This is an exploration of how the narratives people construct during everyday living are shaped by certain limitations and regular patterns in individual memory. The book draws on themes in Walter Ong's analysis of memory and oracy. It also explores the relations between memory aids/supports and memory itself. The recognition of records as playing a role in memory adds a collective dimension and raises questions about the nature of historical truth. The ethical theme is based on the thesis that the (...) past can be redeemed or changed not just on the level of narrative, but also on the level of additional actions that can be related to prior actions in such a way as to justify a new narration of the events taken together. This means that the past can be changed, and this notion of redeeming the past is inspired by Christian thought. (shrink)

This work discusses the results of importing and then attempting to Christianize the content of secular education in its available form of discourse (public knowledge), especially with regard to the sciences. The book addresses the need for Christian educators to be conscious of the sources of the content of their curricula.

by no means unusual that a thinker develops a theory, the full purport and significance of which is still hidden to himself.” Cassirer was echoing no less a personage than Kant himself. Kant had written long before: “… it is by no means unusual, upon comparing the thoughts which an author has expressed in regard to his subject, whether in ordinary conversation or in writing, to find that we understand him better than he has understood himself. As he has not (...) sufficiently determined his concept, he has sometimes spoken, or even thought, in opposition to his own intention.”2 May we take our lead from Kant here? May we understand Dooyeweerd better than he understood himself, even to the point of attributing to him a view or views that would appear to be “in opposition to his own intention”? It may sound a little strange, but something of this sort seems to have been underway among Dooyeweerd interpreters for quite some time. Many have started from the assumption that Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven held to essentially the same position. Now, since there were some widely acknowledged differences, something would have to yield, and what often yielded was Dooyeweerd. It was thought that in essence Dooyeweerd was saying what Vollenhoven had also been saying. One could therefore allow for an error in Dooyeweerd here or there — perhaps even a “contradiction” — while continuing to hold him in high esteem. (shrink)