, and the nonrational part, which, as
subjective, is idealized as being truly human or, as "merely
subjective," is regarded as a factor which should be
eliminated."[415]
Greek philosophical
thought was essentially about the "polarity" between divine constancy and temporal change.[416]
Dooyeweerd opined the "great
turning point" for him was when he
realized all thinking has a religious root. Dooyeweerd
intentionally started to oppose ' "immanence
thinking" ', which is the idea
that thought has a starting point in "thought
itself".[417]
Dooyeweerd's "meaning" means that everything in creation is
correlated with everything else and everything, including
thought is dependent on "the
sovereign will of the Creator-God".
According to Dooyeweerd we either find meaning in true God as
portrayed in Scripture or in an idol as portrayed in
Scripture.[418]
"Naïve experience" in "horizons" is distinguished from meaningful experience,
which is grasped through interconnected adjectival "modal
aspects". The aspects are "arithmetical,
spatial, kinematic, energetic effect, biotic, psychical,
logical, historical, symbolical, social, economical,
aesthetical, juridicial, ethical and pistical." [419]
In each aspect a typical law structure appears and subject to
each law structure a "specific
expression" of the "subject-object
relationship" appears. The modal
aspects are foundational to human thought.[420]
Here again it is
confirmed that Dooyeweerd prioritized the "transcendental
horizon" above correspondence. The primary importance of
honesties for some is not grasped through the generalization
of his transcendental concept as most important. Plurality of
thought is not allowed and therefore Caiaphas syndrome and
'sacrifice' is implied. Did Dooyeweerd also think honest
people are apostate?
' "The
great turning point in my thought was marked by the discovery
of the religious root of thought itself, whereby a new light
was shed on the failure of all attempts, including my own, to
bring about an inner synthesis between the Christian faith and
a philosophy which is rooted in faith in the self-sufficiency
of human reason."[421] '[422]
This statement of Dooyeweerd points to the inner struggle of
being honest, which cause Christians's Caiaphas syndromes and
accusations about apostasy towards honest people. Honesty as
highest good in Kant's philosophy obviously relates to the
highest good for humans and according to me it is one of the
highest praise that any human other than Jesus has given to
God. I have stated before that Kant did not rely on
self-sufficiency of human reason because he placed honesties
above reason. People who lie place their human reasoning and
consequentialist, utilitarian thoughts highest, because they
infringe on God's law about truths. A serious consideration is
why could Dooyeweerd not synthesize Kantian philosophy with
his religion. Also why do we not seek this reason? The reason
obviously relates to honesties but nowhere have i seen it
acknowledged explicitly.
Knudsen opines that
Dooyeweerd did not critique Kant's philosophy because he
disagreed with Kant, but rather because Kant's thesis can be
improved in the same direction, which Kant was thinking.[423]
In this sense then Dooyeweerd increased honesties
(correspondence). Knudsen's statement can however not
logically be reconciled with the accusation of placing human
reason highest, which is a sign of Caiaphas syndrome. Another
reason it does not make sense is because of Dooyeweerd's
prioritization, according to my current understanding of
coherence above correspondence. Logically there cannot be
something other prioritized than the idea of correspondence
before we talk or write. The prioritized meaning of aspectual
theoretical views places perspective between subjects and
objects, which hinders correspondence and consequential
creativities. The prioritized meaning of the aspectual views
can relate logically to the "I-ness" (2nd element) because the
phenomena of "I-ness" in minds and phenomena of the aspectual
views in minds are within our own minds as phenomena, but
objects in the world and outside of our minds, can be viewed
without a perspective, which enhances correspondence and
consequential creativities.
The law, which
Dooyeweerd opined is divine could not have been parliamentary
laws or common law, because the "jurisdicial" aspect is not the highest in his aspectual
views. "Pistical"
was highest.[424]
For Clouser "fiduciary",
which relates to trust and thus honesties is the highest
aspect but love for God was outside of the aspects as the
highest. This love law could overpower fiduciary requirements
in the sense of God's mercy, when we fail to be honest. The
Calvinist and it seems general Protestant belief however
requires breaking the fiduciary requirement, as a sign of
belief. Roman Catholic belief according to Prof, Meynell has
not this requirement. Zuidervaart
wrote
Meynell's understanding of "the human subject" is individual
humans but for Dooyeweerd it was a transcendental subject
(vak).[425]
Prof. Meynell, a Roman Catholic
thinker, believes a ' "honest
seeker" ' is not necessarily an
' "apostate" '
like most Calvinists believe.[426]
The word subject
related sometimes to the cosmos, which is subject to law of
God (lex divina).[427]
Law is the boundary between God and "his" creation.[428]
Knudsen makes no distinction between natural laws and human
laws. Dooyeweerd's "religious" experience was in "totality" or coherency as his primary form of experience.[429]
Why should i trust Dooyeweerd's philosophy? According to my
experience it is impossible to perceive totality and therefore
my primary objective is outgoing not incoming. In reality
God's laws are incoming, totality of the cosmos is not
incoming.
Dooyeweerd originally
agreed with Kuyper that "faith" is the ruling force in all humans. He however
later postulated faith dependent on a deeper being (' "level" '), namely "religion".[430]
Knudsen ascribes this change from faith to religion as part of
the "transcendental thrust" of Dooyeweerd's philosophy.[431]
According to my understanding the change relates to his
individual faith, which he replaced with formalized religion
as experienced from the prescriptions of the society he
belonged to. The requirement to lie for example, to prove we
are not apostates.
Dooyeweerd acknowledged
that experiences (correspondences) expand our coherencies
("horizons").[432]
To say therefore that Dooyeweerd prioritized coherencies above
correspondences means he contradicted himself or Dooyeweerd is
misinterpreted.
Dooyeweerd's "aspects" are not "perspectives", its are "modes" within, which things appear.[433]
I still opine all the aspects as coherent whole are subjective
perspectives, which diminish correspondences, if coherencies
are prioritized above correspondences.
Dooyeweerd stated that
theoretical experiences depend on naïve experiences and this reality must be
understood by reflection of the constitutive.[434]
In Kant's later work "artistic
creation stood at the center."[435]
Knudsen wrote Dooyweerd's method
is "phenomenological, transcendental" and dialectically "negative".[436]
"Phenomenological"
Both Dooyeweerd and
phenomenological philosophers like Husserl had aims to counter
the ' "isms" ' and ' "naturalism" ' due to its
fragmented "relativism". Husserl described
naturalism as the attempt to reduce experience to mind ("psychical") and matter ("physical"). Dooyeweerd saw
phenomenology as anti-Christian philosophy.[437]
I regard -isms and -nisms as part of human nature and not to
be opposed in said negative fashion, because there are other
things humans do, which should be prioritized as
disadvantageous to society. In time a universal synthesis
amongst -isms, -nisms and religions will take place somehow or
somewhere.
-----------------------------------------------
According to Brugsch the
words "natura" in Latin and φνσις ("fnsis"[438])
in Greek share "innate conception" with "neter" ("God") in Egyptian. Different
opinions exist about the original meaning of "neter". M. Maspero opines the
connotation with "strong" was "derived" and not "original meaning". Brugsch opines the
meaning relates to ' "active power which produces and creates" ' and ' "regular recurrence" '. Egyptologists "universally" translates "neteru" as "gods". The Coptic Bible uses the word
"nouti" for the "Supreme Being". The difference between
"neter" and "neteru" is best explained by
passages in the pyramids of Unàs and Tetà, addressed to the dead.
Unàs: "Thou exist at the side of God."
Tetà: "He weigheth words, and,
behold, God hearkeneth unto the words God hath called Tetà (in his name, etc.)."[439]
The word "netert" with double "t" separated by "er", was translated as "goddess".[440]
In the pyramid of Unàs it is explained how the
soul (anima[441])
of Unàs rose in the form of "a god" and ate "gods" after he killed them.[442]
These quotations are from Budge's The book of the dead,
which is an abstract of the full four versions. The first
version "was edited by the priests
of the college of Annu (the On of the Bible, and the
Heliopolis of the Greeks)". The priests of Ànnu were very influential, which
the passage in the pyramid of Unàs proves: ' "O God, thy Ànnu is Unàs; O God, thy Ànnu is Unàs.
O Rā, Ànnu is Unàs, thy Ànnu is Unàs, O Rā. The mother of Unàs
is Ànnu, the father of Unàs is Ànnu; Unàs himself is Ànnu, and
was born in Ànnu." ... in Ànnu dwelt the
great and oldest company of the gods, Tmu, Shu, Tefnut, Seb,
Nut, Osiris, Isis, Set and Nephtys. The abode of the blessed
in heaven was called Ànnu'. [443]
------------------------------------------------
Husserl and Dooyweerd were interested in a more
intense than Kant's investigation of the concepts science is
dependent on. Dooyeweerd is opposed to phenomenalism, which
distinguishes between form ("appearance") and the
unknown content (noumena) of form. In Dooyeweerd "problems
of
epistemology" depends on "prior
ontological foundations". According
to Knudsen Dooyeweerd limits himself to correspondence.
Dooyeweerd acknowledged that his coherence is subjective but
still he prioritized his subjective coherence as a datum above
correspondence. Subjective coherence for Dooyeweerd is prior
to "theoretical thought" and cannot
be replaced with theoretical thinking. Theoretical thinking
makes abstractions of totality.[444]
Dooyeweerd, like all other Calvinists presupposes a view of
totality, which cannot be a datum and therefore not
"correspondence" in a universal sense. Science is based on
universal acceptable data we can agree on. This is the major
difference between Calvinistic and Kantian philosophy. Kant
wrote subjective coherism should not be part of science in an
explicit sense and we should not surpass correspondence in
scientific work. His view found its fullness in his "highest
good" namely honesties, which is the same in the Bible.
When an aspectual view is abstracted the meaning
of the specific aspect becomes clear via the "law-side" and "subject-side". Each
aspectual view has coherence, which must fit in to
pre-theoretical subjective coherism. According to Dooyweerd,
Husserl's phenomenology aims to identify universal appearances
but Dooyeweerd claims Husserl's method does not give justice
to the way "reality" is
experienced because Husserl prioritizes theory above naïve
subjective coherence and "Husserl's transcendental subjects"
is not a "given" and therefore Husserl's perceiver is a
theoretical construct and not a "given" from God. Husserl does
not include an "ultimate antithesis" as background of
appearances.[445]
I did not make quotations of Knudsen's references. The
references to Knudsen include references he made, which can be
found in his paper.
Dooyeweerd opined his aspectual "meaning" is not
forms ("eidos") of phenomenology and meaning relates more to
the subjective coherence each person experience.[446]
It now seems Dooyeweerd basically said the same as Kant
because Dooyeweerd's subjective coherence, which really is the
result of "given" correspondence (resulting from others' and
own honesties), also motivates honesties. The big difference
is that Dooyeweerd did not do it explicitly like Kant did.
This big difference is an effect of Caiaphas syndromes.
"Transcendental"
Dooyeweerd opined that by using Christianity,
theoretical thinking is truest.[447]
I think now the difference between Dooyeweerd and myself can
be found in our interpretations of the Bible, but more in our
interpretations of our religions, which he prioritized above
faiths. I prioritize faith above reliance because my faith is
important to the whole society, not only Christians. My faith
is to be as honest as possible and i have faith that the law
system and God will protect me against Caiaphas and his type,
which do not like honesties. Maybe Dooyeweerd relied not on
the same understanding, as i. Maybe, his faith in the law,
being a barrister and philosopher, was different from my faith
in law being an accountant and academic.
Dooyeweerd wrote parts are only understood after
ideas of totality were formed.[448]
This is an important difference between Kant and Dooyeweerd
because Kant, as i understand Kant, intentionally limited
himself in thinking too consequentially because Kant realized
his thoughts about causal effects have limited accuracy. That
is why Kant emphasized duties for example honesties. We should
not consider whether we should lie or not in every day life
according to Kant because it is a duty we have. With
Dooyeweerd's subjective coherism a lie can be justified with
consequential reasoning, which is not acceptable in Kant's
philosophy. There is however a fine line between Kant and
Dooyeweerd, which finds its origin in Caiaphas syndrome.
The empiricist character of Dooyeweerd is
recognized in his emphasis on "given" reality, which i
understood here according to Knudsen's opinion about
Dooyeweerd as not given by God, but rather given by matter.[449]
By stating the importance of correspondence, without relying
on the divine concept of honesties as primary, he rejects true
correspondence. It seems Dooyeweerd did not recognize the
correlations amongst God, faiths, honesties and truths, which
Kant emphasized as most important for science.
Kant explained that
thought contains antinomies when science is based on
" 'regulative' " instead of
" 'constitutive' " conclusions. With regulative
conclusions a thesis or antithesis can be proven but
constitutive thought presents a true picture without
bivalence.[450]
Dooyweerd opined that
because of emphasis on theoretical thought as starting point
in phenomenology, phenomenology is with "antinomy". He opines
the antinomy arises in phenomenologists' naïve correspondence due to "false
attempts
at synthesis which arise from the false choice of position by
the heart with respect to the absolute origin." Phenomenologists transgress the central
meaning of reality by reducing secondary aspects to a chosen
essential aspect, without presupposing subjective coherencies,
given from total meaning via experience of totality.[451]
Causality in totality
is a presupposition of Dooyeweerd, which traditional
philosophy does not adhere to in his way. According to
Dooyeweerd the influences of the other aspects are lost when
totality is not perceived but just reduced into a chosen
aspect.[452]
Whilst reading these last pages i realized that the focus of
direction of causality is important and also the focus of
effects of causality on selves and/or others. Others can be
perceived according to Jesus's first thought about neighbors
or his second thought about Samaritans. Philosophers can focus
either on causalities with regard to their own actions or with
regard to others' actions or both. Truest will own actions
because others' actions cannot be seen. Empirical thinker came
to conclusions about events without being there, where
abstracted origins were present, in positions to see
abstracted starting points of events. The actions of
empiricist under pressure were the opposite of what
empiricists espouse. By believing own interpretations of read
material about facts, via postulations of totalities; facts
empiricist did not see or experience, empiricist reached false
conclusions. There were serious fallacies in empiricist's
conclusions due to non-realizations that opinions are not
truest. Empiricist really believed empiricist's own opinions
and could not identify illogical reasoning and could not
distinguish between fact and own opinion. Empiricist is very
intelligent.
The four religious ground motives of Western
Culture according to Dooyeweerd are:[453]
-
"Form-matter" of Greek antiquity in conjunction with "the
Roman idea of imperium."
-
The Christian ground
motive of creation, fall, redemption through Jesus Christ and
the Holy Spirit.
-
The Roman Catholic
idea of "nature-grace", which attempts to combine the first two
religious ground motives.
-
Modern humanism with
their postulate of "nature-freedom", trying to synthesize the three previous ground
motives.
Dooyweerd explains in
this paper that the idea of thesis-antithesis relates to the
absolute stability of God against the temporal change of
Earthly existence. He also emphasizes that the thesis and
antithesis between humans and God cannot be synthesized.[454]
It is not certain what Dooyeweerd's definition of God was
because Stoker accused Dooyeweerd of having a Christocentric
philosophy. In this paper Dooyeweerd made a clear distinction
between God and idols.
Dooyeweerd defined religion as: ' "the innate impulse of the
human selfhood to direct itself toward the true or toward a
pretended absolute Origin of all temporal diversity of meaning
which it finds focused concentrically in itself "[455] '[456]
It started to seem that the antithetic God, which
Dooyeweerd postulates is definitely related to truth. It
however seems form the other papers that his conception of
truth was not scientifically justifiable. I contend that the
right conception of truth is scientifically acceptable and the
best example i have seen is Kant's philosophy and Jesus's,
Socrates's etc. actions. I am not sure about Socrates because
i do not know his life story as well as Jesus's. The
circumstances are also very different between Jesus and
Socrates. It seems Jesus was excommunicated but not Socrates.
"Dooyeweerd identified five major
ground motives operating in Western history:
1) The form-matter motive
of Greek culture
2) The power-law motive
of Roman culture
3) The biblical motive of creation-fall-redemption
4) The scholastic-medieval
motive of nature and grace
5) The humanist nature-freedom
motive
Their influence on
scholarship and science is channelled through a cosmonomic (or
transcendental) idea. The latter may be regarded as a
threefold answer to a threefold question concerning
1) the origin of meaning, 2) the unity (or multiplicity) of
meaning and 3) the relation of coherence and diversity between
the different aspects of created reality.[457]
The three questions are
inter-related. According to Dooyeweerd, acceptance of a unique
Origin of all meaning (or e.g. of two original principles
opposed to each other) determines whether one accepts or not
(see second question) the integral unity of meaning at the
root of the modal aspects."[458]
"According to Bos, however, the
ground motive of Greek culture is better captured in the
“Titanic meaning-perspective”. In his opinion the myth of
Kronos and the Titans is a sort of archetypal story revealing
the roots of Greek culture and philosophy. Kronos is a fallen
god who has lost his glory through his own fault and therefore
lives in the under-world. ... A fundamental feature of Greek
culture is that it identifies part of the world as “divine”,
yet deprived of its divinity because it is bound to the
non-divine rest of reality. This fundamental feature,
according to Bos, is better qualified to be considered the
ground motive of ancient Greek culture. The Titanic
perspective continued to influence not only Hermetic and
Gnostic thought but also the Church Fathers. They did not
always realize that such perspective is diametrically opposed
to the biblical perspective on man and the cosmos, which
requires a radical distinction between Creator and creature.
This lack of awareness led to a slow “ellenization” of the
Church, which Bos considers most unfortunate.[459]"[460]
Coletto asks the question; which is the true
ground motive Greek philosophy? Is it Bos's or Dooyweerd's
conception? Both are correct according to my understanding and
according to Dooyweerd's philosophy as refined by Clouser the
question about whos groundmotive is the most real is
irrelevant because both are correct and each give insight into
a different "aspect" of Greek philosophy. The form-matter
construct partly enlightens the anomaly of Plato and can be
classified under the fiduciary and physical aspects. The
Kronos debacle partly explains the fallaciousness of a god's
or a goddess's singularity. The understandings about gods and
goddesses can also be classified in the fiduciary, but also
most of the other aspects.
"Very soon, the nature-grace
dialectical motive produced a synthesis of biblical doctrine
and Greek philosophy or culture. One interesting feature of
this motive is that the Greek motive of matter and form was
incorporated in the nature- pole of the Christian motive. In a
sense, the Christian motive created an integration, an
addition to the Greek motive according to the classical Roman
Catholic approach: gratia natura non tollit sed perficit.
Such an addition had to be harmonised, of course, with the
Christian ground motive, and here a synthesis had to be
performed. Not only integration therefore, but a synthesis in
which grace is supposed to “control” nature, to bring it to
“perfection”, while in return nature constitutes the support
of (or introduction to) the sphere of grace (praeambula
gratiae)."[461]
"our transcendental
critique of theoretical thought has an inner historical
connection with Kant’s critique of pure reason,
notwithstanding the fact that our critique was turned to a
great extent against the theoretical dogmatism in Kant’s
epistemology.[462]
The above
quotation explains why Dooyeweerd was wrong. He did not
understand, like Nietzsche, Machiavelly, Luther, Calvin and
Hobbes did not, that honesties are not dogma. Philosophers,
who understood it was Jesus, Kant and Karl Jaspers as far as i
know. They accepted prioritized correspondence as truth. Karl
Jaspers for example took it so far as to say that truth is
heard[463]
in a voice. For him it could have been correspondence in the
sense of similarities between words and realities in the world
but also hearing the sound of a voice. For Jaspers it thus
related to not only representation but also to experiencing
sound. The word "god" originated partly from "guth",
which meant "voice" in "Old Irish".[464]
"Let us take for example Nicholas
Wolterstorff’s appeal to Christian scholars to avoid
“deterministic approaches” in the social sciences.
'Christians, committed as
they are to human responsibility, are thereby also committed,
as I see it, to human freedom; which means they will reject
purely deterministic accounts in the social sciences and
search for non-deterministic accounts.[465]'
It is interesting to notice
that the alternative to determinism is identified in
“freedom”, and this seems to take us back to the
nature-freedom dilemma implied in the humanist ground motive." [466]
If
humanism, the last ground idea divided Christians between
those who espouse freedom and those who espouse nature, the
above understanding of Wolterstorff shows that he was in favor
of imparting of ideas. That balances with his opinion[467]:
"Gratitude springs from enjoying and finding
beneficial the creatures and creations around you".[468]
It does
not however balance with his view in the video with regards to
my understanding of enjoyment through 'sacrifice' of
'creatures' as it is practiced. It seems then here are
identifications between streams of Christianity or can a
Christian only subscribe to humanism's "freedom"? The
nature-freedom debate is understood according to Rousseau's
explanations in his social contract[469]
that creators are in states of nature until creators become
free by joining civil society. Something else, which sometimes
happens with creators (creatures) are that we become despots
and it seems we creatures are actually used as despots in the
economy, if we allow them to use us like that. Rousseau
explained this societal construct by correlating despots with
kings who supply civil stability through despotism. The Roman
2nd ground motive of Coletto is therefore understood with
creatures driven to despotism. Before reaching states of
despotism we are enjoyed in the sense Wolterstorff explained.
Creatures are in nature and civil societies, including
hegemons have freedoms. Basically, civil societies use
creatures before driving us to despotism. We are driven to
despotism because we, as creators, are excluded from the
benefits and freedoms that civil societies impart to their
members. Freedoms of societal members, and human rights, for
example, imparting of ideas, then influence societies to live
like animals, which have despotic social structures,
beneficial for society. Only faiths in God can keep creators
from becoming despotic societal members.
Bos quoted Klapwijk about the appropriation of
intellectual creations into the Christian sphere: a " 'Christian
worldview means a restructuring and redirecting of their
content a redefining of their scope or meaning' ".[470]
Klapwijk quoted the
Bible: "For the foolishness of God is wiser
than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than
man's strength."[471]
His quotation supports my thesis that God is powerful and
therefore cannot be one because if the "weakness
of God is stronger than man's strength", surely God is powerful and not a singular
concept. Klapwijk however contrasts "Christ's lordhip and
Satan's power"[472].
His conception of God relates to the "Other/other" weak
singular form of Kearney for example. The old Christian
kingdoms appropriated all intellectual creations to property
of kings and they then distributed development rights. In
modern societies that system exist not anymore. According to
Christianity each man is a king in his house and therefore the
appropriation of intellectual creations is not valid on a
national basis any more. New structures should be used to stop
the imparting of ideas to the Christian sphere against
national unities.
The Calvinist opinions of Vollenhoven and
Dooyeweerd are mentioned with regard to impossibility of
synthesis between Christianity's thesis and other theses.[473] Has this view
not to do with Jesus's 1st and 2nd thought about love. His 1st
thought excluded any synthesis because love applied only to
Jewish neighbors but his 2nd thought included Samaritans and
implies synthesis between Samaritans and Jews. The idea that
no synthesis is possible between Christianity and other
cultures is therefore not Christian but rather a Jewish idea.
My understanding is that Samaritans were a mixture of the
original Canaanites with the non-Jewish Israelites. Only the
Jewish tribe did not assimilate themselves with the
Canaanites. The descendants of the other 11 brothers
originated from Israel and the original citizens of Canaan.
There is however a big difference between eros and agape for
Samaritans in the sense of assimilation. Agape is related to
imparting of ideas and eros is related to sexual relations.
Agape is relevant philosophically but eros more than
philosophically.
Klapwijk regards alienation in labor relations,
which impede self-realization as communist sin.[474]
It seems he also recognized Caiaphas syndrome under
Christians. He wrote: "Truth
is thinned down to intersubjective consensus. ... The Cross
becomes the symbol of solidarity of comrades. The Resurrection
becomes the symbol of uprising, of revolt."[475]
List of references
ARISTOTLE. 384-322
BC. The
metaphysics. (Translated by Lawson-Tancred,
H. London, England: Penguin. 2004)
ARISTOTLE. De
anima. (© 1986,
translated by Hugh Lawson-Tancred. London: Penguin, 1986)
AQUINAS,
T. 1273 CE. Summa theologica: treatise on the
theological virtues: of the act of faith, article 4: whether
it is necessary to believe those things which can be proved
by natural reason? (From: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum257.htm
on 19 September 2013.)
Bartholomew,
CG. 1994. Response to Al Wolter's
paper. (In: God's order for creation.
Potchefstroom: Scientific Contributions of the PU for CHE,
Series F: Institute for Reformational Studies, Series F1:
IFRS study-pamphlets, Study pamphlet no. 324, 61-70)
BLACKBURN,
S. 2008. The Oxford dictionary of
philosophy. (Oxford: Oxford University, 2nd
edition revised, 2008)
BOS, A.P. 1987. Transformation and deformation
in philosophy. Philosophia Reformata, 52(2):135-138.
BUDGE Wallis,
E.A. 1895. The book of the dead: the
papyrus of Ani. (New York: Dover, 1967)
CLOUSER, R.A.
The myth of religious neutrality: an essay on the hidden
role of religious belief in theories. (Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press. 2005 revised edition).
COLETTO,
R. 2012. Dooyeweerd’s theory of religious ground motives: A
few implications for Christian Philosophy and Scholarship. (In Studia UBB.
Philosophia. 57(3):119-132.)
Collins
English Dictionary. (Glasgow:
HarperCollins, 3rd edition updated 1994)
DOOYEWEERD,
H. 1948a. The
dogma concerning the autonomy
of reason and the possibility of a transcendental criticism
of philosophy. (In: Dooyeweerd, H. Transcendental problems
of philosophical thought: an inquiry into the transcendental
conditions of philosophy, pp. 15-26. On study CD: FILH 674
FILM 879/A KENNIS EN METODE – TRANSENDENTALE FILOSOFIE/1a.
Dooyeweerd – Transcendental criticism of philosophy.pdf)
DOOYEWEERD,
H. 1948b. The
method of this transcendental criticism (In: Dooyeweerd, H.
Transcendental problems of philosophical thought: an inquiry
into the transcendental conditions of philosophy, pp.
29-55.On Study CD: FILH 674 FILM 879/A KENNIS EN METODE –
TRANSENDENTALE FILOSOFIE/1b. Dooyeweerd – Method of
transcendental criticism.pdf)
DOOYEWEERD, H. 1979. The Dutch national
movement & The religious antithesis. (In Roots of
Western culture. Toronto: Wedge, pp. 1-15.)
DOOYEWEERD,
H. 1996. Cristian philosophy: An Exploration. (Lewiston:
Edwin Mellen Press, pp. 1-23. On Study CD: FILH 674 FILM 879/A KENNIS EN
METODE – TRANSENDENTALE FILOSOFIE/1c. Dooyeweerd – Christian
Philosophy – An Exploration.pdf)
Frankenberry,
Nancy, "Feminist Philosophy of Religion", The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/feminist-religion/>
on
16 August 2013.
GEERTSEMA, H.G.
2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental critique: transforming it
hermeneutically. (In Strauss, D.F.M. & Sotting, M. eds.
Contemporary reflections on the philosophy of Herman
Dooyeweerd. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, pp. 83-108)
Griffioen, S. Lecture about Vollenhofen on
24 August 2013. (Nort-West University, Potchefstroom: FILM
879: Christian philosophy)
HART, H. 1995. Creation order in our
philosophical tradition: critique and refinement. (In Walsh,
BJ., Hart, 1995, H., VanderVennen, R.E. eds. An ethos of
compassion and the integrity of creation. Lanham: University
Press of America, pp. 67-96).
HART, H. 2000. Notes on Dooyeweerd,
reason, and order. (In Strauss, D.F.M. & Botting, M.
Contemporary reflections on the philosophy of Herman
Dooyeweerd. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, pp. 125-146.)
JASPERS,
K. 1947. Truth and
symbol. (London: Vision Press, date not
available, first published by Twayne Publishers in the
British Commonwealth, 1959)
JUSTAERT, K. Gilles Deleuze and
the transcendence of the immanent (In:
Stoker, W.
& Van der Merwe, W.L. (eds.). Culture and
transcendence: a typology of transcendence. Digital
file name: STOKER VAN DER MERWE - CULTURE AND
TRANCENDENCE.pdf, pp.
76-87, 2012.)
KIRBY, P.,
c2009. Early Christian writings. From:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/revelation-web.html
[accessed: 8 October 2013].
KLAPWIJK,
J. 1986. Antithesis, synthesis, and the idea of
transformational philosophy. Philosophia Reformata,
51:138-152.
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009a. Dooyeweerd's philosophical
method. (In Knudsen, D. ed. Roots and branches: the quest for meaning and
truth in modern thought, pp. 327-349. Grand Rapids: Paideia,
2009)
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009b. The religious foundation of
Dooyeweerd's transcendental method. (In Knudsen, D. ed. Roots and branches: the quest for meaning and
truth in modern thought, pp. 311-326. Grand Rapids: Paideia,
2009)
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009c. Transcendental method in
Dooyeweerd. (In Knudsen, D. ed. Roots and branches: the quest for meaning and
truth in modern thought, pp. 301-309. Grand Rapids: Paideia,
2009)
Labour Relations
Act of South Africa: act 66 of 1995. (From: https://www.labour.gov.za/downloads/legislation/acts/labour-relations/Act%20-%20Labour%20Relations.doc on 3 May 2013.)
New Oxford
American Dictionary. Copyright © 2005–2009 Apple Inc.
All rights reserved. Version 2.1 (80)
NIETZSCHE, F. 1886. Beyond good and
evil: prelude to a philosophy of the future. (Translated by
R.J. Holllingdale. London, England: Penguin, 3rd Penguin
edition, 2003)
PITCHER, J.
(ed). "Francis Bacon. The Essays". 1625 publication.
(London: Penguin, 1985)
PLATO. Phaedrus.
(translated by Rowe, C.J. ©1986. Wiltshire,
England: Aris & Phillips Ltd, 2nd ed.)
PLATO.
427-347BC. The republic. (Translated
by Desmond Lee. London: Penguin, 2007)
RORTY, R. 1982. Professionalized philosophy and
transcendentalist culture.
(In Rorty, R.
Consequences of pragmatism (Essays: 1972-1980), pp. 60-71.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, c1982 from cd:
FILH674 FILM879/A KENNIS EN METODE - TRANSENDENTALE
FILOSOFIE/3a. Rorty - Professionalized philosophy &
transcendentalist culture.pdf) STOKER,
W.
Culture and transcendence: a typology (In: Stoker, W. & Van
der Merwe, W.L. (eds.). Culture and
transcendence: a typology of transcendence. Digital
file name: STOKER VAN DER MERWE - CULTURE AND
TRANCENDENCE.pdf, pp.
3-23, 2012.)
STOKER, H.G.
1970. The philosophy of the creation idea.
(Potchefstroom: North-West University, On study CD: FILH 674
FILM 879/J STOKER/1a. Stoker Philosophy of the Creation Idea
2010.pdf)
TARNAS, R. ©1991. The passion of the
western mind: understanding the ideas that have shaped our
world view. (New
York: Ballantine Books, 1993.)
TAYLOR, C. 1995. The validity of transcendental
arguments. (In Taylor, C. Philosophical arguments, pp. 20-33,
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995, from cd:
FILH674 FILM879/A KENNIS EN METODE - TRANSENDENTALE
FILOSOFIE/2b. Taylor - The validity of transcendental
arguments.pdf)
The
bill of rights. In The South African constitution. (From:
http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#16
on 28 February 2013.)
TROOST, A. 1994. The idea of creation
order in Western thought. (In God's order for creation.
Potchefstroom: IRS study-pamphlets No. 324. pp. 2-15.)
[13p.]
VAN DER HOEVEN, J. 1995. Portrayal of
reformational philosophy seems unfair. (In Walsh, B.J.,
Hart, H., VanderVennen, R.E. eds. An ethos of compassion and
the integrity of creation. Lanham: University Press of
America, pp. 109-114).
Van der Walt,
B.J. A
Scripturally-orientated perspective on the history of
Western intellectual thought: the origin and contours of and
questions about the consistent problem-historical method. (In Tydskrif vir
Geestewetenskappe. Planned
for Sept. 2013. Digital file name: < 6. Skrifmatige
perspektief op gesk vd Westerse filos denke.docx>
received by e-mail on 2 June 2013 from North-West
University)
VAN
DER WALT, B.J., 2013, Die Christelike filosofie van D.H.Th.
Vollenhoven (1892– 1978): Hoe dit ontstaan en verder ontwikkel
het (In die
Skriflig/In Luce Verbi 47(1), Art. #80, 13 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v47i1.80
. Digital file name: <1. Christelike filos v Vollenhoven -
Hoe dit ontstaan & ontwikkel het.pdf > received by
e-mail on 2 June 2013 from North-West University)
Van der
Walt, B.J., 2013, ‘H.G. Stoker (1999–1993) as Christelike
filosoof: ’n Historiese legende en ikoon, of nog steeds ’n
kontemporêre mentor?’, (In Die Skriflig/In Luce Verbi 47(1),
Art. #86, 15 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ ids.v47i1.86,
on study CD: FILH 674 FILM
879/J STOKER/2. Stoker as Christelike filosoof.pdf)
VENTER, J.J. Leesbundel. (In Geskiedenis
van die filosofie studiegids (PHIL 221 PAC). (Potchefstroom,
South-Africa: North-West University 2012.)
Vollenhoven,
D.H.Th. 1953. Scripture use and
philosophy [Translated].
(In Mededelingen van het Vereniging voor
Calvinistisch Wijsbegeerte, p. 6-9. Sept. 1953. Digital file
name: <3. Scripture use and philosophy.pdf> received
by e-mail on 2 June 2013 from North-West University)
WOLTERS, AM. 1994. Creation
order: A historical look at our heritage. (In:
God's order for creation. Potchefstroom: Scientific
Contributions of the PU for CHE, Series F: Institute for
Reformational Studies, Series F1: IFRS study-pamphlets, Study
pamphlet no. 324)
WOLTERS, A.M. 1995. Creation order: a
historical look at our heritage. (In Walsh, BJ., Hart, H.
VanderVennen, R.E. eds. An ethos of compassion and the
integrity of creation. Lanham: University Press of America,
pp. 33-48). [13p.]
WOLTERSTORFF, N. 1995. Points of unease
with the creation order tradition. (In Walsh, B.J., Hart,
H., VanderVennen, R.E. eds. An ethos of compassion and the
integrity of creation. Lanham: University Press of America,
pp. 62-66).
ZUIDERVAART, L. 2004. The great turning
point: religion and rationality in Dooyeweerd's
transcendental critique. (Faith and Philosophy, Jan. 2004,
vol. 21, no.1, pp. 65-89, from cd: FILH674 FILM879/A KENNIS
EN METODE - TRANSENDENTALE FILOSOFIE/4. Zuidervaart -
Religion & rationality in Dooy's transcendental
critique.pdf)
[1] Frankenberry.
[2] Frankenberry.
[3] Frankenberry.
[4] Troost, pp. 2-3.
[5] Troost, p. 3.
[6] Troost, p. 3.
[7] Troost, p. 3.
[8] Troost, pp. 3-4.
[9] Troost, p. 4.
[10] Troost, p. 4.
[11] Troost, p. 4.
[12] Troost, p. 5.
[13] New Oxford American Dictionary, Version 2.1
(80), Copyright © 2005–2009 Apple Inc.
[14] Venter, p. 86.
[15]
[Socrates]: " 'In the dog's name!' " (Plato. The
rep, p. 306: 567d; p. 95: 399a).
"Glaucon
swears 'By Zeus', the chief Olympian god; Socrates, who
always avoided such oaths, swears the oath traditionally
ascribed to him, 'By the dog'." (Plato. The rep, p. 390:
Part III, note 69)
'The condition of cynocephaly, having
the head of a dog — or of a jackal— is a widely attested mythical
phenomenon existing in many different forms and contexts.
… Cynocephaly was familiar to the Ancient
Greeks from representations of the Egyptian
gods Hapi
(the son of Horus)
and Anubis
(the Egyptian god of the dead). The Greek word (Greek:
κῠνοκέφᾰλοι) "dog-head" also
identified a sacred Egyptian
baboon
with the face of a dog. Reports of dog-headed races can
also be traced back to Greek antiquity. In the fifth
century BC, the Greek physician Ctesias
wrote a detailed report on the existence of cynocephali in
India. Similarly, the Greek traveller Megasthenes
claimed to know about dog-headed people in India who lived
in the mountains, communicated through barking, wore the
skins of wild animals and lived by hunting.' (From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly
on 28 June 2013)
The word 'cynocephaly' does not appear in the
Collins English dictionary nor the New Oxford American
Dictionary in which author looked.
[16] Troost, p. 5.
[17] Troost, p. 5.
[18] Troost, p. 6.
[19] Troost, p. 6.
[20] Troost, p. 6.
[21] Troost, p. 7.
[22] Troost, p. 8.
[23]
The Bill of Rights, Section 16 (1)(b) of The South
African Constitution states: "Freedom of
expression. 1. Everyone has the right to
freedom of expression, which includes. … (b) freedom to
receive or impart information or ideas; .." (The bill)
The South African
Labour Relations Act states in section 5: "Protection of employees and persons seeking
employment … (2) … no person may do, or threaten to do,
any of the following- … (c) prejudice an employee or a
person seeking employment because of past, present or
anticipated- … (v) disclosure of information that the
employee is lawfully entitled or required to give to
another person;" (Lab)
The United States of America
constitution motivates imparting of ideas to enhance the
'arts'.
[24] Troost, p.
[25] Troost, p. 8.
[26] Aquinas. 1273 CE. Sum.
[27]
' "Only through singularities can we
find the divine." —Spinoza' (Kearney.
Ana, p. 85). Empiricists currently seem to lack a sense of
individualism (authentism) and metaphysical reasoning,
which according to Spinoza causes lack of true faith.
Author understands this reference to Spinoza to mean that
only through living as individual, can a person realize
his/her own weakness and realize that God are plural form.
[28] Troost, p. 9-10.
[29] Troost, p. 10.
[30] Troost, pp. 10-11.
[31] Troost, p. 11.
[32] Troost, pp. 10-11.
[33] Troost, pp. 12-13.
[34] Troost, p. 13.
[35] These "natural rights" or "human rights" are
not all good for society because it can be identified
according to me in the right to deceive and to impart
ideas, which currently is enforced by utilitarian laws. I
read Grotius wrote that laws are written to favor groups
who write the laws.
[36] Troost, pp. 12-13.
[37] Troost, p. 13.
[38] Troost, pp.13-14. According to me: this
instruction of Jesus to love was explained by him to not
break the law. It relates less to affection and
forgiveness for fellow group members of a common wealth
who broke the laws against enemies and society. It relates
more to loving enemies, not in the sense of not hating
enemies, but more in the sense of not breaking the law
against enemies for example stealing from enemies etc.
Many misunderstandings exist due to the dictionary
definition of love (closer to "eros" and affection), which
differ from Jesus's definition of love ("agape"). Jesus's
love was a positive non-action of not doing things against
society and enemies. When Jews wanted him to revolt
against the Roman colonizers and cause a revolution he
refused to break the laws of the Romans. Matthew was a tax
collector for Romans. Jesus's love is often portrayed to
be dominantly, a forgiving affectionate love to people who
broke the law, which is not valid according to my current
understanding of what Jesus said.
[39] Troost, p. 14.
[40] The most important commandment with regard
to creativities in the Ten Commandments is to not copy but
when persons loose abilities to assemble true thoughts its
become problematic to be logical and creative.
Practicalities to live then require copying.
[41] Troost, p. 14.
[42] Troost, pp. 15-16.
[43] Wolters referred to a comparison with "the statement by H. Evan Runner in his
address "On Being Anti-Revolutionary and Christian
Historical: At the Cutting Edge of History, 1979-80" in Christian Political
Options (ed. C. den Hollander, The Hague:
AR-Partijstichting, 1979) 127: "And central to such an
inner reformation must be an explicit orientation to two
realities which the Scriptures consistently teach and
which 20th century humanism consistently
ignores: the reality of constant creational ordinances
(structure) and the reality of a spiritual antithesis
(direction)." (Wolters, 1994:47)
[44] "I use the word advisedly." (Wolters, 1994:47)
[45] WOLTERS,
A.M. 1994. Creation order, 46-47.
[46] WOLTERS,
A.M. 1994. Creation order, 47-48.
[47] "W. Geesink, Van's Heeren
Ordinatiën (2nd ed.; 3 vols,; Kampem: Kok,
1925, Voorwoord."
(Wolters,
1994:48)
[48] WOLTERS,
A.M. 1994. Creation order, 48.
[49] 'See
"DUMBRELL,
W.J. 1985. The end of the beginning:
Revelation 21-22 and the Old Testament. Australia :
Lancer, 174,175." '
[50] Bartholomew,
CG. 1994. Response to Al Wolter's
paper, 66.
[51] Wolters, p. 33.
[52] Wolters, p. 34.
[53] "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of
knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."
(Proverbs 1:7). 'My son, if sinners entice you, do not
give in to them. If they say, ".. fill our houses with
plunder; throw in your lot with us, and we will share a
common purse" … ' (Proverbs 1:10-19). "Wisdom calls aloud
in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares;
.." (Proverbs 1:20). To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I
hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse
speech. Counsel and sound judgement are mine; I have
understanding and power. By me kings reign and rulers make
laws that are just" (Proverbs 8:13-15)
[54] Wolters, p. 35.
[55] Wolters, p. 35.
[56] Wolters, p. 35.
[57] Wolters, p. 35.
[58] Wolters, p. 36.
[59] Wolters, p. 36.
[60] Wolters, p. 36.
[61] Wolters, p. 37.
[62] Wolters, p. 37.
[63] Wolters, p. 39.
[64] Wolters, p. 39.
[65] "A.J. van Dijk, Groen van Prinsterer's
Lectures on Unbelief and Revolution (Jordan Station, Ont.:
Wedge, 1989), 232." (Wolters, p.47)
[66] Wolters, p. 40.
[67] Aristotle, p. 195-196, 1034a.
[68] Wolters, p. 40-41.
[69] Wolters, p. 41.
[70] Wolters, p. 41.
[71] Vollenhoven. Scr, p.1. There could be
contradiction here because Scripture is part of the cosmos
and therefore not divine but Vollenhoven also said
explicitly Scripture is divine.
[72] Wolters, p. 41.
[73] Wolters, p. 42.
[74] Wolters, pp. 42-44.
[75] Wolters, p. 44.
[76] Wolters, pp. 44-45
[77] Hart, 1995, p. 67.
[78] Hart, 1995, p.67.
[79] New Oxford American Dictionary, in
definition of "atonement".
[80] Hart, 1995, pp. 67-68.
[81] Hart, 1995, p. 68.
[82] Hart, 1995, p. 68.
[83] Hart, 1995, pp. 68-69.
[84] Hart, 1995, p. 69.
[85] Hart, 1995, p. 69.
[86] Hart, 1995, p. 70.
[87] Hart, 1995, p. 70.
[88] Hart, 1995, pp. 70-71.
[89] Hart, 1995, pp. 71.
[90] Hart, 1995, pp. 71.
[91] Hart, 1995, p. 72.
[92] Hart, 1995, p. 72.
[93] Hart, 1995, p. 73.
[94] "The creation waits in eager expectation for
the sons of God to be revealed." (Romans 8:20)
[95] Hart, 1995, pp. 74-75.
[96] Hart, 1995, p. 75.
[97] Hart, 1995, p. 75-76.
[98] Hart, 1995, p. 76.
[99] Hart, 2000, p. 125.
[100] Aristotle. The met, p. 149: 1025a-1025b.
[101] Hart, 2000, p. 126.
[102] Hart, 2000, p.126.
[103] Hart, 2000, p. 127.
[104] Hart, 2000, pp. 127-128.
[105] Hart, p. 128.
[106] Hart, pp. 128-129.
[108] Van der Walt, A Sc, pp. 7, 13-16.
[109] Hart, 2000, p. 125.
[110] Hart, pp. 129-130
[111] Clouser, p.263.
[112] Aristotle. The met, Lambda 1, pp. 355-356,
1069a-1069b.
[113] Clouser, p. 243.
[114] Hart, 2000, p. 130-131.
[115] Hart, 2000, p. 131.
[116] Hart, 2000, p. 131.
[117] Hart, 2000, p. 131.
[118] Hart, 2000, p. 131.
[119] Hart, 2000, p. 132.
[120] Hart, 2000, p. 133.
[121] Hart, 2000, p. 134.
[122] Hart, 2000, pp. 134-135.
[123] Hart, 2000, pp. 135-136.
[124] Hart, 2000, p. 136.
[125] Hart, 2000, p. 136.
[126] Hart, 1995, p. 67.
[127] Hart, 2000, p. 137.
[128] Hart, 2000, p. 138.
[129] Hart, 2000, pp. 140-143.
[130] Tarnas, pp. 101-102.
[131] See Frankenberry quotation at beginning of
document about constancy.
[132] Hart, 2000, p. 143.
[133] Hart refers here to God in Joshua 10:40,
11:20 of the Bible, which was translated from YHWH to LORD
in the New International Version of the Bible.
[134] Van der Hoeven, p. 110.
[135] Van der Hoeven, pp. 110-112.
[136] Van der Hoeven, p. 112.
[137] Wolterstorff, p. 62.
[138] Wolterstorff, p. 63.
[139] Stoker. 1970, 18.
[140] Wolterstorff, pp. 63-64.
[141] Wolterstorff, p. 64.
[142] Wolterstorff, p. 64.
[143] Wolterstorff, p. 65.
[144] Wolterstorff, p. 66.
[145] Wolterstorff, p. 66.
[146]
Vollenhoven. Die, p. 5.
[147]
Vollenhoven. Die, p. 5.
[148]
Van der Walt. Die, p. 4.
[149]
Van der Walt. Die, p. 8., Vollenhoven. Die, p. 4.,
Vollenhoven. Scr, p. 6., Van der Walt. A Sc, p. 13.
[150]
Vollenhoven. Scr, p.1.
[151]
Vollenhoven. Die, p. 5.
[152]
Van der Walt. A Sc, p. 12.
[153]
Vollenhoven. Scr, p.1. There could be contradiction
here because Scripture is part of the cosmos and therefore
not divine but Vollenhoven also said explicitly Scripture
is divine.
[154]
Gen. 1: 26 of the Bible.
[155]
Van der Walt. A Sc, p. 13.
[156]
Vollenhoven. Die, p. 6.
[157]
Van der Walt. Die, p. 5.
[158]
Vollenhoven. Die, p. 9-12.
[159]
Vollenhoven. Scr, p. 6-7.
[160]
Van der Walt. A Sc, p. 8-9.
[161]
Vollenhoven. The, p. 4.
[162]
Vollenhoven. Die, p. 10-12.
[163]
Vollenhoven. Die, p. 12., Vollenhoven. The, p. 8.
[164]
Vollenhoven. Scr, p. 6.
[165]
Vollenhoven. Scr, p. 6.
[166]
Van der Walt. A Sc, p. 13-15.
[167]
See lines 128 – 131 where Vollenhofen was
paraphrased, explaining that the contradiction of human
laws with God's laws makes all laws one law. All laws are
one law to show the contradictions, which are.
[168]
This statement was recently made on an
international news channel, probably RT when the global
surveillance program of the USA was discussed.
[169]
According to Toynbee this happens as cultures go
through different phases. (Venter, 86)
[170]
Venter, 31.
[171]
Van der Walt. Die, p. 9.
[172]
Van der Walt. Die, p. 4.
[173]
Tarnas, 44.
[174]
See lines 120 to 122 where 'unio foederalis' was
mentioned.
[175]
See lines 86 to 87 for a contradiction about
divinity in the cosmos. It was written that nothing in the
cosmos is divine and that scripture is divine. Scripture
is in the cosmos and cannot be both divine and not divine
therefore the divine part of scripture has to be between
the lines.
[176]
Venter, 86.
[177]
John Locke who is classified as an empiricist said
that some knowledge (fro example knowledge about God) is
not determined empirically (From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
on 6 July 2013). That implies the practice to classify
philosophers as rationalist or empiricist can be
questioned because the classification should rather be
made of the object in thought and not of the subject doing
the thinking. The object in thought thus determines the
classification of the thinker at the time of thinking. If
thinkers choose objects of thought, thinkers determine
themselves. When anthropologists choose subjects (persons)
or a subject (person) as their subject (object in another
word) field, the question should be asked whether the
persons (objects of study) are subjects to study in a
rationalist way and/or an empirical way. Thinkers who
choose their object of thought self, determine themselves.
It is a universal law that persons (unless they agree)
should not be treated as empirical objects of
investigation, which implies that anthropologists are
rationalist humans? Does empiricism not imply a material
object like a body is used as object and in that sense
real anthropologists can only be philosophers who study
matters of the heart, maybe only their own hearts.
[178]
Aquinas. 1273 CE. Sum.
[179]
Pagina 474: 'The philosophical integration of
Hellenism with Judaism was initiated by Philo of
Alexandria (b.c. 15-10 B.C.), who identified the Logos in
Platonic terms as the Idea of Ideas, as the summation of
all Ideas, and as the source of the world's
intelligibility; and in Judaic terms as God's providential
ordering of the universe and as mediator between God and
man. The Logos was thus both the agent of creation and the
agent by which God was experienced and understood by man.
Philo taught that the Ideas were God's eternal thoughts,
which he created as real beings prior to the creation of
the world. Later Christians held Philo in high regard for
his views of the Logos, which he called the first-begotten
Son of God, the man of God, and the image of God. Philo
appears to have been the first person to have attempted to
integrate revelation and philosophy, faith and reason—the
basic impulse of Scholasticism. Little recognized in
Judaic thought, he had a marked influence on Neoplatonism
and medieval Christian theology.'
[180]
P475: 'Enchiridion, in Augustine, Works, vol. 9,
edited by M. Dods (Edinburgh: Clark, 1871-77), 180-181.'
[181]
Venter, p. 86.
[182] Stoker. 1970, 4.
[183] Stoker. 1970, 6.
[184] Stoker. 1970, 9.
[185] Stoker. 1970, 6.
[186] Stoker. 1970, 8.
[187] Stoker. 1970, 7-9.
[188] Stoker. 1970, 9.
[189] Stoker. 1970, 12.
[190] Stoker. 1970, 14.
[191] Stoker. 1970, 17.
[192] Stoker. 1970, 18.
[193] Stoker. 1970, 20.
[194] Stoker. 1970, 20.
[195] "(the Archê, the Absolute, the
All-sufficient)" (Stoker. 1970,
20.)
[196] Stoker. 1970, 1-20.
[197] Stoker. 1970, 21.
[198] Stoker. 1970, 26.
[199] Stoker. 1970, 30-31.
[200] Stoker. 1970, 31.
[201] Stoker. 1970, 31.
[202] Stoker. 1970, 32.
[203] Stoker. 1970, 33.
[204] Stoker. Cul, 4.
[205] Stoker. 1970, 33.
[206] Stoker. 1970, 34.
[207] New.
[208] Stoker. 1970, 37.
[209] Stoker. 1970, 37-38.
[210] Stoker. 1970, 39-40.
[211] Stoker. 1970, 40.
[212] Stoker. 1970, 40-41.
[213] Stoker. 1970, 42.
[214] Stoker. 1970, 42-44.
[215] Stoker. 1970, 44.
[216] Stoker. 1970, 44-45.
[217] Stoker. 1970, 50.
[218] Stoker. 1970, 50.
[219] Stoker. 1970, 51.
[220] "See the thesis of S P van der Walt Die
Wysbegeerte van dr. Herman Bavinck (Pro Rege-Pers,
Potchefstroom, 1953) in which he refers to the multitude
of relevant publications of Bavinck. Also see my articles
in K I D K II and III." (Stoker. 1970, 22.)
[221] Stoker. 1970, 51-52.
[222] Stoker. 1970, 52.
[223] Stoker. 1970, 52-55.
[224] Stoker. 1970, 52-57.
[225] Stoker. 1970, 57.
[226] Stoker. 1970, 57.
[227] Stoker. 1970, 57.
[228] Stoker. 1970, 57-59.
[229] Stoker. 1970, 60.
[230] Stoker. 1970, 60.
[231] Stoker. 1970, 60-61.
[232]
Book
II. '4. Adeimantus and Glaucon Restate the Case for
Injustice'
'Beside our picture
of the unjust man let us set one of the just man, the man of true simplicity of character
who, as Aeschylus says, wants "to be and not to seem
good". We must, indeed, not allow him to seem good, for if
he does he will have all the rewards and honours paid to
the man who has a reputation for justice, and we shall not
be able to tell whether his motive is love of justice or
love of the rewards and honours. No, we must strip him of
everything except his justice, and our picture of him must
be drawn in a way diametrically opposite to that of the
unjust man. Our just man must have the worst of
reputations for wrongdoing
even though he has done no wrong, so that we can test his
justice and see if it weakens in the face of unpopularity
and all that goes with it; we shall give him an undeserved
and life-long reputation for wickedness, and make him
stick to his chosen course until death. In this way, when
we have pushed the life of justice and of injustice each
to its extreme, we shall [own
emphasis on shall] be able to judge which of the two is
the happier...And if the description is somewhat brutal,
remember that it's not I that am responsible for it,
Socrates, but those who praise injustice more highly than
justice. It is their account that I must now repeat.'
(Plato, p. 45, 360a)
[233] Pitcher. Fra, 74. Francis Bacon. The Essays:
Of adversity.
[234] Stoker. 1970, 62.
[235] Stoker. 1970, 63-64.
[236] Stoker. 1970, 65-67.
[237] Stoker. 1970, 67.
[238] Stoker. 1970, 68.
[239] i.e. Stoker. 1970, 68.
[240] I put "inside" and "all around" in inverted
commas like i sometimes do because i do not want to use
the words definitively because i identified possible
fallacy in the words. The next quotation shows that
Stoker's opinion about "relativise" makes understanding
the translated "in-self-sufficient" more complex.
[241] Stoker. 1970, 68.
[242] Stoker. 1970, 68-69.
[243] Stoker. 1970, 69.
[244] Stoker. 1970, 69.
[245] Stoker. 1970, 70.
[246] Stoker. 1970, 70.
[247] Stoker. 1970, 72-73.
[248] Stoker. 1970, 73.
[249] Stoker. 1970, 73-74.
[250] Stoker. 1970, 81.
[251] Stoker. 1970, 82.
[252] Stoker. 1970, 84.
[253] Stoker. 1970, 85.
[254] Stoker. 1970, 90-91.
[255] Stoker. 1970, 95.
[256] Stoker. 1970, 96.
[257] Stoker. 1970, 97.
[258] Stoker. 1970, 97.
[259] Stoker. 1970, 101.
[260] Stoker. 1970, 102.
[261] Stoker. 1970, 102.
[262] Stoker. 1970, 102.
[263] Stoker. 1970, 103.
[264] Stoker. 1970, 103.
[265] Stoker. 1970, 104.
[266] Stoker. 1970, 104.
[267] Stoker. 1970, 118.
[268] Stoker. 1970, 104.
[269] Stoker. 1970, 104.
[270] Stoker. 1970, 105.
[271] Stoker. 1970, 105. Clouser. The, 244, 246.
[272] Clouser. The, 246.
[273] Stoker. 1970, 107.
[274] Stoker. 1970, 56, 81, 85, 90, 139, 140.
[275] Aquinas. (From: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum257.htm
on 19 September 2013.)
[276] Stoker. 1970, 105.
[277] "Some Christians think this is the only
account of Jesus using
physical
force in any of the Gospels. Eastern
Orthodox reject this idea. The narrative
occurs near the end of the Synoptic
Gospels (at Mark 11:15–19,
11:27–33,
Matthew 21:12–17,
21:23–27
and Luke 19:45–48,
20:1–8)
and near the start in the Gospel of John (at John 2:13–16)."
(From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple
on 19 September 2013.)
[278] Stoker. 1970, 110-111.
[279] Nietzsche. Bey, 9,13,15,71.
[280] Revelation 19:11 and John 18: 37-38 of the
Bible. Aquinas's "God Himself Who cannot lie."
[281] Justaert. Gil, 78. See her reference to
cannibalism and the use of homeopathic medicine.
[282] Wolterstorff. Poi, 64. This quotation with
Wolterstorff's name attached to it could misrepresent
Wolterstorff. After i looked at a lecture of him on the
Internet about art and aesthetics, it seems he regarded
himself as a creator (creature) in the video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMTbI-OGHUY)
[283] Stoker. 1970, 108.
[284] Van der Walt. Die, 4.
[285] Venter, 200.
[286] Plato. Pha, 57.
[287] Stoker. 1970, 118.
[288] Stoker. 1970, 34, 81, 140, 145.
[289] Stoker. 1970, 102, 118, 125.
[290] Stoker, W. Cul, 13-14.
[291] Stoker. 1970, 118.
[292] Stoker. 1970, 118 - 119.
[293] Stoker. 1970, 120.
[294] Stoker. 1970, 121.
[295] Stoker. 1970, 122.
[296] Stoker. 1970, 124.
[297] Stoker. 1970, 125.
[298] Stoker. 1970, 126.
[299] Stoker. 1970, 124.
[300] Stoker. 1970, 127.
[301] Stoker. 1970, 128.
[302] The lower case use of "h" here contradicts
his critique against Dooyeweerd's "anthropocentric"
theory.
[303] Stoker. 1970, 129.
[304] Stoker. 1970, 131.
[305] Stoker. 1970, 131-132.
[306] Stoker. 1970, 132.
[307] Stoker. 1970, 134.
[308] Stoker. 1970, 134.
[309] Stoker. 1970, 136.
[310] Stoker. 1970, 149.
[311] "Bavinck, H., 1908, Wijsbegeerte der
openbaring, Kok, Kampen." (Van der Walt. 2013, 14)
[312] Van der Walt. 2013, 7.
[313] Van der Walt. 2013, 7.
[314] Van der Walt. 2013, 7-8.
[315] "Vollenhoven, D.H.Th., Bril, K.A. &
Boonstra, P.J. (reds.), 2000, Schematische Kaarten;
filosofische concepties in probleemhistorisch verband,
De Zaak Haes, Amstelveen." (Van der Walt. 2013, 15.)
[316] Van der Walt. 2013, 8.
[317] Van der Walt. 2013, 8.
[318] Van der Walt. 2013, 8.
[319] Van der Walt. 2013, 8.
[320] Van der Walt. 2013, 9.
[321] Van der Walt. 2013, 9.
[322] "Van der Walt, B.J., 2010a, ‘Imaging God in
the contemporary world’, in B.J. van der Walt, At home
in God’s World, pp. 325–366, Institute for
Contemporary Christianity in Africa, Potchefstroom." (Van
der Walt. 2013, 15.)
[323] Van der Walt. 2013, 9.
[324] Van der Walt. 2013, 13.
[325] Wikipedia (Gegenstand) in German and
translation by Google translate, From: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gegenstand
and http://translate.google.com
on 10 September 2013.
[326] Revelation 2:17 of the Bible. ".. noem Van der Walt (2009:84) Stoker se
visie op die teologie, naamlik dat dit die ander
wetenskaplikes se toegang tot die Skrif beperk. Teoloë het
nie beswaar gehad dat die teologie vir Stoker die
toegangspoort tot die Skrif was nie, maar Christelike
filosowe het nie daarvan gehou nie en dit as ’n
skolastieke res by Stoker beskou (sien ook later Stoker se
‘Tweefaktor ontologie se implikasies’)." "Van der Walt,
M.F., 2009, ‘The value of Stoker’s methodology for
Reformational philosophy’, Unpublished thesis, North-West
University, Potchefstroom." (Van der Walt. 2013, 3, 15)
[327] Dooyeweerd, 1948a. 15-18.
[328] Dooyeweerd, 1948a. 19.
[329] Dooyeweerd, 1948a. 19.
[330] Dooyeweerd, 1948a. 20-21.
[331] "Now while knowledge in the actualized state
is identical with the fact known, knowledge in the state
of potentiality, though temporally prior in the individual
case, does not in general even have temporal priority. For
all things that come to be do so from that which exists in
actuality. It is clear, too, that it is the object of
perception that converts the perceptive faculty from being
it in potentiality to being it in actuality, without being
itself affected or altered." (Aristotle. De A, pp.
207-208, 431a.)
[332] Dooyeweerd, 1948a. 22-24.
[333] Dooyeweerd, 1948a. 24.
[334] Dooyeweerd, 1948a. 24-26.
[335] Dooyeweerd, 1948b. 29.
[336] Dooyeweerd, 1948b. 31.
[337] Dooyeweerd, 1948b. 32-38.
[338] Dooyeweerd, 1948b. 32-38.
[339] Dooyeweerd, 1948b. 38-44.
[340] Dooyeweerd, 1948b. 46.
[341] Dooyeweerd, 1948b. 49.
[342] Dooyeweerd, 1948b. 49-51.
[343] Dooyeweerd, 1948b. 51.
[344] Dooyeweerd, 1948b. 51.
[345] Wikipedia (Gegenstand) in German and
translation by Google translate, From: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gegenstand
and http://translate.google.com
on 10
September 2013.
[346] Dooyeweerd, 1948b. 53.
[347] Dooyeweerd, 1948b. 55.
[348] Dooyeweerd, 1996. 1.
[349] Dooyeweerd, 1996. 2.
[350] Clouser. The, 244.
[351] Clouser. The, 246.
[352] Dooyeweerd, 1996. 3.
[353] Dooyeweerd, 1996. 4.
[354] Dooyeweerd, 1996. 5.
[355] Dooyeweerd, 1996. 6.
[356] Rorty, R. 1982. Pro, 60-62.
[357] I used "The one" as far as i remember
yesterday (3 October 2013) for the first time in the
FILM879 (Christian philosophy) examination assignment.
Today whilst reading i saw Rorty also wrote about "The
one" (Rorty. 1982. Pro, 61) in reference to Santayana's
writings. Have not seen "The one" in Rorty's paper in the
middle of a sentence.
[358] Rorty, R. 1982. Pro, 60-62.
[359] With regards to what though i thought after
reading. (Rorty, R. 1982. Pro, 68.)
[360] Rorty, R. 1982. Pro, 64.
[361] Rorty, R. 1982. Pro, 67.
[362] Rorty, R. 1982. Pro, 70.
[363] TAYLOR, C. 1995. The, 20.
[364] TAYLOR, C. 1995. The, 21.
[365] TAYLOR, C. 1995. The, 22.
[366] TAYLOR, C. 1995. The, 23-25.
[367] TAYLOR, C. 1995. The, 25.
[368] TAYLOR, C. 1995. The, 25.
[369] TAYLOR, C. 1995. The, 28.
[370] TAYLOR, C. 1995. The, 28.
[371] TAYLOR, C. 1995. The, 29.
[372] TAYLOR, C. 1995. The, 33.
[373] TAYLOR, C. 1995. The, 32-33.
[374] ZUIDERVAART,
L. 2004. The,
65.
[375] ZUIDERVAART,
L. 2004. The,
66.
[376] ZUIDERVAART,
L. 2004. The,
69.
[377] ZUIDERVAART,
L. 2004. The,
69.
[378] ZUIDERVAART,
L. 2004. The,
69-70.
[379] ZUIDERVAART,
L. 2004. The,
70.
[380] ZUIDERVAART,
L. 2004. The,
73.
[381] ZUIDERVAART,
L. 2004. The,
74.
[382] ZUIDERVAART,
L. 2004. The,
74. See last line on p. 74.
[383] ZUIDERVAART,
L. 2004. The,
75.
[384] 'Hugo A. Meynell. "The Philosophy of
Dooyweerd: A Transcendental Thomist Appraisal," Faith and
Philosophy 20 (July 2003): 270-272' (Zuidervaart, L. 2004. The, 75, 82, 88)
[385] ZUIDERVAART,
L. 2004. The,
77-78.
[386] ZUIDERVAART,
L. 2004. The,
78.
[387] ZUIDERVAART,
L. 2004. The,
78-79.
[388] ZUIDERVAART,
L. 2004. The,
80.
[389] ZUIDERVAART,
L. 2004. The,
81.
[390] Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's
transcendental critique, 85.
[391] Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's
transcendental critique, 85.
[392] "2:23I will kill
her children with Death, and all the assemblies will know
that I am he who searches the minds and hearts. I will
give to each one of you according to your deeds." " 17:17For
God has put in their hearts to do what he has in mind, and
to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast,
until the words of God should be accomplished." " 18:7However
much she glorified herself, and grew wanton, so much give
her of torment and mourning. For she says in her heart, 'I
sit a queen, and am no widow, and will in no way see
mourning.' " (KIRBY, P.,
c2009. Early Christian writings.)
[393]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
86.
[394]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
86-87.
[395]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
86-87.
[396]
Clouser, R.A. 2005. The myth of religious
neutrality, 250.
[397]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
87-88.
[398]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
88.
[399]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
88.
[400]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
89.
[401]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
90-91.
[402]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
91.
[403]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
92-93.
[404]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
93.
[405]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
96.
[406]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
96-97.
[407]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
96-99.
[408]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
100.
[409]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
100.
[410]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
100.
[411]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
105 and other pp?
[412]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
101.
[413]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
101.
[414]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
101-102.
[415]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
104.
[416]
Geertsema, H.G. 2000. Dooyeweerd's transcendental,
105.
[417]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009. Transcendental method,
301.
[418]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009. Transcendental method,
302.
[419]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009. Transcendental method,
303.
[420]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009. Transcendental method,
304.
[421]
'In the original, Dutch edition the entire passage
reads as follows: "Aanvankelijk sterk onder den invloed
eerst van de Neo-Kantiaansche wijsbegeerte, later van
Husserl's phaenomenologie, beteekende het groote keerpunt
in mijn denken de ontdekken van den religieuzen wortel van
het denken zelve, waardoor mij een nieuw licht opging over
de doorloopende mislukking van alle, aanvankelijk ook door
mijself ondernomen, pogingen een innerlijke verbinding tot
stand te brengen tusschen het Christelijk geloof en een
wijsbegeerte, die gewortel is in het geloof in de
zelfgenoegzaamheid der menschelijke rede." Herman
Dooyeweerd, De Wisjbegeerte der Wetsidee (Amsterdam: H.J.
Paris, 1935-1936), I, v.' (Knudsen 2009b, 324)
[422]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009. The religious foundation,
313.
[423]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009. The religious foundation,
314.
[424]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009. The religious foundation,
303, 315.
[425]
ZUIDERVAART, L. 2004. The, 75.
[426]
'Hugo A. Meynell. "The Philosophy of Dooyweerd: A
Transcendental Thomist Appraisal," Faith and Philosophy 20
(July 2003): 270-272' (Zuidervaart, L. 2004. The, 75, 82, 88)
[427]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009. The religious foundation,
315.
[428]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009. The religious foundation,
316.
[429]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009. The religious foundation,
317.
[430]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009. The religious foundation,
318.
[431]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009. The religious foundation,
318-319.
[432]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009. The religious foundation,
319-320.
[433]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009. The religious foundation,
321.
[434]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009. The religious foundation,
321.
[435]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009. The religious foundation,
322.
[436]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009a. Dooyeweerd's
philosophical, 327.
[437]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009a. Dooyeweerd's
philosophical, 327-328.
[438]
Google translate on 10 October 2013. This
translation is close to "physis" (nature), which the
sophists contrasted with "nomos" (laws).
[439]
Budge, W.E.A. 1895. The book of the dead,
lxxxii-lxxxiii.
[440]
Budge, W.E.A. 1895. The book of the dead,
lxxxix.
[441]
Budge's The book of the dead is not the full
version because it is based on the papyrus of Ani, which
compiled an important abstract of the full Book of the
dead. Aristotle's book De Anima was
translated as De soul.
[442]
Budge, W.E.A. 1895. The book of the dead,
lxxviii-lxxix.
[443]
Budge, W.E.A. 1895. The book of the dead,
xxvii.
[444]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009a. Dooyeweerd's
philosophical, 328.
[445]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009a. Dooyeweerd's
philosophical, 329.
[446]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009a. Dooyeweerd's
philosophical, 330.
[447]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009a. Dooyeweerd's
philosophical, 331.
[448]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009a. Dooyeweerd's
philosophical, 334.
[449]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009a. Dooyeweerd's
philosophical, 334.
[450]
BLACKBURN,
S. 2008. The Oxford dictionary,
18. "antinomy".
[451]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009a. Dooyeweerd's
philosophical, 335.
[452]
KNUDSEN,
R. 2009a. Dooyeweerd's
philosophical, 335-339.
[453]
DOOYEWEERD, H. 1979. The Dutch
national, 15.
[454]
DOOYEWEERD, H. 1979. The Dutch
national, 1-15.
[455]
'H. Dooyeweerd, A new
critique of theoretical thought, 4 volumes, Jordan
Station - ON, Paideia Press, 1984, vol. 1, p. 57.
Dooyeweerd uses the word “meaning” as a technical term
indicating the whole of created reality. Creation is
therefore meaning in distinction from God who is
“being”.' (Coletto.
2012. 120)
[456]
COLETTO, R. 2012. Dooyeweerd’s theory,
120.
[457]
"H. Dooyeweerd, A new
critique, vol. 1, p. 93-102." (Coletto. 2012. 121)
[458]
COLETTO, R. 2012. Dooyeweerd’s theory,
121.
[459]
"D.F.M. Strauss, & A.P. Bos,
“Greek ontology and biblical cosmology: an unbridgeable
gap”, in Tydskrif vir Christelike wetenskap, XXXV
(1999/3-4), p. 137-163." (Coletto. 2012. 125)
[460]
COLETTO, R. 2012. Dooyeweerd’s theory,
124-125.
[461]
COLETTO, R. 2012. Dooyeweerd’s theory,
128.
[462]
"H. Dooyeweerd, A new
critique, vol. 1, p. 118." (Coletto. 2012. 130)
[463]
JASPERS,
K. 1947. Truth and symbol, 39-40 (for
example).
[464]
Collins English Dictionary: definition of "god".
[465]
"N.P. Wolterstorff, “On Christian
learning”, in P.A. Marshall, S. Griffioen & R.J. Mouw,
Eds., Stained glass: worldviews and social
science. Lanham - Md., University Press of America,
1989, p. 76." (Coletto. 2012. 130)
[466]
COLETTO, R. 2012. Dooyeweerd’s theory,
130.
[467]
WOLTERSTORFF, N. 1995. Points of
unease, 64. This
quotation with Wolterstorff's name attached to it could
misrepresent Wolterstorff. After i looked at a lecture of
him on the Internet about art and aesthetics, it seems the
congruence between the lecture and this quotation could be
very complicated because he regarded himself as a creator
(creature) in the video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMTbI-OGHUY)
[468]
WOLTERSTORFF, N. 1995. Points of
unease, 64.
[469]
Constitution Society. The social contract: chapter
II by Rousseau. (From: http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_01.htm#002
on 1 July 2013.)
[470]
BOS, A.P. 1987. Transformation and
deformation, 135, 136.
[471]
1 Cor. 1:25 (Klapwijk. 1986. 139)
[472]
KLAPWIJK, J. 1986. Antithesis,
synthesis, 141.
[473]
KLAPWIJK, J. 1986. Antithesis,
synthesis, 140.
[474]
KLAPWIJK, J. 1986. Antithesis,
synthesis, 146-147.
[475]
KLAPWIJK, J. 1986. Antithesis,
synthesis, 147.