Traditionally the the problem of time considered the contrast between time (associated with succession) and eternity (associated with simultaneity) (from Parmenides, and via Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and Kierkegaard up to Wittgenstein and what theologians presuppose without being aware of it). It may appear as if time measurement can help us to understand what time is. However, the historical development of time measurement alternatively explored different routes – such as counting the days, weeks, months and years, establishing relative positions (the sundial), (...) employing the constant movement of a pendulum (mechanical clock work), and using the irreversibility of radio-active decay (atomic clocks). However, our awareness of time exceeds the confines of physical time. Just think of the heterogenous life cycle of living entities (coming into being, growing, maturing, ageing and dying) that differs from (homogenous) physical time. Likewise emotional time is different from physical time, for an hour can feel like five minutes and vice versa. Since Hegel introduced the concept of “geschichtliche Zeit” (historical time) thinkers like Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Heidegger, and many others followed this characterization. It will be argued that physical time cannot be elevated to true or the only genuine time. In order to substantiate this perspective other modes of time will be discussed – such as jural time. Since it appears that all definitions of “time” are simply definitions of diverse facets or modes of time, the Augustinian question still remains to be answered: what is time really? A possible answer to this question finally explores the multi-dimensional nature of time – acknowledging that there are idneed multiple modes of time and concludes by highlighting the difference between the diverse concepts of time we may have and the concept-transcending nature of the underlying dimensions of cosmic time, that is, the fact that ultimately we can approximate time solely in a concept-transcending idea. (shrink)

In spite of differences the thought of Bernays, Dooyeweerd and Gödel evinces a remarkable convergence. This is particularly the case in respect of the acknowledgement of the difference between the discrete and the continuous, the foundational position of number and the fact that the idea of continuity is derived from space (geometry – Bernays). What is furthermore similar is the recognition of what is primitive (and indefinable) as well as the account of the coherence of what is unique, such as (...) when Gödel observes something quasi-spatial character of sets. It is shown that Dooyeweerd’s theory of modal aspects provides a philosophical framework that exceeds his own restrictive understanding of infinity )to the potential infinite) and at the same time makes it possible to account for key insights found in the thought of Bernays and Gödel. When Laugwitz says that discreteness rules within the sphere of the numerical, he says nothing more than what Dooyeweerd had in mind with his idea that discrete quantity, as the meaning-nucleus of the arithmetical aspect, qualifies every element within the structure of the quantitative aspect. And when Bernays says that analysis expresses the idea of the continuum in arithmetical language his mode of speech is equivalent to saying that mathematical analysis could seen as being founded upon the spatial anticipation within the modal structure of the arithmetical aspect. The view of the actual infinite (the at once infinite) in terms of an “as if” approach (Bernays), that is, as appreciated as a regulative hypothesis through which every successively infinite multiplicity of numbers could be envisaged as being giving all at once, as an infinite totality, provides a sound understanding of the at once infinite and makes it plain why every form of arithmeticism fails. Such attempts have to call upon Cantor’s proof on the non-denumerability of the real numbers – and this proof pre-supposes the use of the at once infinite which, in turn, pre-supposes the (irreducibile) spatial order of simultaneity and the patial whole-parts relation. (shrink)

Philosophy, political philosophy and legal philosophy are all concerned with issues of justice and the validity of law (also known as the force of law ). These two problem areas are discussed against the background of the intersection of traditional theories of natural law and legal positivism, mediated by the contribution of the historical school. In addition the influence of the two neo-Kantian schools of thought (Baden and Marburg) required attention, particularly because certain elements in the thought of Derrida, Dooyeweerd (...) and Habermas are (implicitly) influenced by these schools. Derrida positions the problem of justice within the context of distinguishing universality and singularity (what is unique) and he alludes to the difficulty of bridging the gap between the two. It turned out that modern nominalism had an important effect on all three of the mentioned thinkers, in spite of their willingness to recognize “extra-mental” forms of universality. The problem of legal validity (the “force of law”) appears to be an instance of the interconnectedness between different aspects of reality, namely the jural and the physical . In order to account for this coherence Dooyeweerd developed a theory in which both the uniqueness and coherence between different aspects are explained in terms of inter-modal analogies. On this basis the difference between law and justice is specified by distinguishing between constitutive legal principles and the regulatively deepened (disclosed) principles of legal morality (such as f ault, equity, bona fides and so on). It will be shown that the idea of positivization , shared by thinkers coming from different backgrounds, is an important ingredient of an understanding of the nature of legal validity . Explaining it will require a focus on the nature of state law, of the power of the state, and of the legal competence entailed in the office of government. (shrink)

With Habermas it is important to realize that one has to differentiate between moral and non-moral (a-moral) norms, which is different from what is immoral. However, since the Renaissance reflections on human freedom were caught up in the dialectic of necessity (nature) and freedom. A brief sketch is given of the development of this dialectic within modern philosophy – as it was manifested in the thought of Descartes, Hobbes, Leibniz, Locke, Berkely, Hume, Kant, Schelling, Hegel, Comte, Marxism, the Baden school (...) of neo-Kantianism (Windelband, Rickert, Weber) and existentialism (Jaspers, Merleau-Ponty). The influence of the neo-Kantian opposition of facts and values within social thought is briefly highlighted, followed by a brief characterization of the normative inclination of human beings. Then some of the problems entailed in the modern concept of freedom are analyzed in relation to the idea of autonomy. This idea is burdened by the problem that the conditions for being human have to coincide with what meets these conditions, namely the human being. In addition it is difficult to derive collective norms from the autonomy of a single individual. The alternative avenue suggested by the idea of ontic normativity will be investigated in a separate article, exploring the way towards a more integral understanding of normativity. (shrink)

This is a follow-up article of Strauss 2011. In order to transcend the shortcomings present in the dialectical legacy regarding normativity, this article further explores key elements within the dialectical tradition focused on the basic motive of nature and freedom and the effect it had on modern social contract theories which aimed at reconstructing human society from its “atoms,” the individuals . The transition to an alternative approach commences with a discussion of the distinction between conditions and what is conditioned. (...) It concerns a correlation found within all aspects of reality, namely that between the law side or norm side on the one hand and the factual side on the other. The basic assumption of this alternative view is found in the idea of ontic normativity which is rooted in a non-reductionist ontology. Against this broader background shortcomings in Kelsen’s theory of law are briefly traced to the dialectic of the causal and non-causal , before a positive characterization of the concept of a principle is given. It turned out that it is a compound basic concept in which terms from different modal aspects of reality are encapsulated at once. The recognition of ontic normativity therefore also enables a distinct methodology, the transcendental-empirical method, which makes it possible to distinguish between the pre-positive nature of a principle, as a universal and constant starting-point for human action, and the historically varying ways in which such a principle can be made valid, ( enforced ) through a competent organ disposing over an accountable will and capable to interpret the unique historical circumstances in which the principle has to be positivized (given a positive form or shape ). The nature of modal norms is highlighted in terms of various examples, such as jural, historical, logical and aesthetic principles, with special reference to Derrida’s understanding of credit as economic trust or economic faith. In order to make this transcendental-empirical method understandable a more detailed account of the nature of modal aspects is given. The emphasis on ontic normativity also helps us to steer clear of conceptions of natural law , historicism and the shortcomings present in the idea of a social construction of the world . The guiding perspective flowing from this analysis is that modal norms can be articulated through an analysis of analogical structural moments on the law sides of the normative aspects. The last part of this article briefly introduces the distinction between modal and typical norms without entering into a discussion of the latter. (shrink)

In early modern philosophy the motive of logical creation emerged in reaction to the Greek-Medieval legacy of a realistic metaphysics. The dominant nominalistic trends of thought since Thomas Hobbes and Immanuel Kant explored its rationalistic implications. The latter drew the radical (humanistic) conclusion that the laws of nature are present in human thought a priori (i.e. before all experience). The irrationalistic side of nominalism emphasized the uniqueness and individuality of events – thus leading to the historicism of the 19th century (...) and the subsequent linguistic turn. Kant influenced Husserl who, in turn, provided the point of departure for the ideas of Schutz, Berger and Luckmann – compare the joint work of Berger and Luckmann: Social construction of reality (1967). The contemporary “postmodern” idea that we create the world in which we live (either through thought, through language or through social practices) merely continues core elements of (early) modern philosophy. The underlying idea of autonomy highlights the difference between modern Humanism and a Christian view of reality, for in the latter human subjectivity is appreciated as being correlated with universal and constant principles that can only assume a positive shape through human activities of positivization (form-giving). The autonomy ideal of modern Humanism reifies the typical human freedom to positivize underlying principles. At the same time this reification on the one hand collapses the distinction between conditions and being conditioned and on the other it does not provide a basis for supra-individual standards of behaviour. (shrink)