Regarding CATEGORIES. I haven’t read Dooyeweerd’s systematic. I have, however, read Clouser’s Myth of Religious Neutrality. I know Clouser draws from Dooyeweerd’s philosophy, but I don’t know how closely. Clouser makes it clear that the catergories/aspects aren’t fundamental to human experience. We only see the categories when we function in the analytic aspect and place the other aspects “against” the analytical. The aspects are abstractions of everyday experience. Clouser says that there are actually 3 types of thinking – everyday thinking, lower abstraction, and higher abstraction (for a good summary of this, see here: http://www.basden.u-net.com/Dooy/thinking.html ). In everyday thinking, we don’t break up the world into catergories.
ByTor
Jun 07 2003
11:39 am
Regarding CATEGORIES. I haven’t read Dooyeweerd’s systematic. I have, however, read Clouser’s Myth of Religious Neutrality. I know Clouser draws from Dooyeweerd’s philosophy, but I don’t know how closely. Clouser makes it clear that the catergories/aspects aren’t fundamental to human experience. We only see the categories when we function in the analytic aspect and place the other aspects “against” the analytical. The aspects are abstractions of everyday experience. Clouser says that there are actually 3 types of thinking – everyday thinking, lower abstraction, and higher abstraction (for a good summary of this, see here: http://www.basden.u-net.com/Dooy/thinking.html ). In everyday thinking, we don’t break up the world into catergories.