Philosophy: Discipline of The Disciplines

716 Pages·2009·5.093 MB·English

by  Danie Strauss

P
R
P
Special scientists have two options (but just one choice):
(i) either they give an account of the philosophical presuppositions with which
they work – in which case they operate with a philosophical view of reality, or
(ii) implicitly (and uncritically) proceed from one or another philosophical view of
D P
reality – in which case they are the victims of a philosophical view (page 59).
i h
s
“... Precisely because it is impossible to dispense with a philosophy of nature,
i
even present natural science adopts a philosophy of nature. But since it has c l
o
sensored and removed this philosophy at a conscious level, very often reduces
i
itself to using an implicit one, that results from scattered items, is usually p s
unreflected and, practically, is that which was contained in the science of past
l o
times but is now insufficient” (Agazzi, 2001:11).
i
n p
“We should have philosophers trained as philosophers, as rigorously as
e h
possible, and at the same time audacious philosophers who cross the borders
and discover new connections, new fields, not only interdisciplinary researches s y
but themes that are not even interdisciplinary” (Derrida, 1997:7).
:

D
“Philosophical reflection must begin with the analysis of concepts we
use; for these provide the frame of reference and determine the
i

direction our inquiry will take” (Von Bertalanffy, 1966:116). s

c

i
D p
l
F i
n

M
e
D F M Strauss was Head of the Department of Philosophy at the University of the

Free State (Bloemfontein, South Africa) and Dean of the Faculty of Humanities S o
(1998-2001). He is the General Editor of the Collected Works of the Dutch legal
t
scholar and philosopher, Herman Dooyeweerd and is one of five Outstanding r f
Professors at the University of the Free State. Apart from 15 independent publi- a
t
cations, 36 international conference papers and 20 contributions to multi-author u
h
works, he has published more than 230 articles in national and international
s
journals, spread over 12 different scientific subject areas. In 2006 his work on the philosophical foundations e
s
of the modern natural sciences appeared in German with Peter Lang Publishers. In 2006 Peter Lang also
published his work Reintegrating Social Theory: Reflecting upon human society and the discipline of
sociology (310 pp.) (Oxford). In 1989 he received the Stals Prize for Philosophy from the Suid-Afrikaanse
Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns (the South African Academy of Art and Science) and in 2008 the
N. P. Van Wyk Louw Prize - the highest award for academic
work within various academic fields, also from the South
African Academy of Art and Science.
PHILOSOPHY
Discipline
of the
Disciplines

PHILOSOPHY
Discipline
of the
Disciplines
D F M Strauss
PAIDEIAPRESS
2009
©PAIDEIAPRESS2009
GrandRapids,MI49507
Apublicationofthe
REFORMATIONALPUBLISHINGPROJECT
www.reformationalpublishingproject.com
Allrightsreserved.
ISBN978-0-88815-207-7
Foreword
Thisworkaimsatinvestigatingthewayinwhichacademicdisciplinesarein-
fluencedbyphilosophy, whileatthesametimeacknowledging thedepend-
enceofphilosophyondevelopmentswithinthespecialsciences.Theempha-
siswillbeonthecomprehensiveandencompassingscopeofphilosophy.In
ordertoadvancethisviewofphilosophyasacomprehensivediscipline(“to-
tality science”), i.e. as a discipline that precedes the differentiation and the
specializationfoundinthenaturalandsocialsciences,itwillbenecessaryto
investigatetheimplicationsofbasicsystematicphilosophicaldistinctionsfor
variousacademicdisciplines.Naturallypursuingthisaimrequiresananalysis
ofthedistinctivefeaturesofthescholarlyenterpriseinthelightofdevelop-
mentswithinthedomainofthephilosophyofscienceduringthe20thcentury.
Investigatingthevariousaspectsofrealityintheiruniquenessandmutual
coherencewillconstitutethecorefocusofthiswork.Itwillturnoutthatsuch
ananalysisoftheaspectsofrealityintrinsicallycohereswiththedimensionof
concretely existing natural and social things or entities and processes. In
Chapter1anumberofseeminglyunrelatedproblemswillbediscussedinor-
dertohighlightwhatwillbecalledthephilosophicalframeofmind.However,
theseproblemswillbepresentedinsuchawaythattheinterplayofthehistory
ofphilosophyandthedisciplines,systematicdistinctionsandtheconnection
withparticulardisciplinesareelucidated.
Generally the most fruitful discussion of any philosophical problem will
thereforeneedtotakethreeinterconnectedperspectivesintoaccount.Firstof
all one should understand a problem against the background of its history
within philosophy and the particular disciplinewithin which itoccurs. Sec-
ondlyanattemptshouldbemadetoadvanceadistinctsystematicphilosophi-
calperspective on the problem.Finally,one should investigatethe implica-
tionsofsuchasystematicperspectiveforvariousacademicdisciplines.
Thepresenceofdivergingtrendsofthoughtevenwithinthe(‘exact’)natu-
ralsciencescontainsachallengetothetraditionalrationalisticoverestimation
ofthe‘rational’capacitiesofhumanbeings.Equallyproblematicisthealter-
nativerelativisticimplicationsofpostmodernstancesinwhichtheemphasis
isshiftedtotheassumeduniqueness,“poly-interpretable”andchangefulna-
tureofreality–stancesoftenmakinguniversalclaimsinordertodenytheex-
istenceof universality!In thesecond chapter an alternativeargumentisad-
vancedaimedataccountingfortheroleofsupra-rational(ultimate)commit-
mentsinscholarship–oncemorefollowedupinChapter9.
WhereasChapters5and6enterintoafairlyextensiveanalysisoftheimpli-
cations of inter-modalcoherences, the issues discussed in Chapters 7 and 8
further explore the preceding insights in connection with the dimension of
many-sidednaturalandsocialentitiesandprocesses.
Philosophy:DisciplineoftheDisciplines
Throughoutthisworkreferencesrelevanttothephilosophicalandspecial
scientificsourcesaregiven.ItisconcludedwithChapter9inwhichthemain
contoursoftheoverallperspectivearebroughttogether.
Bymeansofnumerouscross-referencesthereaderisconstantlyreminded
ofexplanationsfoundinotherplaceswithinthiswork–oftenaccompaniedby
abriefsummaryoftheconnection.Forthesakeofeaseofreadingkeydistinc-
tions and insights are frequently succinctly repeated – both for the sake of
continuityandtoservethosereaderswhofirstmaywanttoreadcertainsub-
sectionsbeforereadingmoreentensively.
DanieStrauss
(October2009)
Note1:
Twounfamiliarconventionsareemployed:
(i)Whensinglewordsappearinparenthesessinglesmartquotationmarksare
used(suchas‘single’),whilecombinedwordsorlongerphrasesaredemar-
catedbydoublesmartquotationmarks(“doublequotationmarks”).
(ii)Inthetheoryofinter-modalconnectionsthoseanalogiesthatreflecttheco-
herenceofanaspectwithaspectspositionedlaterwithinthecosmicorderof
aspectsaredesignated–notasanticipations–butasantecipations(aimedat
emphasizingtheir“forward-pointing”nature).
Note2:
Iwanttothankthefollowingpeoplefortheirvaluablecommentsonearlier
drafts of the manuscript: Roy Clouser, Piet Cronje, Rudi Hayward, Jeremy
Ives, Kerry Hollingsworth, Martin Jandl, Marty Rice, Paul Robinson, Dick
Stafleu,PietSchoeman,DonSikkema,ChrisVanHaeftenandAlbertWeide-
man.InparticularIwanttothankAlanandGillianCameronfortheirfinalsty-
listiceditingandproofreadingoftheentiremanuscript.
Note3:
Ialsowanttoexpressmygratitudetotheprofessorswhohelpedmetodigest
andfurtherdevelopthelegacyofreformationalphilosophy,bothhereinSouth
Africa(proff.P.deB.Kokandmyfather,H.J.Strauss)andabroad(proff.H.J.
Hommes,M.C.Smit,A.Troost,J.VanderHoevenandH.VanRiessen);the
fellowstudentswithwhomIinteractedduringmystudiesattheUniversityof
theFreeState(ElwilBeukes,FrederickFourieandAlbertWeideman)andat
the Free University of Amsterdam (between 1969 and 1974) and later on,
namelyBramBos,ElaineBotha,PhilBrouwer,HenkGeertsema,SanderGrif-
fioen, Bas Kee, John Kok, Piet Schoeman, Egbert Schuurman, Tony Tol,
HarryVanDyke,thelatePeetVanNiekerk,PontiVenter,AlWoltersandUko
Zijlstra;andmycolleaguesfromthePhilosophyDepartmentattheUniversity
oftheFreeStateformorethanthreedecades,KobusSmitandJohanVisagie
aswellasDirkvandenBerg(Dept.ofArtHistory).Nottoforgettheever-re-
sponsivesound-board,mywife,Tharina.
Contents
ChapterOne
Preliminaryexamples
Thephilosophicalframeofmind. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Humanrationality–adivinespark? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Theconceptualrootsofrationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Realityembracesmorethan(naturalandsocial)entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Functions,aspectsormodesofreality–thecontributionofDooyeweerd . . . . 21
Conceptformationinscholarlyreflection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
ChapterTwo
Theuniquenessofscience
Theproblemof‘demarcation’inthephilosophyofscience . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Theinfallibilityofmathematicalthought–Descartesandthe
classicalscienceideal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Theroadbacktoautonomousfreedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Remarkaboutdeterminism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
ThebasicthrustofKant'sCritiqueofPureReason. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Themixedlegacyofthe19thcentury–positivismanditscollapse. . . . . . 37
‘Truth’and‘meaning’inlogicalpositivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Probingtherestrictionsofsensoryperception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Scienceembeddedinasupra-rationalcommitment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Thenormativityofhumanlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Thedistinctnessofstructureanddirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Onceagaintheproblemof‘demarcation’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Theimpasseofpositivism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Whatisuniqueaboutscience? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Thoughtactivitiesinvolvedindoingscience–sharedproperties. . . . . . . 46
Thedistinctivefeatureofscientificthinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Arethedisciplines‘restricted’tocertain‘parts’ofrealityonly? . . . . . . . 52
Modalabstractionentailsthateveryspecialsciencehas
philosophicalpresuppositions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Philosophyandthespecialsciences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Theproblemofunityanddiversitywithinvariousdisciplines . . . . . . . . 60
Mathematics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Psychology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Linguistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Sociology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
EconomicTheory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
i
Philosophy:DisciplineoftheDisciplines
Intellectualcreativityandtheacquisitionofnewideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Concludingremarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
ChapterThree
Theuniquenessofmodalaspects
Therelationbetweenaspectsandentities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Aremodalaspectsmerelypropertiesofentities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Modalaspects:universal,functionalconditionsfor
theexistenceofconcreteentities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Modalaspectsarenot“modesofthought” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Thestructureofamodalaspect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Criteriafortheidentificationofmodalaspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Aspectsandentities:modallawsandtypelaws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Thevariousmodalaspects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Thequantitativeaspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Thespatialaspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Thekinematicaspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Thephysicalaspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Thebioticalaspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Thesensitive-psychicalaspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Thelogicalaspect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Thecultural-historicalaspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Thesignaspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Thesocialaspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Theeconomicaspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Theaestheticaspect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Thejuralaspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Theethicalaspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Thecertitudinalaspect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Diversityandthequestforan‘origin’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
ChapterFour
Beinghuman
Theoutwardsearchturnedinward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Philosophicalassumptionsoperativeintheoriesofevolution . . . . . . . . . . 106
Themysteryofthegenesisofthefirstlivingentities . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Neo-Darwinismasatheoryofchange:
arethereanyconstantsinthebio-world? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Thescopeandlimitationsofgeneticsand“molecularbiology”. . . . . . . 112
Willthefossilseverbeableto‘tell’? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Theuniquenessofthehumanbeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Theeccentricityofthehumanbeing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Animal‘speech’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Theabsenceoflogicalconceptformationandargumentation
inanimals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Sensitiveandrationalintelligence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Theformativeimaginationinhumantool-making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Flexibilityandspecialization–thedifferencebetween
humanbeingsandanimals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
ii
Contents
IsDollo'slawofirreversiblespecializationuniversal? . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Theontogeneticuniquenessofhumans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Themysteryofbeinghuman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Thestructuralprincipleofthehumanbeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Whyacomprehensivephilosophicalviewisvaluable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Theproblemofthemind-brainidentity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Thedangeroftechnicism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
ChapterFive
Inter-modalcoherence
Thenatureofmodalaspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Metaphoricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Conceptandword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
The“embodiedmind”:Conceptualmetaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Meaningrequiresuniquenessandcomestoexpression
incoherence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Theunbreakablecoherencebetweenthevarious
onticmodeswithinreality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Dooyeweerd'sconfusionofretrocipationsandantecipations . . . . . . . . 158
C.T.McIntire:Turningthetheoryofinter-modal
connectionsupsidedown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Inaccurateaccountofthecoremeaningofandsocial
retrocipationwithinthemoralaspect:Stafleu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Sphere-sovereigntyandsphere-universality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Theorderofsuccessionbetweentheaspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Primitiveterms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Multiplicityandmeaningasprimitiveterms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Thedistinctionbetweenantinomyandcontradiction:
aprovisionalaccount. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Primitivemeaning:betweenpan-vitalismandpan-mechanism . . . . . . . . . 172
Anexample:themeaningofthejural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Implicationsforrationality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Rationality:thelegacyofanover-estimationofconceptualknowledge. . . . . 174
Concept-transcendingknowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Whatliesbetweentherestrictiveandexpansiveboundaries
ofrationality? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Trust(faith)inrationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Theologyandthelimitsofconceptualknowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Thetemptationoftheo-ontology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
God'sinfinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
AquinasandBarth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Turningnegativetheologyupsidedown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Thephilosophicaldependenceoftheology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
InertiaandGod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Transcendenceapproachedfrom‘within’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Vollenhoven's“negativetheology”inhisIsagoogè . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
TranscendingametaphysicsofBeing:Jean-LucMarion . . . . . . . . . . 205
iii