MY NOTE: These lectures appear to be from the Fall of 1980. Knudsen eluded to the concession speech by President (Jimmy) Carter who lost the 1980 Presidential election to Ronald Reagan.
Dooyeweerd, Part 5 (Disk 19)
Stoker continues more in the line of
Bavinck than did Vollenhoven and Dooyeweerd (as does Van Til).
In Stoker we find an emphasis on
principles as the presuppositions of our life and thought.
Principles serve to give us archai. Then they give us
guidance establishing an area or sphere in which they hold. A sphere
would be established according to the principles of it. The spheres
have a cosmological character. As we act we are already involved in
the spheres. These spheres would also have to do with method.
Reflecting an idea that was very much alive in Kuyper's day you would
have sets of principles and according to Stoker the principle that
apply to a particular area have to do with the method. Method has to
apply to the particular sphere which pertain to it. It is the
principles that are universal and fundamental in contrast to fact or
what eventuates (actual). In addition we have value when a fact
answers to a principle.
3 major categories
- principle
- fact
- value
In classifying the sciences he
distinguished between principle sciences and factual sciences.
Stoker was never so critical as
Dooyeweerd was of the substance idea. Do we have to eliminate the
idea of substance. Dooyeweerd tried to eliminate the idea of
substance. If you define substance as something that exists in
itself, which God alone is existent in himself. In contrast
Dooyeweerd said the entire cosmos IS meaning. The idea of meaning is
set over against substance all the cosmos is meaning and substance
only pertains to God. The creation is meaning and this meaning is
not symbolic but it refers to the lack of self sufficiency of
everything within the cosmos. Something is only in reference to God
and the origin, only in its reference to the self as the
concentration point and the coherence of things. There is a complete
dependence upon God in the created order.
Stoker attempted to retain the
substance idea and the cosmos HAS meaning.
What are some of the consequences:
If everything is meaning then by no
means can you think that there is then something in the cosmos that
is independent from its relationship to God.
Stoker had set his notion of the
philosophy of the creation idea over against the idea of revelation
of Bavinck and the philosophy of the cosmonomic idea. Creation is
the archimedean point. He accepted Law as archimedean point if it is
not formal (everything in the cosmos is meaning).
Stoker held it (creation idea)
depending on Genesis 1:1 as that which gives us the formal unity of
the cosmos. The cosmos then is the creation of God and God is the
sovereign creator. The peculiar thing about Stoker's position is
that the cosmos is more than revelation it is more than being subject
to the law. It is best spoken of as creation.
H. Stoker (Disk 20)
Stoker held that his view can account
more for the abnormalism and the vicarious death of Christ. In this
idea it is revealed God's actual will and his love of God without
exclusion of the wisdom of God or the theoretical will (law
principle).
MY NOTE: At this point Knudsen
expresses puzzlement at some of the ideas of Stoker. Knudsen does
not provide any answers.
The cosmos is subject to God but also
dependent upon God. Knudsen is hypothesising that Stoker is given
some nuanced meaning to 'subject.'
God preserves the cosmos.
Stoker believed that the creation idea
was all inclusive that included all the others (others who held to
WdW). He continues to say that the service to God is also meaningful
subjection to law but according to ones own sphere.
Knudsen objects to this due to the
freedom of man being set over against the law of God.
MY NOTE: Knudsen is doing a lot of Q/A
at this point.
Stoker also spoke of the diversity of
the cosmos. There is sphere sovereignty and there is also a freedom
within the sphere. This principle is the same as sphere sovereignty
but applied to another dimension of reality than that of quality and
meaning. If one has freedom in own sphere, then it has a sort of
self identity which is a fundamental gift of God.
MY NOTE: Knudsen is continuing his
perplexity with Stoker.
When Stoker took the idea of creation,
he tried to make it relevant philosophically in a way that is
impossible. We have our religious stance with all the pattern's of
it. This is not philosophical but religious understanding. Stoker
attempted to take creation and make it philosophical and equal to the
law and an archemedian point.
The idea of creation was associated as
a guarantor of an area of freedom. Why? It gives better account to
being more than subject to law. There is free activity with ones own
sphere of competency.
What is this more than? To what is Law
conformity to be contrasted? Can that to which it be contrasted have
meaning apart from Law conformity? Law conformity is just as much
created as freedom in contrast to Law conformity. It seem that the
idea of creation becomes meaningless in this respect. This does not
provide us a philosophical criteria for the development of concepts.
No comments:
Post a Comment