Back
to Unedited Philosophy Quotes and Ramblings about Intequinism.
FILM879 -
Christelike filosofie - 2013
Aantekeninge
Student:
Mr. M.D. Pienaar (23990163)
CONTENTS
Frankenberry,
Nancy, "Feminist Philosophy of Religion", The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/feminist-religion/>.
"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]
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]
"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 20th
century and end of the 19th 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
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.>
"God reveals himself in
the works of His hands.
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]
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 20th 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 20th
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]
20 March 2014
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. 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. (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.]
Herman
Bavinck postulated salvation to be a reparation of "creation
in all its fullness".[51]
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.
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]
The law of "God"
creates order in society. Kuyper was Prime Minister of the
Netherlands at the beginning of the 20th 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]
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 17th
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".
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 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.
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 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]
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.
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.
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, 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.]
p.67
…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 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.>
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]
… The Roman Catholic and Reformed static creation order
needs to be reformed to include compassion.)[81]
… Realizing there is no fixed creation order causes
fearing and cowardice, due to unbelief, by the non-realizers
of this truth.)[82]
… Postmodern philosophy
criticizes Reformed creation order with good reason.)[83]
… Reason defines faith and "rationality" is
materialism, which limits the Word in its function to help
show reality.)[84]
… 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]
… "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]
… 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 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]
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]
… 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]
… 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]
… "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]
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 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. …
… "by God (church orders, moral laws). ...")[93]
… 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 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.
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 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]
… 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]
Faith is to show mercy
to others through compassion and to live freely according to
belief in God's redemption.)[98]
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.]
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 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 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:
-
(Reason's "direction" cannot
be absolutized.
-
Reductionist reason
identifies not reality.
-
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.>
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.>
Dooyeweerd had postmodern type thoughts and
critiques.[106]
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 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?>
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.>
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.>
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]
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]
"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]
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, 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 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, 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]
Datum van klas:
27 Julie 2013
Werksopdrag
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”.
'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.
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?
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.
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]
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]
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.
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)
TARNAS, R. ©1991. The passion of the
western mind: understanding the ideas that have shaped our
world view. (New
York: Ballantine Books, 1st Ballantine Books
edition, 1993)
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)
Aanhalings uit voorgeskrewe leeswerk per epos
ontvang.
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)
P.3
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.
P.4
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.
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.
Self
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.
P.5
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.
Self
Earlier Van der Walt argued negatively against
human law giving, who should then give the law?
p.5
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.
p.6
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.
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).
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".
p.7
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.
Vollenhoven said aspects of Kuyper's work did not
correspond to the Word of God.
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.
"pneumatology
|ˌn(y)oōməˈtäləjē|
noun
the branch of
Christian theology concerned with the Holy Spirit.
DERIVATIVES
pneumatological |ˌn(y)oōmədəˈläjəkəl| adjective"
(New)
Klapwijk (1980: 545 and 456) says
Geesink already identified the God-law-cosmos distinctions and
therefore Vollenhoven built on that. Tol (2010) questions
that.
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.
Van der Walt will emphasize the new of
Vollenhoven's philosophy especially his contribution to
'sistematiek' and the history of philosophy.
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.
p.8
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.
Brings us to the second important contribution
Vollenhoven made to Historicism.
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.
With his method the following can be determined:
-
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.
The attitude of the historians can be classified
as:
-
a religious against-each-other interpretation
(pagan) of history, or Christian view which distinguish
between secularism and religion from the Renaissance and
Reformation.
-
Second a to-each-other attitude. Chronological
normative schools.
-
Parallel attitudes of different types of
philosophy about differing theories of reality.
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.
p.9
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.
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.
Self
But was Jesus not influenced by pagan truths of
Plato?
p.9
Vollenhoven said: "Moet nooit sweer by die woorde
van 'n mens nie"
He thought in a Western way and was influenced by
Western thinkers.
He did not emphasize sexuality enough.
Self
Is this sexuality between male and female or is
it Van der Walt's reference to homosexuality as queen
(leidster/reason).
p.9
His problematic-historic approach does not look
at more recent philsophers although he died in 1978.
He identified more with some Western philosophies
than others because he said those philosophies reflect
realities more precise.
p.9-10
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.
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)
Introduction by Mülheim Rott and Wilhelm Rott.
P1-2
Vollenhoven was a church minister and then became
a lecturer of philosophy. Although a lecturer of philosophy
much theology was included in his philosophy.
Self
There could have been thus a lack of appreciation
from his side for theology because why would he change to
philosophy. See p.4
Referaat deur Vollenhoven
p.3
Philosophy should find its way in the Bible as
Augustinus did.
p.4
Philosophy should be reformed according to
insights derived from the Bible.
The Calvinist understanding of the Bible
highlights the following:
-
A distinction between God the sovereign and the
creation of God.
-
"Unio foederalis" which was known as covenant to
humans before the fall.
-
Total fall into sin, death as the penalty of sin,
redemption of the "soewereine God in die Middelaar".
p.5
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.
p.6
-
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.
p.6-7
-
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.
p.7
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.
p.9-12
-
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.
<P.10-12>
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.
p.12
II
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.
P12-13
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.
P. 14
III
Understanding total
fall into sin, death as the penalty of sin and redemption of
the "soewereine God in die Middelaar".
p.14-15
Humans are completely
sinners who hates from the Hart, 1995 after the fall into sin.
p.15
Death in scripture
means the first death and second death. The 1st
death is death of flesh and the 2nd 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 1st death the soul migrates to
the moon and after the 2nd death the soul migrates
to the sun.
p.17
Grace is understood
primarily as Jesus Christ explained it.
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)
p.4
".. only Good is the creator of all things and of
every reality."
A king or other sovereign may not prohibit a
Christian to serve God according to the Word of God.
p.5
There are no antinomies in the cosmos because
everything is subject to the law of God. … "Paganistic thought
has always accepted antinomies".
Self
A complete coherence is thus postulated that
excludes any contradictions, however elsewhere knowing of not
knowing was mentioned (Read in the Afrikaans version)
p.8
'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.'
Self
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.
p.9
'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, 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)
P.1
Scripture is divine.
'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!'
Self
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.
P.1
'Furthermore God subjects the world to His law:
loving obedience is the first which is required of everybody.'
p.2
p.3
Synthetic thinking
during the early Christian period was most original.
Scholastic Christianity synthesized the previous works
scholarly. The pre-reformation synthesis tried to
re-institute the early Christian thoughts but could not.
Self
Tarnas explained how early Christian thinking was
a synthesis between Hellenism and Jewish thought.
P101 (Page
references to Tarnas)
'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.'
P102
'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.'
P105
' "And the
Logos became flesh and dwelt among us." '
p114
'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]
P103
'As Clement of
Alexandria announced, "By the Logos, the whole world is now
become Athens and Greece." '
It is well known that
Scholastic thinking was basically Aristotelian. It seems
there is a pattern. Christianity went through the same
phases that actual philosophy went. First Plato's truths and
after Plato, Aristotle's deceits were important. Capra and
Toynbee also explained[181]
this pattern as a process of birth, flourishing and decline.
A creative group takes the lead with the birth. Then the
ruling powers smother creativity to protect their interests
and a downhill period starts. At the same time a creative
minority arise, which forms and develops new ways of dealing
with the challenges. The old ruling powers, stays in control
and suppresses the new forms but eventually the new forms
will replace the old and the cycle will repeat.
p.3
Vollenhoven identifies three different types of
synthesis during the early Christian period.
p.3