FILM879ChrisFil2013Aantekeninge

"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]

Leereenheid 1: Referaat – Skeppingsorde

TROOST, A. 1994. "The idea of creation order in Western thought"

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]

"Pre-Christian thought"

"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 20^th century and end of the 19^th 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"

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.>

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]

"Protestant Christian thought"

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 20^th 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 20^th 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]

WOLTERS, A.M. 1994. "Creation Order: A Historical Look at Our Heritage"

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. Response to Al Wolter's paper

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"

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.]

"Introduction"

Herman Bavinck postulated salvation to be a reparation of "creation in all its fullness".[51]

"Cosmic Order: History of an Idea"

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.

"Creation Order in Neo-Calvinism"

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]

"Law"

The law of "God" creates order in society. Kuyper was Prime Minister of the Netherlands at the beginning of the 20^th 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]

"Scope"

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 17^th 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".

"Dynamism"

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"

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.

"Constancy"

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"

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]

"Differentiation"

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.

INTEGRATION INTO A WORLD VIEW

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.

PROMISE AND PERILS

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 Hendrik. 1995. "Creation Order in Our Philosophical Tradition: Critique and Refinement"

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.]

"Diagnoses of Creation Order"

"Order and the Ethos of Compassion"

"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."[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 transcends order

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.>

"Spiritual freedom to proclaim orders of compassion"

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]

("Order as Ethos is Different

A permanent creation order ethos holds compassion captive"

… The Roman Catholic and Reformed static creation order needs to be reformed to include compassion.)[81]

("A permanent creation order ethos also skews our Bible reading"

… Realizing there is no fixed creation order causes fearing and cowardice, due to unbelief, by the non-realizers of this truth.)[82]

("An ethos of order requires critical assessment"

… Postmodern philosophy criticizes Reformed creation order with good reason.)[83]

("Philosophy and the Ethos of Order

In the Ethos of Order Philosophy Hid the Word of Grace"

… Reason defines faith and "rationality" is materialism, which limits the Word in its function to help show reality.)[84]

("The Philosophical Tradition Now Questioned from Within"

… 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]

("An Ethos of Order must then also be Questioned"

… "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]

("An Ethos of Order Hides Biblical Themes"

… 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 as Ethos has Extra-biblical Elements"

… 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]

("The Problems of Creation Order Have Always Been Known

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]

("Though WE [own capital E] Need Not Deny Order, We Must Relativize It"

… 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]

("Faith And [own capital A to show deconstructed contradictions] Reason Can Be Reinterpreted"

… 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]

("Reason Still Functions in a legitimate Search for Order"

… "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]

("Prognosis of People's Compassion and Creation's Integrity

God and People: Compassionate Co-workers"

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 be God's co-workers"

… 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. …

We are not Gods

("The Spirit of God guides us within definite contexts

… 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 have a real responsibility for order"

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.

"Order remains, but is relative and changing"

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 plays an important role"

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]

"Trusting Compassion to Restore Integrity

Justification is possible

… 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]

("The embodiment of faith

Faith is to show mercy to others through compassion and to live freely according to belief in God's redemption.)[98]

HART Hendrik - 2000 - "Notes on Dooyeweerd, Reason, and Order"

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.]

"Introduction"

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 and order in the West"

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's critique"

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:

- 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.>

"Initial assessment"

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.>

"Links with immanence thought"

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 and order in reformational thought"

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?>

"The Ancaster discussions"

"Metaphor"

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.>

"Law-subject distinction"

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.>

"Approximating idea or theoretical disclosure"

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]

"Suggestions for further reformation"

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]

"Reformation is not rejection"

"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]

"Change"[129]

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 Johan. 1995. "Portrayal of Reformational Philosophy seems unfair" – Response to Hendrik Hart

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's Description of "Law" '

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 Nicholas. 1995. "Points of Unease with the Creation Order Tradition" – Response to Albert M. Walters.

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]

Leereenheid 2: Eerste klas – Die filosofie van Vollenhoven

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”.

Essay name: Vollenhofen and anthropomorphism

Introduction

Problem statement

'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.

Statement to solve problem

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?

Methodology

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.

Background based on reading Vollenhoven and Van der Walt.

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]

Discussion based on reading Vollenhoven and Van der Walt.

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]

Conclusion

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.

List of references

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)

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)

Van der Walt - "Die Christelike filosofie van D.H.Th. Vollenhoven"

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)

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.

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.

Reason as queen ('Rede as leidster')

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.

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.

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.

Earlier Van der Walt argued negatively against human law giving, who should then give the law?

Outside influences on Vollenhoven

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.

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.

Insider influences on Vollenhoven

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).

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".

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.

Influence of Kuyper (1837-1920)?

Vollenhoven said aspects of Kuyper's work did not correspond to the Word of God.

Influence of Woltjer (1849-1917)?

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.

Influence of Geesink (1854-1929)?

Klapwijk (1980: 545 and 456) says Geesink already identified the God-law-cosmos distinctions and therefore Vollenhoven built on that. Tol (2010) questions that.

Influence of Janse (1890-1960)

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.

Vollenhoven as pioneer of the reformatory thoughts.

Van der Walt will emphasize the new of Vollenhoven's philosophy especially his contribution to 'sistematiek' and the history of philosophy.

A new 'sistematiek'

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.

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.

An original philosophical historiography

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.

More about the methodology

- 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.

- a religious against-each-other interpretation (pagan) of history, or Christian view which distinguish between secularism and religion from the Renaissance and Reformation.

- Parallel attitudes of different types of philosophy about differing theories of reality.

The value of the method

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.

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.

What drove Vollenhoven?

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.

'Gebreke' of Vollenhoven

Is this sexuality between male and female or is it Van der Walt's reference to homosexuality as queen (leidster/reason).

His problematic-historic approach does not look at more recent philsophers although he died in 1978.

Vollenhoven's typifying of his own later more final philosophy

He identified more with some Western philosophies than others because he said those philosophies reflect realities more precise.

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.

Vollenhoven - "Die grondslae van die Calvinistiese of skrifmatige filosofie"

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)

Vollenhoven was a church minister and then became a lecturer of philosophy. Although a lecturer of philosophy much theology was included in his philosophy.

There could have been thus a lack of appreciation from his side for theology because why would he change to philosophy. See p.4

- Total fall into sin, death as the penalty of sin, redemption of the "soewereine God in die Middelaar".

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.

- 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.

- 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.

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.

- 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.

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.

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.

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.

Understanding total fall into sin, death as the penalty of sin and redemption of the "soewereine God in die Middelaar".

Humans are completely sinners who hates from the Hart, 1995 after the fall into sin.

Death in scripture means the first death and second death. The 1^st death is death of flesh and the 2^nd 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 1^st death the soul migrates to the moon and after the 2^nd death the soul migrates to the sun.

Vollenhoven – "The foundations of Calvinist thought"

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)

A king or other sovereign may not prohibit a Christian to serve God according to the Word of God.

There are no antinomies in the cosmos because everything is subject to the law of God. … "Paganistic thought has always accepted antinomies".

A complete coherence is thus postulated that excludes any contradictions, however elsewhere knowing of not knowing was mentioned (Read in the Afrikaans version)

'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.'

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.

'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 - "Scripture use and Philosophy"

'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!'

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.

'Furthermore God subjects the world to His law: loving obedience is the first which is required of everybody.'

Synthesis thinking

Tarnas explained how early Christian thinking was a synthesis between Hellenism and Jewish thought.

'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.'

'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.'

'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]

'As Clement of Alexandria announced, "By the Logos, the whole world is now become Athens and Greece." '

Vollenhoven identifies three different types of synthesis during the early Christian period.

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.

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.

Scriptural philosophy

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.

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.

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.

The relationship between scientific and non-scientific knowledge

Non-scientific knowledge stays with persons as presuppositions of philosophy and other science.

The Basis of Calvinist philosophy

Does he mean that the negative laws; 'thou shalt not', which are written into constitutions etc. are not valid?

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.

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.

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.

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'.

Van der Walt - Hoe om die geskiedenis van die filosofie weer te gee: 'n Verkenning van wysgerige historiografiese probleme en metodes.

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.

Van der Walt – "A Scripturally-orientated perspective on the history of Western intellectual thought: the origin and contours of and questions about the consistent problem-historical method"

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)

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.

Two neo-Kantian philosophers from Marburg influenced Vollenhoven allot. They were N. Hart, 1995mann and R. Höningswald.

- 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.

- 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).

Neo-Kantian

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).

Irrational reactions

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.

Vollenhoven's opinion

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.

The main contours of the constant problem-historical method

Thetsic-critical method

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.

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.

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.

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.

The whole life is of religious nature

Three basic questions and answers of Vollenhoven

(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)?

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.

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'.

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?

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.

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.

Constant historical

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.

Constant philosophical

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.

Constant problem orientated

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.

Empirically tested, continued interest and promotion

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.

Schematic representation

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.

Reactions to Vollenhoven's method.

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.

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.

Leereenheid 3: "Die filosofie van Vollenhoven"

A lecture by Prof. Griffioen was attended for which no assignment or reading needed to be completed.

Leereenheid 4: Die filosofie van Stoker

Reading of STOKER, H.G. 1970. The philosophy of the creation idea.

"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.>

Calvinistic philosophy

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.

• (usu. the Deity) the creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity).

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.

III. Philosophy of the creation idea

A. Introduction

"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’).

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]

"B. the ground question - the totality question in primary sense

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.

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]

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]

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.>

"C. The Cosmos"

"1. The cosmos as cosmos"

"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.>

"2. Hapantic Qualifications

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]

"3. Idiostance

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]

4. Cosmic Dimensions

"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]

5. The cosmic dimension of modalities

"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]

"6. The cosmic dimension of events

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]

"7. The cosmic dimension of (individual and social) idiostantic structures"[266]

"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."

"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]

"8. The cosmic dimension of values"[291]

"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.

"9. The coherence of cosmic dimensions"[295]

"10. Nature, Culture, worship (and religion)"[296]

"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]

"11. Nomology and Deontology

"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]

"12. The cosmos as totality and idiostances as totalities"[300]

"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]

V. Final Remark

"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]

Van der Walt (2013): H.G. Stoker (1999-1993) as Christelike filosoof

"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]

"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] "

"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]}

"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]

"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]

"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]

"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]

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]

Leereenheid 5: Dooyeweerd – Kennis en metode / Transendentale filosofie

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.

(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.

· 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.

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.]

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. The religious foundation of Dooyeweerds transcendental method. p. 311-326

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.

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.

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.

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.

DOOYEWEERD - Transcendental problems of philosophic thought

(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.

DOOYEWEERD - Cristian philosophy: An Exploration

(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.

Die transendentale posisie en argumentering

RORTY - Professionalized philosophy and transcendentalist culture. [11 p.]

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 - The validity of transcendental arguments. [14p.]

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]

Verduideliking en kritiek van Dooyeweerd se transendentale kritiek

ZUIDERVAART - The great turning point: religion and rationality in Dooyeweerd's transcendental critique. [17p.]

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]

GEERTSEMA - Dooyeweerd's transcendental critique: transforming it hermeneutically - [23p.]

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.

I think it will be better for us all if we rather focus in a religious sense on just Caiaphas syndromes in relation to honesties because it influences science and societal efficient creating. Matters of "the heart" should be left to individuals. Matters of the heart relates according to Kant and i to perfect reason, which Kant critiqued to be too subjective for us to agree scientifically on.

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]

"Transforming the transcendental critique hermeneutically"

"The strength of Dooyeweerd's transcendental critique"

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]

"The transcendental groundidea as the starting point of a critical discussion"

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.

"A different view of meaning and religion"

"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]

"Faith, science and philosophy"

"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]

KNUDSEN - Transcendental method in Dooyeweerd

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?

KNUDSEN - The religious foundation of Dooyeweerds transcendental method.

' "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]

KNUDSEN, R. Dooyeweerd’s philosophical method.

Knudsen wrote Dooyweerd's method is "phenomenological, transcendental" and dialectically "negative".[436]

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.

With regard to nature and "God"

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.

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.

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.

"Dialectical"

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.

Ekstra leereenheid: Dooyeweerd - Die antitese / religieuse grondmotiewe

Dooyeweerd - "The Dutch national movement"

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.

Coletto - "Dooyeweerd's theory of religious ground motives"

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.

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 - "Transformation and deformation in philosophy"

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 - "Antithesis, synthesis and the idea of transformational philosophy"

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]

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.)

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)

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.)

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)

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. 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)

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)

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 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.)

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.

[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 20^th 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 (2^nd 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.

[107] Hart, pp. 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.

WOLTERS, A.M. 1994. "Creation Order: A Historical Look at Our Heritage"

BARTHOLOMEW, CG. Response to Al Wolter's paper

("A permanent creation order ethos also skews our Bible reading"

HART Hendrik - 2000 - "Notes on Dooyeweerd, Reason, and Order"

VAN DER HOEVEN Johan. 1995. "Portrayal of Reformational Philosophy seems unfair" – Response to Hendrik Hart

WOLTERSTORFF Nicholas. 1995. "Points of Unease with the Creation Order Tradition" – Response to Albert M. Walters.

Essay name: Vollenhofen and anthropomorphism

Background based on reading Vollenhoven and Van der Walt.

Van der Walt - "Die Christelike filosofie van D.H.Th. Vollenhoven"

GEERTSEMA - Dooyeweerd's transcendental critique: transforming it hermeneutically - [23p.]