Reformation and Scholasticism in Philosophy

402 Pages·2012·2.35 MB·English

T C W
HE OLLECTED ORKS
H D
OF ERMAN OOYEWEERD
Series A, Volume 5
GENERAL EDITOR:D.F.M. Strauss

Reformation and
Scholasticism
in Philosophy
VOLUME I
T G P
HE REEK RELUDE
Herman Dooyeweerd
PaideiaPress
2012
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-Publication Data
Dooyeweerd,H.(Herman),1884-1977.
ReformationandScholasticisminPhilosophy
HermanDooyeweerd.
p.cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex
ISBN 978-0-88815-215-2 [CWHDA5](soft)
ThisisSeriesA,Volume5inthecontinuingseries
TheCollectedWorksofHermanDooyeweerd
(InitiallypublishedbyMellenPress,nowpublished
byPaideiaPress)
ISBN978-0-88815-215-2
TheCollectedWorkscompriseaSeriesA,aSeriesB,andaSeriesC
(SeriesAcontainsmulti-volumeworksbyDooyeweerd,
SeriesBcontainssmallerworksandcollectionsofessays,
SeriesCcontainsreflectionsonDooyeweerd'sphilosophy
designatedas:Dooyeweerd’sLivingLegacy,and
SeriesDcontainsthematicselectionsfromSeriesAandB)
ACIPcatalogrecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
TheDooyeweerdCentrefor
ChristianPhilosophy
RedeemerUniversityCollege
Ancaster,Ontario
CANADA L9K1J4
Allrightsreserved.Forinformationcontact:
(cid:2)PAIDEIAPRESS2012
GrandRapids,MI49507
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
Reformation and Scholasticism
in
Philosophy
by
Herman Dooyeweerd
Volume I
THE GREEK PRELUDE
Translatedby
RayTogtmann
InitialEditortheLate
RobertD.Knudsen
FinalEditor
DaniëlStrauss
EditingofAllGreekQuotationsby
AlWolters
ThisisVolumeIofathree-volumework.VolumeIfirstappeared in 1949
under the title: Reformatie en Scholastiek in de Wijsbegeerte (T. Wever,
Franeker – 496 pp.). Parts of Volumes II and III appeared in the Journal
PhilosophiaReformatabetween1945and1950.VolumeIIIwasleftun-
completed, but it does contain the main ideas of Dooyeweerd with re-
gard to the theory of enkaptic interlacements and Dooyeweerd's anthro-
pologicaltheoryofthecomplexbodilystructureofthehumanbeing.
VolumeII – GreekandMedievalPhilosophy
VolumeIII – NaturePhilosophy andAnthropology
______________
The translation of this book is made possible by a grant from the
Free University of Amsterdam, while the Kuyper Foundation of
theNetherlandscontributedsubstantiallytoitspublication.

Contents
Foreword by the General Editor
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
Preface
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi-xxv
I
INTRODUCTION
INITIALSURVEYOFTHERELIGIOUS
GROUND-MOTIVESANDTHECONFLICTTHEY
PRODUCEBETWEENTHEREFORMATIONALAND
SCHOLASTIC SPIRITSINPHILOSOPHY
1. TheFourReligiousGround-MotivesUnderlyingthe
HistoryofWesternPhilosophicThought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
a. TheGreekForm-MatterMotive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
b. TheScripturalGround-MotiveoftheChristianReligion:
Creation,theFallintoSin,andRedemption . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
c. TheRomanisticScholasticSynthesisMotiveofNature
andGrace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
d. TheModernHumanisticGround-MotiveofNatureand
Freedom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2. TheRelationshipbetweenReligiousandTheoretical
Dialectic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
a. TheCommunalCharacteroftheReligiousGround-Motives
andtheUseoftheCriticalMethodintheInvestigationof
theHistoryofPhilosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
b. TheReligiousGround-MotivesandtheModernHistoricistic
PatternofThought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
c. TheFundamentalCriticalProblemintheStudyoftheHistory
ofWesternPhilosophy.TheIntellectualCommunityofthe
West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
d. TheScholasticApproachtoThisProblem.TheNatural
CommunityofThoughtBasedontheAutonomyofNatural
Reason. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
v
Contents
e. Dilthey’sSo-CalledHermeneuticalMethodwithRespectto
ThisProblem.The“FundamentalReligiousSense”of
Humanityand“historischfreischwebendeIntelligenz”. . . . . . . 24
f. TheAbsolutenessoftheReligiousAntithesis . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
g. IsThereintheWestaReligiousIntellectualCommunityofa
DialecticalKind?Hegel’sConception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
h. TheAbsenceofReciprocityinthePossibilityofReligious
UnderstandingbetweentheChristianStartingPointandthe
PointsofDepartureagainstWhichtheChristianReligion
SetsItselfinRadicalAntithesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
i. TheOriginoftheReligiousDialectic.WhytheReligious
AntithesisPermitsNoTrueSynthesis.ThePolarTendency
intheDialecticalGround-Motives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
j. TheDeviceofAscribingthePrimacytoOneoftheTwo
PolarMotivesWhichAppearintheDialecticalGround-
Motive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
k. TheBoundariesofTheoreticalDialecticandtheIntrusionof
ReligiousDialecticintoTheoreticalThought. . . . . . . . . . . . 33
l. TheReligiousDialecticoftheScholasticSynthesisMotiveof
NatureandGrace.TwoPossiblePointsofContactforThis
PresumedSynthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
m. TheFirstWay:TheThomisticSynthesisandtheRoman
CatholicStandpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
n. TheLawofReligiousDialectic:TheOperationofthePolar
TendencyintheDialecticalGroundMotive.TheDualism
betweenNatureandGraceinOckhamandinAverroistic
Nominalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
o. TheSecondWay:LutheranismandtheDialecticofLawand
Gospel.DialecticalTheology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
p. TheDialecticoftheGround-MotiveofNatureandGrace
inReformedScholasticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
II
DIORAMA OF THE DIALECTICAL
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORM-MATTER
MOTIVE IN GREEK PHILOSOPHY UP TO
AND INCLUDING PLATO
Part I
THE DIALECTICALDEVELOPMENTUPTOPLATO
1. TheDialecticoftheGreekGround-Motiveunderthe
PrimacyoftheMatterMotiveinPre-Socratic
PhilosophyuptoParmenides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
vi
ReformationandScholasticisminPhilosophy–VolumeI
a. TheConceptionofPhysis(Nature)intheFirstPhaseof
GreekNaturePhilosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
b. TheReligiousPrimacyoftheMatterMotiveinMilesian
NaturePhilosophy.Anaximander’sDikeMotive. . . . . . . . . . 42
c. TheRationalizationofAnanke.Heraclitus’Conceptionof
theLogos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
d. Cornford’sViewoftheReligiousOrientationofGreek
Philosophy.MoiraandtheDikeMotive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
e. CritiqueofCornford’sConception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
f. TheMotivesofMoiraandDikeandTheirRelationtoAnanke. . . 49
g. WhatDidHeraclitusMeanby“Polymathy?” . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2. ThePolarAntithesisbetweenthePrinciplesofFormand
MatterinParmenides’Ontology.The“Uranization”of
theFormMotive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
a. Parmenides’ConceptionoftheDivineFormofBeing
asaSphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
b. TheOrphicReligionandItsInfluenceonParmenides’
ConceptionofthePrincipleofForm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
c. TheRejectionoftheOrphic-DionysianConceptionofthe
PrincipleofMatter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
d. Xenophanes’andParmenides’IdeasofGod . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
e. TheTheoreticalMetamorphosisofAnanke:Anankeasthe
ProtectressoftheDivineFormofBeingandas
Logical-MetaphysicalNecessity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
f. TheMatterPrincipleastheOriginoftheFormPrinciplein
HeraclitusandtheMilesians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3. TheFormalizationoftheMatterPrincipleintheOlder
PythagoreanSchool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
a. TheThreeStrataintheOriginalReligiousConceptionofthe
PythagoreanCommunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
b. TheMeaningofthePythagoreanTetractys. . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
c. ThePythagoreanAttemptatSynthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
d. TenasthePerfectNumber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
e. TheAstronomicalTheoryofPhilolausintheLightofthe
ReligiousGround-Motive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
f. TheAntinomyinPythagoras’ConceptionoftheForm
PrincipleandPhilolaus’AttemptatSynthesis . . . . . . . . . . . 74
g. ThePetrifactionofthePythagoreanMotiveofFormunder
theInfluenceoftheEleaticCritique. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
h. TheEffectsoftheDualisticGround-Motiveinthe
AnthropologicalConception:TheDualismofMaterial
BodyandThinkingSoul,inContrasttotheHylozoistic
Conception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
i. TheThreefoldHomericConceptionoftheSoul:Bloodsoul,
Thumos,andEidolon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
j. TheTheoreticalAntinomyinthePythagoreanConceptionof
theSoul.TheThinkingSoulasHarmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
vii
Contents
4. TheFormalizationoftheEarthlyMatterPrinciplein
Empedocles’TheoryoftheFourElementsofPhysis.
ThePersistenceoftheOrphicDualisminthePrinciple
ofMatter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
a. TheOrphicDualisminEmpedocles’(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)andthe
RoleofAnanke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
b. Empedocles’TheoryofPhysisandItsInnerConnectionwith
theTeachingoftheKatharmoi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
c. Empedocles’RejectionofParmenides’Conceptionofthe
EternallyFlowingPhysis.TheFourElementsofPhysisas
Static,CorporealFormsofBeing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
d. TheSphereinEmpedocles’PoemonPhysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
e. Empedocles’SphereIsNoLongeraStaticFormofBeing . . . . . 87
f. TheFourElementsHaveNoSpontaneousPowerof
Movement.PhiliaandNeikosasSpontaneouslyMoving
Soul-Forces.TheDissociationfromEachOtheroftheForm
andMatterPrinciples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
g. EmpedoclesTransposestheOrphicDualismintotheMatter
PrincipleItself.Plato’sEpinomis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
h. TheOrphicDualismIsAlsoCarriedThroughinEmpedocles’
TheoryoftheElements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
i. TheRelationshipbetweenLightandFireinthe
Light-MetaphysicsofAugustinianScholasticism . . . . . . . . . . 90
j. TheTwoHemispheresofDayandNight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
k. HasEmpedoclesAlsoFormalizedtheDivineMatterPrinciple
ofPhilia?TheRoleofHarmoniainEmpedocles’System. . . . . . 91
l. BlindAnankeRulestheEntireEarthboundProcessof
BecomingWhichGivesRisetoIndividualBeings . . . . . . . . . 93
m. TheProblemwithRespecttotheImmortalityoftheSoulin
Empedocles’TheoryofPhysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
n. Cornford’sSolutiontoThisProblemIsinConflictwiththe
ClearPronouncementsofEmpedocles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
o. TheMostLikelyInterpretationofEmpedocles’Pronounce-
mentsonThisPoint.TheOriginoftheThesisThat“LikeIs
KnownOnlybyLike” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
p. Empedocles’IndividualSoulIsNotHumanandHas
ImmortalityOnlyinaRelativeSense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
q. TheAntinomiesinEmpedocles’TheoryofPhysis . . . . . . . . . 97
5. ThePrimacyoftheFormPrincipleoftheReligionof
CultureinAnaxagoras’TheoryofNous,andthe
Atomists’ReversiontotheNaturalisticFormPrinciple . . . . . . . . . 98
a. TheNousasDivineForm-Giver(Demiurge)Remains
UnmixedwithMatter,WhichItControlsbyItsForm-Giving.
TheFormMotiveoftheReligionofCulture . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
b. TheDe-DeificationoftheMatterPrinciple. . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
c. Anaxagoras’ConceptionofMatterasanIn-ItselfFixedand
ChaoticMeigmaoftheSeedsofAllThings.TheSo-Called
“Homoeomeries” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
viii