philosophy of nature and philosophical anthropology

294 Pages·2011·1.03 MB·English

by  Daniel Strauss

T C W
HE OLLECTED ORKS
H D
OF ERMAN OOYEWEERD
Series A, Volume 7
GENERAL EDITOR:D.F.M.Strauss

PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE
AND
PHILOSOPHICAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
by
Herman Dooyeweerd
Translatedby
MagnusVerbrugge
(MainText)
andDFMStrauss
(FootnotesandAppendixes)
EditedbyD.F.M.Strauss
Co-editedbyHarryVanDykeand
WillemOuweneel
PAIDEIAPRESS
2011
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Dooyeweerd,H.(Herman),1894-1977.
PhilosophyofNatureandphilosophicalAnthropology
HermanDooyeweerd.
p.cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex
ISBN978-0-88815-214-5
ThisisSeriesA,Volume7inthecontinuingseries
TheCollectedWorksofHermanDooyeweerd
TheCollectedWorkscomprisethefollowingseries:
SeriesAcontainsmulti-volumeworksbyDooyeweerd,
SeriesBcontainssmallerworksandcollectionsofessays,
SeriesCcontainsreflectionsonDooyeweerd'sphilosophy
designatedas: Dooyeweerd'sLivingLegacy,and
SeriesDcontainsthematicselectionsfromSeriesAandB
ACIPcatalogrecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
(cid:2)
Copyright2011
TheDooyeweerdCentreforChristianPhilosophy
RedeemerUniversityCollege,Ancaster,ON,CANADA L9K1J4
Publisher
PAIDEIAPRESS
GrandRapids,USA
www.reformationalpublishingproject.com
Preface
After Dooyeweerd had completed his first trilogy, “De Wijsbe-
geerte der Wetsidee” (1935-36; transl.: “A New Critique of Theo-
reticalThought”),alreadyduringWorldWarIIhebeganasecond
trilogy, titled “Reformatie en Scholastiek in de wijsbegeerte”. The
firstvolumeofthisworkappearedin1949.Thesecondvolumewas
completedaswell,butfordifferentreasonsitwasneverpublished
atthetime,exceptforpartofitintheformofarticles.Thethirdvol-
ume,which,accordingtothetitleofthemanuscript,wasintended
tobean“IntroductiontotheanthropologyofthePhilosophyofthe
Cosmonomic Idea,” was never finished unfortunately. It is much
to be regretted that Dooyeweerd did complete his cosmology but
nottheanthropologywhichwastheelaborationofit.Thisanthro-
pology, which had a central place in his transcendental criticism
(the “starting-point” of his philosophy), should have become also
the “crowning” of his philosophy (cf. his “New Critique” III, p.
781-784).Inaninterview(J.M.vanDunneetal.,“Achtcivilistenin
burger”, Zwolle 1976, p. 54), Dooyeweerd sayd that after the war
he was no longer interested in finishing the second volume (and
therefore the third volume as well, WJO) of his “Reformatie en
Scholastiek” trilogy because the traditional-scholastic school had
suddenly lost all influence at the theological faculty of the Free
UniversityinAmsterdam.
The manuscript of the third volume was kept by the Free Uni-
versity, which made a microfilm of it. This formed the basis for a
typescriptmadein1978,whichinthesameyearwascarefullycom-
paredwiththemicrofilmbythelatedr.H.J.vanEikemaHommes.
The typescript was the property of the Dr. Herman Dooyeweerd
ArchivesFoundationinAmsterdam,andwaslaterentrustedtothe
Herman Dooyeweerd Foundation in California. It was translated
into English by dr. M. Verbrugge and edited by myself. This was
no easy job because the text finishes in the middle of a sentence,
shows many gaps, as well as some strikingly parallel parts, as if
Dooyeweerd had rewritten certain sections. At the time of his
death,themanuscriptwasthereforenotatallsuitableforpublica-
tion.Thesethingshavetobetakenintoaccountwhenreadingthe
editedversion.
ii REFORMATIONANDSCHOLASTICISMINPHILOSOPHYVOLUMEIII
The contents of this volume are nevertheless quite important,
however. Many points in Dooyeweerd's well-known “anthropo-
logicaltheses”(see“DeleervandenmenschindeWijsbegeerteder
Wetsidee”, Correspondentiebladen 7, 1942, p. 134-144; reprinted in
SolaFide7,1954/2,p.8-18),whichformasummaryofthisvolume,
areclarifiedbyit.ItisinthisthirdvolumethatDooyeweerddeals
extensively with the “act structure”, and particularly with the
questionwhichsurpassesalltheproblemsrelatedtothetemporal
corporeality of being human: the question of the human I (or, the
heart,thesoul,thespirit).
ItiswiththegreatestpleasurethatIpresentthisimportantvol-
umetothereader.Isincerelyhopethatitwillreceivetheattention
whichitdeserves.
WillemJ.Ouweneel
Dr. Biol. (Utrecht, NL), Dr. Philos. (Free Univ., Amsterdam, NL),
Dr. Theol. (Bloemfontein, RSA), Prof. in the Philosophy of the
NaturalSciences(Potchefstroom, RSA),Prof.inthePhilosophy of
TheologyandtheDogmaticTheology(Heverlee,Belg.).
[WillemJ.Ouweneel
Emmalaan1
NL-3732GMDeBilt
(+31)30.2204427]
Contents
PARTONE
P N
HILOSOPHYOF ATURE
HAPTER1
C
The EnkapticStructuralWhole
Theenkapticstructuralwholeandundifferentiatedindividuality-structures . . . . . . . 1
Theenkapticstructuralwholeandthedifferenttypesofenkapticinterlacement . . . . . 3
CHAPTER2
MolecularStructures
Theapparentparadoxinthebasicthesisofchemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Thephilosophicalproblemofstructureintherelationbetweendissimilar
atomsandtheirmolecularcombinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Theenkapticstructuralwholeasatypicallyqualifiedtotalform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Twoseeminglyincompatibleseriesofdatacanbereconciledwitheachotherbythe
conceptionofthemoleculeasanenkapticwhole.Theevidenceinfavorofthe
continuedactualpresenceoftheatomsinachemicalcombinationandthatin
favoroftheconceptionthatthecombinationisanewwhole. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Thephilosophicalbackgroundoftheolderconceptionofthechemical
combinationasanaggregateofelements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Theneo-ThomisttheoryofHoenenconcerningtheontologicalstructure
ofatomandmolecule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Theneo-Thomistdoctrineconcerningthe“gradation”intherealization
ofpotencies;theconceptionofaheterogeneouscontinuum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
CritiqueofHoenen’stheory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Theconceptionofmaterialcompositesinpre-Thomistmedievalscholasticism . . . . . 22
CHAPTER3
TheLivingCellBody
Bohr’sbiologicalrelationofuncertainty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
WhatisthemeaningofBohr’srelationofuncertaintywithrespecttothe
methodsoforganicchemistryintheirapplicationtobiochemicalprocesses?. . . . . . . 25
iv REFORMATIONANDSCHOLASTICISMINPHILOSOPHYVOLUMEIII
TheAristotelian-Thomisticsubstance-conceptandtheidentification
ofalivingorganismwiththeanimatedbody. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Thecellastheminimalunitcapableofindependentlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Thetypicalphysico-chemicalaspect
ofacellstructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Theso-calledhylocentric,kinocentricandmorphocentricstructureofa
livingcell(Woltereck),viewedfromthephysico-chemicalaspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Thephenomenonofbi-orpoly-nuclearcells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Thesmallestlivingunitswithinthecellstructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Non-livingcomponentsofthecellbodyandtheirenkapticbinding
inthelivingorganism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Dobio-moleculesexist? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Theproblemoflivingproteinisincorrectlyposited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Howfarcanphysicsandchemistrypenetrateabiochemicalconstellation?. . . . . . . . 39
Doesaspecificlivingmatterexist?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
CHAPTER4
MechanismandVitalism
Thephilosophicalbackgroundofthemechanisticconception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Neo-vitalismalsoholdstothemechanisticviewofthephysico-chemicalprocesses. . . 44
Neo-vitalismincontrasttoolderformsofvitalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
Driesch’sexperimental“proofs”oftheexistenceof“entelechies.”The
so-calledharmonious-equipotentialsystemandtotality-causality. . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
InDriesch’s“Ordnungslehre”thesubstance-conceptisnotmeantina
metaphysicalsense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
Driesch’sconceptionofentelechydiffersdrasticallyfromtheAristotelianview. . . . . 49
“Entelechy”asametaphysicalsubstance.Driesch’sviewofthescheme
act-potencyconfrontedwiththeAristotelianconception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Drieschdeniesatypicalbiochemicalconstellation.Theproblemofhow
theentelechyinfluencespurelymechanicalmatter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Theneo-vitalisticviewconfrontedwiththeneo-Thomistconception.
Driesch’sphilosophyofnaturetransformstheGreekbasicmotive
intothehumanisticbasicmotiveofnatureandfreedom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
CHAPTER5
MolecularStructuresandtheLivingOrganism
Woltereck’shypothesisconcerningaparticularbio-substance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
THECOLLECTEDWORKSOFHERMANDOOYEWEERD v
Theinductivematerialcomponentsinthelivingcellbody:enzymes,
hormones,organizersandgenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
CriticismofWoltereck’stheory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
Weismann’stheoryconcerningthecontinuityofthegermplasm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Theinfluenceofthemetaphysicalsubstance-conceptonWoltereck’s
theoryof“matrix” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
Woltereck’sphilosophicalstandpoint.Hisdynamicontological“Stufentheorie” . . . . 73
CHAPTER6
ABriefSummaryofMyOwnView
TheAristotelian-Thomisticsubstance-conceptcontrastedoncemorewith
theproblemoftheindividuality-structureofthelivingbody. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Theontologicalproblemconcerningtheenkapticstructuralwholeofthe
livingcellbody.Anobjectiontoourtheory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
Amoredetailedontologicalconsiderationofthecellbodyasa
(typicallyqualified)enkaptictotalform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
Thecellformasanelementarytotalform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
Woltereck’sinvestigationsofthe“bioticelementaryforms” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Thedistinctionbetweenplasmic,alloplasmicandxenoplasmicforms
isindifferentwithrespecttotheform-structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
Thesensorytotalform,asthefoundationalfunctionofthelivingbody,
doesnotcoalescewiththetypicalfoundationalfunctionsofthe
interwovenstructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87
Theform-typeofthelivingbodyasvariability-type.Theliving
bodyanditsenvironment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
Theobjectivisticconceptionofthebodyasanabsolutizationofthe
objectivesensorybodilyform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
CHAPTER7
TheProblemofFormintheAnimalBody
Complicationsinthestructuralproblemofthelivingcellbody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Isitindeedpossibletodistinguishbetweenbioticallyandpsychically
qualifiedindividuality-structuresinthecaseoftheprotozoa?The
problemofthehumangerm-cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
Bavink'spsycho-vitalistictheoryofemergencewith
respecttotheproblem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
Theevolutionisticprincipleofcontinuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
ThelackofdelineationinBavink’sconceptofthepsychic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
vi REFORMATIONANDSCHOLASTICISMINPHILOSOPHYVOLUMEIII
Theabilitytoreceiveandutilizestimuliisnotapsychicbutmerely
abioticcharacteristic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
Pan-psychismandthesubstance-concept.Oncemoretheground-motive
ofnatureandfreedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
Nofundamentaldivisionbetweenpsychicallyandbioticallyqualifiedbeings?
TheviewsofUngererandVonUexküll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
Theindeterminacyoftheso-calledpurelyempiricalcriteriaseparating
plantsandanimals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
Furtherdelineationoftheconcept“psychical”bythetheoryofthe
law-spheres.Therelationbetweensensitivityandsensation(Empfindung). . . . . . . 105
Thefundamentaldistinctionbetweensensationandsensitivitygoesback
totheobsolete“facultypsychology” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
Theemotionalcharacterofsensation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
Thepsychicisnotidenticalwiththeconscious . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
Thepsychicreflexarc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
Doestheplanthavesensoryorgans?Haberlandt’sviewdisproved
bytheinvestigationsofBlauw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107
ThetheoryofSchelerconcerningtheessentialdifferencebetweenplant
andanimal:thesuccessionalorderofpsychicallife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Scheler’stheoryofthecoherenceofplantautotrophismwiththeplant’s
innerstructureofbeing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
Scheler’sviewoffeelinglacksamodaldelineation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Unconscioussensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
Thesenso-motoricformoftheanimalbodyandtheactiveorientation
intheenvironment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114
Thesenso-motoricformistheforminaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
Driesch’sconceptofactionandthatofentelechy
as“psychoid” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
Theobjective-psychicqualificationsoftheanimalenvironment
andtheanimalform-type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
OncemoreDriesch’sdistinctionbetween“psychoid”and
“formbuilding”entelechy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119
CHAPTER8
Conclusion
Thepositionofhumanbeingsinthetemporalworld. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121