Dooyeweerd is Van Til: Neodrachd

Portraid Duine 1 le Alan Wilson

Ailein,

    Mòran taing airson na sàr chinn seo a shealltainn dhomh. Is fìor thoigh leam an obair-bruis agus smachd na duibhre. Nan nocturnan eileamaideach. Pèant fo sholas na gealaich na bhras-shruth thar creig. Pòsadh dubh-cheisteach de shrian ciùin agus smior air ghoil. Ar leam gur dòcha gur e laoich Arm nan Cùmhnantach a th'anns na daoine-uasal a tha seo!
    Tha fhios gu bheil ùidh agam a chluinntinn gu bheil thu a' toirt sùil eile air an "Sgrùdadh Ùr". Thòisich mi fhìn e a-rìst a-chionn greis. Tha mi air t-d 94 a ruighinn, 's earrann ann a bha air dragh a chur air Van Til, tha mi'n dùil:

    Gidheadh, tha adbharan sònraichte airson ' chiad bhriathar (cosmonomach) a chumail mar  ainm air bhun-Idèa tar-cheumnachail na feallsanachd. Sa chiad dol a-mach, ann a bhith tomhadh ri ceistean tòiseachail na smaoin feallsanachail, feumar bun Idèa na feallsanachd a ghabhail riochd a ghlacas na sùla mar chumha riatanach airson a h-uile rian feallsanachail. Mar bhuil air seo chan fhaodar a bhith an lùib a' bhriathar choitchinn leis a bheil am bun Idèa seo comharraichte càil sònraichte a bhuineas ri grunnd-motaibh a' chreidimh Chrìosdail. Is e cuspair deasbaid àm eile inneach a' bhun Idèa thar-cheumnachail.

     Is e fìrinn na cùise gu bheil Idèa cosmonomach aig bonn gach uile siostam fheallsanachail.  Air an làimh eile, diùltar Idèa na cruitheachd mar bhun Idèa tar-cheumnachail na feallsanachd leis gach smaointear a tha dol às àicheadh cruitheachd, na co-dhiù a shaoileas gum feum a dhubhadh às an smaoin feallsanachail. (Vol I tt-dd 94,95)

    Tha mi feuchainn ri seo a thuigsinn. Tha fhios gu robh Van Til deimhinnte nach eil neodrachd comasach. Bha Dooyeweerd a cheart cho deimhinnte nach robh e cur air adhart neodrachd. Agus nuair a smaoineachas tu air, is e program gu lèir an Sgrùdaidh Ùra gu bhith toirt ionnsaigh air a' fearas-mhòr dhaonnachdail gu bheil puing-tòiseachaidh neo-phàirteach aig smaoin teòiriceil. Uime sin chan eil e coltach gun cuireadh Dooyeweerd an aghaidh a reusanachaidh fhèin gu h-obann mar seo. Air mo shonsa dheth, tha mi dhen bheachd gur ann ri ùbhlan (no persimeanan!) is òrainsearan a tha an dubh-cheist a' buntainn. Smaoinich Van Til gu h-eipisteimeòlach. Dh'fhaodadh argamaid a dhèanamh gur h-e a bh'ann an puingean-tòiseachaidh (ro-bharailean) Van Til ach cùisean-tagraidh (ged a dh'fheumas sinn a bhith mothachail air a bheachd dhaingean gu bheil reusanachadh ("predication") stèite air bunait an "Trianaid onteòlaich"). Chanainnsa nach eil Dooyeweerd san earrann seo a-mach air eipisteimeòlas no air "predication" idir. Thig iadsan seo an uairsin, mar a mhìneachas e. Is e tha Dooyeweerd ris ach an tìr thìmeil ontaigeach a' mapadh. Is e sin ro-chumhachan meicnigeach (mar gum biodh) na feallsanachd. Gus a chur ann an dòigh eile: tha sùil Van Til, dh'fhaodadh sinn a ràdh, air cainnt chiallach, fhads a tha sùil Dooyeweerd (aig a' phuing seo) air ro-chumhachan cainnte; mar eisimpleir, guthlag, claban an sgòrnain, bannas, teanga, fiaclan, sruth-àidheir 7c. Uime sin fhads a chanas Van Til gu bheil cainnt stèite air sealladh-saoghail, tha Dooyeweerd a' cantainn gu bheil cainnt stèite air beul. Tha an dithis aca ceart (ceartaich mi ma tha mi ceàrr). Ann an Leabhar II dhen Sgrùdadh Ùr, tha Dooyeweerd a' gabhail seasaimh eipisteimeòlaich, seasamh leis am biodh Van Til gun teagamh air a dhòigh ghlan!:   

     "Aig a' phuing seo, bithidh is dòcha iomadach leughadair a ghabh an trioblaid a bhith leantainn ar n-argamaid gu ruige seo a' tionndadh air falbh gu diombach. Bidh e faighneachd: Am feum eipisteimeòlas crìochnachadh ann an searmon Crìosdaidh no ann an dogma?  Chan urrainn dhomh ach freagairt a rèir na ceiste co-dhiù a tha an dogma leis a dh'fhosglas an eipisteimeòlas neo-phàirteach mas fhìor, is e sin, glaodhadh fèin-fhoghainteachd comasan tuigse mhic-an-duine, nas àirigh air ar n-earbsa nuair a thig a' chùis gu  eipisteimeòlas.  

     Tha ar n-eipisteimeòlas cho dàna 's gu bhith gabhail ri "ceap-tuislidh crann-ceusaidh Chrìosd" mar chloich-oisne an eipisteimeòlais (1 Cor 1:23). Agus mar sin tha e cuideachd a' gabhail ri crann-ceusaidh an sgainneil, an dearmaid, agus an diùltaidh dogmatach." (Vol II td 562)

- Fearghas.
Bonn-nòta:
Dh'fhaodamaid a ràdh matà gun do ghabh Cornelius Van Til agus Herman Dooyeweerd le chèile ùidh an dà chuid ann an eipisteimeòlas agus onteòlas. A rèir coltais, ge-tà, is e Dooyeweerd a rinn an sgrùdadh nas doimhne air onteòlas. Mar a tha fios agad, is fhada bhon a thòisich mi (mar fhreagairt air ceist bhuatsa fhèin!) air coimeasan eadar Càilbhineachas agus Zen a rannsachadh. Tha an eadar-dhealachadh eadar eipisteimeòlas agus onteòlas (no, nas fheàrr, "an t-ontaig") aig cridhe Zen. Tha na leanas na earrann beag bho leabhar ùr le Peter Ralston, a tha na shàr ealantair-còmhraig inmheadhanail, na onteòlaiche prataigeach, agus na sgrìobhadair Zen:

"Seo againn samhlachas a nì cobhar ann a bhi tuigsinn na th'ann an creidimh: mura do rinn thu càil riamh led chàr ach gas a chur na bhroinn agus dràibheadh mu thìmcheall, is e rud gu tur eile a bhiodh ann dhut a-thaobh fòcais agus spàirn gus ionnsachadh mu ciamar a tha càraichean ag obair. Tha gach gnìomh a tha seo a' buntainn ri càr, ach tha diofar mòr ann eadar tuigse meicnic agus tuigse càr a chleachdadh mar ghoireas-giùlain. Tha diofar mòr ann eadar a bhith air do ghiùlan air adhart led chuid chreideamhan agus tuigse mhothachail a bhith agad ciamar a tha do chreideamhan air an cruthachadh agus dè am feum a th'annta. Mura do rinn thu riamh led chreideamhan ach creideamh a chur annta, dh'fhaodadh e bhith na cheum radaigeach sùil a thoirt "fon hùd" air na tha thu meas mar "fhìor". (The Book of Not Knowing", Peter Ralston, North Atlantic Books, 2010 tt-dd 31, 32)

Portraid Duine 2 le Alan Wilson  

Portraid Duine 3 le Alan Wilson

Alan,

    Thanks very much for a view of these superb heads. I love the brushwork and the tonal control. Elemental nocturnes. Moonlit paint in spate over rock. Enigmatic melding of calm restraint and seething energy. Methinks these gents could well be Covenanter veterans!

    I am of course interested to hear you are having another look at the New Critique. I recently started it again myself. I have reached page 94, where there is a passage which I suspect would have given Van Til pause, to say the least: 

     Nevertheless, there are special reasons for maintaining the first term (cosmonomic) as a designation for the transcendental basic Idea of philosophy. In the first place, in pointing to the preliminary questions of philosophic thought, the basic Idea of philosophy must he so conceived, that it actually catches the eye as a necessary condition for every philosophic system. This implies, that the universal term by which this basic Idea is designated may not include special contents derived from the ground-motive of the Christian religion. The determination of the contents of the transcendental basic Idea is to be a subject of subsequent discussion.

     A cosmonomic Idea is actually at the basis of every philosophical system. On the other hand, an Idea of creation will be rejected as a transcendental basic Idea of philosophy by each thinker who denies creation, or in any case supposes, that it must be eliminated from philosophic thought. (Vol pp 94,95)

    I am trying to figure this. Van Til of course was adamant that no neutrality exists. Dooyeweerd was equally adamant that in no way was he a purveyer of neutrality. And when you think about it, the entire program of the New Critique is of course to mount an attack on the humanist conceit that "theoretical thought" has a neutral starting-point. So it would seem incomprehensible that Dooyeweerd should suddenly shoot himself in both feet. For what my assessment is worth, I am thinking the conundrum has to do with apples (or persimmons!) and oranges. Van Til thought epistemologically. It is arguable that for Van Til starting-points (presuppositions) were propositional (though we must note his insistence that all "predication" presupposes the "ontological Trinity"). Dooyeweerd in this passage is not, I would suggest, talking epistemology or "predication" at all. These are what come next, as he explains. Rather, Dooyeweerd is mapping the temporal ontical terrain. I.e. the mechanical (as it were) preconditions of philosophy. To put it another way: Van Til is, let's say, preoccupied with coherent speech, while Dooyeweerd (at this point) is preoccupied with the preconditions of speech, eg the larynx, epiglottis, palette, tongue, teeth, airflow etc. So while Van Til insists that all utterance presupposes a worldview, Dooyeweerd insists that all utterance presupposes a mouth. They are both right (please correct me if I am wrong). In Volume 2 of the New Critique, Dooyeweerd does take an epistemological stand, and one which would surely have had Van Til cheering!:   

     "At this point, many a reader who has taken the trouble to follow our argument will perhaps turn away annoyed. He will ask: Must epistemology end in a Christian sermon or in a dogmatic statement? I can only answer by means of the question as to whether the dogmatic statement with which the supposed autonomous epistemology opens, viz. the proclamation of the self-sufficiency of the human cognitive functions, has a better claim to our confidence as far as epistemology is concerned.

     Our epistemology makes bold to accept 'the stumbling-block of the cross of Christ' as the corner stone of epistemology (1 Cor 1:23). And thus it also accepts the cross of scandal, neglect and dogmatic rejection." (Vol II p 562)

- Fearghas.

Footnote:
We might say then that Cornelius Van Til and Herman Dooyeweerd both had an interest in epistemology and ontology. However, it would seem that, of the two, Dooyeweerd carried the ontological investigation deeper. As you know, I started a while back (in response to a question from yourself!) looking at comparisons between Calvinism and Zen. The distinction between epistemology and ontology (or better, "the ontic") is at the heart of Zen. The following is a short extract from a new book by Peter Ralston, who is an internal martial arts genius, practical ontologist, and Zen writer:

"Here's an analogy for approaching this belief business: if all you have ever done with your car is put gas in it and drive around, it would mean a huge shift in both focus and effort if you decided to start learning how cars work. Each of these activities concerns a car, but understanding the mechanics involved is very different from using one for transportation. Being driven by your beliefs is a very different matter than consciously understanding how it is your beliefs are created and what purpose they serve. If all you've ever done with your beliefs is just believe them, taking a look "under the hood" at what you hold as true can be a radical shift." ("The Book of Not Knowing", Peter Ralston, North Atlantic Books, 2010 pp 31, 32)

Portraid Duine 4 le Alan Wilson