Dooyeweerd Part 3 (Disk 17)
Dooyeweerd thought all along that
though itself has a religious root. The way we relate to our
presuppositions is through thought itself.
Dooyeweerd never considered the
religiousness of thought to be the subjection of thought to
metaphysically conceived axioms themselves of a scientific character
standing above thought itself.
In everything manifestation of thought
there is always a law order holding for it. Thought is shown to be
depended upon the divine law (lex divina).
The change from the earlier to the
later Dooyeweerd the change came when a critique of thought which had
always been present in his thinking but the change came when he said
this critique is required by the very structure of thought itself.
Van Til called this the restriction and could not accept the
restriction.
The reference to the religious
foundation comes only in at the third step. Is this a sign that the
first two steps are carried out in a neutral way? No theoretical
axiom has been introduced dogmatically or any scientific prejudice,
he wants to show all a long a religious impulse all along. The false
starting point of apostate man causes him to introduce a prejudice.
Only from the Christian point of view
is one freed to apprehend the true starting point without introducing
prejudice. But this is completely religiously conditioned in either
a true or false direction.
If one objects to such argumentation he
must admit that he is obliged to render account of the general states
of affairs or one has to present methodologically the argument for
the consequences of opting against the christian position.
Dooyeweerd, part 4 (Disk 18)
Dooyeweerd's view of the soul
An outstanding characteristic of the
WdW has been the critique of traditional theological views of the
soul which have pretended to be scriptural. This goes for Dooyeweerd
and Vollenhoven (maybe Stoker, not Van Til). For Dooyeweerd it is
impossible to lift your theoretical views directly out of the Bible.
This includes a theoretical anthropology and it is impossible to
require philosophical view to square to scripture. If we've
understood the transcendental critique, any philosophical view of the
soul will have a religious depth and can be judged to its
scripturalness.
Dooyeweerd is certain however, that the
scriptures as they address man's heart teaching him that all reality
is created do not allow for dualistic philosophical notions that
would draw a line or antithesis in the cosmos. Let us say between
the rational soul and material body, intellect and sensibility, etc.
Scripture teach that man is created and an integral being before God.
So it is impossible to grasp what the soul is in contrast with
created reality.
In order to gain a proper understanding
of Dooyeweerd's view of the soul, this transcendental direction of
this thinking must be kept in mind. There is a centripital direction
of thought to the 'I' as the one who thinks. In the diversity of
cosmic time there is nothing to stop this reflection, there is not
thing in it for itself, there is always guidance by a theoretical
idea (Law Idea) and there is always reflection upon the
presuppositions of thought.
The soul, cosmic time, the various
aspects, the unity of the body cannot be grasped in a theoretical
concept. They appear in distinct horizons which provide a frame for
our experience.
In our total beings there is this
constant point back to our creator as covenant beings.
Dooyeweerd has spoken of the
supra-temporality of the heart. The heart of man is not contained in
within the cosmic diversity of time. If we seek to view the heart of
man from within time we'll end up with nothing. This does not mean
that then the heart should be sought as an entity outside of time.
What it does mean is that man in his integral unity could be
understood in terms of a transcendent reference interpreted by God
and His revelation.
It is impossible to understand
Dooyeweerd's view of the soul apart from the transcendental direction
of the self and the transtemporality.
Philosophical thought is lead in the
transcendental direction to reflect upon the self and philosophical
thought can only point to this in the idea. In this reflection, it
critically acknowledges its inability to grasp what the self is apart
from God and his revelation (Calvin, Institutes I.i.1).
Now if there were a philosophical view
of the soul, then the transcendental direction would have been
abolished. There would be a line drawn through the creation, one
part of the creation over against the other in your self reflection.
In the reflection on itself it comes to reflection on its intergral
root and destruction of the universality in its own sphere.
If one is to learn what the soul is he
cannot lean on philosophy. He must listen to the word of God and
theology has to be dependent upon revelation (as is philosophy).
In Dooyeweerd's anthropology the basic
distinction was between the heart and the entire function mantle of
man's body. The heart is only in its relation to the true/false
concentration point. It is it point at which the various strands of
life are concentrated. This concentration point is not construable
in the diversity of time.
The situation is understood in terms of
God's revelation which speaks to the heart of man.
Dooyeweerd says the body is an act
structure in which all the aspects of the body function in an
centered unity. Dooyeweerd rejects the idea of substance in the
description of man.
Dooyeweerd called the development of
the theroetical anthropology as the crowning point of his philosophy.
He never did finish the development of this view.
Transtemporality idea
- The fullness of meaning is not found in anything that is temporal.
- In our experience there will always a tendency to dispers in a multiplicity of directions each of which if allowed to develop unrestrained would mean a fall into meaninglessness.
- Meaning is perserved not by following one of the dispirsed tendencies (#2) but by concentrating on the fullness of meaning.
- Concentrating on the fullness is by way of a reflection on oneself in ones covenant relation to God who has revealed himself in Christ.
- This reflection is a reflection on the self in its total involved directedness to its origin.
- Whether the self will stand in this fundamental covenental relationship of obedient response is a question of the true direction of the heart.
The tendency to dispurse in time is not
the result of sin, but becoming bound to it is.
There is an end of the trail character
to the self reflection. One may not speculate, but be content in
knowing oneself in the revelation context.
Hendrik G. Stoker
Stoker for many years has been
sympathetic but critically oriented representative of the Calvinistic
philosophy.
Stoker has been spoken of as the first
South African philosopher to have gained recognition in the US and
Europe.
In 1935 he published an article in the
Evangelical Quarterly (volume 7) called the possibility of a
calvinistic philosophy. In the article he said there was need on a
calvinistic basis for a calvinistic philosophy that is truly a
philosophy. He maintained that there was too great a confusion
between theology and philosophy. Furthermore, too much attention had
been given to detail work without basis of building of a
comprehensive system based on a reformed world and life view. There
was inclusion of elements that did not belong within this framework.
Stoker sought to erect a philosophy based on a calvinistic worldview.
Stokers position reflects the same
spirit as Vollenhoven and Dooyeweerd but it has its own cachet.
Stoker remained closer to the line preceding Dooyeweerd (stands
closer to Bavinck).
Three differences
- We find in Stoker an emphasis on principles.
- Stoker has never been so critical of the substance idea.
- He had difficultly with the idea that the cosmos is mean (he would say it has meaning).
