Disclaimer—I’m NOT particularly philosphically minded and can become very easily confused.
What REALLY does ?reformational? mean? Is it interchangeable for Dooyeweerdianism? Yes?it comes out of Kuyper (which I embrace)—-but it goes beyond a Kuyperian worldview. Would you include Plantinga at Notre Dame as ?reformational??would he accept that term? Marsden? Jim Bratt at Calvin? These are people who have had an impact in academia on a large scale working from the Reformed/Kuyperian perspective.
?A problem with this ?reformational? approach—-if by ?reformational? you mean Dooyeweerdianism?is that, at least in history field of academia— no one has published a work of history coming out of this approach. Its been out there for a long time, too. It may be an attractive philosophy to those who are philosophically minded (and, admittedly, I am not) but why should we continue spend time on a possibly fruitless direction—if it has no practical implementations ? Is it truly different for other disciplines?beyond philosophy?
Even if someone has published a work that I am unaware of (which is certainly, nay likely, possible) out of this background, why should we or anyone else consider using a philosophy that we - and others— can?t understand. For all of the discussion about Dooyeeweerd, it is necessary to translate the translators and interpreters of Dooyeweerd into plain English for the rest of us! And even then—I’m not sure if its useful.
Having tried to read some Dooyeweerd, Marx is far more understandable to the average person than is Dooyeweerd or his adherents—-an important reason why Marxism has had such an impact! Shouldn?t we want a Reformed perspective and worldview to be put forth that COULD have a wide impact —so that it CAN have a chance of transforming the world! I read these articles for hours and hours—truly trying to make sense out of them?and mostly failed, I admit.
I think the greatest value of Dooyeweerd and those that have followed him is that they try to keep Kuyper’s vision alive. Even if I can’t understand them—-they’ve tried to keep the rest of us on the straight and narrow without drifting off into mainstream.
Fes
May 01 2003
08:33 am
Disclaimer—I’m NOT particularly philosphically minded and can become very easily confused.
What REALLY does ?reformational? mean? Is it interchangeable for Dooyeweerdianism? Yes?it comes out of Kuyper (which I embrace)—-but it goes beyond a Kuyperian worldview. Would you include Plantinga at Notre Dame as ?reformational??would he accept that term? Marsden? Jim Bratt at Calvin? These are people who have had an impact in academia on a large scale working from the Reformed/Kuyperian perspective.
?A problem with this ?reformational? approach—-if by ?reformational? you mean Dooyeweerdianism?is that, at least in history field of academia— no one has published a work of history coming out of this approach. Its been out there for a long time, too. It may be an attractive philosophy to those who are philosophically minded (and, admittedly, I am not) but why should we continue spend time on a possibly fruitless direction—if it has no practical implementations ? Is it truly different for other disciplines?beyond philosophy?
Even if someone has published a work that I am unaware of (which is certainly, nay likely, possible) out of this background, why should we or anyone else consider using a philosophy that we
-and others— can?t understand. For all of the discussion about Dooyeeweerd, it is necessary to translate the translators and interpreters of Dooyeweerd into plain English for the rest of us! And even then—I’m not sure if its useful.Having tried to read some Dooyeweerd, Marx is far more understandable to the average person than is Dooyeweerd or his adherents—-an important reason why Marxism has had such an impact! Shouldn?t we want a Reformed perspective and worldview to be put forth that COULD have a wide impact
—so that it CAN have a chance of transforming the world! I read these articles for hours and hours—truly trying to make sense out of them?and mostly failed, I admit.I think the greatest value of Dooyeweerd and those that have followed him is that they try to keep Kuyper’s vision alive. Even if I can’t understand them—-they’ve tried to keep the rest of us on the straight and narrow without drifting off into mainstream.