What makes Dooyeweerd’s theory of Worldview additionally attractive is that it offers an explanation as to the Rationalism of Modernity. When the commitment is left unchecked, it threatens to become fanatical. And when it does it works to completely undermine and discount everything but what it favors. I may be a committed fan, but it would be unwise to dismiss the other team completely. Moreover, it would be madness if I attempted to recruit members of the opposing team to act as double agents. What would be my goal? If I were completely successful, then all members of the opposite team would really be shadowy members of my team. And the game they would play would be a sham.
PRIVILEGING REASON
Starting with Plato, Western Civilization has awarded Reason a privileged status. Experience had value, it was understood to make a contribution to Knowledge. However, Reason’s contribution was valued more. The commitment to a particular aspect of Knowledge was obvious. And for more than a thousand years this commitment was held in check by Faith. Starting with the Renaissance, however, Reason was seen as the source of productivity. It yielded major advancements in Knowledge. At the same time, the contributions to Knowledge that Experience and Faith provided were devalued. Finally Experience and Faith were devalued to a point where it was basically denied they made any real contribution. Rather, any contribution they made actually originated in Reason. We should recognize this as Reductionism. Reductionism is that philosophical act of denying the diversity of reality. The Reductionists says there is only one “real” reality, and the diversity we experience are really only shadows of that one reality. In Plato’s theory of Forms and in Aristotle’s Essence you will hear the ringing of Reductionism. You will hear it also in the Reason of Descartes and Kant. But let us not think that this is the lone problem of Western Civilization. You will hear it in the Pantheism of Eastern thought if you listen carefully. The commitment of one Realm of Knowledge over all the others. And ultimately, if left unchecked, to deny a diversity and to locate all Realms inside one. It is folly to declare that one particular Realm of Knowledge is the source of the others. But, says Dooyeweerd, this is natural working out of our heart’s desire.
Is there any validity to the Theory of Reductionism? In 1794 Kant writes Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason and argues that his Faith, Christianity, if it is to survive, if it is to be acceptable, needed to become more rationalistic. (Benson, 74). During the same period, in America we find Thomas Jefferson cutting up his Bible, eliminating passages containing miracles and even the resurrection of Jesus. Such passages were deemed incompatible with Reason and therefore must have been in err. In mattered little that passages were first-hand accounts of the experiences of the authors. Jefferson could not give them the benefit of the doubt. Rather than question the trustworthiness of his Reason, Jefferson, like so many of the Enlightenment, questioned the trustworthiness of others’ experiences. And of course, we hear Descartes subjecting his entire existence to his reason, finally concluding that the only thing he was sure of was that he had a thought. Which reminds me of a joke. Descartes is in bar and the bartender asks him if he would like a drink. He responds, “I think not.” and instantly he vanishes. If you do not get this joke, ask yourself “Where did he go?” The Answer is: “He vanished, he went “poof,” he ceased to exist.” Why did he cease to exist? Well, because earlier he claimed “I think, therefore I am.” Thus, when he thought not, he became not. This joke, I think, is funny and profound. It speaks to the extremism and ridiculousness of the commitment of the Rationalist. 1 And it is the reality of reductionism.
Dooyeweerd argued that reality refuses reductionism. (CITE) It cannot be reduced. It is a totality and a coherent diversity. You cannot completely separate Reason from Experience. Nor can you separate Reason from Faith, and Experience from Faith. Nor can you attribute one as the source of the others. When one attempts reductionism, one encounters unresolvable claims. Thus, Dooyeweerd points to Rationalism and points out the paradoxes. Dooyeweerd rejected the Rationalistic claim of Objective Truth. Truth with a capital “T” can not be absolutely known. Moreover, he rejects Foundationalism, because nothing can be perceived in and of itself. Nothing is truly self-evident to all through Reason.
—
1.Westphal elaborates on the extreme nature of Kant and Fitche epistemic commitment to Reason, ultimately coming to the conclusion that the moral was best located in the philosophical. (205)
Reductionism in Epistemology
Worldview: Bridging Enlightenment and Postmodern Epistemologies
What makes Dooyeweerd’s theory of Worldview additionally attractive is that it offers an explanation as to the Rationalism of Modernity. When the commitment is left unchecked, it threatens to become fanatical. And when it does it works to completely undermine and discount everything but what it favors. I may be a committed fan, but it would be unwise to dismiss the other team completely. Moreover, it would be madness if I attempted to recruit members of the opposing team to act as double agents. What would be my goal? If I were completely successful, then all members of the opposite team would really be shadowy members of my team. And the game they would play would be a sham.
PRIVILEGING REASON
Starting with Plato, Western Civilization has awarded Reason a privileged status. Experience had value, it was understood to make a contribution to Knowledge. However, Reason’s contribution was valued more. The commitment to a particular aspect of Knowledge was obvious. And for more than a thousand years this commitment was held in check by Faith. Starting with the Renaissance, however, Reason was seen as the source of productivity. It yielded major advancements in Knowledge. At the same time, the contributions to Knowledge that Experience and Faith provided were devalued. Finally Experience and Faith were devalued to a point where it was basically denied they made any real contribution. Rather, any contribution they made actually originated in Reason. We should recognize this as Reductionism. Reductionism is that philosophical act of denying the diversity of reality. The Reductionists says there is only one “real” reality, and the diversity we experience are really only shadows of that one reality. In Plato’s theory of Forms and in Aristotle’s Essence you will hear the ringing of Reductionism. You will hear it also in the Reason of Descartes and Kant. But let us not think that this is the lone problem of Western Civilization. You will hear it in the Pantheism of Eastern thought if you listen carefully. The commitment of one Realm of Knowledge over all the others. And ultimately, if left unchecked, to deny a diversity and to locate all Realms inside one. It is folly to declare that one particular Realm of Knowledge is the source of the others. But, says Dooyeweerd, this is natural working out of our heart’s desire.
Is there any validity to the Theory of Reductionism? In 1794 Kant writes Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason and argues that his Faith, Christianity, if it is to survive, if it is to be acceptable, needed to become more rationalistic. (Benson, 74). During the same period, in America we find Thomas Jefferson cutting up his Bible, eliminating passages containing miracles and even the resurrection of Jesus. Such passages were deemed incompatible with Reason and therefore must have been in err. In mattered little that passages were first-hand accounts of the experiences of the authors. Jefferson could not give them the benefit of the doubt. Rather than question the trustworthiness of his Reason, Jefferson, like so many of the Enlightenment, questioned the trustworthiness of others’ experiences. And of course, we hear Descartes subjecting his entire existence to his reason, finally concluding that the only thing he was sure of was that he had a thought. Which reminds me of a joke. Descartes is in bar and the bartender asks him if he would like a drink. He responds, “I think not.” and instantly he vanishes. If you do not get this joke, ask yourself “Where did he go?” The Answer is: “He vanished, he went “poof,” he ceased to exist.” Why did he cease to exist? Well, because earlier he claimed “I think, therefore I am.” Thus, when he thought not, he became not. This joke, I think, is funny and profound. It speaks to the extremism and ridiculousness of the commitment of the Rationalist. 1 And it is the reality of reductionism.
Dooyeweerd argued that reality refuses reductionism. (CITE) It cannot be reduced. It is a totality and a coherent diversity. You cannot completely separate Reason from Experience. Nor can you separate Reason from Faith, and Experience from Faith. Nor can you attribute one as the source of the others. When one attempts reductionism, one encounters unresolvable claims. Thus, Dooyeweerd points to Rationalism and points out the paradoxes. Dooyeweerd rejected the Rationalistic claim of Objective Truth. Truth with a capital “T” can not be absolutely known. Moreover, he rejects Foundationalism, because nothing can be perceived in and of itself. Nothing is truly self-evident to all through Reason.
—
1.Westphal elaborates on the extreme nature of Kant and Fitche epistemic commitment to Reason, ultimately coming to the conclusion that the moral was best located in the philosophical. (205)