Encyclopaedic models in the Kuyperian tradition (part 2: from the 1970s to the present)

Abstract

Hierdie is die tweede in ? reeks van drie artikels wat in historiese volgorde enkele ensiklopediese modelle in die Kuyperiaanse tradisie verken. Hierdie artikel handel oor die periode vanaf die 1970’s tot die hede. Die werk van die volgelinge en nakomelinge van Dooyeweerd, Vollenhoven, Stoker en Van Til word ondersoek en ge-evalueer, ten einde hul sterk en swak punte te identifiseer. Die rol van wetenskaplike en voor-wetenskaplike raamwerke (bv. filosofie, wêreldbeskouings), hul funksies, die verhoudinge tussen die vakwetenskappe, ensovoorts, in verskeie modelle word verken. Diedoel is om ? evaluering te verskaf, om strategieë en patrone te identifiseer en om moontlike lesse vir die toekoms daaruit af te lei. My hoofargument is dat daar, in die periode onder bespreking, ver skeie pogings was om die Kuyperiaanse model(le) te verbeter deur sommige van die “rigiditeite” uit te skakel en om die komplekse en veelvoudige verhoudinge en invloede tussen raamwerke te herken. Hierdie pogings was nie altyd suksesvol nie. Tog kan gestel word dat die pogings in vele gevalle ? beter weg tot ? ensiklopediese model aantoon. ? Verdere vraag word aan die orde gestel: Is dit moont lik dat ? sekere mediasie-patroon in die modelle nie ver oorsaak dat die Kuyperiaanse navorsing hoofsaaklik fokus op die ont wikkeling van spesifieke dissiplines (wat as deurslaggewend beskou word), terwyl ander velde van ondersoek verwaarloos word nie?

This is the second of a series of three articles exploring in historical order several encyclopaedic models presented in the Kuyperian tradition. This article deals with the period from the 1970s to the present. The works of the followers and successors of Dooyeweerd, Vollenhoven, Stoker and Van Til are examined and evaluated to identify their strong and weak points. The role of scientific and pre-scientific frameworks (e.g. philosophy, worldviews), their functions, the relationships between the sciences and so forth are explored in several different models. The purpose is to provide an evaluation, to identify strategies and patterns and possibly to draw lessons for the future. My main argument is that, during the period in question, there were several attempts at improving the Kuyperian model(s) by eliminating some “rigidities” and by better recognising the complex and multiple relationships and influences among frameworks. These attempts were not always successful. Yet in many cases they show the way towards a better encyclopaedic model. A further ques tion is introduced: is it possible that a certain mediation-pattern in the models caused Kuyperian scholarship to focus mainly on the development of specific disciplines (regarded as crucial) while neglecting other fields?