Navigation: This page 'justification.html' ---> Main Page. HELP. Contact. Admin.

Justifications for the Dooyeweerdian Approach

"Of course, that is not to say that the exposition has got it all right! All I want to say is that the analogies (grasping the sovereignty *and* universality of the spheres) have always seemed to me to be one of the most fruitful analytical tools that D. has given us. Certainly I have found exploring them incredibly helpful in my own field of biology."

Arthur Jones, Biologist, Salisbury, UK, 2000.

Dooyeweerd's approach is unknown and rather unusual. So why should we take it seriously? Why should we trust it? Why not be content with the work of others; after all, we are progressing, and even the dialectical process leads to syntheses; can we not hope this would eventually lead us to a decent approach?

(This page is not yet written; this is only a brief list of some reasons. I hope to fill in the details later.)

The recommendation of others

Therefore Dooyeweerd's framework is at least worthy of exploration and refinement - and serious attempts to understand it aright. Which is why I am compiling The Dooyeweerd Pages.

Reasons to Respect Dooyeweerd's Aspectual Suite

I trust Dooyeweerd's suite of aspects more than those of the others because (this summarises a fuller discussion): There is now a fuller discussion of why we may trust Dooyeweerd's suite of aspects that expands on these and other points.

Support from Others

Here I start to collect supporting ideas. But, in fact, most of the support is strewn in comments and discussion in other pages.

Support For Dooyeweerd's Approach to Laws

"For there are 'made' laws, 'discovered' laws, but also laws - a truth for all time. These are more or less hidden in the reality which surrounds us and do not change. Not only science but art also, shows us that reality, at first incomprehensible, gradually reveals itself, by the mutual relations that are inherent in things." -Piet Mondrian, Figurative Art and Nonfigurative Art (1937)


A Personal View

Dooyeweerd's framework is not just integrated; you keep on finding unexpected integrations in it.

It's like a garden. As you take the first few steps into a garden you find beautiful things. Some gardens, however, disappoint you as you go further in after the first steps; you start to see ugly and untidy things left here and there. But in this garden, as you wander deeper into the garden, you keep on finding unexpected things of beauty, with each corner you turn. So this suggests the whole garden is beautiful, and carefully and skilfully designed. The beauty we see is not just skin deep, but characterises the very nature of the garden.

In the same way, Dooyeweerd's framework feels wholly integrated, harmonious, in its very nature. Not just the first few concepts, not just on the surface.

That is why I tend to think it is very likely to be true.

This is part of The Dooyeweerd Pages, which explain, explore and discuss Dooyeweerd's interesting philosophy. Questions or comments would be welcome.

Copyright (c) 2004 Andrew Basden. But you may use this material subject to conditions.

Number of visitors to these pages: Counter. Written on the Amiga with Protext.

Created: ?. Last updated: 21 December 1998 added personal view. 9 April 2000 incorporated Support section (was initially separate). 4 October 2000 added quote from AJ. 7 February 2001 copyright, email. 11 March 2002 link to fuller statement by Langemeyer. 20 January 2003 rearranged to place recommendations first, and added a couple more recommendations from others. 1 April 2005 link to why Dooyeweerd's aspects better; .nav,.end. 17 September 2010 link to fuller discussion of Dooyeweerd's suite.