Vollenhoven
part 8 (disk 14)
The
subjectivist has to take position in regards to myth. Universal subjectivist for example would be mythological or
non-mythological. The mythical
thinker thought in terms of becoming of the gods and the world. They were cosmogonic-cosmological and
purely cosmological thinkers. So
there is a method of development.
By way of
criticism of Vollenhoven’s method
1. Knudsen holds that this is a good
method. It has been employed to
some degree in the history of ideas.
Very important is how the distinctions are made with which the
investigation is carried on. When
you try to compress a thinker, sometimes they don’t fit.
2. Thinkers are typed according to what
appeared to be rigid and minute classifications and we must state this,
determining that a thinker stands in a particular line doesn’t explain
him. How does one account for influence
of one thinker on another?
3. Vollenhoven didn’t want to fall into
the trap of categorizing ancient philosophers in terms for modern times, but
does he make distinctions of modern philosophers into ancient molds?
It remains
that Vollenhoven tried to erect a history of philosophy on a consistently
Christian basis.
Heman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977)
Born in
Amsterdam, his father was a follower of Abraham Kuyper (Doleantie). His mother was influenced by the German leader
Kohlbrugge, Dooyeweerd’s father read
from De Heraut. Dooyeweerd entered the
Free University of Amsterdam in 1912 unsure of what to study. A friend recommended the study of
Law. On July 2, 1917 he defended
his doctoral dissertation (De Ministerraad in het Nederlandsche Staaatsrecht or Cabinet Ministers under Dutch
Constitutional Law).
He first
worked in matters of Jurisprudence.
In 1922 he was invited to be the adjunct director of the Abraham Kuyper
foundation in De Haag. This foundation was
developed to study principles of the Anti-Revolutionary party (today absorbed
into the Christian Democratic Appeal or Christian-Democratisch
Appel).
In 1926 he
became professor in the department of Jurisprudence at the Free University of
Amsterdam.
Dooyeweerd’s
philosophy must be understood as a Christian Transcendental Philosophy and when
we speak of its character we do not only have the transcendental critique. The first real suggestion of this form
occurs in 1939, the transcendental critique of theoretical thought. The earliest appearance in English is
in the evangelical quarterly volume 19 pages 32-41 called introduction to a
transcendental criticism of philosophical thought.
We affirm
that Dooyeweerd’s thinking had a transcendental thrust. This transcendental thrust was
virtually assured by the first steps in developing his philosophy and
transcendental critique from the very beginning.
During
1922-1926 Dooyeweerd wrote a series of articles and he wanted to show the
relevance of the Calvinistic world and life view to statecraft. Dooyeweerd believed that this worldview
was fundamentally rooted in the Scriptures but did not believe that a theory of
statecraft could be read directly out of the Scriptures.
Like
Vollenhoven, Dooyeweerd believed that the Scriptures speak to the entire
man. Furthermore as Kuyper
presented Calvinism was a world and life view. As such it requires the undivided allegiance of the entire
man. Now then one then cannot read
out a Christian statecraft from the scriptures, one cannot derive from them the
fundamental principles on the order of theoretical axioms to which statecraft
must conform. This is where
Dooyeweerd stands apart from a major emphasis of the Kuyperian tradition.
While
statecraft could not be read out of the scriptures but the principles must
conform to it. Dooyeweerd had to
fix on something that would present a meaningful criterion for his scientific
studies. The idea of Law, the law
in this sense is not deduceable from the scripture but if you live according to
scripture it will manifest itself with respect to the law idea somehow. So Dooyeweerd came to the conclusion
that all of your theoretical concepts are going to involve one or another idea
of Law and the idea of Law becomes the instrument that gives you this
connection.
There is
then a divinely given order of law (Lex Divina) to which every fact is subject in
the keeping or in the breech.
Dooyeweerd
developed a theory of law spheres.
These are modes, how things appear to the what. These were related to one another by
anticipations (protentional) and retrocipations (retentional). Dooyeweerd called these together
analogies. In our naïve
experiencing these are held together in a systatic unity. In theory they are distinguished and
set it apart one from another.
