Speech at the presentation of the book: Vollenhoven’s Schematic Maps , to the Association for Reformational Philosophy, on 08-01-2000
Originally published http://www.aspecten.org/teksten/teks.html
Vollenhoven’s Schematic Maps
by mr. H. Nijenhuis
chairman of the DH Th. Vollenhoven
Dear President, philosophical friends and friends,
At this prestigious morning session, in the plenary session, during the first meeting of the association in this remarkable year, I must present to you the magnum opus of DH Th.Vollenhoven (1892-1978). This book under the title of Vollenhoven’s Schematic Maps, referred to by me as Schematic Overview of the History of Philosophy, lies here before me.
When the chairman had gone through the proof, he came running into our meeting with the statement: “but that is a very curious book!” He was bewildered, he stuttered. The presenter also has defects. I am a retired practicing lawyer and therefore mentally as flat as a euro cent in your company. There was no choice: twenty-two years after the death, thirty-eight years after the start of Vollenhoven’s emeritus status, I am the only one left for this position.
Vollenhoven had five children, all married. These ten persons were therefore related to Vollenhoven in the first degree, in the straight descending line. This already heavily burdened group was also related to H. Dooyeweerd, in the third degree in the side line. I belong to ten. The only one of these ten mixed figures Vollenhoven and Dooyeweerd, who more than I was eligible to stand here, said to me: you just do that philosophy. And in my long life I have never learned to contradict Vollenhovens.
It so happened that I was faced with the question: should I still walk on philosophical paths? I did that because in 1992 I was fascinated by Vollenhoven’s grand concept: the History of Philosophy, constructed using the problem-historical method. That should result in a grandiose panorama of all those philosophers, all those movements and types. And I said: if that is to become something, with the piles of scribbles, the barely legible handwriting, all that study, that worrying and searching of Vollenhoven, then a small institute must be founded, a legal entity, a money bag, and then Kor Bril can make something of that book, maybe something beautiful.
And there we are. With all the shortcomings of the book and the presenter, a tension now prevails in this room, which, according to the modern media, is a requirement precisely in philosophy: after all, philosophy is an adventure, a risky quest, climbing a steep rock. I am telling you the epic life story of Vollenhoven, the eldest and the professional philosopher of the two recognized fathers of Calvinistic or Reformed philosophy, and I render account to him and to you for the publication of his life’s work, as yet so published posthumously.
We can hardly imagine life in the Netherlands between 1910 and 1920. It was the years around the First World War – and the Netherlands was outside of it. Abraham Kuyper had become a citizen without office from one day to the next, and the Great One was unable to resist the temptation for an old and great man to become petulant and disagreeable and to inhibit progress, yes, normal progress.
In those days, from the emancipating legion of Abraham Kuyper, two young men arose, young dogs, colts on the first day of spring, full of zest vital from Henri Bergson, brilliant in intellect – they amazed their teachers – romantics like Rousseau, Goethe and Abraham Kuyper , always in love; they spoke about politics and religion in the streets and squares, they wrote about theology, culture and philosophy in magazines for young people, they wrote poems and novels, they wrote, staged and directed classical tragedies: the sky was the limit. They were called Dik Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd, born in 1892 and 1894, with only one class difference due to the date of birth. They had known each other since primary school, they walked through the Reformed Gymnasium, they ran through the Free University on their way to the obvious and necessary promotion. And then the differences between these two come out.
Dooyeweerd was the fastest. He studied law and after his doctorate he wrote a dissertation on a subject of constitutional law: The Council of Ministers in Dutch Constitutional Law. The dissertation was already awarded in 1917. This dissertation was a masterpiece: the biographer of Dooyeweerd, Marcel Verburg, jubilantly states that the book is still regarded as a standard work after seventy years. The reviews were glowing, but one reviewer was struck by an excessive number of misprints: 47 misprints were counted in the first fifty pages. The suspicion then arises that this is why the predicate: cum laude was omitted: in 1917 such a nonchalance was blamed on a PhD student. But the work gave Dooyeweerd every confidence of good results in a subsequent, even greater, work. Dooyeweerd’s interest in philosophy was apparent from some considerations of a legal-philosophical nature, such as a study of the sources of law.
A year later, Vollenhoven obtained his doctorate cum laude on the subject: The Philosophy of Mathematics from a Theistic Point of View . This title already brings to mind reminiscences of later writings of a very high abstract philosophical content, such as: Calvinism and the Reformation of Philosophy , and: The Necessity of a Christian Logic. The thesis was therefore too difficult for many, as biographer Stellingwerff mentions. And, while Dooyeweerd did not have to worry about the Council of Ministers for the rest of his life, Vollenhoven very quickly questioned numerous statements, terms and treatises in his thesis. He was still developing, writes Stellingwerff, and would remain so throughout his life, I add. But a main line was established for Vollenhoven from 1918: the present must be explained from the past and not the other way around.
This is not a thesis of Dooyeweerd, but Vollenhoven has always maintained it, also in the history of philosophy: the old types continue to the present day and the struggle of earlier days is in principle none other than that of our time (Stellingwerff, p. 29). ). Likewise H. Berkhof, 200 Jahre Theologie, 1985, at the end, a wonderful German sentence, beginning with: Die Geisteswissenschaften ken keinen Fortschritt.
An interim report by Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven, listed in alphabetical order: they both accepted in principle Abraham Kuyper’s assignment to design a Calvinistic philosophy. They will both fulfill this calling, each in his own way. Not together. I always think: they have not yet been able to write a single letter together.
Dooyeweerd
First I will now only continue with Dooyeweerd, briefly, and then continue wider with Vollenhoven. In 1935-1936 Dooyeweerd wrote a fairly detailed and systematically constructed philosophy under the title: De Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee . Another masterpiece – albeit deemed premature by Vollenhoven; it was the figurehead of neo-Calvinism. In the foreword, Dooyeweerd talks about my philosophy ; he speaks of Christian philosophy , mentions a reformation of philosophy , and ends the preface by stating the joy and peace in doing scientific work grounded in Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life .
For a philosophical work, the book has received a lot of attention and acclaim at home and abroad. The great attraction of Dooyeweerd’s publications is: these books are finished, they are complete and nothing needs to be changed in years.
The second edition of De Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee , begun eighteen years later in 1953, written in English under the title: A New Critique of Theoretical Thought , contains additions, not actual changes. Dooyeweerd subsequently also wrote about philosophers from Antiquity and the Middle Ages; I think he couldn’t wait any longer for Vollenhoven. His legal philosophy has been elaborated in large books by his successor Van Eikema Hommes. New editions and translations are now pending in the United States.
In the 20th century, Vollenhoven and Dooyeweerd were repeatedly mentioned in the same breath. This gives rise to the idea that the meaning of the two philosophers is the same for the Association and the Foundation for Special Chairs. It seems to me that this formula can very well be maintained for the 21st century; this is easily possible now that a definitive version of Vollenhoven’s Schematic Maps is also on the table. I will send a copy of this new book to Herman Dooyeweerd Jr., the President of the Dooyeweerd Foundation. The text of this speech is enclosed plus a family letter; that then becomes a resigned letter between two old gentlemen, a retired lawyer and a retired bank manager, who have experienced everything in the field of philosophy that is so strange. I will honor Herman Dooyeweerd Jr. recommend that you seek closer contact with your association; after all, there is common interest and parallel interest.
Continue with Vollenhoven
From 1921 to 1926 he was a pastor in The Hague. In 1922 he was so overwhelmed with work and had to deal with so much that he had to be hospitalized in a psychiatric clinic in early 1923 and needed ten months to recover. That was dramatic. Vollenhoven was just 30 years old, he was married and there were three very young children.
It had come about through a combination of official duties and a struggle with difficult and sensitive philosophical material. A. Janse, head teacher at Biggekerke, had written about scholasticism in Reformed dogmatics and had stated, more or less, that the “immortal soul” was neither immortal nor soul. Vollenhoven leaned towards Janse’s views, but he had to elaborate and think them through, broader and deeper than Janse could. He must have understood that this innovation could cause him major problems with the then established order in the Reformed Churches, the VU and Kampen. There is a kind of folklore about Vollenhoven, that he had a childlike faith. That claim does not seem plausible to me.
It is striking that the sermon Vollenhoven had to break off in that morning service was about “becoming like a child”. I am happy with the description of “becoming like a child” by Henri Nouwen in his book Finally Home, namely “Jesus asks me not to remain a child, but to become a child. To become a child is to live towards a second innocence, not the innocence of an infant, but the innocence achieved through conscious choice.” Perhaps those who hesitate at Nouwen’s innocence can continue the line to “being born again” from the conversation with Nicodemus.
After less than a year the recovery was final; never was there a repetition, although Vollenhoven always followed his tendency to take on too many and too heavy tasks. In retrospect, the importance of this phase in Vollenhoven’s life may have been that he was already consciously engaged in combating scholasticism, including Protestantism, even before his appointment as professor, and that a few years later he was allowed to enter the VU arena with firm convictions. enter.
Just as Dooyeweerd had to be heard – every lecture was a compelling speech, an impressive event – so one should read Vollenhoven. Anyone who has processed an A4 of Vollenhoven, that is to say has read every sentence two or three times, can convene a conference to deal with the themes touched upon; anyone who read a chapter in the same way has absorbed a year of lecture material, for advanced students that is. None of the reformed philosophers has set the philosophical bar as high as Vollenhoven, none has had to endure so much opposition and harsh criticism.
Vollenhoven had a great vision: the History of Philosophy, written entirely with the application of his consistently problem-historical method. The realization would require ten volumes: Part I The Prae-Platonics, Part II Plato and Aristotle, both volumes written by Vollenhoven himself; continue to write parts III to X by his pupils and successors. After 1945, Vollenhoven was given more time for his major project: in 1950, part I was published, a distinguished work in appearance and content, 600 pages long, written entirely in Vollenhoven’s tight, systematic pattern. He puts questions to each philosopher and takes the answers from the works of the philosopher concerned, after which Van Vollenhoven gets his place on the relevant schematic map.
Of course one can read a book without understanding much of it. I did that with part I and then I wondered: who brought Vollenhoven to those strict formulations, those sharp divisions and distinctions? I searched and found the culprit: Calvin. Vollenhoven was a true Calvinist. As the contemporary VU lecturer Jona Lendering writes in: The classics after antiquity (1999): “The history of Calvinism, however, is also a story of people with an unprecedented devotion to duty; the restless activity of Calvin’s followers is proverbial.”
When Part I appeared in 1950, the bastion of objective science, maintained and updated by enlightened thinkers, was still almost untouched. The big storm came twenty years later: “ladies and gentlemen, what you are saying from the lecterns is irrelevant drivel.” Vollenhoven did not occupy a virgin house or a university in 1950, but he wrote his scientific book. This work could only be read by a few and could hardly be judged worthy by anyone in the Netherlands in the short term. Four reviewers – two philologists, a theologian and a philosopher, scholars of renown – have torn part I to pieces. And for those who delve into it, it was not even completely incomprehensible. But far too lightly, in hindsight unscientific and, remotely, legally speaking:
In 1950 KJ Popma was the designated defender against the attacks on Vollenhoven’s History of Philosophy, Part I. Popma, classicist and philosopher, was an excellent writer, lively, clear, with irony, nuanced and not coarse. He countered the criticism in a broad article in Philosophia Reformata, 1952, 3rd quarter. The title of Popma’s article is: Historical method and historical continuity. It has been noted by Vollenhoven and other philosophers that there is a continuity, a coherence, in philosophy. This circumstance enables Vollenhoven’s schematic overview; he traces the mutual connections with his method and thus acquires a new insight. This working method was still unknown in 1950, so also to the reviewers.
Popma repeatedly refers to the book History of Philosophy as Vollenhoven’s life’s work. He also writes that twenty-five years of study preceded the publication of Part I. That last one seems a bit too much to me. Vollenhoven has always worked on history, but from 1926 to 1945 he was the only professor of philosophy at the VU with an enormous programme. Indeed, from 1945 to 1975, when he had to retire, he gave absolute priority to the history of philosophy. With a few more years of Tony Tol and then another twenty years of Kor Bril, that should be enough for the publication.
From Popma’s article I will only quote here, which also applies entirely to the Schematic Maps. Popma writes: “Whoever wants to understand this book (that is: part I) must be able to hold on: its author never pretends to have reached an end point or even a resting point in the research. Rather, he will be convinced that the interpretation of all the figures dealt with by him is still an enormous amount of work. It is important, however, that the method used by Vollenhoven opens an insight into and a view of the historical continuity of the history of philosophy, as with the usual and often “philological “the said methods has never been achieved and will never be achieved.” This is, Popma writes further: “for science and philosophy of paramount importance.” (KJ Popma, Philosophia Reformata 1952, pp. 112, 113.)
As a result of the poor reception of part I, the subsidy for Vollenhoven’s assistance was not renewed, part II and subsequent ones were not published and Vollenhoven had to continue working almost alone on the project: the history of philosophy, to be written according to the problem-historical method.
Out of necessity, Vollenhoven then decided to strip the ten parts down to the skeleton. In the book presented today: Vollenhoven’s Schematic Maps , the names of approximately 1400 philosophers are central, with some characteristics behind each name. These characteristics are indicated on the diagrams that together form the maps. The horizontal lines of the maps indicate what Vollenhoven refers to as the time currents, the philosophical zeitgeist, in other words. A philosopher lives in a certain period; then a time current such as positivism, for example, influences him. In addition, the philosopher is influenced by types or traditions of thought. After all, a philosopher is also under the influence of ways of thinking that have sprung up from earlier times.
The list of about 1400 philosophers is included in Vollenhoven’s Schematic Maps under 9.4. Behind each name are listed, in numbers, the time currents and types. The list of time currents is given in 7.1 and the types are listed in 7.2. The meaning of the numbers indicating the time flows and types can therefore be found in 7.1 and 7.2. After the name of the philosopher in the register of persons (9.4) is also stated the number of the schematic card on which the philosopher is mentioned.
Anyone who has followed this exercise has, according to Vollenhoven, fulfilled the minimum philosophical acribie or carefulness. So this stage is quite easy to get to.
The Schematic Maps thus offer a basic insight into Western philosophy and make it possible to trace all kinds of connections, as Popma already mentioned. It is interesting to see whether there are more colleagues in the same field as the philosopher studied, and if so, who.
A sideways excursion is also not to be missed; one then finds philosophers from the same time current but with different types.
A trip up the column in which the mentioned box occurs is definitely recommended; the types that appear to play a role in the thinking of the sage under investigation often belong to the thought traditions of antiquity.
The reader of the book will be pleasantly surprised and encouraged by the recognition of the method of his early Nintendo games.
The cards show the continuity and coherence in the history of philosophy and thus the community of thought that allows the discussion between the philosophers of all times. Dooyeweerd has dealt with this community of thought extensively in his transcendental critique. And about those connections I will repeat here what Popma wrote in italics: insight into the philosophical connections is of the utmost importance for science and philosophy.
The book: Vollenhoven’s Schematic Maps is an extremely compact edition of The History of Philosophy , the unpublished 10 volumes. Both works are conceived from the same vision and on the same basis. Therefore, the Preface and the Introduction of Part I apply to Vollenhoven’s Schematic Maps. Initially I wanted to include the entire Word Foreword here, but I realized in time that Vollenhoven must be read. Therefore, here only a rendering and some quotes:
Vollenhoven writes that he did not just want to write a new Historia Philosophiae . He states: “From the very beginning I had something else in mind. In the first place I wanted to make an attempt to study that part of human cultural history in the light of the Revelation of the Word, which is also not treated here without damage to the research. left out”. The book (part I as the first of the ten parts) is nothing more than an implementation of the program that was set out in Calvinism and the Reformation of Philosophy.(1933) has unfolded. This is followed by a description of the problem historical method. I quote: “…thus gradually one historical connection after another opened up and beckoned me to the ideal of mapping out the whole labyrinth of philosophical conceptions, which was initially so confusing. This course of events gives me confidence, that, though it was primarily the own principle and method which compelled me to publish this publication, for those who differ from me in one or both of these respects, the results achieved will justify this publication”.
And the conclusion of Word PrefaceMay this publication also primarily benefit the widely growing desire for an insight into the course of the history of philosophy, with finally the encouragement to continue working methodically in this fertile, but still not sufficiently explored field. .”
The researcher, who may or may not wish to continue working methodically, will not be able to suffice with the minimal ascription of the Schematic Maps. The cards themselves are therefore only part of the new book.
The merit of Dr. KA Glasses for this release is huge. Vollenhoven knew from the outset that he was making something new with the History of Philosophy. This book is first and foremost his project, he is the primary author, he is also primarily responsible. But Bril’s work on this book is also unique: his dedication is already legendary, his expertise and his diligence have been indispensable. Bril’s earnings are less than Vollenhoven’s, but no more than a few percent less.
Also Dr. P. Boonstra has made an essential contribution to this book. The Vollenhoven group hopes to hear more from Boonstra in the future.
Bril has provided the work with an almost complete overview of the various editions of the Schematic Maps; also: comments, explanations, bibliographies – up to 1999 -, lists of names, references, rounding off and corrections in the maps left by Vollenhoven.
Here I especially mention section 11.1 of the book:
Keywords in the register of persons. In the register of persons, reference is often made to the alphabetically arranged keywords. This comment by Bril continues until 1999, where Vollenhoven had to stop in 1975. This section 11.1 has been expanded in recent years. That expansion could have continued almost indefinitely; but what is now offered here is considerable. It seems to me that the researcher who wants to overcome the minimal acribie has a very good chance of success with Kor Bril’s study material.
At the end of this story follows the justification for this unusual publication. I want to do this, opposite Vollenhoven, in philosophical tradition: with a dialogue. One party is: V (107), senior sage. The other party is N (74), retired. There is a father-son relationship. The camaraderie is tempered: both gentlemen come from earlier times.
Q: I always hoped – and of course I said; I expect – that my book from 1950 would get some follow-up. But so much still had to be done and in recent years I doubted whether a publication could be realized. I don’t recognize that book there on the table and you didn’t appear in my dreams about the publication of the Schematic Maps either.
N: (after a pause): Remember? Your study on the fourth floor above the basement? How you so often descended from that Olympus to the living room on the third floor, rubbing your hands, beaming, as you did, exclaiming; I have now found something beautiful! It is almost impossible to comprehend, but all those discoveries, all those conclusions, are in one way or another in this book Vollenhoven’s Schematic Maps. Surely I couldn’t tolerate the whole thing being put in a drawer, while I knew exactly what had to be done to get it published? Honestly, I didn’t have to think about that for ten minutes.
Q: Your story refreshes me; you will remember that expression of mine. But: I didn’t finish my work at all. Even if those maps were completed, still; everything has to be added.
N: Bril has not completed the Schematic Maps, but has completed them, formulated the questions and made the whole ready for use. And he added all kinds of data and comments.
Q: Well, I have a lot of confidence in Bril. From 1959 to 1964 I contributed a whole series of articles to Oosthoek’s Encyclopedia, 5th edition. I think those articles are a nice dressing of those somewhat meager maps.
N: Right. I inherited your own copy of the Oosthoek’s Encyclopedia, 5th edition. I’m sure you’ll like the idea of me donating that encyclopaedia to the Society. There is a library there and with modern means anyone who wants to can read your articles. From your own copy The book Schematic Maps passim refers to your articles in the Oosthoek. By the way: for about thirty years people have been philosophizing about publishing those articles. You yourself once prevented that publication.
Q: Yes, the Oosthoek articles are no longer *. Well, edition of the Cards plus additions by my friend Bril plus the Oosthoek articles? I’m still missing something.
N: I have something else for you. I wish I could have told you this sooner. In 1971 a great philosophical project was started in Germany, later continued in Switzerland, with the participation of hundreds of philosophers and other scholars, called; Historisches Worterbuch der Filosofie, an encyclopaedic work with entries of philosophical concepts and themes. An endless work – just like the Schematic Maps. In 1998 Band 10 appeared dealing with State – Tyrannis. When the Z is finished, additions to the A will be made. A perpetuum mobile, an unimaginable amount of material for lovers of the history of philosophy. Your youngest son, Theo, had – I don’t think anyone knew or suspected – a subscription to this HWF. A few years after his death, I was asked what should be done with that subscription. Only after months did I know the answer: take over that subscription, of course. I did and I donated that subscription to the Association. In his comments, Bril also frequently refers to this Historisches Worterbuch der Filosofie (HWF). Who ever wants something with yourHistory of Philosophy , and who wouldn’t want that?, has a power with the Schematic Maps, including the comments of Bril, (SK), with the articles in Oosthoek’s Encyclopedie (OE) and with the Historisches Worterbuch der Filosofie (HWF) of material available and an incalculable amount of literature references. All this also to the flourishing of the Association.
Q: I understand: you are starting to get impatient. And yet you were always more patient than me. It seems to me now that it should be done with the Cards. At least…
N: I am aware that in my own circle there are problems with time. But that is the time of the philosophers. For me it is time for the SK to appear in January 2000; later is too late for me.
Q: Agreed.
N: Thank you for this conversation.
To conclude the portrait of Vollenhoven sketched here, I will also mention how the three of us wept several times with laughter at the miserable circumstances in which we then found ourselves due to his magnificent absent-mindedness.
If you accept Vollenhoven’s life’s work, with all that comes with it, your applause will only apply to Vollenhoven and Kor Bril.
If you respond with hisses, booing, and gestures of disapproval, I’ll have to hold it against me.
Dear Chairman, a favorite picture in my family archive is the picture on which you, as chairman of the Association, offer my wife, as a representative of the family, the biography or the book: Vollenhoven als sage , in 1992.
You will understand that it is more than a pleasure for me as a representative of the family to present to you as president of the
allofliferedeemed 