tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-329559272024-03-13T18:09:35.218+00:00Intermezzo"Philosophical activity is an actual activity; and only at the expense of this very actuality (and then merely in a theoretic concept) can it be abstracted from the thinking self" Herman DooyeweerdRudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.comBlogger158125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-21955806323217295612023-03-04T21:33:00.002+00:002023-03-04T21:34:00.883+00:00New books from Zuidervaart<p><span style="font-size: medium;">Two new books from Lambert Zuidervaart. </span></p><p><a href="https://www.routledge.com/Social-Domains-of-Truth-Science-Politics-Art-and-Religion/Zuidervaart/p/book/9781032378039"><span style="font-size: medium;">Social Domains of Truth: Science, Politics, Art, and Religion</span></a></p><p><a href="https://www.mqup.ca/shattering-silos-products-9780228011583.php"><span style="font-size: medium;">Shattering Silos: Reimagining Knowledge, Politics, and Social Critique</span></a></p>Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-23152105276315214492022-12-16T20:32:00.001+00:002022-12-18T14:23:04.845+00:00A philosophical maxim<p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Here is a philosophical maxim from James Conant:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">"Do not read the character of the logically primitive phenomenon off the model of its logically alienated counterpart!" <i>The Logical Alien</i> p.368</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">I'm tempted to stop there. Let it sit, and just think more about what this means. It would take too much to trace out the role it plays in Conant's thought, in a book I am only starting to get into, and to unpack what interests me about it. But I'm going to push on a bit:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">"a philosopher who suffers from logical alienation is one who mistakes a case that suffers from logical privation - a logically alienated case of consciousness, or of the exercise of a cognitive capacity, or form of human life - for the logically primitive form of the phenomenon under philosophical investigation." (368)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">What is it to mistake a logical privation for something logically primitive? It seems to me that Conant's target, the kind of common philosophical mistake that he is trying to get a perspicuous view of, is the same that is under attack in Dooyeweerd's <i>New Critique</i> Vol. II, part 2 "The Epistemological Problem in the Light of the Cosmonomic Idea". It is the "dogmatic attitude in epistemology" that fails to see that "what has been <i>theoretically isolated</i> is never the <i>'datum'</i>." (NC II, 433). The "logically primative form of the phenomenon" is what Dooyeweerd here calls the 'datum':</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">"The real 'datum' is the systatic coherence of meaning. In mature naive pre-theoretical experience reality is grasped in the full systasis of its modal functions. In this systasis the psychical and the logical functions prove to be bound up with all the other modal functions of human experience in an insoluble temporal meaning-coherence." (NC II, 433)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The logically alienated case comes into view as a result of a theoretical disjunction. It is a feature of the "dogmatic attitude in epistemology" that it:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">"simply took for granted that which should be the chief problem of any critique of knowledge, viz. the abstraction of the sensory and logical functions of consciousness from the full systasis of meaning of the modal aspects of human experience." (NC II, 431)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">If I am correct in thinking that Conant is making a fundamentally parallel point to Dooyeweerd then I think that in the 1026 pages of <i>The Logical Alien</i> there may just be the start of an answer to Rene van Woudenberg's question: "How exactly can naive experience and common sense function as touchstones in philosophy? How does this work in practice?" ("Two Touchstones for Philosophy: Naive Experience and Common Sense" in <i>Philosophia Reformata</i> 85:1 (2020), 38). To put it simply:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Do not read the character of the logically primitive phenomenon off the model of its logically alienated counterpart.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Or, remember that what has been <i>theoretically isolated</i> is never the <i>'datum'.</i></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Hopefully I can come back to this and show the significance of these twin-maxims for a number of philosophical problems.</span></p><p><br /></p>Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-1731853212721215872022-11-06T17:00:00.002+00:002023-04-04T09:49:30.805+01:00Distinctions, separations, dialectics and dualisms<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">One of the things that Herman Dooyeeerd is known for is his criticism of various dualisms. Many of those who have taken inspiration from Dooyeweerd have taken opposition to all manner of dualisms as a central task of thinking from a Biblical worldview. A good example is the book <i>The Transforming Vision</i> by Brain Walsh and Richard Middleton which has a chapter titled "The Problem of Dualism" followed up by another called "The Development of Dualism" (chapters 6 & 7). The zelousness with which this has sometimes been done has caused some annoyance. A good example is J.V Fesko who dedicates chapter 7 of his book <i>Reforming Apologetics</i> to responding to these criticisms as they relate to natural theology and assessments of Thomas Aquinas. On page 184 he criticises Dooyeweerd for failing to "recognize the difference between a true dichotomy (or separation) and a mere distinction". As with much else in the chapter this is a silly criticism (and one that undermines his central point about the importance of reading the primary sources. I document his failure to read Dooyeweerd's work <a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2019/11/dooyeweed-among-reformed-thomists.html">here</a>). Even Walsh and Middleton in their more popular presentation state clearly "there is a world of difference between <i>dualism</i> and <i>duality</i>" (95). Neverthelss, it is helpful, and interesting in its own right, to get a clearer view of how Dooyeweerd himself understood the difference between a distinction and a dichotomy or dualism.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">A nice example of Dooyeweerd discussing this very point is in his response to Cornelius van Til in <i><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hmyEP_sPkb2jzG8pl8Tqg60GQN9jiwh0Ct_poY3Xz0/preview">Jerusalem and Athens</a></i>. </span></p><p></p><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-f0fd0c9b-7fff-e4fb-771d-3c15c5041bdb"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The objectivism implied in traditional scholastic rationalism evokes as its alternative subjectivism, etc. It is consequently quite understandable that from your standpoint you consider my <b>distinction</b> between conceptual knowledge and central religious knowledge a result of an irrationalist mystical view of the latter. In line with Robbers and van Peursen <b>you interpret this distinction as a separation</b>, so that the central supra-conceptual sphere and the conceptual sphere of knowledge are <b>conceived of as opposite to, and independent of, each other</b>. In this way <b>the distinction is naturally transformed into a dialectical tension</b>, testifying to a <b>dualistic trend</b> in my thought. [emphasis in bold added]</span></span></span></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Dooyeweerd claims that his distinction has been "transformed into a dialectical tension". How has this transformation ocurred? First there is an assumed position from which Dooyeweerd's view is interpreted. Dooyeweerd calls it "objectivism" or "rationalism". This view itself already posits an opposition, one between "objectivism" and "subjectivism". That is to say, that objectivism, on its own understanding, sets itself up against an opposed view, subjectivism. It is part of the self-understanding of objectivism (or rationalism) that it is on the right side of an opposition of views with subjectivism on the wrong side.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">In the context of the discussion it would appear that "objectivism" is a position that understands knowledge in terms of "conceptual knowledge". The crucial assumption is that "conceptual knowledge" is taken to be a complete account of knowledge such that it is self-standingly intelligible on its own terms. This is the kind of position that Dooyeweerd elsewhere describes as the "pretended autonomy of thought". Such a description draws out the point that "conceptual knowledge" is understood to be free from dependence on any further element. It also highlights Dooyeweerd's typical strategy of challenging such self-dependence as an illusion.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Now objectivism, with its view that conceptual knowledge is complete and indepedent on its own terms, is committed to the view that whatever can be understood as distinct from "conceptual knowledge" must be separate and outside of its sphere. Whatever is not "conceptual knowledge" must therefore be of a totally different nature, it can only be "irrational" or "mystical". When Dooyeweerd claims that "central religious knowledge" is not the same as "conceptual knowledge" the guiding assumptions of objectivism must put such religious knowledge outside of "rational" conceptual knowledge and into its opposite: "irrational" mystical knowledge.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">How is it that Dooyeweerd can resist this move? How can he claim that central religious knowledge is not something "opposite to, and independent of" conceptual knowledge while maintaining the importance of the distinction? Dooyeweerd's strategy is to reject the assumption that conceptual knowledge is something that we can make sense of as a self-standing and independent factor of our thinking and experience. His theory of the modal aspects makes this clear. Conceptual thinking is impossible without a multiplicity of distinguished elements brought together into a conceptual unity. This demonstrates the necessity of a basis in the numerical aspect of reality. There is further the logical extension of a concept pointing to the spatial aspect, the movement of thought, the relation of logical grounds to consequents, the life of thought resting on the functioning of the brain and logical representation based on our sensations. Any deepened sense of conceptual thought whereby the thinker can be said to have some rational control over the development and evaluation of their thinking and so can be held accountable involves the historical-formative aspect, the symbolic representation of thought points to the lingual aspect, the possibility to pursuade, to engage in dialogue, to evaluate requirements of the economy of thought, justification of reasons, while showing a proper concern for truth, each point beyond the merely logical-conceptual to all the other aspects of our experience. This integral coherence and multidimensional character of experience undermines the assumption that rational or conceptual knowledge can be taken as an independent sphere separated from the rest of our experience.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">On Dooyeweerd's view the integral coherence that marks the multidimensional character of human experience finds it unity in the central religious root of the human heart. Now, sometimes, when people are first introduced to Dooyeweerd's theory of the modal spheres, and especially when the emphasis is laid on their irreducibility, there is a temptation to interpret his theory as involving a series of layers that sit on top of each other. It can then seem to be an important task to work out what sphere different things "belong" to in a way that makes the modal spheres appear to be separate and independent from each other. Such an interpretation can only end up transfoming Dooyeweerd's distinctions into a whole series of dialectical tensions! Exactly the kind of dialectical problems that his theory is designed to disolve are then interpreted back into his theory. It is essential then, for a correct understanding of Dooyeweerd, that we learn </span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">the lesson of the opening paragraph of the </span><i style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">New Critique</i><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">:</span></p><p></p><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">If I consider reality as it is given in the naive pre-theoretical experience, and then confront it with a theoretical analysis, through which reality appears to split up into various modal aspects then the first thing that strikes me, is the original <i>indissoluble interrelation</i> among these aspects which are for the first time explicitly distinguished in the theoretical attitude of mind. A indissoluble inner coherence binds the numerical to the spatial aspect, the latter to the aspect of mathematical movement, the aspect of movement to that of physical energy, which iself is the necessary basis of the aspect of organic life. The aspect of organic life has an inner connection with that of psychical feeling, the latter refers in its logical anticipation (the feeling of logical correctness or incorrectness) to the analytical-logical aspect. This in turn is connected with the historical, the linguistic, the aspect of social intercourse, the economic,the aesthetic,the jural,the moral aspects and that of faith. In this inter-modal cosmic coherence <b>no single aspect stands by itself</b>; everyone refers within and beyond itself to all the others. [emphasis in bold added]</span></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">We can now return to the first passage quoted above and give two reasons why</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> his distinction </span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">between the central supra-conceptual sphere and the conceprtual sphere of knowledge</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> avoids the pitfall of becoming a dialectical tension. The first is Dooyeweerd's account of the unity rooted in the human heart which undermines any sense in which rational thought could be considered as opposite to or cut off from central religious knowledge. Instead it is from out of the human heart that come the issues of life, which is to say that rational thought cannot be understood except in intimate connection with the central supra-conceptual sphere. Equally, Dooyeweerd claimed that the human heart, this central "I", is nothing in itself outside of its relation to God, other humans and the world, all of which are expressed through the diverse aspects including that of rational thought. The second is the way Dooyeweerd's theory of the modal spheres helps us see the incoherence of thinking of rational thought as something that could exist in itself, independent of the rest of human experience. In this way Dooyeweerd allows for a rich variety of distinctions to account for our living experience in the world without those distinctions becoming transformed into dialectical tensions.</span></p><p></p><p></p>Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-60765421430871955552022-08-10T11:41:00.002+01:002022-08-10T11:43:44.992+01:00Findings - A journal of reformational thought<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">The third issue of <i>Findings</i> has just come out and includes my review of Chris Watkin's <i><a href="https://christopherwatkin.com/thinking-through-creation-genesis-1-and-2-as-tools-of-cultural-critique/" target="_blank">Thinking Through Creation</a></i>. The other contributions look well worth reading through. There is not an easy way to quickly view the contents of each issue, so I will provide links below to the first three issues.</span></p><p><a href="https://www.thumbwidthpress.net/product-page/findings-a-journal-of-reformational-thought" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Findings 1</span></a></p><p><a href="https://www.thumbwidthpress.net/product-page/findings-a-journal-of-reformational-thought-1"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Findings 2</span></a></p><p><a href="https://www.thumbwidthpress.net/product-page/findings-3-august-2022" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Findings 3</span></a></p>Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-20658838800056603882022-04-05T19:52:00.001+01:002022-04-05T19:54:41.318+01:00Animals and Philosophy<p></p><p><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">I have a hunch that animals could be a really
interesting and important challenge to any philosophical conception of reality.
I mean a kind of "test case" for the validity of a philosophical
position. How many philosophers have made room for animals in their
philosophical reflections? Not many, or at least very few have given them
serious consideration. When they have it has been in relation to questions
of ethics. That is important. But what would a serious consideration of animals
mean for areas like epistemology and ontology?</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In his book on the
message of the book of Job, <i>A Battle for Righteousness</i>, Klaas Popma
devotes his final section to the animals and claims that it is here where we
must find the solution to understanding the book. Here's a quote:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">"Both
wild and domesticated animals live their own lives in their domains which
remain, for people, impenetrable. For those humans who consider themselves
the most important of creatures, the instruction to look to the animal world
for understanding God, is utterly humiliating. Animals who are, after all, our
fellow creatures, by their own incomprehensibility, point to the
incomprehensibility of God. Those who believe in the perspicuity of being
only need to look at the animals to see how incredibly foolish that belief is.
God has made all these animals and for no other reason than that it was His
good pleasure to do so; for God always does what pleases Him. God created the
animals because He took delight in doing so." (263)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">His comment on the
foolishness of the belief in the "perspicuity of being" is more than
a hint of philosophical significance. Perhaps a worry we might have is that the
very incomprehensibility of the animals is enough to set them aside in our
attempts to throw light on the nature of reality from out of our philosophical
thinking. Or, are we tempted by the thought that animals being part of the
natural world - they don't have souls, or reason or whatever - any mystery
regarding them is just a gap waiting for scientific elucidation. Hopefully any
reformational philosophy would reject the second option. As for the first, even
a reflection on the shape of such incomprehensibility, could prove beneficial in
filling out our ontology and epistemology. Also, should we not say that
incomprehensibility is not the full picture, there is also some knowledge as
implied in Proverbs 12:10.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The second quote is
from a long footnote in a paper originally given as a lecture and since turned
into a book. This actually goes further and considers our response to plants
and even human made artefacts. My claim is that if even plants can make some
kind of demand on our (moral) consideration, then might it be worth considering
what demand on our philosophical reflections the life of animals might make.
The point at the end about how we should "treat every kind of thing
in accordance with its nature" must also apply to philosophy as well as to
more 'practical' pursuits.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; mso-line-height-alt: 11.75pt;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Christine Korsgaard "<a href="http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/CMK.FellowCreatures.pdf">Fellow
Creatures: Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals</a>"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; mso-line-height-alt: 11.75pt;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“Why shouldn’t the argument of this essay extend even further
down the line of the different senses of “natural good” or “good for”? Our
moral values spring from reflective endorsement of the natural good we are
inclined to pursue as animals, but that natural good in turn depends on the
sort of good to which plants are oriented, and that in turn to the general,
functional capacity for having a good. Why shouldn’t we think that implicit in
our endorsement of our own self-concern is a concern for the good of anything
that has a good? At the risk of being thought a complete lunatic, let me admit
that I am tempted by this thought. There is no reason to believe that “moral
standing” is an on-off notion: perhaps it comes in degrees or kinds. We respond
normatively to plants; a drooping plant in need of a drink seems to present us
with a reason to water it; a sapling growing from what seems to be almost sheer
rock makes us want to cheer it on. Is this because we cannot help animistically
imagining that plant experiences its good? Is it because, as I say in the text,
the line between plants and animals is unclear? Or is it perhaps because the
shared condition of life itself elicits these responses? Or could it even be
that we have duties, not only to our fellow creatures, but to our fellow
entities? Granted, it sounds absurd to suggest that we might have duties to
machines, yet still there is something in the far outer reaches of our
normative thought and feeling that corresponds even to this. A general
discomfort in the face of wanton destructiveness, a tendency to wince when
objects are broken, an objection to the neglect or abuse of precision tools
that isn’t rooted completely in the idea of economic waste… Again it might be
suggested that such feelings result from a kind of animistic imagination, that
we imagine that the tool feels the badness of being broken. But what is it that
calls forth that animistic imagination, unless it is a distant form of respect
for functional identity itself, a condition we share with all entities? I do
not mention these possible consequences of my of argument in order to insist on
them, but only to affirm that if someone thinks this follows I wouldn’t regard
that as a reduction to absurdity. Perhaps we should treat every kind of thing in
accordance with its nature, in accordance with the kinds of good and bads to
which it is subject.” (p.33)</span></p><p></p>Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-10988847637573264042021-09-26T10:04:00.004+01:002021-09-26T15:27:49.485+01:00Dooyeweerd's warning against fascism and communism<div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{4866ec92-3a10-4a86-9bee-00348918c0b4}{53}" paraid="122271581" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB">A.R.J.A.</span></p><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{4866ec92-3a10-4a86-9bee-00348918c0b4}{53}" paraid="122271581" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{4866ec92-3a10-4a86-9bee-00348918c0b4}{125}" paraid="314182878" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">It is with ardent conviction that I acceded to the request of the board of A.R.J.A. to draw attention to the work of the Young </span><span class="NormalTextRun SpellingErrorV2 SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-image: var(--urlSpellingErrorV2,url("")); background-position: 0% 100%; background-repeat: repeat-x; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">Anti</span><span class="NormalTextRun SpellingErrorV2 SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-image: var(--urlSpellingErrorV2,url("")); background-position: 0% 100%; background-repeat: repeat-x; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">r</span><span class="NormalTextRun SpellingErrorV2 SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-image: var(--urlSpellingErrorV2,url("")); background-position: 0% 100%; background-repeat: repeat-x; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">evolutionary</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> Study Clubs</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">.</span></span></p><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{4866ec92-3a10-4a86-9bee-00348918c0b4}{125}" paraid="314182878" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"><br /></span></span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{bd36e2e3-c6cd-4843-a72d-4841ead77005}{238}" paraid="1347527798" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB">There still is far too little awareness among us that our whole movement is caught up in the crucible of our great and anxious times which will reduce to ashes everything that does not survive that fiery trial.</span></p><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{bd36e2e3-c6cd-4843-a72d-4841ead77005}{238}" paraid="1347527798" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{72f6c43b-c184-45b8-aa1c-958c7eee2453}{236}" paraid="816433377" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">There is also too little awareness amon</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">g</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> us that a task greater than ever before is waiting for us in the service of our King Christ Jesus to propagate our principles with deepened knowledge and true inspiration</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> in a world where the spirit of darkness is at work.</span></span></p><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{72f6c43b-c184-45b8-aa1c-958c7eee2453}{236}" paraid="816433377" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"><br /></span></span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{d1fde01d-f621-4dd6-a5b8-589935cf3cae}{244}" paraid="863571245" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">It is alarming to see how in our own circles many young people and even older folk are swept along by fascist and communist currents, how many are spiritually uprooted and become an easy prey to the radical and demoni</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">c powers which since the world war have been threatening Europe with spiritual dissolution.</span></span></p><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{d1fde01d-f621-4dd6-a5b8-589935cf3cae}{244}" paraid="863571245" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"><br /></span></span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{bd2e8f95-f1df-4838-abe2-f4a911a52645}{171}" paraid="1981268262" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">In the name of our </span><span class="NormalTextRun ContextualSpellingAndGrammarErrorV2 SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-image: var(--urlContextualSpellingAndGrammarErrorV2,url("")); background-position: 0% 100%; background-repeat: repeat-x; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">God</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> we must adjure our young people: </span></span></p><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{bd2e8f95-f1df-4838-abe2-f4a911a52645}{171}" paraid="1981268262" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"><br /></span></span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{0cf40c0d-9864-4b97-979a-670422c705cc}{161}" paraid="891407561" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">Arm yourself with the full armour of faith and </span><span class="NormalTextRun ContextualSpellingAndGrammarErrorV2 SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-image: var(--urlContextualSpellingAndGrammarErrorV2,url("")); background-position: 0% 100%; background-repeat: repeat-x; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">prayer, and</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> deepen your knowledge for the political struggle that awaits you</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">!</span></span></p><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{0cf40c0d-9864-4b97-979a-670422c705cc}{161}" paraid="891407561" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"><br /></span></span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{6fbdb1b1-df1d-476d-9762-46a482dc6638}{137}" paraid="2065723919" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">Do not think – for God’s sake, do not think for a moment – that we can just continue to live off the strengths that we have </span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">amassed</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> in the past. Let the terror of the Lord ent</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">er our souls as we face the mighty signs of the times!</span></span></p><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{6fbdb1b1-df1d-476d-9762-46a482dc6638}{137}" paraid="2065723919" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"><br /></span></span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{920bcebf-1ac0-4423-baed-83d2ed15b8e9}{169}" paraid="530183614" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB">Young people! Remember your calling before it is too late.</span></p><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{920bcebf-1ac0-4423-baed-83d2ed15b8e9}{169}" paraid="530183614" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1a8cff02-447c-4740-961d-03b86d487e8e}{22}" paraid="1729688429" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB">Your place is with the young guard of study clubs who have realized that a spiritual standstill will mean our spiritual demise.</span></p><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1a8cff02-447c-4740-961d-03b86d487e8e}{22}" paraid="1729688429" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1a8cff02-447c-4740-961d-03b86d487e8e}{61}" paraid="1372181613" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">In our day, when </span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">such tremendously complicated questions are disturbing mankind, the </span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">intellectual</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> equipment of those who went before you no longer suffices.</span></span></p><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1a8cff02-447c-4740-961d-03b86d487e8e}{61}" paraid="1372181613" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"><br /></span></span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1a8cff02-447c-4740-961d-03b86d487e8e}{101}" paraid="55475676" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">The propaganda of unbelief, the spirit of revolution – they are </span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">today armed with weapons that are extremely dangerous to all who do not know their effect and are not familiar with their toxic subtleties</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">.</span></span></p><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1a8cff02-447c-4740-961d-03b86d487e8e}{101}" paraid="55475676" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"><br /></span></span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1a8cff02-447c-4740-961d-03b86d487e8e}{139}" paraid="952003453" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">Against these only prayer avails, and a faith which glows with zeal for the cause of the Lord, but which will then irresistibly drive you on to whet the weapons with which you will soon wage the warfare of your </span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">principles.</span></span></p><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1a8cff02-447c-4740-961d-03b86d487e8e}{139}" paraid="952003453" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"><br /></span></span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1a8cff02-447c-4740-961d-03b86d487e8e}{120}" paraid="1003318678" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; text-align: right; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">H. </span><span class="NormalTextRun SpellingErrorV2 SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-image: var(--urlSpellingErrorV2,url("")); background-position: 0% 100%; background-repeat: repeat-x; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">Dooyeweerd</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> </span></span><span class="EOP SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-ccp-props="{"201341983":0,"335559739":160,"335559740":259}" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> </span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1a8cff02-447c-4740-961d-03b86d487e8e}{157}" paraid="1759554777" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; text-align: right; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">column in De </span><span class="NormalTextRun SpellingErrorV2 SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-image: var(--urlSpellingErrorV2,url("")); background-position: 0% 100%; background-repeat: repeat-x; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">Standaard</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> </span></span><span class="EOP SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-ccp-props="{"201341983":0,"335559739":160,"335559740":259}" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> </span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1a8cff02-447c-4740-961d-03b86d487e8e}{185}" paraid="226996765" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; text-align: right; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB">Tues, 29 Nov. 1932 </span><span class="EOP SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-ccp-props="{"201341983":0,"335559739":160,"335559740":259}" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> </span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1a8cff02-447c-4740-961d-03b86d487e8e}{250}" paraid="1676377184" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; text-align: right; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">[</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">4 months before Hitler’s coup]</span></span><span class="EOP SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-ccp-props="{"201341983":0,"335559739":160,"335559740":259}" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> </span></p></div><div class="OutlineElement Ltr BCX0 SCXW244197537" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: white; clear: both; cursor: text; direction: ltr; font-family: "Segoe UI", "Segoe UI Web", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; padding: 0px; position: relative; user-select: text;"><p class="Paragraph SCXW244197537 BCX0" lang="EN-US" paraeid="{1a8cff02-447c-4740-961d-03b86d487e8e}{220}" paraid="1843728582" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; font-kerning: none; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; user-select: text; vertical-align: baseline;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="TextRun SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-contrast="auto" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-ligatures: none; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-GB">Translated by Harry van Dyke</span><span class="EOP SCXW244197537 BCX0" data-ccp-props="{"201341983":0,"335559739":160,"335559740":259}" face="Calibri, Calibri_EmbeddedFont, Calibri_MSFontService, sans-serif" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 24.8208px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> </span></p></div>Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-36785388110326766202021-04-12T15:49:00.004+01:002021-04-12T15:50:38.889+01:00The Laymen's Lounge<p><span style="font-size: medium;">Jason Estopinal is posting some great stuff over at his website <a href="https://thelaymenslounge.com/">The Laymen's Lounge</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As part of a series on "You should know about ..." the most recent is an excellent introduction to <a href="https://thelaymenslounge.com/you-should-know-dooyeweerd/">Herman Dooyeweerd</a> by Steve Bishop and Gregory Baus.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Steve Bishop has also contributed another on <a href="https://thelaymenslounge.com/you-should-know-d-h-th-vollenhoven/">Dirk Vollenhoven</a> and one on <a href="https://thelaymenslounge.com/you-should-know-neo-calvinism/">Neo-Calvinism</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I have even got in on the act with a piece on <a href="https://thelaymenslounge.com/you-should-know-about-sphere-sovereignty/">sphere sovereignty</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">So dig in and enjoy.</span></p>Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-42098386443360936532020-06-27T09:34:00.000+01:002020-06-27T09:34:18.343+01:00Further Reading
<br />
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">The
sections 15-19 introduce the basic of the theory of the modal spheres.
Dooyeweerd gives his fullest account of this theory in part I of the second
volume of his <i>New Critique</i> (pp.3-426). Calvin Seerveld gives a helpful
overview of Dooyeweerd’s modal theory in “Dooyeweerd’s legacy for aesthetics:
Modal law theory” in <i>The Legacy of Herman Dooyeweerd</i> edited C.T.
McIntire 1985 pp.41-79. Two other articles worth reading are D M F Strauss “The
best known but least understood part of Dooyeweerd's philosophy” in <i>Journal
for Christian Scholarship</i> 42 (2006): 61-80, and H G Geertsema
“Analytical and Reformational Philosophy: Critical reflections regarding R. van
Woudenberg’s meditation on ‘Aspects’ and ‘Functions’” <i>Philosophia Reformata</i>
69 (2004): 53-76. Most introductions to reformational philosophy will contain a
section on the theory of the modal spheres, however for these sections I found
Jonathan Chaplin’s discussion in <i>Herman Dooyeweerd: Christian philosopher of
state and civil society</i> 2011, pp.55-61 particularly helpful. See also
Hendrik Hart <i>Understanding our World: An Integral Ontology</i> (1984,
University Press of America) chapter 4 particularly pp.190-198. For the
historical <span> </span>details concerning the
development of the theory in Dooyeweerd see R.D. Henderson <i>Illuminating Law:
The construction of Herman Dooyeweerd’s philosophy 1918-1928</i> and Marcel E
Verburg <i>Herman Dooyeweerd: the life and work of a Christian philosopher</i>,
for Vollenhoven see John H. Kok “Social spheres and law spheres” in <i>Philosophy
as Responsibility</i> edited by Ronald Kuipers, also Anthony Tol <i>Philosophy
in the making: D.H.Th. Vollenhoven and the emergence of reformed philosophy</i>.
Dirk Stafleu’s development of modal theory in terms of relation frames is
explained in his <i>The Open Future</i> [http://www.mdstafleu.nl/427446844]
as well as many other books and papers that can be found at <a href="http://www.mdstafleu.nl/">www.mdstafleu.nl</a>. <a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/08/20-what-is-time.html" target="_blank">§20</a> on time draws on
Andre Troost (2012:123-125).</span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">The discussion of sensory perception (<a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/09/24-sensory-perception.html" target="_blank">§24</a>) is largely
based on Dooyeweerd’s analysis in NC II 370-374 and </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Encyclopedia of the
Science of Law Vol. 1</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> 185-195 (referred to in the text as ESL, I). Henk
Geertsema gives a very helpful analysis of Dooyeweerd’s views in “Dooyeweerd on
Knowledge and Truth” in </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Ways of Knowing</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;">
Dordt Press, 2005 edited John H. Kok. The quote from J J Smart (<a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/10/25-difference-and-connection-between.html" target="_blank">§25</a>) comes
from his paper ‘Sensations and brain states’ </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Philosophical Review</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;">, vol.68 (Smart 1964). This explanation of the difference and connection between
modal aspects and entities is based on Dooyeweerd ESL, I 204-206.</span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">The definition of idionomy at
the start of </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/10/26-idionomy.html">§26</a> is taken from Ouweneel 2014a 87.<span> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">The
examples and claims of <a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/10/27-non-human-subjects.html">§</a></span><a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/10/27-non-human-subjects.html">27</a> concerning animals were based on <span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">Stafleu “Being human in the cosmos” <i>Philosophia
Reformata</i> 56:2 (1991) pp.101-131. For the contrast between animals and
humans use was also made of some examples of </span>Antheunis <span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">Janse kindly supplied by Chris Gousmett. </span>The discussion of encapsis in <a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/10/28-encapsis.html">§28</a>
draws heavily on Ouweneel 2014a 88-90.</span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Klapwijk’s
example of a lie detector (§17) can be found in his </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Purpose in the living
world? Creation and emergent evolution</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> Cambridge, 2008 p. 126. This links
with the later discussion in §30. A very important article for understanding a
reformational approach to many of these issues is Henk Geertsema </span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_Hlk12110557" style="font-size: 14pt;">“Embodied Freedom” <i>Koers</i> Vol. 71, no.1 (2011): 33-58</a><span style="font-size: 14pt;">.
Examples and quotes from Selim Berker “The Normative Insignificance of
Neuroscience,” </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Philosophy & Public Affairs</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> 37, no. 4 (2004): 293–329</span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">The
discussion of philosophical anthropology draws from a number of sources. The
main ones being:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Dooyeweerd, Herman (1942) “De leer van de mensch in
der Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee” translated as “The theory of Man: Thirty two
propositions on anthropology”. <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_Hlk12110678">Gerrit Glas (2010)
“Christian Philosophical Anthropology” <i>Philosophia Reformata </i>75:2,
141-189.</a> Ouweneel, Willem J. (2014) “A Christian Anthropology” chapter 6 in
<i>Wisdom for Thinkers</i>. Stafleu, Dirk (1991) “Being Human in the Cosmos” <i>Philosophia
Reformata</i> 56:2 101-131. Strauss, D M F (2014) “Soul and Body: Transcending
the dialectical intellectual legacy of the West with an integral biblical
view?” <i>In die Skriflig</i> 48(1), Art. #1815. The example on the thyroid
gland comes from Strauss with addition on hypothyroidism from David Hanson. The
views expressed in </span></span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">§34 were
considerably influenced by B J van der Walt’s <i>At Home in God’s World</i>
Section C on “A multidimensional Christian view of being human” as well as
Cornelis Vonk’s <i>The Dead Know Nothing</i> translated by Gerrit L Wassink
(Alken Press, 1998). The quote from J.P Moreland & William Lane Craig can
be found on page 288 of their <i>Philosophical Foundation for a Christian
Worldview</i> (IVP, 2003). The reference to John Cooper is to his very valuable
discussion of the biblical material in <i>Body,
Soul and Life Everlasting: Biblical anthropology and the Monism-Dualism debate</i>
(Eerdmans, 2000 2<sup>nd</sup> edition) which defends substance dualism. The
discussion of first person, second person and third person perspectives draws
on Henk Geertsema’s work in particular “Creation Order in the Light of
Redemption (1): Natural Science and Theology” in <i>The Future of Creation
Order</i> Vol. 1 edited by Gerrit Glas (Springer, 2018) .</span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">The
section on faith and religion (§ 35) draws more on Vollenhoven than Dooyeweerd
see John Kok “Vollenhoven and ‘Scriptural Philosophy” PR 1988 53:2 and
Vollenhoven “Faith”. Interestingly the Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas
makes some remarks in his work <i>Totality
and Infinity</i> that confirm Vollenhoven’s notion of the transcosmic relation.
See the section on “Creation” in the conclusions which begin with the sentence
</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">“Theology
imprudently treats the idea of the relation between God and the creature in
terms of ontology.” (293). </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">On theology (§
36) see Willem J, Ouweneel’s <i>What then is
Theology? An introduction to Christian Theology</i> Paideia Press 2014 and
Renato Coletto “Encyclopaedic models in the Kuyperian tradition (Part 3:
towards a network-model)” <i>Tydskrif vir Christelike Wetenskap</i> 2012:
pp.43-63. §37 draws on Hendrik Hart <i>Understand our World</i> pp.318-324, Danie
Strauss <i>Philosophy: Discipline of the Disciplines</i> pp.188-205, and Henk
Geertsema “<a href="https://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/Geertsema/HGGWolterstorff.pdf"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none;">Wolterstorff
and the philosophy of religion. About being and creation” </span></a>in <i>Essays
in honour of Nicholas P. Wolterstorff</i>. Edited by Henk E.S. Woldring. VU
University Press 2008, 51-60. The discussion of the Euthyphro dilemma is
indebted to Roy Clouser who has written incisively on this topic on the
Thinknet discussion list.</span></div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><br />
<a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/01/contents-for-introduction-to.html" target="_blank">Contents</a>Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-2947824349444570012020-06-13T10:02:00.001+01:002020-06-27T09:58:36.186+01:00(37) God and philosophy
<br />
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Theoretical
analysis proceeds through the modal aspects and so it is only possible to
analyse what is within the bounds of created reality. God is the origin of
creation including our ability to think. The forming of concepts requires
universal conditions or features that can be grasped in our thought. This means
that having a concept of God would imply that there is an order for
being-a-God, i.e. a law-for-being-a-God. Such a situation involves the
contradiction that God, the origin of all things, would be viewed as being
subject to God’s own law for creation.</span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">This
way of thinking about God is however common and can be designated with the term
onto-theology. Ontology is the name given to philosophical theory that analyses
the basic characteristics of reality, of what there is. Onto-theology then
includes the being of God in this analysis. This can be traced back to
Parmenides who made an all-encompassing connection between thinking and being such
that the structure of being and the structure of thought are believed to mirror
each other. Apart from the problems that arise through separating being and
thinking and then trying to understand how and why they might correspond to
each other, this position should be rejected on the basis that thinking belongs
within being.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">The consequence of an
onto-theological approach is that questions about God are discussed and
incorporated into the general theoretical framework of an ontology where being
is analysed in terms of concepts and logic. On such a view philosophical
thought is considered competent to discover structures to which God himself is
subject. This involves taking a stance that is supposedly outside of the
creator-creation relationship and so must take us beyond any creatureliness. Reformational
philosophy does not recognise such a competence for philosophy, nor does it
accept the possibility of such a stance outside creation. Philosophy cannot
judge reality, it must discover, analyse, understand and respect what is given,
this applies even more so to God’s self-revelation.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">One
way this onto-theological approach gets worked out is in the so-called proofs
of God’s existence. Dooyeweerd gives a brief discussion of the cosmological
arguments of Thomas Aquinas (NC II, 39-42) where he shows that the argument
will either start from a metaphysical view of causality which already includes
the need for a pure actuality (identified as God), or it will understand
causality in terms of human experience and so bring God’s being the cause or
origin of the world under the conditions of a particular modal sense of
causation. The former can hardly stand as a satisfactory proof and the latter
creates various problems due to subjecting God to created conditions while
simultaneously treating an aspect of creation as absolute.</span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">A particularly clear issue where the question of God
being subjected to creational laws is at stake is the Euthyphro dilemma first
expressed by Plato in his dialogue of that name. The modern version goes like
this: "Is the morally good loved by God because it is good, or is it good
because it is loved by God". The first option makes God dependent and
subservient to morality which is then understood as a standard that exists
independently of God. The second option would seem to make morality arbitrary
such that if God willed murder then murder would be good.</span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">The
solution to this dilemma is a correct understanding of the Christian confession
of creation. We must insist from the outset that God has created everything
that exists other than himself, and so reject the first option of the dilemma. However
we can also reject the second option because the standards for good and evil
are real factors of the world as created by God. From within creation there is
nothing arbitrary about the command against murder, when God commands us not to
murder this is revelatory of the way God made the world. The problem is
that when we ask whether God “could” have commanded murder the word “could” is
ambiguous. The only meaning it can have for us as creatures in the world God
has made is restricted to the possibilities built into </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">this</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> world. It is
important to see that we are here talking about the law-side of reality. We can
certainly think about different responses from the subject-side and so the
different kinds of “worlds” that would result from our choosing to murder or to
resist the temptation to violence. The dilemma can only work then, if we
project this “could” to a world of possibilities outside of this actual law-structured
world. The problem with this is that we cannot think or imagine in a way that
is completely outside of the actual law-structure since that is what gives us
the possibility to think and imagine in the first place. What we will end up
doing in the attempt to consider what is possible in an absolute sense is that
we will keep our understanding of the world and its possibilities fixed for
some creational laws while imagining a change in others. This is what is really
happening when people ask if God could have commanded us to murder, or could
God make 2+2=5, or create a round square etc. What this misses out is the
indissoluble coherence of all creational laws so that it is impossible to
conceive of a change in one creational law with all else staying fixed. A
change of one law would require changes in all the others. As such it throws us
back to the notion of a world of possibilities outside of this actual world,
and so outside our own possibility to think. We can see then that God must be
understood as the true origin of our world, and while God accommodates himself
to the world he has made, we should never understand God as being subjected to
the laws and conditions of his creation.</span></div>
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;"><br /></div>
<a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/01/contents-for-introduction-to.html" target="_blank">Contents</a><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/04/further-reading.html">Further Reading</a></div>Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-89704195481395290142020-06-02T10:03:00.001+01:002020-06-27T09:57:58.534+01:00(36) Faith and Theology<br />
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">We
should say something here about the study of faith which is theology. First
attention needs to be made to the difference between the practical character of
Christian life and faith and theology as a science, a theoretical
enterprise. It is unfortunate that some
like to speak of the “theology” of the Apostles, or to think of the Bible as a
book of theology. For example, Paul’s
use of the word “doctrine” (eg in 2 Timothy 3:10) indicates something that has
to be “followed” not something that is primarily an object of academic
study. When as Christians we read and
meditate on the Bible we do so for a practical purpose, to enter into a closer
relationship with the Lord, to hear God’s Word in our hearts, to not only hear,
but also to do the Word of God. As such
the difference between ordinary “Bible study” and theological study is very
great, Ouweneel compares it to the difference between the eater and the chemist
in the case of bread (Ouweneel 2014, 5).
</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">The
relationship between theology and philosophy has been somewhat fraught in the
history of western thought. Since
theology is a human activity it is far from static and undergoes constant
development as can be seen from a comparison of a standard theological work
from the 17<sup>th</sup> century and one from the 21<sup>st</sup> century. Theology cannot avoid the powerful influence
of “the course of this world” (Eph. 2:2), the spirits of the age or <i>Zeitgeist</i>. The spirit of each age comes to fullest
theoretical expression within the philosophies of each age, whether pagan
Greek, scholastic, enlightenment or postmodern.
This, alongside the fact that theology is a special science, means that
theology cannot avoid philosophical presuppositions. Unfortunately, one of the
most persistent views among orthodox theologians concerning the relation
between theology and philosophy is the scholastic separation between philosophy
as essentially natural and religiously neutral academic pursuit and theology as
uniquely Christian and sacred. The
reformational view is that philosophy is not religiously neutral and plays an
important role in relation to the special sciences this means that the
development of a Christian philosophy is vital for the continual task of a
theoretically elaborated Christian theology.
There is a danger here though of a one-sided emphasis since philosophy
never stands on its own but must be informed by the special sciences and this
is no different for theology. This means that Christian theology may also play
a role in serving the development of Christian philosophy. Here we can recommend the work of Renato
Coletto who has developed a “network” model, based on the Christian value of
mutual service, of how the different sciences relate to each other including
theology and philosophy. The persistent view that Christian thinking, in all
its forms, is really essentially and only theological thinking is perhaps one
of the biggest barriers to the genuine reformation of scholarship as envisioned
by reformational philosophy.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">The
classic definition of theology, deriving from its name, is that theology is the
science that studies God. This cannot be accepted on a reformational view since
science proceeds through theoretical analysis that takes one of the modal
aspects as its lens and God is not subject to the modal spheres, but rather is
their creator. This means that God cannot be subjected to theoretical analysis.
This would pose a serious problem if we restricted knowledge to theoretical
knowledge as it would imply that knowledge of God would be impossible. However
we have already indicated that religion is fundamental to our lives as made in
God’s image and as always already responding to God in everything we do. As
such knowledge of God is both as natural and as mysterious as knowledge of
ourselves. While this knowledge can be considered theoretically, it is not
itself theoretical. As with the difference between reading the Bible as
followers of Jesus Christ and studying the Bible theoretically, which may be
one part of our whole of life following of Jesus, there is a similar difference
between knowing God and theoretically reflecting on that knowledge. We shall
turn to the related question of God and philosophy in the next section.</span></div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><br />
<a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/01/contents-for-introduction-to.html" target="_blank">Contents</a><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/04/37-god-and-philosophy.html" target="_blank">Next</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/04/further-reading.html">Further Reading</a></div>
Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-84127029870328549992020-05-22T10:14:00.002+01:002020-06-27T09:57:24.287+01:00(35) Faith and religion<span style="font-size: 14pt;">The
basic thesis of reformational philosophy concerning religion is that it is as
broad as life itself and does not designate some limited area of life, or even
something optional.<span> </span>God is just as close
to us in our ordinary life as when we are involved in what often gets referred
to as the ‘religious’ moments of life. Our working and our resting are just as
much given to us by God as our praying and reading the Bible. In this sense religion
involves our full existence <i>Coram Deo</i>.
It can be understood as being one side of the covenantal relationship. The
primary side involves God’s relation to us. God calls us into existence and
sets us a task in the world, to reflect God’s goodness to the world as image
bearers. This task comes to us also as a command, that is the great love
command, to love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and secondly
to love our neighbours as ourselves. From our side we answer this call and
command, that is the secondary side of the covenant and is religion. In this
way religion can be said to have two basic directions; true and false religion,
which is to say, the holding to and the breaking of the covenant. What is
important to note is that as the response side of our relationship to God
religion helps us to consider the covenantal relationship between the Creator
and His creation. This relationship is not a connection that has its basis in
some region of the cosmos, it is rather a “transcosmic” relationship, as Vollenhoven
has put it. This is because although as creatures we belong to the cosmos God
as creator does not. This has implications for the way we think philosophically
about God and creation since it has been common to include both within being
and so within ontology, the study of being. </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"></span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">We have said that the most characteristic feature of humanity is the religious
centrality of humankind<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">(<a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/12/32-meaning-of-being-human.html" target="_blank">§ 32</a>)</span>.<span> </span>Religion is not
something to be added to, or taken on, by human nature but is integral. This is
sometimes referred to as <i>direction</i> in
distinction from <i>structure</i> (<a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/03/5-good-and-evil-fall-and-redemption.html" target="_blank">§5</a>).<span> </span>Direction concerns the opposition
between good and evil, obedience to the true God which must struggle against
disobedience and orientation towards false gods. This opposition occurs in
humans and since it has to do with the direction of human life, with good and
evil, it is not to be found in entities, nor are they modal functions. To find
the proximate origin of good and evil we must look to that which directs these
functions for good and evil. It is with the discovery of the Biblical conception
of the heart we arrive at the central issue of our lives as humans. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">In
reformational philosophy a distinction is made between faith, as one modal
function, and religion as the whole person in response to God. Faith is built
into the order of creation as an irreducible and universal human function <span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">(</span><u><span style="color: #000120;"><a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/07/16-theory-of-modal-spheres.html" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 18.66px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;" target="_blank">§ 16</a></span></u><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">)</span>.<span> </span>It is therefore a function common to all people.<span> </span>As such, it is not something additional that
only Christians or ‘religious’ people have, something special, mystical or
irrational. We recognise "faith" in the sense, primarily, of an
active function of the person in the sense of "believing".<span> </span>It is taken to be that last modal aspect to
which all previous aspects anticipate and which therefore also refers back to
all the other modal aspects.<span> </span>Whether someone
is Christian or not, or whether they hold to a religion or not, everybody
possesses faith.<span> </span>This is so because
believing belongs to the structure of human life which, in spite of important
differences in realization, is the same for all. Faith is not identical with
the heart, but is determined by the heart in its direction towards good or
evil, i.e. in obedience to the law of love or not. In other words: the whole person
is religious, and our life is a walk before the face of God in obedience or
disobedience, faith is one avenue of expression of religion.<span> </span>Also since faith is part of the structure of
being human it is not something that was lost with the fall and therefore is
not something that must be added on as a gift of grace, rather grace restores
our faith life to the correct direction of believing God’s Word.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Another
important facet that must be understood is that faith is not just a matter of
the individual.<span> </span>As with the other
functions of being human faith finds its expression in community with others,
in this way it is possible to speak of faith-communities.<span> </span>Just as the heart must be distinguished from
the faith function, so too the church as a faith community with its local and
regular meetings must be distinguished from the body of Christ which is a
religious community that must find its expression in all the activities of
being human. <span> </span>The faith community is the
subject-subject relation of the faith aspect. Our faith-life also has its
typical objects such as the sacraments <span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">(</span><u><span style="color: #000120;"><a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/09/23-subject-object-relation.html" target="_blank">§ 23</a></span></u><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">)</span>. The sacraments remain what they are as
subjects, not being active in the faith function, however they are taken up
into human faith life and become a sign and seal to serve as a proclamation of
what God has done.<span> </span>Since the faith aspect
comes last it refers back to all the other modal aspects.<span> </span>There is the joy and sorrow of faith, its
thinking and knowing, its sacrifice, and its trust etc. Faith-life has its own
distinctive law which is a norm, that is to trustingly believe in every word
that comes from God. Just as we need to analytically discern the elements of
God’s revelation and understand the meaning expressed in the words of scripture
so we need to trustingly believe the promises it contains. <span> </span>While the Bible functions in all the modal
aspects, whether as subject or object, it is only with true faith that it can
become the bread of life that sustains us in service of God and neighbour.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt; text-align: right;">
<a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/04/36-faith-and-theology.html" target="_blank">Next</a></div>
<a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/01/contents-for-introduction-to.html" target="_blank">Contents</a><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/04/further-reading.html">Further Reading</a></div>Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-4616518982959544952020-05-15T09:54:00.002+01:002020-06-27T09:56:48.166+01:00(34) We are not body and soul<br />
<div align="left" style="margin-right: 4.75pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">The notion of substance has been very influential when
it comes to understanding the nature of being human. For example, the great
reformer John Calvin understood being human as a combination of a soul and a
body. The soul is to be understood as an immortal yet created essence which is
the nobler part of a human. He explains that “although properly it (the soul) is
not spatially limited, still, set in a body, it dwells there as in a house”
(ICR, I, 15, 6). More recently the Christian philosophers </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">J.P Moreland and William Lane Craig have stated that
it is “clear that the Scriptures teach that the soul/spirit is an immaterial
component different from the body”. Once the framework of substance is in place
the option narrows down to either monism (one substance) or dualism (two
substances). Reformational philosophy rejects substance dualism, but it does
not thereby endorse substance monism, rather it rejects the substance framework
itself (see <a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/11/31-whats-wrong-with-substance.html" target="_blank">§31</a>).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Now
while recognising that reformational philosophy unanimously rejects any notion
of a substantial and immortal soul, it should be noted that there are a variety
of positions on how to understand the religious depth of human life and its
concrete expression both structurally and in terms of traditional theological
views concerning death, the intermediate state and the resurrection. In this
section I will try to outline what I consider to be the view most consistent
with a Biblical-reformational trajectory aiming to work from the
creation-fall-redemption motive, however the following is probably the most
tentative section of this introduction. My comments will be guided by three
claims: the whole human person lives, the whole person dies, and the whole
person is resurrected.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Firstly
the human person lives as an integral unity. There are many different terms in scripture
used to describe the human person, ‘heart’, ‘soul’, ‘spirit’, ‘flesh’, ‘body’,
‘image’ etc. these always describe the whole human person from a specific
angle, they are not part of a structural, or theoretical, account setting out
the components of being human. We have already seen that the Bible uses the
term “heart” to refer to the centre of human existence in response to God.
Rather than our soul being something immaterial the scripture speaks of
satisfying our soul with food and drink (Psalm 78:18, Luke 12:19). Far from
being immortal and imperishable our soul, or Nephesh in the Old Testament,
signals the precarious position of life being subject to harm and danger as
well as the need for deliverance (Ex. 4:19; 1 Sam. 23:15, Jos. 9:24, 2 Kings 7:7).
The soul can be destroyed and die (Jos. 10:28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39, Ez. 18:4,
20), and so also could be saved from danger and death (Jer. 51:8, Jos. 2:13, Ps
17:13). In the New Testament the term ‘soul’ (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">psyche</i>) and the adjective ‘soulish’ (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">psychikos</i>) can even have a negative connotation as in 1 Corinthians
15 where Paul contrasts our present mortal/corruptible body as a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">psychikos</i> (natural) body, in
contrast to our future immortal resurrection body as a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">pneumatikos</i> (spiritual) body. Here
the focus is clearly on the whole embodied person leaving no room for a
conception of an immaterial soul.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Secondly
the whole person really dies at the moment of death. When we understand this it
is not so surprising that in the Bible the term soul can be used to refer to a
dead person (Lev. 19:28; 21:1, 11; 22:4; Num. 5:2; 6:6, 11). Further the
scriptures clearly teach that death is really death, that dead people know
nothing and do nothing (Job 14:21; Psalm 6:6; 115:17; 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5,
10; John 9:4; Acts 2:29). Corlinus Vonk has also argued this point from God’s
warning (Gen 2:17) that death would be the result of disobedience. It is rather
Satan who contradicted this saying that death would not really happen (Gen.
3:4), the theory that the soul survives after death detracts somewhat from the
seriousness of death as the punishment for sin (Rom. 6:23; James 1:15). In
response to the question “Are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob dead or alive right
now?” Vonk asks the counter question, among other comments and clarifications,
“Is David dead or alive right now?”. Alongside the account of David’s death and
burial in 1 Kings 2 he also refers to the apostle Peter in Acts 2:29 “Brothers,
I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and
his tomb is here to this day”.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">If
the whole person goes down to the grave in death then it can rightly be said, thirdly,
that it is the whole person who is raised from the dead. This is exactly the
language used in scripture. There is no teaching that the body will be raised
and so be reunited with the soul, rather the Bible speaks consistently that the
dead are raised (see for example John 5:24-25, 11:23, Philippians 3:11, Acts
23:6, 24:21, 1 Corinthians15).</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: NL;"></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">The preceding gives some indication of the worldview
background to rejecting substance dualism, we now make some brief comments on why
reformational philosophy has rejected substance dualism. In our discussion we
have approach the question of our human nature in two different ways. Firstly
we considered the existential question of what it means to be human (</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/12/32-meaning-of-being-human.html" target="_blank">§32</a>). On this we noted that it
is a question that is more than philosophical, it concerns who we are in a
fundamental sense and this is something that cannot be answered at a
theoretical level. We are fundamentally creatures responding to God, our
meaning as image bearers of God is found in our religious choice of direction
towards or away from God. We are persons who know the difference between good
and evil. This is our most basic understanding of what it means to be human and
we can say that this takes a basically second-person perspective. Viewing the
human person in terms of two substances body and soul takes a third-person theoretical
perspective. There is nothing wrong as such with taking such a perspective,
however it has been an emphasis of this introduction that one of the central
insights of reformational philosophy has been to recognise the limits of a
theoretical perspective for understanding the fulness of reality. The nature of
our selfhood is a mystery to theoretical reflection, to talk in terms of an
abstract notion of a thing is to not talk about the true nature of a human
person, this is a further reason to reject a substantial soul. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">The
second approach we have taken is the structural analysis of the human body (<a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/12/33-structure-of-human-body.html" target="_blank">§33</a>). This fits with the theoretical third-person perspective and so suits
better a comparison with substance dualism. As we have made clear, the reformational
position rejects philosophical notions of substances and instead acknowledges
the many-sidedness of the existence of all things and their interrelatedness
within the order of creation. This presupposes an integral creation order which
cannot be reduced to one substance nor split into two substances, further its
critical view of theoretical thought will not allow for a view that takes
humans as phenomenologically holistic at a surface level while reverting to
ontological dualism at a more fundamental level as seems to be the position of
John Cooper. Now while the reformational view of the many-sidedness of the
person has been given a theoretical elaboration it still allows room for the
first- and second-person perspective. This can be seen in that each modal
aspect in relation to the human person must always be understood as an
expression of the person and as tied up in subject-subject relations with other
persons. Though the human person shares in this many-sidedness, we have also
had to take notice of the ‘spiritual’ root unity of the person in terms of the
human heart. This spiritual unity is existential, deeply personal and
fundamentally related to persons, any attempt to find a unifying factor linked,
as a separate substance, with reason, language, moral sense or any combination
of the later modal aspects ends with a third-person perspective, an
illegitimate reification, and so loses sight of ourselves as persons. To
understand the human person in terms of properties, essences, or substances is
to take us away from the personal as responding to God. </span></div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><br />
<a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/01/contents-for-introduction-to.html" target="_blank">Contents</a><br />
<div align="right" style="text-align: right;">
<a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/05/35-faith-and-religion.html" target="_blank">Next</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/04/further-reading.html">Further Reading</a></div>
Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-31758971358750168542020-04-24T21:29:00.000+01:002020-04-24T21:29:01.473+01:00Introduction to Dooyeweerd's Roots of Western Culture
<br />
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">As
a way of exploring Christian philosophy I am trying to encourage people to read
through Dooyeweerd’s call for Christian reflection and renewal in post war
Netherlands. To help I have produced a brief explanation of the background to Dooyeweerd’s
<i>Roots of Western Culture</i> and a summary of the introduction.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;">The
book is available as a free pdf <a href="http://vcho.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Roots-of-Western-Culture-B-Vol-15.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>. It can be bought as an inexpensive paperback
<a href="https://www.bookdepository.com/Roots-of-Western-Culture/9780888152213" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></div>
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-right: 4.75pt;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="344" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/r69SgCkPoRM" width="459"></iframe><br /></div>
Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-2937018433017189422020-04-17T12:03:00.000+01:002020-04-22T09:34:16.719+01:00Invitation to explore Christian philosophy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
These strange times perhaps give some of us an opportunity to pause and reflect on a number of the deeper questions of life. What does it mean to be human? What kind of world do we live in? How should we think about our role and responsibilities in a complex society? How should we think about each other with our different and sometimes conflicting views? Where does our motivation come from and where are we heading?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1w8Xv1pQ67s/SL77KtzzCcI/AAAAAAAAADE/Vl7cBvujHV89qJ00JBRDuIzXhBH9GShsQCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/SSA51472.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1w8Xv1pQ67s/SL77KtzzCcI/AAAAAAAAADE/Vl7cBvujHV89qJ00JBRDuIzXhBH9GShsQCPcBGAYYCw/s320/SSA51472.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I would like to offer a very small contribution to this opportunity by inviting people to join me in an exploration of a Christian philosophy I believe has important resources for answering these questions. This philosophical perspective is worth your time because it has roots in a very concrete sense of our living <i><a href="https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-does-coram-deo-mean/" target="_blank">Coram Deo</a></i> and is developed with a focus on our tasks in the world God has made.<br />
<br />
I suggest two options for the focus of this exploration:<br />
<br />
<b>Option One</b>: A read through and discussion of <i>Roots of Western Culture: Pagan, Secular, and Christian Options </i>by Herman Dooyeweerd (available as a free <a href="http://vcho.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Roots-of-Western-Culture-B-Vol-15.pdf" target="_blank">pdf</a> or in <a href="https://www.bookdepository.com/Roots-of-Western-Culture/9780888152213" target="_blank">paperback</a>). In the aftermath of the Second World War Dooyeweerd took up the position of editor of a new weekly paper and argued that the spiritual crisis brought about by the two world wars demanded a deep reflection on the spiritual roots of western culture. He wrote as a philosopher, but for a popular audience. He needed to address the genuine and authentic call for solidarity that was being made to the Dutch nation, while also upholding the integrity of the Christian contribution to cultural renewal. We would probably just focus on the first four chapters.<br />
<br />
<b>Option Two</b>: A read through and discussion of my own, partially completed, <a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/01/an-introduction-to-reformational.html" target="_blank">introduction</a> to the main ideas of the reformational philosophy that Dooyeweerd and his brother-in-law Dirk Vollenhoven pioneered and which has been developed and applied by many others since.<br />
<br />
Let me know if you are interested and which option you prefer.Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-3030659937674798162019-11-29T19:54:00.000+00:002019-11-29T19:54:09.650+00:00Dooyeweed among the reformed Thomists Part 2<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">In <a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2019/11/dooyeweed-among-reformed-thomists.html" target="_blank">part 1</a> we looked at Fesko’s chapter on Dooyeweerd in his </span><i style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">Reforming
Apologetics: Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to Defending the Faith</i><span style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">
and showed that it doesn’t give an accurate account of Dooyeweerd’s thought. My
hope is that reformed Thomists won’t dismiss Dooyeweerd on the basis of Fesko’s
presentation. There are no doubt important areas of disagreement between
Dooyeweerd and that of reformed Thomists, yet neither can benefit from
misreading and dismissing each other and I believe that it is possible to learn
from each other. In this post I will focus on two main claims that John Bolt
makes concerning Dooyeweerd in his chapter “Doubting Reformational
Anti-Thomism” in </span><i style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">Aquinas Among the Protestants</i><span style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">. While Bolt’s reflections
on his four “doubts” get closer to issues relevant for a discussion of
Dooyeweerd’s philosophy his evaluation is coloured by a serious misreading from
the beginning. This means that his doubts are not as incisive as they might
have been had he started with a more accurate and nuanced understanding. Concerning
the misinterpretations of Aquinas held by reformational thinkers Bolts writes “This
is a matter of academic integrity; followers of Jesus Christ are under an
obligation to be scrupulously fair to their opponents.” (p.131). I fully agree
with this principle. </span><span style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">Reformational
thinkers and reformed Thomists need to do their best to understand each other
and hopefully this might even lead them to think of each other less as opponents.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">The first claim that Bolt makes is that Dooyeweerd completely
rejects the thought of both Aquinas and Aristotle so that nothing of value can
be found in them. Bolt believes that Dooyeweerd even went as far as to hold
that Aquinas’ thought was apostate. This is tied to a second view that Bolt
attributes to Dooyeweerd which is that the scientific distinction between truth
and falsehood is a direct result of the religious distinction between
regenerate and unregenerate so that the two distinctions are collapsed. Based
on this reading Bolt continually comes up against obvious fact that Dooyeweerd
gives positive evaluation to many non-Christian thinkers and even incorporates
some of their views into his own philosophy. On this reading Dooyeweerd is both
unfairly critical of thinkers like Aquinas for incorporating ideas from non-Christian
philosophers while doing exactly the same just with different non-Christian philosophers.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">The first claim can easily be dealt with. Here is what Bolt
writes: “According to Dooyeweerd the great medieval synthesis of Thomas and
others was an illicit joining of pagan religion with biblical faith. His
judgement is severe: “they were apostate in their direction” (Dooyeweerd 1979,
111)” (p.131). When we follow up the reference that Bolt gives we find that
Dooyeweerd is there discussing Greek religion and not medieval thought in
general or Thomas in particular. It is Greek religion that Dooyeweerd describes
as “apostate in their direction”. In contrast he writes that “For its part, the
Romanistic basic theme preserved at least to a degree its connection with the
divine Word-revelation” (RS I, 25). Dooyeweerd certainly has his criticisms of
Thomism, however he engaged in serious and friendly discussion with a number of
Thomist philosophers and never dismissed Aquinas out of hand. He wrote “There
is no doubt in my mind that Thomas sincerely intended to make Aristotle’s
metaphysics square with the church’s doctrine of creation. The only question is
whether this was possible within the framework of an accommodated Aristotelian
philosophy” (RS II, 366). Nowhere does Dooyeweerd describe Aquinas’ position as
a “joining of pagan religion with biblical faith”, this is simply an inaccurate
presentation of Dooyeweerd.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Dooyeweed
thought long and hard about the relationship between the Christian religion and
the philosophical enterprise. His account of this relationship is complex, was developed
over time and remains controversial even among his sympathetic readers. Even if
one ends up critical of what he has to say on this topic Dooyeweerd’s positive
philosophical framework is still worthy of consideration. To take one example,
David Koyzis and Jonathan Chaplin (a contributor to </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Aquinas Among the
Protestants</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;">) have argued that there are parallels and opportunity for
cooperation between Thomist and reformational philosophers in the area of
political philosophy.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">A full
answer to Bolt’s second claim about Dooyeweerd would involve a discussion of
the complex issues just hinted at, however we can make considerable headway in
just considering Dooyeweerd’s approach to the philosophical tradition in
general. Bolt develops this second point in an indirect way through a criticism
of Kuyper that Bavink makes. It involves Kuyper’s claim that there are two
kinds of science, one that is based on a Christian starting point and a second,
diametrically opposed, that starts from a non-Christian starting point. Bavinck’s
argument is that this conflates “the scientific distinction between truth and
falsehood with the personal one between regenerate and unregenerate people” and
so commits “a logical fallacy”. Further “to identify the scientific work of the
regenerate with truth and that of the unregenerate with lies is categorically
false” (p.135). “It seems to me that Bavinck’s critique is also applicable to
Dooyeweerd” (p.135). Fully in line with this interpretation Bolts writes that Dooyeweerd
believed that “any observation about reality made by Aristotle would thereby,
for that very reason, be rendered suspect. I cannot see how this is a fair or
reasonable inference” (p.139). Bolt is absolutely right that such an inference
is neither fair nor reasonable, it is also a position that Dooyeweerd would
completely reject.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">It is surprising
that Bolt insists on such an interpretation given that he makes reference to
Dooyeweerd’s article “Kuyper’s Philosophy of Science” where Dooyeweerd not only
makes a number of statements to the contrary but, like any philosopher, engages
in criticism and not mere dismissal, of positions he rejects. Near the start he
writes “Though bordering on redundancy, because it has been said so often
before: The Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea claims no infallibility, neither
for its positive philosophical conceptions nor with regard to its critique of
traditional philosophy” (p.132 of a draft translation). Dooyeweerd is clear
that he offers both his positive philosophical views and his philosophical
criticisms as ordinary examples of what fallible human philosophers do and so
open to the same evaluation as any other philosophy. Dooyeweerd repeatedly
argued against dogmatism in philosophy insisting that no philosophy should be
dismissed just because of its religious background. He wanted his Christian
philosophy to be taken seriously by non-Christian philosophers and equally
argued that “the Christian ground-motive </span><b style="font-size: 14pt;">refuses to allow any particular
philosophical movement to be excluded</b><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> from the philosophical community
because of its point of departure.” (RS I, 29).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">A typical
statement of Dooyeweerd’s found in the article cited by Bolt is “The Philosophy
of the Cosmonomic Idea has never defended the view that a philosophy springing
from a non-Christian root cannot contain important elements of truth” (p.134 of
draft version). So it is not clear why Bolt thinks that Dooyeweerd rejects
everything Aristotle says because it is a pagan author that says it. His actual
method and approach to the philosophical tradition is quite different. He
insists repeatedly that “it is an utter illusion to suppose that a philosophy
can develop itself in isolation” (quoted in Verburg’s </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Herman Dooyeweerd: The
life and work of a Christian philosopher</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> p.346 compare similar statements
TWT 38, NC I. 115, 117, RS II, 26-27). This leads to an approach that seeks to
identify the moments of truth and insight in every philosophy. It is only in the
context of identifying insights in a philosophy that criticism of that
philosophy can become valid and worthwhile. Philosophical criticism involves
showing how a genuine insight goes awry, the task then is to incorporate the
insight within a philosophical framework that can give it more justice. This is
consistent with Dooyeweerd’s understanding of Christianity in relation to the
ground-motive of creation, fall and redemption. Every philosophical conception
should be considered within this framework. As Robert Sweetman has put it
recently: creation-fall-redemption is a spiritual impulse “in which one
approaches something open to encountering it with indications of its original
blessing, its marring and consequent ambiguity, and its reception of a new and
redemptive meaning by which its original blessing shines forth again and
becomes redolent of new possibilities.” (<i><a href="https://thinkfaith.net/fisch/blog/pursuit-christian-scholarship" target="_blank">Tracing the lines</a></i> 142-143) Dooyeweerd is happy to speak
of “data” or “structural states of affairs” that any philosophy is able to
recognise and must take account of within its framework. To show how this is
understood by Dooyeweerd I offer the following two quotes:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">“In the
philosophical effort to account for [structural states of affairs] in the
context of a theoretical view of totality, there may be a noble competition
between all philosophical trends without discrimination. We do not claim a
privileged position for the Christian philosophy of the cosmonomic Idea in this
respect. For even the Christian ground-motive and the content of our
transcendental ground-Idea determined by it, do not give security against
fundamental mistakes in the accomplishment of our philosophical task” (NC I.
117)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">“Every
philosophical current may contribute to the testing of its own and other
philosophical views with respect to data which, up to now, have been neglected.
For the discovery of this neglected state of affairs in our experiential
horizon is not the monopoly of a particular philosophical school. Thanks to
common grace, </span><b style="font-size: 14pt;">relative truths are to be found in every philosophy</b><span style="font-size: 14pt;">,
although the interpretation of such truths may appear to be unacceptable from
the biblical standpoint insofar as the philosophical interpretation turns out
to be ruled by a dialectical and apostate basic-motive. However, no philosophy
can prosper in isolation.” TWT 38</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Once we have
taken this into account we will not be surprised to read Dooyeweerd talk about
an “important element of truth” in Aristotle’s substance concept (RS II, 264).
Nor that he recognises that “the distinction between potentiality and actuality
in reality has undoubtedly been a brilliant and fruitful discovery. It has
indeed enriched Western philosophical thinking … It is certainly not the
intention of the Philosophy of the Law-Idea to reject or minimize an
Aristotelian distinction that has proven fruitful.” (RS II, 290).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-23551773318854090412019-11-22T18:42:00.001+00:002020-06-05T08:58:05.552+01:00Dooyeweed among the reformed Thomists<span style="font-size: 14pt;">In 1985
Arvin Vos published a book called </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Aquinas, Calvin and contemporary protestant
thought: A critique of protestant views on the thought of Thomas Aquinas</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;">. In
this book he engaged the then common critical views of protestants against
Thomas Aquinas as a scholastic who stood for everything the reformation had
rejected. Vos argued that Calvin and Aquinas are actually much closer in their
views on many of the key issues than generally thought and that the criticism
of Aquinas in protestant circles was a result of misreading.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Recently two
books have been published which share similar concerns to Vos: </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Aquinas Among
the Protestants</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;">, Edited by Manfred Svensson and David VanDrunen and J.V.
Fesko </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Reforming Apologetics: Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to
Defending the Faith</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;">. Each contain a chapter that ostensibly engage the
thought of the Dutch Christian philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd. In this and a
second post I aim to show that the harsh criticism and serious misreading that has
sometimes been characteristic of protestant understandings of Aquinas are here
mirrored and amplified against Dooyeweerd.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">This first
post focuses on Chapter 7 of Fesko’s book entitled “Dualism” and has the very
modest aim of showing that Fesko’s repeated charges that Dooyeweerd is guilty of
failing to read the primary sources is ironically based on a quite spectacular
failing to read Dooyeweerd. What this means is that in the following I make no attempt
to give an account of Dooyeweerd’s thought since Fesko at no point demonstrates
that he has any idea of what Dooyeweerd’s philosophy is about. Instead I just
go through each claim Fesko makes and follow up his reference to show that
Dooyeweerd never says anything like what Fesko claims he says. The second post
will look at John Bolt’s chapter in </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Aquinas Among the Protestants</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> and
show that his most fundamental claims about Dooyeweerd involve a serious
misreading that can be contradicted by many of </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Dooyeweerd’s statements as well
as the whole tenor and purpose of his thought.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">The context
of Fesko’s chapter is broader than Dooyeweerd and begins with an overview of criticisms
of dualism found in Cornelius Van Til and Howard Van Til. The focus in what
follows however is the discussion of Dooyeweerd.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">The main criticism, and one repeated frequently,
is that Dooyeweerd fails to substantiate his criticism of dualisms with
documentation from the primary sources. As such “this chapter argues that the
dualism critique rests on an inaccurate evaluation of the historical evidence”
(p.164). Given the centrality of such a critique it is incumbent on Fesko to
ensure that his own criticism of Dooyeweerd is properly documented and shows a
careful analysis of the appropriate evidence. In what follows I aim to show
that sadly this is not the case and that Dooyeweerd deserves a second hearing.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">There are
six places where Fesko explicitly claims that in their criticisms of dualism
Dooyeweerd and his heirs fail to engage properly with the primary sources (pp.
164 (twice), 177, 184, 191 & 197). To give just two examples: “This
caricature has largely arisen from a failure to read primary sources” (164) and
“he [Dooyeweerd] rarely, if ever, supports his claims with primary-source
documentation” (177). There are a further five places where much the same point
is made though in different language (pp. 175, 179, 180-181, 187 & 190) as
an example “Dooyeweerd has constructed a mythological strawman” (p. 175).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">The
insistent and repetitive nature of these claims about Dooyeweerd are very serious
and it is difficult to imagine someone coming across Dooyeweerd for the first
time in Fesko’s chapter thinking that he might be worthy of consideration.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">To aid the
readers own evaluation I list below the primary sources Fesko cites for
Dooyeweerd. Most are </span><span style="font-size: 18.66px;">accessible in PDF <a href="http://herman-dooyeweerd.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">A New
Critique of Theoretical Thought</span></i><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;"> (<b>NC</b>) 3:784
(p.168) 3:89 (p.169 &170) 2:564, 2:593 (p.169), 1:8-11 (p182), 2:564
(p.182)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">In the
Twilight of Western Thought</span></i><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;"> (1999 edition) (<b>TWT</b>) 86(-87)
(p.170, p.172 twice), 32-33 (p.170), 96-97 (p.171), 31-35, 47-48, 81-82, 96-97
(p.177), 116 (p.177), 38, 64, 108 (p.179)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">Reformation
and Scholasticism in Philosophy</span></i><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;"> (<b>RS</b>) 1:36-37
(171) 1:38 (twice p.171, 176, 179), 1:15 (p.177), 1:326-327 (179), 2:90 (179)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">“Kuyper’s
Wetenschapsleer” pp.193-232 (p.171)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">“Cornelius
Van Til and the Transcendental Critique of Theoretical Thought” 74-88, 75, 86
(p.172)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">“Centrum en
Omtrek: De Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee in een veranderende wereld” “as quoted in
Friesen </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Neo-Calvinism</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;">, 388” (p.173)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">While this might
give the impression of a serious engagement with Dooyeweerd’s works we will
soon discover that every reference fails to substantiate Fesko’s claims and
some cover topics so removed from the concerns of Fesko’s chapter that it is a mystery
why they have been included.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Fesko opens
his discussion of Dooyeweerd with a brief account of the fundamentals of
Dooyeweerd’s thought. The main source he relies on is J. Glenn Friesen’s </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Neo-Calvinism
and Christian Theosophy: Franz von Baader, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd. </i><span style="font-size: 14pt;">While
it may be likely that this book plays a role in some of the misinterpretations
of Dooyeweerd in this section I will pass over them. This is because my focus is
on the primary sources. We turn then to consider Fesko’s reading of Dooyeweerd
and the sources he cites in support. I have focused on five claims Fesko makes
and the references he supplies to support them and finish with two occasions where
the references provided are something of a mystery while also indicting a
missed opportunity.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">(1) “Once
fallen human beings realize their need for Christ, they transcend the temporal
earthly cosmos and participate in the transcendental root of the cosmos” (p.169
reference to NC 2:593)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">The most
likely sentence that relates to this is the following: “Man, in his full
selfhood, transcends the temporal ‘earthly’ cosmos in all its aspects, and
partakes in the transcendental root of this cosmos.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Fesko’s
analysis suggests that it is only “once” we realize our need for Christ, and so
only “they” who have this realisation that come to participate in this root. Dooyeweerd’s text however does not refer to Christ or a sense of need, nor does
he limit his point to a particular group, it is part of the nature and
structure of man to transcend the temporal cosmos. My purpose is not to go into
what this could mean, or whether Dooyeweerd is correct, but just to illustrate
the difference between Fesko’s interpretation and what the source actually
says.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">(2) In the
next quote I will number the claims that Fesko believes that Dooyeweerd makes:
“In Dooyeweerd’s analysis, [1] the Greek philosophical failure to recognize the
supratemporal origin of the human heart [2] leads to the absolutizing the
temporal and [3] thus creates an antithetical relationship between soul and
body. [4] Scholastic theologians inherited the same problem because [5] they
adopted the Greek philosophical anthropology.” (reference TWT, 32-33). None of
these claims can be found in the text referenced. It nowhere speaks of a
“failure to recognize the supratemporal origin of the human heart” [1], on these
pages there is no discussion of the body and soul and so no claim about
creating an antithetical relationship between the two [3], there is therefore
no “same problem” for theologians to inherit [4] and no discussion of Greek
anthropology [5]. That leaves the point about “absolutizing the temporal” [2].
What we do find in the next section discussing the humanistic nature-freedom
motive is the claim that humanism, in the Italian Renaissance, looked for a new
personality and rebirth of man where “this personality was thought of as
absolute in itself” (TWT, 33), it is difficult to see how this fits the
description given by Fesko.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">(3) “The
nature-grace dualism established a beachhead within Calvinistic thought and
subsequently expressed itself in the polarities that were “characteristic of
Lutheranism.” “The Lutheran dualism of law and gospel,” writes Dooyeweerd, “is
foreign to the Reformed confession.” Reformed scholasticism tries to build its
doctrinal cathedral on the sand of Aquinas’s nature-grace dualism and hence has
the same foundational weaknesses.” (p. 171 Reference to RS 1:38)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">This is the
closest we get to Fesko giving a close reading of Dooyeweerd’s text. It is
worth quoting Dooyeweerd a bit more extensively to see how accurately Fesko has
interpreted the text:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">“To the extent that the ground-motive of
nature and grace is able to establish a beachhead in Calvinistic thought, it
will never express itself in a theological way in terms of the polarity
characteristic of Lutheranism. The Lutheran dualism of law and gospel is
foreign to the Reformed confession.” RS 1:38 </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">A little
further on: Reformed Scholasticism rejects “both the Lutheran dualism between
nature and grace and the Thomistic substructure-superstructure theme.” RS 1:38</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">While Fesko
seems to present the nature-grace dualism as something Dooyeweerd finds in
Aquinas, that then becomes established in Calvinism and subsequently expressed
in Lutheranism, what Dooyeweerd actual writes shows a more complex
understanding of the nature-grace ground motive. We see in this short passage
that Dooyeweerd contrasts Reformed Scholasticism with Thomism at several
points. At one point he writes that Reformed Scholasticism “has never been able
to elaborate an independent philosophy like that of Thomism”. He goes on to say
that “In Reformed Scholasticism, nature can never be conceived of as the
antipode of grace or as its relatively autonomous substructure. For, in
conformity to Augustine, Reformed Scholasticism always binds the natural light
of reason to the light of Scripture.” This is quite different from the picture
Fesko paints. However it must be said that in this short section of
Dooyeweerd’s text it is true that there is a lack of reference to primary
texts. Does this validate Fesko’s criticism that Dooyeweerd does not properly
engage the primary texts? We could perhaps try to excuse Dooyeweerd by saying
that here we are only dealing with a brief survey of issues before getting into
the main text which gives almost 300 pages (pp.41-323) of very detailed analysis
of Greek philosophy leading up to and including Plato including many citations
from the Greek texts.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Nevertheless
this doesn’t solve the problem that his discussion of Luther lacks any
documentation. Later though, on page 179, Fesko references RS 1:326-327, here
Dooyeweerd does provide documentation from Luther’s work and responds to just
the kind of criticism Fesko offers, it is a shame then that he does not engage
Dooyeweerd’s discussion either at page 171 or later when he includes this
reference.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">(4) On page
176 Fesko writes that Dooyeweerd “fails to recognize that the Reformed
theologians who came later rejected the nature-grace construct”. He again
references RS 1:38 where we have already seen Dooyeweerd acknowledge
significant differences between reformed scholasticism and Aquinas. It would
seem that Fesko thinks Dooyeweerd identifies the nature-grace ground motive
with Aquinas’s thought in such a way that anyone who shows evidence of a
nature-grace ground motive must be saying the same things as Aquinas. A careful
reading of even the few references that Fesko provides shows that this is not
how Dooyeweerd understands the nature-grace ground motive.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">(5) Fesko
points out that Calvin himself expressed views that Dooyeweerd is said to
criticise as scholastic and then writes “nevertheless, Dooyeweerd still calls
Calvin’s theology “pure”” (p.178). Fesko provides no evidence for this claim
and in none of the citations he provides throughout this chapter do we find
Dooyeweerd making such a claim. I think that it is highly unlikely that Dooyeweerd
did write such a thing. He certainly shows an appreciation of important
elements in Calvin and believed his philosophy to be an outworking of the
reformational spirit found especially in Calvin’s works, but this does not
exclude the possibility that he would be critical of other elements in Calvin’s
thought. In his brief discussion of Dooyeweerd and Calvin (pp.178-179) there
are no citations of Dooyeweerd and it would be possible to show that Dooyeweerd
is not presented in a very accurate way.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">(6) In the
section on “Criticisms against So-Called Dualisms” Fesko quotes Dooyeweerd on
the Westminster Confessions to the effect that it was influenced by the
Thomistic-Aristotelian metaphysics (p.179). In the footnote (n.88) Fesko
references 3 separate pages from TWT, the two short sections from RS 1 we have
already discussed, and a page from RS 2. From TWT he references pages 38, 64
and 108. The quote itself is found on TWT 108, TWT 64 contains a discussion of
Dooyeweerd’s understanding of cultural formation with a brief criticism of
historicism and doesn’t appear to have any connection with the points at issue.
The first reference however has much value in the broader context of Fesko’s
book if not with the role, or lack, of Thomistic-Aristotelian metaphysics in
the Westminster Confessions. I quote the follow passage:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">“Structural
data, founded in the temporal order of human experience, however, are facts of
a transcendental significance, which should be acknowledged, irrespective of
their philosophical interpretation. If these data seem not to agree with
certain dogmatical presuppositions of a philosophical school, the adherents of
the latter should not try to eliminate the data, but to find a satisfactory
philosophical explanation upon the basis of their own starting-point. Every
philosophical current may contribute to the testing of its own and other
philosophical views with respect to data which, up to now, have been neglected.
For the discovery of this neglected state of affairs in our experiential horizon
is not the monopoly of a particular philosophical school. Thanks to common
grace, relative truths are to be found in every philosophy, although the
interpretation of such truths may appear to be unacceptable from the biblical
standpoint insofar as the philosophical interpretation turns out to be ruled by
a dialectical and apostate basic-motive. However, no philosophy can prosper in
isolation.” TWT 38</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Fesko will
say in the next few sentences after this reference that Dooyeweerd rejects
common grace as imposing a dualism on creation, yet here we have Dooyeweerd
giving a positive articulation of common grace, it also deals with the very
issues that Fesko is discussing throughout his book. There is material there in
Dooyeweerd, seemingly right under his nose, that Fesko could have fruitfully
engaged with.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">We can only hope that he
gets a second hearing.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">(7) Finally
there is an intriguing reference in the same footnote (p.179n88) to volume 2 of
Dooyeweerd’s </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Reformation and Scholasticism in Philosophy</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;">, this is the volume
that gives well over 200 pages of discussion to the philosophy of Thomas
Aquinas (pp.140-180, 246-434). We also find a more extensive discussion of
reformed scholasticism here than found in volume 1 which Fesko has discussed.
What then do we find when reading RS 2:90? This single reference to volume 2 is
a bit of a mystery as that page is part of a discussion of Kuyper’s concept of
sphere-sovereignty and does not touch on any of the issues raised in Fesko’s
chapter! Once again, the relevant material is there to be discussed, there are
plenty of references to the </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Summa Theologiae</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> and </span><i style="font-size: 14pt;">Summa contra
gentiles</i><span style="font-size: 14pt;">, alongside other works of Aquinas, there is a good deal of Latin. Instead of spending much of the chapter complaining that Dooyeweerd fails to engage the primary sources Fesko should have got stuck in, engaged Dooyeweerd's text and shown us how a competent reformed Thomist might evaluate Dooyeweerd's thought. An opportunity missed.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2019/11/dooyeweed-among-reformed-thomists-part-2.html">Part Two</a><br /></div>Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-15978793914508022762018-12-09T10:25:00.002+00:002020-06-27T09:56:08.136+01:00(33) The structure of the human body<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">If we start with the body we shall soon see that it
cannot be simply identified as a physical substance. Using the notion of
encapsis we can see that properly speaking the body is made up of at least four
different idionomies. These idionomies are encaptically bound together in a
hierarchical order so that the lower idionomies act as substructures that
support and anticipate the higher structures. </span></span><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">The human body can be recognised as a whole because it
takes on a visible, tangible form marked by unity and wholeness. This is
experienced in a concrete way in our ordinary experience and is not to be
thought of as a construction of the substructures about to be analysed. For
example the structure and function of body organs, like the brain, can never be
determined in isolation of their place within the total structure of the four
encaptically bound idionomies since they function in all of them. <span style="margin: 0px;">The four idionomies from lower to higher are: </span></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">(1) the physical-chemical substructure, </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">(2) the biotic substructure, </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">(3) the sensitive or psychical substructure and
finally </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">(4) the act structure. </span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">The first three idionomies are the same as that of
animals, however due to their character as substructures that support and
anticipate the human act structure they are </span></span><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">remarkably much more developed in several respects
than the structure of any animal. <span style="margin: 0px;">Let us examine these
in turn.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">The first substructure of the human body is the
physical idionomy qualified by the energetic aspect. It consists of the whole
(inanimate) molecular structure of a human being. In and of itself this
structure is not yet a human body, it is that only as it is bound to and lead
by the higher structures. At death and with the process of decomposition of the
body it is released from this encaptic relation to follow only the laws proper
to it as a physical structure. To see the way the earlier substructures are
intimately tied to the later ones we could consider the role of iodine within
the normal functioning of the thyroid gland. While this gland has an idionomy
that is biotically qualified, iodine has a physical-chemical qualification in
respect of its own inner structure. The role of iodine is crucial for normal
biotic growth, which in turn is foundational for emotional health.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>So when the thyroid gland is hyperactive, it
causes excessive energy use, which can generate a faster heartbeat accompanied
by a general unease and a heightened nervous sensitivity. Or in the case of </span></span><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>hypothyroidism,
often caused from iodine deficiency, in addition to the lethargy and slowing of
the heart, one also discovers mental depression. <span style="margin: 0px;">This
interweaving of iodine and the thyroid gland shows how the integrated
functioning of the entire human being operates, without sacrificing the unique
character of each substructure, and while resisting any reduction to the lowest
idionomic level. So while maintaining its physical character iodine, in this
example, nevertheless serves to support and enable the later idionomies and so
has a special character that goes beyond what is found in animals. </span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">The second idionomy is qualified by the biotic modal
aspect. Here we include the role of living cells, tissues, organs and other
biotically qualified structures. It also includes the so-called autonomic
nervous system that influences the function of internal organs and all that
governs the vegetative body processes such as breathing, heartbeat, and
perspiration, in so far as they fall outside of the guidance of the psychic or
later functions. We might also think here of the organs of the body, like the
sense organs, the brain and nervous system. However it is important not to
classify these organs as belonging exclusively to the biotic idionomy. This is
because they all necessarily play their role in all four of the idionomies.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">The third idionomy is the sensitive-emotional
functions which, as instinctive, are for the most part outside our conscious
control. They include the functions of the central nervous system and more
particularly those of the senses, brain, spinal cord and glandular system as well
as the muscle tissues. These allow us to perceive the world around us and
experience emotions as they are taken up into the final idionomy they are no
longer merely received, but also interpreted and named, reflected upon and
shaped for human purposes. These three idionomies function as substructures
since they can only be fully understood in their structural interlacement with,
and disclosure by the final and highest structure, the act structure. It is
only as bound to this structure that the preceding idionomies can be understood
as typical structures of the human body. Here a crucial different is to be
noticed in that the act structure is not qualified or led by a modal aspect and
as such is undifferentiated. This leads us to the final and most characteristic
level of our analysis, the human act structure.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">The
act structure is sometimes understood to comprise all the modal aspects higher
than the psychical and so constitutes the arena where the subject functions of
these modal aspects are realised. This would seem obvious from the preceding
analysis of the three substructures and is also supported by the common
division (made by Dooyeweerd) between normative and non-normative modal aspects
marked at the dividing line of the logical aspect. Against this we can point to
exercise, diet and desires as realities that require human realisation as
positive, normal, norming features of human life. In addition it must be
recognised that it is not only analytic intelligence that is crucial to setting
and embodying normative responses, but also one’s aptitude, temperament,
memory, and the reserve of one’s character and convictions. A second point is
that the act life of the human person comes forth out of the heart as that
which expresses itself in the functions and lives exclusively in them. At this
point we also recognise the important sense in which humans are free in both
thought and action.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>For although humans
exist and function within the limits set by the laws of every aspect, the human
self is not entirely the product of them or of any causal forces in creation.
The human body is different to other entities we have investigated because
unlike them because it lacks a qualifying or leading modal function. Instead it
is the act structure that forms the highest qualifying structure and this is
marked by its undifferentiated form. Dooyeweerd calls the act structure the
“plastic expression of the human spirit” (Dooyeweerd 1942: Thesis XIX).
‘Plastic’ in the sense of having the greatest degree of flexibility to express
itself in all possible differentiated structures. Here we arrive at the ‘open’
character of the human person which can only be understood from the perspective
that as humans we know what it is to be called to bear responsibility, because
we know the difference between good and evil.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">This
should lead us on to the central issue of religion, however we pause to
consider the long tradition of thinking of the human person as body and soul.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/01/contents-for-introduction-to.html" target="_blank">Contents</a><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/05/34-we-are-not-body-and-soul.html" target="_blank">Next</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/04/further-reading.html">Further Reading</a></div>
Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-56620829167409767982018-12-03T21:13:00.001+00:002020-06-27T09:55:28.750+01:00(32) The meaning of being human<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">What
does it mean to be human? This is certainly not a purely philosophical
question.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Long before philosophy came
onto the scene, people had a picture of themselves and their role in the
cosmos.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Here we should speak of a
conviction more than a conception.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>It
develops close to life and within its practical concerns, but perhaps also even
more when these concerns are undermined by accident or illness, or when the
reality of suffering becomes inescapable. And so we come to
ourselves and seek answers that will satisfy deeper religious concerns, answers
that can come to inspire and guide a culture.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>This is not just the case in societies of long ago but is just as true
in the modern world.</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">Since
science is bound to a special-modal view of reality it can provide no answer to
the boundary questions of what it means to be human, of how humans are
different from animals. The central scriptural teaching relevant to this theme
is that human nature is centred in the human self, which scripture usually
calls the ‘heart’.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>As the deepest point
of human existence it is the centre of thought, belief, knowledge, will and
feeling.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>As Proverbs puts it: “Above all
else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.”
(4:23).<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The heart is the genuine, the
authentic, the true self.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>While man
looks at the outward appearance, it is only God who sees into a person’s heart
(1 Samuel 16:7; 2 Chronicles 6:30; 1 Kings 8:39; Jeremiah 17:9, 10).<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Despite the diversity of a person’s
activities and functions, these all lead out of and back to the heart.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The heart represents the human person as an
essential unity; as such it is the focal point of the person’s relationship
towards, or away from, God.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>It is with
the whole, undivided heart that one must serve the Lord.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>It is thus also the root source of the good
and evil a person thinks or does (Matthew 12:34-35; 15:18)</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">Reformational
philosophy rejects an individualistic understanding of individual human
beings.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Instead, it starts with the
spiritual fellowship of humanity in Adam and its renewal in Christ. In everyday
life we experience ourselves as a unity, an experience we indicate with the
word “I”.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>So for example we do not say
that my hand writes, but I write.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Not,
my legs walk, but I walk; not, my mind or thought thinks, but I think and so
on.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>In our practical experience of life
we relate everything that plays a role in our life to our “I” as the central
point.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>It is the “I” that acts and
relates in multiple ways to the people, things and situations around us.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>All our possibilities are related back to
this central point as a kind of concentration point. Only God can know this
central “I”, the human heart, and as the ultimate subjective root of all human
activity it cannot itself become its own object of thought.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>This precludes the possibility of getting a
conceptual grasp of our central identity; a worked-out analysis is not possible
since I myself must be the agent of the analysis.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>This does not mean we can have no idea of the
human heart.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>However, since knowledge of
the self is dependent on knowledge of God, any idea of human nature will inevitably
reflect what people take to be the divine origin of all. When we talk about our
self in its many expressions and life activities we take a position almost as
if from the outside.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Here it is common
to speak of the “self” which is, so to speak, the expression of the “I”, and so
we come to the problem of the unity and diversity of our being human.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">The
traditional way of accounting for this is by the distinction between body and
soul. To speak of the human person as body and soul is not in itself a problem,
this language is consistent with the use in scripture and can be taken as different ways to emphasise the unity of the human person looked at as the
inward person and the outward person. Unfortunately the language of body and
soul has tended to move away from the unity of the person toward a view
that has the body as merely necessary for earthly life to be discarded at death
with the true person identified as the soul that lives on in a spiritual realm.
This approach has been very widespread among Christians despite
its pagan origins and many problems. Amongst Christian philosophers and
theologians there is now a move towards the conception of Thomas Aquinas which
gives greater weight to unity employing an Aristotelian model rather than the
more traditional Platonic form of dualism. Before exploring this issue more
fully we turn in the next section to an analysis of the structure of the outward person the human body.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/12/33-structure-of-human-body.html" target="_blank">Next</a></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/01/contents-for-introduction-to.html" target="_blank">Contents</a></span></div><div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px; text-align: center;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/04/further-reading.html">Further Reading</a></div>
<u><span style="color: #000120;"></span></u><br />Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-22683637530503388792018-11-24T16:14:00.002+00:002020-06-27T09:54:28.178+01:00(31) What’s wrong with substance?<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">The
notion of a substance found in ancient Greek philosophy and later in scholastic
thought in the middle ages, is based on the idea of <i>substantia</i>, that is
some essence that exists on its own, independent of other things, and
unchangeable. A substance is the underlying reality that gives support to
attributes or qualities and unifies them into a single thing.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The idea is that reality has an objective
quality, something robust, independent and stable in spite of the variety and
change we experience.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Attributes are
changeable whereas substances are that which is constant through change, this
helps us explain how the tree outside remains the same tree through the
changing seasons and its growth to maturity.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>Also attributes are not fixed to a spatio-temporal location, the same
attribute can crop up in many places at once so that comparisons can be made
between different, but similar objects.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>Since attributes can be in many places at once there is a need for a
centre around which attributes can be unified into a single object.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Thus substance provides an answer to the question
why properties do not just fall off and scatter, but are instead collected into
the unity of an object.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>A final
consideration that invites the idea of substance is that there are centres of
force which have the active power to initiate change in itself or in others.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">First
we should say that notions of centres of force have been superseded by modern
physics so that substance no longer plays a role in the natural sciences.
Nevertheless we can still see that philosophy needs to account for constancy
amidst change and unity amidst diversity, why not here appeal to the notion of
substance? It seems that christian philosophers are often attracted to the
notion of substance and we will deal later with the main application of this
concept in Christian thought to the problem of body-soul dualism. For now we
make three brief criticisms.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>First the
notion of substance is a reification, that is it takes a theoretical
abstraction to be a real thing. Second it cannot do justice to the relational
and temporal character of reality. Thirdly the notion of substance relativises
the religious relation of dependence on God.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>We explain each in turn.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">We
can only arrive at the notion of substance, as an underlying reality (<i>substantia</i>)
behind the changeable phenomena of the world (<i>accidentia</i>), through
theoretical abstraction.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>While in
experience we are familiar with both constancy and change, we never experience
one without the other, so we cannot say that we experience some entity that is
distinct from all change and that lies behind it. This abstraction only exists
as an artefact of our logical thinking about cosmic reality. The problem is
that this theoretical concept is projected back onto reality, as if this
abstraction – this distinction between <i>substantia</i> and <i>accidentia</i>
– did not exist as a result of our thinking but also in cosmic reality as such. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">Whereas
the first criticism focuses on the role of our thinking in arriving at the
notion of a substance before projecting this back on reality the second comes
from the side of the reality being abstracted.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>What we have with substance, or the closely related idea of essence, is
an entity that is cut off from the full, immanent relationships and coherences
in which we experience things (see §§21-23).<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>Since only some qualities of the thing, be it an apple, a flower or a
human person, will be considered essential the result is a loss of
reality.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>This is even more the case when
substance is taken as a bare support or substratum for all of a thing’s
qualities as in John Locke’s famous phrase “substance or
something-I-know-not-what”. Reality is lost because it is thoroughly
relational, nothing exists in and of itself except God, all else depends on
their creator, to cut a thing off from this relationality is to denude it. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">So
thirdly the notion of substance can be opposed on the basis of the Christian
confession that reality, that is creation, only exists within the power of God
in Christ, who “upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3)
and in whom “all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17). A consequence of this
is that there is nothing in creation that can be found to be what all else in
creation depends on for existence. To this line of thought it may be objected
that by emphasising the complete dependence of all things on God we end up
seriously threatening the integrity and goodness of creation. This could not be
further from the truth! As we have just been indicating it is the notion of
substance that cuts off things from their full interconnected reality, it is
reformational philosophy that begins always with the affirmation of the
goodness of creation. The issue at stake in this third criticism is the
rejection of any hierarchy of being, or any reductionist strategy that assigns
a semi-absolutised position to some element of creaturely reality.
Reformational philosophy wishes to speak up here for an equality of being, and
join with Gregory Palamas in claiming “The Christian can tolerate no mediating
substance between God and creatures…”</span></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/12/32-meaning-of-being-human.html" target="_blank">Next</a></div>
<a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/01/contents-for-introduction-to.html" target="_blank">Contents</a><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/04/further-reading.html">Further Reading</a></div>Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-49746499704053761242018-11-12T19:53:00.001+00:002020-06-27T09:53:24.346+01:00(30) Example: the limits of neuroscience <span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">Staying
with the themes of the philosophy of mind we can extend these points in
relation to neuroscience which as a fast-developing field of scientific inquiry
has created significant excitement within philosophy.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>It is no surprise that philosophers are
interested in the relevance of the results of neuroscience for topics like the
nature of consciousness, freedom and determinism, and ethics.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>However we should be cautious about how these
results are used.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The first point to
make is that the relevance of empirical inquiry for philosophy requires care
over the use and application of concepts.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>For empirical enquiry to make a philosophical difference a prerequisite
is conceptual clarity.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Experimental
results that claim to have profound consequences for the way we think about
consciousness or freedom, will prove nothing if they are based on a confused or
dubious use of the relevant concepts.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>So for example if you want to run a test to see if someone is lying, you
need to know what it is to lie. This may seem obvious, but there are important
related concepts such as deception, role playing and joking which need to be
distinguished.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">A
condition for lying is that a speaker states something that they believe to be
false, but this in itself is not enough since in the context of tell ing a joke
or reporting someone else’s words, a false assertion is not a lie. When in the
context of a scientific experiment someone is told to assert false statements
it is far from clear whether they can be said to lie.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>As such any link between the observed neural
activity and lying is far from being established.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">Another,
more complex, example is that of freedom. This concept must face apparently
serious challenges coming from the empirical findings of various sciences.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>In particular the experiments by Libet and
Walter where brain activity was measured using an EEG machine found that conscious
awareness of decision making is preceded by activity in the brain.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Also the social sciences often focus on
social factors that determine human choices thus giving the impression that
human freedom may turn out to be nothing more than a comforting illusion.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>What is clear is that here we have another
example of the modern problem of how to deal with the apparent tension between
theoretical or scientific accounts of human actions and our concrete experience
of the same. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">The
main argument in defence of the reality of freedom is based on our
self-experience as an individual who is a free agent and not just an element in
a chain of cause and effect.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>We find it
necessary in our social life to assume that people can be held responsible for
their actions, whether in the legal sphere or in the context of institutions
such as family life, schools, businesses and so on.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>In each it is necessary to understand human
behaviour in terms that are not reducible to cause and effect. However there is
an additional issue raised by the kind of experiments done by Libet and Walter
which is the actual concept of freedom being assumed.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Here, as in many discussions about the
freedom of the will, freedom is understood in terms of a decision made at a
specific moment in time. The agent who makes the decision is then thought of as
somehow being outside the situation controlling what is happening, and so
making a free decision which then gets relayed to the body that obeys. While
some decisions may be understood in these kinds of terms they are not typical.
For example the decision to raise my hand just to demonstrate this kind of
freedom can hardly be thought of as a typical expression of human freedom. In
most cases my free acts are part of a practice, which itself has been taken up
in the light of longer term goals and values, as such they are not isolated
events. So freedom is implied in the overall practice and in the overall
conduct of my life, and is not only to be located in specific, let alone
isolated choices.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">These
problems are perhaps not insurmountable.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>Once careful attention is made to the relevant concepts better
experiments can be devised.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>However here
a second problem arises.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Many of the
concepts under discussion involve normative characteristics which in part
constitute their meaning. Human actions are normed and so gain their meaning
through their response to these norms.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>A
thought can be lucid or equivocal, it could be consistent with or contradicted
by other thoughts; brain processes like neurons firing, as viewed from the abstract
perspective of neuroscience, cannot have these features.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Given that there is this disconnect between
the abstract view of brain processes and the normative character of human
actions we might conclude that neuro-scientific experiments have no relevance at
all to these philosophical questions.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>To
help think about this we can consider an example of what Selim Berker describes
as the best-case scenario: “We notice that a portion of the brain which lights
up whenever we make a certain sort of obvious, egregious error in mathematical
or logical reasoning also lights up whenever we have a certain moral
intuition.”<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Now what should we conclude
from this?<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Do we automatically question
the moral intuition?<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>This must depend on
the case itself, in the situation where we can see no connection between the
moral intuition and the mistaken bit of mathematical reasoning the neurological
result can only make us stop and think.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>We look again at the moral reasoning and see if we can find anything
untoward about it, or if we can see an analogy with the mathematical
reasoning.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>In and of itself the
neuro-scientific experiment cannot be decisive. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">In
the absence of any normative connection we are best advised to continue
trusting the moral intuition and wait to see if later neuroscientific results
are able to make finer distinctions that throw light on the connection between
the faulty mathematical reasoning and the moral intuition.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>To take this further we can give a more
specific example, again borrowing from Selim Berker, “Suppose the same part of
the brain that lights up whenever we affirm the consequent also lights up
whenever we have an intuition that infanticide is impermissible; would you be
willing to start killing babies on those grounds?” The point of the rhetorical
question is that our moral intuitions can have a strength and decisiveness that
should rightly resist the alleged conclusion of complex empirical
investigations.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">Now
we can develop a second scenario where we do come to see that the moral
intuition in question rests on the same sort of confusion present in the
mistaken bit of mathematical/logical reasoning, then of course we would have
good reason to look more critically on the moral intuition, but in that case
the neuroscience isn’t playing a direct justificatory role. Further our moral judgement
that infanticide is wrong may well rest on more than just the given moral
intuition now cast under suspicion.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>What
is the role of the experiment?<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>We can
notice that “we might not have thought to link the moral intuition to that sort
of mathematical/logical blunder if we hadn’t known the neuroscientific results;
but again, once we do link them, it seems that we do so from the comfort of an
armchair, not from the confines of an experimental laboratory. It is as if,
while trying to prove whether or not some mathematical claim is true, your
mathematician friend had said to you, “Why don’t you try using the Brouwer
fixed point theorem?” If you end up proving the claim to be true using that
theorem, your justification for the claim in no way depends on your friend’s
testimony. (After all, she didn’t give away whether she thinks the claim is
true or false.) Nonetheless, your friend’s testimony gave you a hint for where
to look when trying to prove or disprove the mathematical claim”</span><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/11/31-whats-wrong-with-substance.html" target="_blank">Next</a></span> </div>
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/01/contents-for-introduction-to.html" target="_blank">Contents</a></span><br />
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/04/further-reading.html">Further Reading</a></div>Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-11923577197553693572018-11-04T11:19:00.001+00:002020-06-27T09:52:48.072+01:00(29) Limits of theory<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">The
structure of a thing is not universal in the same way as the modal aspects,
they are typical.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>While this helps give
a theoretical account of concrete things it does not get us to the uniqueness
of things, this is beyond the grasp of theory.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>What we understand naively as a whole in our experience becomes in
analysis something far more complex.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>Rarely do we meet with entities that can be analysed as a simple whole,
instead they are built up in a typical interlacing of simple structures of
atoms, molecules and cells for example (ESL, I 209).<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>We have seen that this requires us to look at
complex wholes where simple structures are encapsulated in larger structural
totalities.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Now we wish to emphasis
again the character and limits of theoretical thinking.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The attempt to give a theoretical account of
entities confronts us with the apparently insoluable problem of how we can
arrive at the whole entity through analysis given that analysis necessarily breaks
up what in reality is an indivisible whole.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>Indeed the unity of an entity is something that transcends the boundaries
of the modal aspects which provide the necessary entry-points of theoretical
analysis.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>This means that theoretical
access to the individual whole is impossible, instead an analysis of the
typical-structure of a thing must presuppose its unity.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>We have already seen that the <i>typical-structure</i>
or idionomy of an entity is expressed within the modal aspects which are
accessible to theoretical analysis and so a theoretical account of idionomies
is possible.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>However if we forget the
limits of theory and seek to discover the true nature of things through theory
alone we will end with deep theoretical problems.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>This is well exemplified in the philosophy of
Immanuel Kant.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Since he took theoretical
analysis to be primary without any critical investigation into its character
and limits he took the abstract view of perception (that is the psychical modal
aspect understood by empiricism) as what we experience.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Once the aspects have been taken as the
primary given in our experience, entities in their totality and unity fall away
behind the abstracted aspects as mysterious “<i>Ding ansich</i>” (the
“thing-in-itself”).<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>So an over-theorised
view of our practical experience turns the concrete unity, identity and
totality of things into a necessary but unprovable hypothesis.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">The importance of this point, that
you cannot reconstruct theoretically the unique character of concrete reality, can be shown in relation to the philosophy of mind.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>This field is now dominated by anti-dualistic
viewpoints and when speaking of a person the move is often made, without comment
or reflection, from the personal ‘I’ to a mind.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>This though crosses a boundary as you cannot identify the subjective ‘I’
with mental phenomenon (a functional approach).<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>Attempts to explain philosophically the nature of personal identity goes
beyond the capability of theoretical thought.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>When our everyday knowledge and experience of reality is replaced with
concepts you lose the concrete.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>This
concreteness is a feature of reality and not merely a subjective colouring that
we give to reality, and as such it cannot be replaced by scientific theories, which of necessity presuppose and abstract from this reality.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">A
second point of importance is that the analysis of reformational philosophy begins
with the recognition of the diversity of things and so can account for the
distinctive features of different entities in the world.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>A functional approach easily misses the
richness found in ordinary experience.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>An example of this can be found in discussions in the philosophy of mind
about artificial intelligence.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>From a
purely functional viewpoint it can be difficult to explain the difference
between a human mind and a computer.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>A
reformational theory of entities shows up the vast difference between the
two.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>We begin to see clearly the role of
human design and use of computers so that the objective-functioning of the
computer can make sense only against the subjective functioning of human persons.
This can explain the importance of language as an object function of the
computer. </span><br />
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/11/30-example-limits-of-neuroscience.html" target="_blank">Next</a> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/01/contents-for-introduction-to.html" target="_blank">Contents</a></span></div><div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px; text-align: center;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/04/further-reading.html">Further Reading</a></div>
Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-27539518908963317852018-10-27T17:41:00.001+01:002020-06-27T09:52:16.548+01:00(28) Encapsis<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">An entity is a whole that consists of parts. A chair,
for example, consists of legs, a seat, and a back. It is a human artefact and
so is founded in the formative modal aspect, but as a piece of furniture that
provides a resting place for people it is qualified or guided by the social
aspect. However if we look again at the chair we can say that it is a physical
object made up of wood or other material. This wood has its own typical
structure. There is one chair, but it seems we must analysis it in terms of at
least two different idionomies. These two idionomies are intertwined in a
specific way which Dooyeweerd described using the term <i>encapsis</i>.
Hopefully this word reminds you of the word encapsulate. It means that a
certain thing may be encapsulated within some other entity. The wood is
encapsulated within the idionomy of the chair. In other words there is an
interwinement of the two idionomies.</span></span><br />
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">There are a number of different ways in which
idionomies can be intertwined. For example there is a <i>symbiotic encapsis</i>
in the case of the yucca plant and the yucca moth. There is <i>correlative
encapsis</i> between a living being and its habitat, or between a church and a
state. Then there is a <i>subject-object encapsis</i> of the snail and its
shell, the spider and its web, or the bird and its nest.</span></span><br />
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">It is important to understand that encaptic
relationships are whole-whole relationships and not part-whole. “We identify a
whole by its typical structure or idionomy, where there are two idionomies the
relationship will be an encaptic one and not a part-whole one. This is very
important when later we investigate human society. Consider now a living cell
which has very clear parts, such as the mitochondria, they are parts of the
cell because they derive their (biotically qualified) idionomy from the cell as
the whole. But the molecules within the cell are not parts of it, for they have
an (energetically qualified) idionomy of their own. Their energetic idionomy is
encapsulated within, or encaptically intertwined with, the biotic idionomy of
the cell.” (Ouweneel 2014a 89) This example is a case of foundational encapsis
which is possibly the most important type of encapsis when thinking in terms of
our place in the cosmos, whereas correlative encapsis is more important in
understanding the coordination of our tasks together in the cosmos. In the
example of molecules within the cell the idionomy of the molecules within the
cell forms the foundation for the idionomy of the cell as such. Without this
idionomy – without molecules – there could be no cell. At the same time, the
cell is much more than the sum total of its molecules. It has an idionomy of
its own, that is qualified, or guided, by the biotic aspect.</span></span><br />
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">If we now return to our first example of the chair we
see another example of foundational encapsis. The idionomy of the wood is
foundationally encapsulated within the idionomy of the chair, together they
form an encaptic whole. Without the wood there is no chair, but the chair is
much more than a configuration of wooden pieces. The demands of the chair with
its social qualifying function guides the structure of the wooden pieces. The
structure of the chair is superimposed on the structure of the wood, just as
the structure of your house is superimposed on the structure of the bricks and
mortar that is its basic material. Now contrast this with an ornamental plant,
or a pet dog, their character goes beyond their natural idionomy but not because
they are encapsulated within a new whole, rather they are encapsulated within a
new context and so form a correlative encapsis with their new environment.</span></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px; text-align: right;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/11/29-limits-of-theory.html" target="_blank">Next</a> </span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/01/contents-for-introduction-to.html" target="_blank">Contents</a></span></span></div><div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px; text-align: center;"><span style="margin: 0px;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/04/further-reading.html">Further Reading</a></span></div>
Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-39387001741561282162018-10-23T20:40:00.006+01:002022-02-17T21:12:17.770+00:00(27) Non-human subjects<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">The example of the bird’s nest once again highlights
the fact that it is not only humans that are subjects. Animals also function
subjectively in many of the modal aspects. In philosophical anthropology the
tendency has been to emphasis the differences between human persons and
animals. The attempt is then made to identify some characteristic of being
human that is distinctive. We are different from animals because of, so it has
been claimed, our rationality, our moral sense, our use of language.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>These and other features are then used to
identify the human mind or soul.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>While
this approach is rejected in reformational philosophy it has often made the
point that only humans function subjectively in the post-psychic aspects. Here,
however, we shall follow Stafleu who rejects this approach and points to
evidence of animal functioning in higher modal aspects. He also argues that
emphasising this point of supposed difference detracts from another view of
this philosophy, namely that a person is primarily religious.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div align="left" style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; margin: 0px;">To begin with we should note
that it is not only birds and mammals that form things, but also insects such
as bees and ants, spiders, and fish. It will also be difficult to maintain that
animals have no distinguishing abilities. It is sometimes stated that human <i>logical</i>
thinking is necessarily based on the use of concepts, and that animal
distinguishing lacks this ability. It is true that animals lack concepts, but
it is more accurate to say that <i>conceptual</i> thinking is <i>opened-up</i>
thinking, theoretical thought. Natural thought is not necessarily linked up
with conceptual thought. Animal thought is natural, not opened-up, i.e., not
anticipating later modal aspects. Conceptual thought implies the <i>formation</i>
of concepts, hence it anticipates the formative aspect. It also anticipates the
lingual aspect, because concepts are worded. Hence, if animals do not use
conceptual thought, this does not mean that they are not functioning subjectively
in the logical modal aspect. Further some animals display a primitive use of
language. The significance of the dance of bees is well known. Birds are able
to warn each other against danger. In groups of apes a recognizable system of
communication is established, and some have been taught elementary
sign-language. Many animals display social behaviour: bees, ants, birds during
their seasonal migration, mammals living in herds, families of apes, and so. A
certain amount of division of labour is sometimes unmistakable. Studies have
identified primitive ethical behaviour among some animals.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; margin: 0px;">Making these points might worry some, as it may
appear to down play the difference between humans and animals. However this
need not be the case at all. Firstly the key difference, which we shall come to
later, is that humans are inescapably religious. We should also note that the
subjective functioning of animals in the post-psychic aspects is invariantly
primitive and instinctive.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Stafleu here
makes use of the distinction between the retrocipatory direction and the
anticipatory direction of the modal aspects (discussed in </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/08/19-diversity-and-coherence-between-modes.html">§19</a>)<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt; margin: 0px;">. Human
activity, because of its religious character, is opened-up, anticipating,
transcending and so significantly more varied and sophisticated than animals.
Crucially human activity involves responsibility and so freedom. When we
compare human language to animal communication we perceive a huge difference,
so to when we compare human and animal social structures. But also lower down
the modal scale we have to acknowledge huge differences. To spill human blood
is quite different to spilling animal blood, and human saliva is not the same
as animal saliva. When the members of the Sanhedrin spat on our Lord at his
trial (Matthew 26:67), all the hate-filled contempt of their evil hearts for
His suffering person was in this spittle. To view the human person as basically
an animal with respect to our body and human with respect to our soul is to
contradict the reality of our practical experience. Animals are glorious and
enigmatic creatures who can bring us to a greater understanding and
appreciation of God (Job 39-41), however humans in every fibre of their being
respond to God as religious creatures made in God’s image. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/10/28-encapsis.html" target="_blank">Next</a> </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt; margin: 0px;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/01/contents-for-introduction-to.html" target="_blank">Contents</a></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/04/further-reading.html">Further Reading</a></span></div>
Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-53267380569672993642018-10-13T21:59:00.001+01:002020-06-27T09:51:09.823+01:00(26) Idionomy<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">The analysis of entities in terms of their typical
structures is an important feature of reformational philosophy. In this
connection Dooyeweerd spoke of “individuality structures.” Unfortunately others
have not been happy with this terminology since we can never reach a things
true individuality through a structural analysis. Roy Clouser has used the term
“type-laws”. In the end the words used is not the most important thing, though
different reasons can be given for certain choices, what is important is a
correct understanding of the concept. Here we shall use the term idionomy which
captures the meaning in one word combining <i>idios</i> meaning “proper to” and
<i>nomos</i> meaning law. Ouweneel defines idionomy as the law that is proper
to a certain kind or class of entity, the law that makes the entity the entity
it is. </span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">This
theory of idionomy is best explained through examples.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Let’s start with a natural thing, a
tree.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>A tree functions subjectively, that
is actively, in the first five modal aspects:</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<b><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">Numerically</span></b><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">: the number of leaves, branches etc.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<b><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">Spatially</span></b><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">: the shape of the leaves, the amount of space the
roots need in order for the tree to grow.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<b><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">Kinematically</span></b><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">: the momentum and movement of its parts</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<b><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">Physically</span></b><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">: the energy transfer going on in the tree.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<b><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">Biotically</span></b><span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">: the growth of the tree to maturity, its method of
spreading its seeds.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">The
last of these, the biotic, turns out to be the most characteristic.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>A tree is a living thing which grows,
nourishes itself and reproduces according to the laws of biotic
development.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>All the other active
functions are subservient to this. The most characteristic modal aspect is
called the “qualifying function” or the “guiding function” which helps remind
us that we are not dealing with something static but with active functioning
that guides and even actualises the internal character of the entity. While the
tree is qualified by the biotic mode it is not cut off from the later modes and
so can be opened up to being perceived, analysed, formed and reshaped in
various ways, it can be named, it can inspire a piece of music, it can be
bought and sold and so on. For these possibilities to be disclosed one requires
animals which function actively in the later modal aspects.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">As
we investigate entities we notice that each entity has a modal aspect that is
most characteristic and so functions as the “qualifying” or “guiding”
function.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Recognising the qualifying
function is important as it gives us insight into all the other modes of the
thing and the way they form a unity.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>All
the other modal aspects are <i>lead</i> by the qualifying mode which means that
the way they function is, in part, determined by the character of its
qualifying function.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>So the number of
leaves and roots, the kinds of spatial arrangements between its parts, and
molecules found in a tree are determined in a typical way by the qualifying
function of the tree.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>In spite of the
unmistakable multiplicity of its modal aspects this thing is a concrete
individual unity. As a concrete thing it is not just a collection or
combination of its modal functions. Reformational philosophy rejects the
metaphysical “bundle theory” of things. The unity of the entity in its totality
comes first and is all the time presupposed in this analysis, it is not the end
result of the analysis. However we should also note that the internal structure
of a plant is very intricate and involves more than one idiomony. It can only
function based upon its physical building blocks such as molecules which have
an idionomy of a completely different nature. This state of affairs will be
discussed later when we come to the phenomenon of encapsis (§28).</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">This
kind of analysis has a critical quality that helps us to do justice to the
structural unity and integrity of things.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>We shall see this to a greater extend when looking at social
institutions.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>But just to note its
importance now we can point to the way that capitalism, as an ideology, can
lead us to view things primarily as economic objects and so fail to treat
things with integrity.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The ecological
value of trees can be ignored in an economic valuation (trees are not just
‘timber’), the living, feeling character of animals may be violated in modern
farming methods, and so in this way such a structural analysis can help us
identify what is wrong and what requires reform in our treatment of things.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">As
we have already mentioned the analysis of entities can become a lot more
complex when we see how different wholes are intertwined in special ways
(encapsis).<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>For now we add a brief
second example.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>If we take a bird’s nest
we find that it functions actively in the first four aspects (numerical to
physical), however a bird’s nest cannot be explained in purely physical terms.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>To come to a more complete understanding we
need to take in to account its object-function in the biotic life of the
bird.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>It is this that characterises a
bird’s nest and so the qualifying function in this example is an
object-function rather than a subject-function.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>This conclusion should be tested against the empirical evidence which
might suggest that the psychical function is of greater importance in
determining the characteristic of a bird’s nest.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Or is perhaps the reproductive function of
the nest more important?<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Such questions
remind us that the theory of entities cannot be applied ready-made but must
deal with empirical reality.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/10/27-non-human-subjects.html" target="_blank">Next</a> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/01/contents-for-introduction-to.html" target="_blank">Contents</a></span></div><div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px; text-align: center;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/04/further-reading.html">Further Reading</a></div>
<br />Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32955927.post-22967220799075744672018-10-06T20:12:00.001+01:002020-06-27T09:50:29.324+01:00(25) Difference and connection between entities and aspects<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">Now we should say something about the difference and
connection between entities and aspects. Entities presuppose the modal aspects,
but nevertheless concern a different horizon of human experience.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Modal aspects are universal in that their
reality cuts across everything, as such they are known explicitly only through
abstraction.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Entities are closer to our
concrete experience.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>However a <i>theory</i>
of entities will not be about individual things as such but about the <i>kinds</i>
of things that exist.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>We see here an
even greater diversity of things than we found when looking at the modes.</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">It is important to keep this distinction between the
“what” (existents) and the “how” (modal aspects) in mind.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Many problems in philosophy can be traced
back to treating “hows” (limited ways things function) as if they were things.
Consider how common it is to speak of physical reality as if some entity could
be purely physical.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>For example the
Australian philosopher J.J.C. Smart, who was one of the first philosophers to
propose that the mind just is the brain and nothing more, wrote this concerning
the picture science gives us:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">“It seems to me that science is increasingly giving us
a viewpoint whereby organisms are able to be seen as physicochemical
mechanisms: it seems that even the behaviour of man himself will one day be
explicable in mechanistic terms. There does seem to be, so far as science is
concerned, nothing in the world but increasingly complex arrangements of
physical constituents. All except for one place: in consciousness.”</span></div>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">On this view consciousness, or what Smart refers to as
“raw sensations,” are strange things that just don’t fit into the universe
understood as a purely physical thing. On the basis of Occam’s razor we are
best advised to hold out the expectation that it can only be a matter of time
before consciousness will be given a fully mechanistic explanation based on our
growing understanding of the brain.</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">Smart makes a number of problematic assumptions here,
including that science deals only with “physicochemical mechanisms,” which
cannot be sustained even should we narrow our view only to physics. However the
main problem from our perspective is that the abstract viewpoint of the
physical aspect is here identified with reality per se. This is a classic
confusion between aspects and entities. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">So how should we understand the difference and
connection between aspects and entities?</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">Modal theory closely relates to the special sciences
which take a modal aspect as the point of view through which to study
reality.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The theory of entities relates
more to the ‘integral wholeness’ of things rather than the functions of those
things.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>This means that from a
theoretical point of view the modal aspects have priority and provide the
framework for developing a theory of entities; however from the perspective of
our experience we start with the rich interwoveness of reality where we
experience things in their unity, in their existence through time and as
totalities which bring various elements together.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>As such our everyday experience is closer to
the theory of entities.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>In naïve
experience we only perceive the modal diversity implicitly whereas we know
immediately the identity of the entities we experience.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>In contrast theoretical analysis reveals the
modal diversity while the unity and identity of things remain a mystery that
can only be approximated.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Reality as it
presents itself to us in our everyday experience functions in all of the modal
aspects.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>We never experience a purely
physical or purely ‘mental’ reality.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>The
physical and psychical, for example, are only modal aspects of our experience
and not separate entities.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">Our experience of things, events and forms of social
life in so-called naïve experience are not modal in character.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>When I experience a passing car, or a dog at
the park I experience them as an individual whole with their own unity despite
the great diversity of modal aspects in which they function.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Each individual entity is not just a
collection of modal aspects, rather the unity comes first and the modal aspects
are functions of the individual whole.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>Whereas the modal aspects are universal we need to speak of “typical
structures” with respect to an analysis of entities (we will call these <span style="margin: 0px;">idionomies, see the next section)</span>.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Here too there is universality, this
individual tree exhibits the universal typical-structure of trees.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">What is the link between the modal aspects and
entities?<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>We can start to appreciate
this when we remember that entities function in all of the modal aspects.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>What we notice when looking first to the
concretely functioning entities is that the way they function in a modal aspect
takes on a specific character according to the kind of entity it is.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>So for example the way a family functions
economically will be different to the way a church or a business functions
economically.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Again the command to love
our neighbour applies to all our relationships but the way we should love our spouse
is different (must be different!) from the way we love the person next door,
which in turn is different from the way we love our colleagues and so on.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>In this way the theory of modal aspects
already gives us a clue to the different types of entities that there are.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>For example an apple tree differs from a
stone not because it functions in different modal aspects but because of the <i>way</i>
it harnesses those aspects it is active in as a subject and thereby realises
itself as a living thing in a typical way.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;">The idionomies (typical structures) of entities must
also be understood in their temporality, this is due both to the temporal
character of the modal aspects and because the typical structure of an
individual guides its actual functioning in the modal aspects which are brought
together into a dynamic unity.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Then
there is also the temporal duration of an entity so, for example, the
individual duration of a plant is determined by its most characteristic active function,
the biotic, which guarantees the continued existence of the plant’s life.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>In contrast the duration of the existence of
a work of art is typically determined by the preservation of the aesthetically
qualified form that the artist has given to the material.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px; text-align: right;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/10/26-idionomy.html" target="_blank">Next</a> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; margin: 0px;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2018/01/contents-for-introduction-to.html" target="_blank">Contents</a></span></div><div style="margin: 0px 6.33px 0px 0px; text-align: center;"><a href="http://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2020/04/further-reading.html">Further Reading</a></div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike>Rudihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06363041222797819421noreply@blogger.com0