Dooyeweerd,
part 2 (disk 16)
Intergral
to this position that it is possible only from the law idea of the Christian
faith to conceive of the order God has placed in the cosmos. From any other position we cannot see
the cosmic coherence in its true proportions and relationship to the
origin. Apostate thinking will absolutize
one or more of the created aspects of reality. That will lead to elevating one or more of these aspects to
the origin of meaning or we shall try to arrange to aspects under a logically
conceived denominator.
We have the
idea of the origin, the deeper unity and the coherence of the meaning of the
cosmos. The cosmos in its meaning
concentrates on the heart of man, man in his totality as he looks out on his
origin. The Archimedean point is
found in the religious community in which one participates.
Given any
theoretical statement, an investigation by way of a transcendental critique is
in order to discover whether its underlying motives are in conformity to the
message of the scriptures.
After the
publication of WdW in 1935-36, Dooyeweerd began sharpening his position.
Dooyeweerd
attempted to show that the critique is involved in very structure of the
theoretical attitude of thought.
As soon as one thinks in a theoretical fashion he is already involved in
doing certain things that may be brought to light by a step-by-step
analysis. This step-by-step
analysis is a formalization of the less strict argument from before. This step-by-step analysis is the transcendental
critique. It is in this form that
it has received the most criticism.
The critique
happens in 3 or 4 steps. There is
a certain progression and the number of steps is not the formal concern. The argument proceeds in a certain way. The steps are intended to show the
following:
1. Show that theoretical thinking is
dependent upon a pre-theoretical structure of time. Every act of theoretical thinking in a particular kind of
abstraction from the temporal coherence of meaning will manifest its dependence
upon a pre-theoretical structure.
What is abstracted from in the gegenstand relation and how is this
abstraction possible? Dooyeweerd
maintained that one who tries to maintain neutrality will try to suppress this
question.
2. Ask about the focus of the synthesis
of the abstracted aspects. What do
you do with them? Dooyeweerd
recognized that in every theoretical position, there is already a synthesis in
some sort of logical unity. From
what standpoint is it possible to unite in the theoretic synthesis the aspects
that are distinguished and set apart in the theoretical attitude of thought.
3. Dooyeweerd attempts to account for
the pattern that this focus takes.
If we are able to find the focus only in reflecting upon ourselves can
we really find the focus of the theoretical synthesis. What is the character of this
self-knowledge and how is it possible?
The
critique itself is not productive of the religious impulse underlying the true
or false direction of thought. It
is only a way of bringing to awareness of what is actually the case in every
theoretical train of thought.
1. There is an abstraction of the
coherence of the meaning of the aspects.
2. There is a particular kind of
synthesis having its focus on the self.
3. This reflection on the self is
always determined by a religious motive.
MY NOTE:
Here Knudsen spends a lot of time talking about Dooyeweerd and Van Til’s
disagreement in Van Til’s festschrift, Jerusalem and Athens.
ISBN: 0875524893.
Criticisms
of the Transcendental Critique
Some in
Toronto (MY NOTE: my guess is that he is referring to the Institute for
Christian Studies) have rejected this transcendental critique. A good number think they don’t need
this and develop their response based upon gut reaction.
Dooyeweerd
developed a bit of neutrality into his position to communicate it better and
lapsing into a kind of scholasticsm (Van Til’s criticism).
Douglass
Vickers spoke of a residual emmentism.
This idea
of communication, that indeed you cannot communicate with the apostate thinker
until you have subjected his position and your own to a transcendental
critique. Because only in terms of
depth understanding, do the concepts appear.
Dooyeweerd
is criticised of developing a second way due to his first being too dogmatic.
Dooyeweerd
is criticised of abandoning the starting point of the Calvinistic world-view to
one that is more accepted to non-Christian thinkers and having common
ground. Dooyeweerd was never that
way. Dooyeweerd always wanted to
show to relation of theoretical thought and religious roots.
