 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > An Open Future and the Principle of Bivalence | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/11/2002 1:33 AM (GMT -6) |   | ONE
quote:
Al: (in response to my question about the meaningfulness of non-sequential love). Now, THAT one is just too, TOO easy! So easy that I won't offer it to solve any of the problems you are trying to solve. In the Triunity of the Godhead, the Personal freedom of God's communion is not sequenced. At all. And it is truly free.
Doc: Oh. Why didn’t I think of that! Its so much more difficult, hence true.
Good satire, Doc. (?) I might have sounded that way too. But didn't mean to. Instead of writing, "I won't offer it to solve any of the problems you are trying to solve" I could have written "I won't PRESUME to try to solve..." I can't grapple with the problem you were addressing. But I did address the specific question you asked "about the meaningfulness of non-sequential love". I think that I wrote somethine like, that is is not an 'incoherent' idea, its an idea about 'coinherence' (perichoresis). There is not a "sequence" in that. There IS a directionality, though. For instance, theologically: The Son is consubstantial with the Father, BUT the Father is NOT consubstantial with the Son. The Father is the source of the Son; but not the other way around. But I don't see sequence in that either.
Again, not sarcasm intended!
...
TWO
New topic. Remember the thread way, way back with you, me and Modes about "nominalism." Did you notice the quote I posted above, about the philosophical system of that continental (Dutch) philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd (Free University of Amsterdam)?
quote:
"Approaches based on nominalism find integration and inter-communication. . .difficult."
There is another example of where a thoughtful, globally thinking Christian, considering carefully three-thousand years of human thought concluded that the trap of nominalistic thinking is to be avoided. Notice the other quote:
quote:
"Most modern Western thinking and acting and living is based on the ground motive of Determinism versus Freedom: things are either determined or free, never both. Such a ground motive is dualistic in nature: it pits two things against each other as irreconcilable opposites."
And some here might be interested in this application of his thought:
quote:
"In information technology, for instance, this dualism has given rise to two main camps: the rationalists and the interpretivists."
I recommend Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven. (A good friend of mine wrote his PhD disertation on the mathamatician Vollenhoven; also of the Free University of Amsterdam--where my friend got his degree.)
Alan, are you a taker?
click here ------> www.basden.u-net.com/Dooy/summary.it.html for: Cosmonomic Philosophy: A Summary of Dooyeweerd's Main Ideas (with special relevance to Information Technology)
or the main index page ------> www.basden.u-net.com/Dooy/index.html
Greg, and Alan, MY intuition is that this addresses some core assumptions that a lot of thinking and debate is being based upon. And the second layer of assumption is that there are necessary "either/or"s here. But if the founding assumptions are faulty, then those "either/or" notions are also precarious.
Fred-Al | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/11/2002 6:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc: I asked [Craig] to correspond. He doesn’t type.
Tom: That's unbelievable. What's he do for email? The guy can't type?
Tom
"It might take a year or two to begin to understand Calvinism. But you won't do so by reading books. It's a transformation of outlook." Al & Fred
Edited by - TGB on 12/11/2002 11:45:28 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/11/2002 11:04 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/11/2002 11:05 AM (GMT -6) | | OK, I'm freakin here because the main page clearly says that Alan posted at 3:31 PM today, the 11th, on this page of this thread. After my immediately preceding post (edited at 11:45 AM). Where in the world is it?
Tom
"It might take a year or two to begin to understand Calvinism. But you won't do so by reading books. It's a transformation of outlook." Al & Fred | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/11/2002 12:51 PM (GMT -6) | | In answer to Tom's question:
quote:
Loving the discussion. Feedback appreciated.
Alan
Edited by - Alan Rhoda on 12/11/2002 3:31:17 PM
There it is. Right above Greg's. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/11/2002 12:59 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
In answer to Tom's question: There it is. Right above Greg's.
OK. Now I see it. I was looking for an original posted date and not the date something was edited. My mistake.
Stuuuuuuuuuuupid.
Tom
"It might take a year or two to begin to understand Calvinism. But you won't do so by reading books. It's a transformation of outlook." Al & Fred | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/12/2002 3:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Alan: It seems to me that if the principle of bivalence fails in the face of vagueness, then there is a good case to be made that it fails in the case of 'would' and 'might' counterfactuals of freedom (CF for short).
Doc: I don’t see how this follows Alan. If you grant, as you do, that the future is partly definite and partly indefinite (vague), it CAN be the case that the future is definite with respect to "x would do y in situation z" but indefinite with respect to "x would do q in situation w" – hence only definite with respect to "x might [or might not] do q in situation w." Libertarian freedom (viz. the extent to which the future is defined by might counterfactuals) doesn’t rule out all would-counterfactuals or even all future tensed propositions of fact. It just rules out all would-counterfactuals and future tensed propositions of fact in so far as they supervene on might counterfactuals. In other words, the extent to which the future is indefinite, it is not definite, and vise-versa.
Tom: Craig doesn’t type. That's unbelievable. What's he do for email? The guy can't type?
Doc: He occasionally types if he has to, but he’s VERY slow. Bill has a muscular/nerve disorder in his hands that makes typing extremely difficult. He doesn’t correspond via e-mail. He writes out all his manuscripts (and that with difficulty) which makes his accomplishments all the more amazing.
Fred: No sarcasm intended.
Doc: Thanks for the clarification.
Final thoughts: I’m thinking through the de dicto/ de re distinction. I’m now suspecting that a great deal of my disagreement with Craig – and perhaps much of the problems in communication between Open Theists and traditionalist who are logicians – is because this distinction has not be clarified. When I say "might or might not" I mean more than "is logically possible but not necessary." I may or may not choose to run 10 miles tomorrow. Its true that its logically possible I will fly 10 miles on my own power, and not logically necessary that I don’t (or can’t), but its false that I "might". How do I say this in formal logic? Alan?
In his love,
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/12/2002 4:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: Craig doesn’t type. That's unbelievable. What's he do for email? The guy can't type?
Doc: He occasionally types if he has to, but he’s VERY slow. Bill has a muscular/nerve disorder in his hands that makes typing extremely difficult. He doesn’t correspond via e-mail. He writes out all his manuscripts (and that with difficulty) which makes his accomplishments all the more amazing.
Ooops! Hope I didn't come accross disrespectfully. Now I understand, and understanding is EVERYTHING!
Tom 
"It might take a year or two to begin to understand Calvinism. But you won't do so by reading books. It's a transformation of outlook." Al & Fred
Edited by - TGB on 12/12/2002 09:10:13 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/13/2002 11:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc: How do I say this in formal logic? Alan?
Tom: Come on Alan! I'd love to see this worked out too.
Doc-
There may be something in this article to help in the construction you’re looking for:
http://www.quodlibet.net/rauser-trinity.shtml
Peace,
Tom
"When you mix things up they get messy" Fred | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/14/2002 5:36 AM (GMT -6) | | With all respect and paying of honor due, to both Doc and Alan, let me just ask one question. I admit that I'm not even quite half up-to-speed; but I try a little.
Here's Doc's quote, of which I'll only focus on ONE WORD. (For which I feel capable. )
quote:
Doc: I don’t see how this follows Alan. If you grant, as you do, that the future is partly definite and partly indefinite (vague), it CAN be the case that the future is definite with respect to "x would do y in situation z" but indefinite with respect to "x would do q in situation w" – hence only definite with respect to "x might [or might not] do q in situation w." Libertarian freedom (viz. the extent to which the future is defined by might counterfactuals) doesn’t rule out all would-counterfactuals or even all future tensed propositions of fact. It just rules out all would-counterfactuals and future tensed propositions of fact in so far as they supervene on might counterfactuals. In other words, the extent to which the future is indefinite, it is not definite, and vise-versa.
So, what does PARTLY mean?
What kind of question is that, you might ask? This kind. Doyeweerd lists at least 15 different "Aspects" (and this is my little experiment here) to which PARTLY could be applied.
quote:
A List of Doyeweerdian Aspects
Quantitative (to do with quantity, amount)
Spatial (to do with continuous extension, space)
Kinematic (to do with movement; flowing movement)
Physical (to do with energy + mass)
Biotic (to do with life functions)
Sensitive (to do with sense, feeling, emotion)
Analytical (to do with distinguishing )
Formative (to do with history, culture, technology: shaping and creativity)
Lingual (to do with symbolic communication)
Social (to do with social interaction)
Economic (to do with frugal use of resources)
Aesthetic (to do with harmony, surprise, fun)
Juridical (to do with what is due; 'retribution', rights and responsibilities)
Ethical (to do with self-giving love)
Pistic (to do with vision, aspiration, commitment, creed, religion)
So, are you all saying that THE FUTURE is "partly definite and partly indefinite" (I'm doing this quickly and not too critically here) with respect to:
quantity/amount;
or, formative shaping and creativity;
or, physical energy & mass;
or, biotic life functions;
or, analytical distinguishing;
or, juridical rights and responsibilities...
I'm just throwing this out. But I think there is serious usefulness here.
SOME things about the future are already established. For instance, Christ is the first-born of all creation. WHAT that creation that "is to come" IS is established. Yet, some OTHER things are not established.
So, am I being fair in suggesting that "PARTLY" with repect to future at least is applied differently, or pertains differently to various "aspects" (as Doyeweerd called them)?
Tom, Doc, and Alan, what do you think?
Fred
Edited by - fred on 12/14/2002 10:39:50 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 12/14/2002 2:08 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Alan: It seems to me that if the principle of bivalence fails in the face of vagueness, then there is a good case to be made that it fails in the case of 'would' and 'might' counterfactuals of freedom (CF for short).
Doc: If you grant ... that the future is partly definite and partly indefinite (vague), it CAN be the case that the future is definite with respect to "x would do y in situation z" but indefinite with respect to "x would do q in situation w"--hence only definite with respect to "x might [or might not] do q in situation w." Libertarian freedom (viz. the extent to which the future is defined by might counterfactuals) doesn’t rule out all would-counterfactuals or even all future tensed propositions of fact. It just rules out all would-counterfactuals and future tensed propositions of fact in so far as they supervene on might counterfactuals. In other words, the extent to which the future is indefinite, it is not definite, and vice-versa.
Alan: I don't think we disagree here, Doc. In my earlier I post I argued that bivalence may fail with respect to, not ALL would-counterfactuals, but specifically would- and might-counterfactuals OF FREEDOM. In your terms, though, I would say that it fails with repect to all would-counterfactuals and future tensed propositions of fact in so far as they supervene on TRUE might-counterfactuals (of the de re variety). So maybe I should amend my earlier claim to exclude might-counterfactuals.
Doc: I’m thinking through the de dicto/ de re distinction. I’m now suspecting that a great deal of my disagreement with Craig--and perhaps much of the problems in communication between Open Theists and traditionalists who are logicians--is because this distinction has not be clarified. When I say "might or might not" I mean more than "is logically possible but not necessary." I may or may not choose to run 10 miles tomorrow. Its true that its logically possible I will fly 10 miles on my own power, and not logically necessary that I don’t (or can’t), but its false that I "might". How do I say this in formal logic? Alan?
Alan: Well, I don't know if there is a standard way of representing this, but you could always append a subscript onto the modal qualifier, specifying whether it is de re or de dicto. Necessity is usually represented by a square. Thus p means "it is necessary that p". Possibility is usually represented by a diamond (<>). Thus <>p means "It is possible that p". So it is (I presume) possible both de dicto and de re that you run 10 miles tomorrow: <>(de dicto / de re)(Greg runs 10 miles tomorrow). But it not (~) possible de re that you 10 miles on your own power: ~<>(de re)(Greg flies 10 miles on his own power). Does that help?
Fred: What does PARTLY mean?
Alan: I think "partly" in the phrase "the future is partly definite and partly indefinite" can mean refer to any aspect of the world that our free choices can impact. For example, I can freely decide to move my arm up and down or not, so partly can refere to the kinematic "aspect". I can freely decide to drink 2 glasses of soda or 3, so partly can refer to the quantitative "aspect". And so on. I think "partly" can apply to any and all of the Doyeweerdian "aspects" that you list.
God bless y'all,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/15/2002 2:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan: Thus <>p means "It is possible that p". So it is (I presume) possible both de dicto and de re that you run 10 miles tomorrow: <>(de dicto / de re)(Greg runs 10 miles tomorrow). But it not (~) possible de re that you 10 miles on your own power: ~<>(de re)(Greg flies 10 miles on his own power). Does that help?
Doc: Maybe. So <> (de re) = "might" while <> (de dicto) = "possible"? In a formal paper on philosophy, is this how I’d represent it? Thanks.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/16/2002 5:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, Alan.
Doyeweerd points to antinomies (seeming-paradoxes) as useful signposts for identifying aspectual contours. For instance, when applying one doesn't work, sometimes that's a good indication that you are really dealing with a different one.
Here is such an instance, and one in which I'll qwibble with you when you (graciously) say that "all" of them can be "partial." Maybe I'll botch this a bit. I'm actually not thinking of "partial" right now, but rather of "yes" for some and "no" for one in particular.
quote:
Fred: What does PARTLY mean?
Alan: I think "partly" in the phrase "the future is partly definite and partly indefinite" can mean refer to any aspect of the world that our free choices can impact. For example, I can freely decide to move my arm up and down or not, so partly can refere to the kinematic "aspect". I can freely decide to drink 2 glasses of soda or 3, so partly can refer to the quantitative "aspect". And so on. I think "partly" can apply to any and all of the Doyeweerdian "aspects" that you list.
As an example of an "aspect" that is definitely definite, with respect to humanity, I'd point to the Quantitative (to do with quantity, amount) Aspect. As true for us as it is for rocks! But, to locate an aspect that god decided NOT to make definite, I'd point to the Pistic (to do with vision, aspiration, commitment, creed, religion) Aspect.
Cat's out of the bag. I'm not a Calvinist. But I do like the Dutch Kuyperian-Calvinist philosopher Doyeweerd!
Thanks for the dialog.
Fred (or Al)
Edited by - fred on 12/16/2002 10:41:39 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 12/16/2002 6:51 AM (GMT -6) | | I have been reading this forum only very recently, and feel really too unknowledgeable to even post on this subject, but I'm VERY CONFUSED! and hope you guys can shed some light on my confusion of this topic. One thing that continues to come to mind as I read all the posts about If, in what way, and how much of the future God knows, is the chapter in Mere Christianity that C. S. Lewis wrote about the subject of God and time. Lewis believed in the foreknowledge of God. He says that he had had great confusion in thinking about God's foreknowledge and man's free will until he thought through this analogy:
All of time can be viewed from God's perspective as a very short line on a piece of notebook paper, where God is the paper which includes our time. God is able to see all of the events in the time sequence at once in His eternal Present, and thus sees me typing this sentence from all of eternity, yet still in spite of knowing, giving me the choice of either typing this or doing what I probably really should be doing which is writing my Christmas cards.
Another way I've heard it analogized (might be in that same chapter above) is that God is able to look down on our time like someone looking down from above on a train traveling down a track vs. a person on the ground viewing the train coming out of a tunnel, car by car.
This "simplistic" explanation has helped me enormously in grasping to some extent how God is sovereign, yet gives us freedom at the same time.
Lewis says at the beginning of this chapter on time that readers who had not been bothered by this question could skip the chapter. He certainly didn't say that a Christian could take or leave belief in God's sovereign foreknowledge.
Could I get y'all's input on this? Am I not understanding what Lewis seems to me to be plainly saying?
Thanks for your thoughts,
SIM
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/16/2002 7:41 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM, I like the analogy that you bring from Lewis. (Its an analogy, because we have only the small view.)
quote:
...the chapter in Mere Christianity that C. S. Lewis wrote about the subject of God and time. Lewis believed in the foreknowledge of God. He says that he had had great confusion in thinking about God's foreknowledge and man's free will until he thought through this analogy:
All of time can be viewed from God's perspective as a very short line on a piece of notebook paper, where God is the paper which includes our time. God is able to see all of the events in the time sequence at once in His eternal Present, and thus sees me typing this sentence from all of eternity, yet still in spite of knowing, giving me the choice of either typing this or doing what I probably really should be doing which is writing my Christmas cards.
But, Doc does not hold a view like that. I think that Doc feels that he has to pit one half of that against the other half. He cites some historical precidence (The 'classical' Greek-influenced Western, Augustinian tradition); and ignores another part of history rather completely (The Eastern Christian tradition).
My raising of Doyeweerd has been in order to introduce -- at least into rhetorical pattern -- the idea present in Lewis' analogy, that you do NOT have to pit one part against the other (which goes against the tradition of this website).
I posted a LONG sequence of wuaotes from Evdokimov on Predestination, contrasting it in Augustian and Eastern Christian traditions on the thread called "." I'm sure everyone would prefer (in this country and in others  ) that I meerly LINK to those quotes instead of reposting them here. (Surprise, all!)
It contains: predestination is for St Paul nothing but a conventional form for designating the mystery of God's love, and this love determines or predestines God and not humanity, if one wants to use the concept." (Evdokimov).
You can, I trust, gather what you are looking for in that post.
Fred/Al/PoW
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/16/2002 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | In contrast to Fred (shocker there, heh Fred?) I don't like the analogy. Lewis was a self-avowed platonist who held to the timeless view of God. For a solid refutation of this line of thinking on biblical, philosophical and (most insightfully) scientific grounds, see W. L. Craig, Time and Eternity (crossroads, 2001). But I really don't want to hash this out again on this thread (we've done this numerous times). For the purposes of this thread, I'd like to assume temporalistic theism. That is, God experiences sequence (as every verb attributed to God in the Bible testifies )
Good to have you on board SIM
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/17/2002 2:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc: But I really don't want to hash this out again on this thread...
Fred: As this thread IS called "An Open Future and the Principle of Bivalence", that fits! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chucks3371
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 28
| Posted 12/17/2002 3:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Fred/Al/PoW
????
Which of you is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/17/2002 4:35 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
----------------------------------------
Fred/Al/PoW
----------------------------------------
????
Which of you is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost?
Two computer/modems, one phone line.
You figure it out and tell me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/17/2002 5:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Doc: Lewis was a self-avowed platonist who held to the timeless view of God.
Doc, are you saying that Lewis shared 'exactly' the same view of time as platonists? Would you say that he excluded God from temporal activity the same way?
I object to either/or assumptions, wherever I see them.
Fred | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/17/2002 7:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Fred: I object to either/or assumptions, wherever I see them.
Tom: Like the assumption that "Either Fred objects to either/or assumptions wherever he sees them or not"?
Just joshing Bro!
Tom
"When you mix things up they get messy" Fred | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/17/2002 8:15 AM (GMT -6) | | | EITHER I stay off of pedestals, OR I fall off of them! | | Back to Top | | |
|
blacksheep
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 12/18/2002 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Sorry to intrude in this discussion, but I have a question.
Is "The Principle of Bivalence" even a valid objection?
I recall reading a discussion on the limits of logic in a book one time. Didn't Kurt Godel demonstrate that even in a system of logic as formal as mathematics that there are "undefinable propositions" for which the truth value is unknowable. His proof related to the self-referential paradoxes. It showed that in any system complex enough to engage in self reference, logic had clearly definable limits, and could not be assumed as universal axioms.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/19/2002 7:29 AM (GMT -6) | | To Blacksheep: Good point. I have forgotten about Godel, but his reflections may apply here. In his own domain, he showed that there is an intrinisic "gap" of sorts between logic and reality that can only be crossed by making some intuitively based assumptions. Logic can in and of itself never enclose reality. I am saying the same of all thought, propositions and (perhaps now) the principle of bivalence. Both the concreteness of present reality and the vagueness of future reality outrun what we can think and say about them.
To Fred: Been along time since I read Dooyveerd, but I'm not sure you can fit openness categories into his thought or vice versa... unless we're willing to stretch his system significantly. One domain he didn't notice (being the good Calvinist that he is) is "possibility/actuality". If all is eternally settled in the mind of God, and thus in reality, there are no ontological possibilities. Hence his analysis presupposes concreteness. But it is in just this respect that we are saying the future is "partly indefinite."
To Fred: To say that C.S.Lewis was a self avowed "platonist" means that his basic framework was platonic. He held that God was essentially timeless, though (paradoxically) God could interact with us in time. This is basically what all Christian platonists have held. Now, how a timeless God can INTERact with temporal beings in a give-and-take relationship has always been a bit of a mystery. But there you go.
Blessings
Greg
ps. I was happy to receive a copy of a paper Bruce Ware delivered at the 2002 ETS conference critiquing neo-Molinism. His critique, in my opinion, misses the mark. But its the first public response to my neo-Molinist proposal I've seen (since being published in Satan and the Problem of Evil and Four Views on Divine Foreknowledge) so I'm delighted. Indeed, to his credit, Ware raises new criticisms of the Open View, something I haven't seen in four years. Not that our responses to the old criticisms have been taken very seriously, but its refreshing to have something new to think about!
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/19/2002 12:22 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
To Fred: Been along time since I read Dooyveerd, but I'm not sure you can fit openness categories into his thought or vice versa... unless we're willing to stretch his system significantly. One domain he didn't notice (being the good Calvinist that he is) is "possibility/actuality". If all is eternally settled in the mind of God, and thus in reality, there are no ontological possibilities. Hence his analysis presupposes concreteness. But it is in just this respect that we are saying the future is "partly indefinite."
To Fred: To say that C.S.Lewis was a self avowed "platonist" means that his basic framework was platonic. He held that God was essentially timeless, though (paradoxically) God could interact with us in time. This is basically what all Christian platonists have held. Now, how a timeless God can INTERact with temporal beings in a give-and-take relationship has always been a bit of a mystery. But there you go.
1. Thanks for answering on C.S. Lewis.
2. Thanks for the Doyeweerd comment. Since I'm not really thinking that, in the end, the "openness" view is necessary (I'll grant that it is identifying some things in certain traditions that need some work!) that does not surprise me. I'll have to think on the "possibility/actuality". Maybe that would fit in his system (near numerical?). Or maybe they are mutually exclussive.
Interesting.
Fred | | Back to Top | | |
| 91 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:33 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|