catapult magazine

I am beginning an exploration of Dooyeweerd’s, “A New Critique of Theoretical Thought.” If anyone has access to the book and is interested in working through them, please send me an email. I hope to use this web page for our discussion platform. Others who have read through them already, your input would be much appriciated.

Herman Dooyeweerd

 Born in Amsterdam in 1894.
 Raised in Calvinist home and deeply influenced by Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920).
 Main philosophers of influence include, John Calvin, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and most of all Immanuel Kant.

 Professor of Law at the Free University

 Founder of the “Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea.”

 "The central thought of his philosophy is that all philosophy has nontheoretcal, religious presuppositions which it cannot do without, and that philosophy fails as soon as it desires to be “autonomous” and thus is itself not aware of this presupposition" (Kalsbeek, 11). This makes his philosophy very difficult to relate to other philosophical traditions or categories.
 In reflecting on his own life, Dooyeweerd marks the turning point in his philosophy was when he realized the religious root of thought its self. "I came to understand the central significance of the “heart,” repeatedly proclaimed by Holy Scripture to be the religious root of human existence" (Kalsbeek, 19).

Kalsbeek, L., “Contours of a Christian Philosophy (An introduction to Herman Dooyeweerd?s thought)”., Wedge Publishing Foundation, Toronto, Ontario, ? 1975

although I have heard the name, I have not yet had the pleasure of reading Dooyeweerd’s works. The presuppisitional aspect of his philosopy seems reminscent of Cornelius Van Til of the U.S.and from a reformed perspective. Thomas Kuhn touches on this as well though from a secular point of view. I am going to try and find a copy of volume one of A new critque. I would love to dialog with you about it

I’m game too. I just read through “The Twilight of Western Thought” and was thinking about checking out “The Critique” again too. I imagine it might be difficult to find the book in stores or libraries. But let me know if you are able to locate it or not. I don’t know if it’s even still published.

C. Van Til had a few points of disagreement with Dooeyweerd, I think. But both come from the same tradition. We definitely will have to bring Kuhn and Heidegger into this too, since both have made names for themselves within the philosophical tradition while Dooeyweerd still remains trapped in his own sphere, so to speak. I think his modalities are to blame.

Regent College was able to order it, but I am not sure of the publisher. If you would like I could find out who it was, I do remember it being expensive though.

I managed to find 3 copies by approaching people who seemed to have been influenced by his writings. Pastors who went to Calvin in the 60’s seem to be the best people to ask.

Kuhn did grasp a broad picture of reality, but the origin of his philosophy is still found in theoretical thought itself. This fact might have lead him to a notion of reality which is realtive to the paradigm that is defining it.

I did find a copy at Trinity College but did not check it out yet. With all I have to read right now, I think I’ll put it off until the summer. I’m more than willing to talk about Dooeyweerd’s work, though, if you’re working through it right now. Where are you in the book now?

We have worked through the first 50 pages, and hope to be finished the prolegomena in the next week or two. We should be able to pick up the pace a bit as we become more familiar with the ideas, writing style and vocabulary.

Roger Henderson at Dordt College, who wrote his Ph. D. on Dooyeweerd, has accepted an invite to be a resource person.

Question:
For anyone who wishes to discuss. What is the nature of Dooyeweerd’s “Archimedean point?” Is it an epistimological center from which we can theorize? Or is it a coherence of reality?

I tend to think of the “Archemidean Point” in terms of the structure-direction model. In my mind, it is the religious starting point from which we epistemologically relate to the world. I would hope Dooeyweerd would not call it an epistemological center because this is already a theorizing before we theorize. And I wouldn’t think it could be a coherence of reality because how would it be coherent to us without having already taken that reality up in knowledge?

It seems to me that the heart is the seat of the religious dimension for Dooyeweerd. However, the Arch. P is intimatly connected to this, but I am still unclear on the nature of that connection, or the necessity of the arch. point.

These are some of Roger Hendersons remarks regarding the arch.point.

“Yes, the (or one’s) archimedean point which Dooyeweerd argues has
certain functions is found in the human heart—however, I guess that
other things or places can be found which are used to fulfill its
function. This is among the most complicated points in D.s philosophy.
The Arch. point is a kind of bridge between temporal life (life in time)
and what he calls that which is supra-temporal, i.e. above time: well,
what is above time? God and perhaps heavenly things generally. But the
Arch. point is a way of expressing the idea that we as totally
historical beings can still have “contact” with something some ONE
outside of intra-mundane (temporal) existence. This also means that the
Arch point has everything to do with religion, with one’s deepest heart
commitment. You have really picked a tough question to start with me on.
I wish you strength. Forgive the “fast” nature of these remarks."

I have just joined this network, and will be interested to hear discussion about Dooyeweerd. I have also just set up a disucussion called Trinity and Society under the Religion forum It is described as follows:

I am interested in developing a systematic approach to Christian Thinking based on what I call a unified, Trinitarian covenantal paradigm. I have also ingrated insights from the Christian Reformational philosopher, Hermann Dooyeweerd, but also wideley on the Christian tradition generally, and modern theologians such as Jurgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg and (the subject of my own study) Robert Jenson

My Work in Progress (Trinitarian Faith in a Changing World: Trustworthiness, Truthfulness and Transformation) is filed and updated on my website TrinitiarianReformati (see below).

I would particularly value interaction on the implications of a systematically Trinitarian approach to culture and society.

I concurr with the suspicions which Pete
Steen voiced in his thesis on Dooyeweerd about the human heart as a
supra-temporal entity. This has both unfortunate Platonistic and
Kantian overtones.

To me, the key contribution of Dooyeweerd, is his notion of enkapsis,
which most broadly understood encompasses the inter-modal coherence
of all things in Christ through the plastic continuity of our naive
experience. The “heart” is thus the sum total of who we are under
God, in relation to the Father who calls us, the Son who makes
relationships possible, and the Spirit who opens up all things. The
notion of a supra-temporal human entity is thus rendered redundant.

To me the most important thing is to develop a Reformational approach
along Trinitarian lines, and I am fascinated that Glenn Friesen is
finding Trinitarian structures implicit in Dooyeweerd’s thinking. I
would agree that they are there, but for reasons of the time (perhaps
because of the inter-necine warfare which seems then to have existed
between Dooyeweerd and the theologians), this was obscured and
distorted. As a recourse, it may be (I stand to be corrected by
others who know much better than I do), that Dooyeweerd had then to
depend too heavily on his Neo-Kantian philosophical background rather
than on fully developed Trinitarian basis.