***NOTE: Please only CVT Pre-Suppositionalists answer this. I'm not interested in critiques of CVT and "Clark is better and CVT is wrong" responses. I'm trying to understand what he's saying. ***
I've been listening to CVT on some old audio lectures and have to admit my ignorance in some philosophical categories. Van Til keeps repeating some ideas so some of the stuff is starting to sink in.
I've gotten this so far:
Rationalism is defective because it cannot consider the "One". The One in Platonic and Aristotalean categories must be known completely or it cannot be comprehended. If it becomes known that it becomes somehow co-substantial with us... I'm having trouble fleshing this out. Contained in this idea is that once you leave the realm of the actual and enter the realm of the One you lose your identity and get swallowed up into Being.
Empericism is defective as it only consider facts and "the many" in a wholly disconnected manner. There is no way to know their inter-connectedness and they can only be known as completely independent.
All is flux or all is one.
I have trouble articulating what I'm hearing and seeing how it applies. I sort of understand how modern science can only deal with data (the many) but never come up with some sort of unifying idea of what it all means. CVT goes on to say that if this empericism ever led one to the knowledge of the One that the knowledge would be swallowed up into pure Being. He states that Roman Catholicism is utterly foolish for trying to be moderate empiricism and moderate rationalism combined but that Greek philosophy could never lead to the truth of Christianity.
1. Please correct my language here and help me understand what CVT is talking about.
2. Please help me understand how this can be used effectively against the average scientist or self-avowed rationalist who, like me, would give you a blank stare when you started talking about the One and the Many. I mean, seriously, it might be right philosophically but how does one use it for your average dude who thinks philosophy is for academics anyway (as I used to think when I was studying engineering).
I've been listening to CVT on some old audio lectures and have to admit my ignorance in some philosophical categories. Van Til keeps repeating some ideas so some of the stuff is starting to sink in.
I've gotten this so far:
Rationalism is defective because it cannot consider the "One". The One in Platonic and Aristotalean categories must be known completely or it cannot be comprehended. If it becomes known that it becomes somehow co-substantial with us... I'm having trouble fleshing this out. Contained in this idea is that once you leave the realm of the actual and enter the realm of the One you lose your identity and get swallowed up into Being.
Empericism is defective as it only consider facts and "the many" in a wholly disconnected manner. There is no way to know their inter-connectedness and they can only be known as completely independent.
All is flux or all is one.
I have trouble articulating what I'm hearing and seeing how it applies. I sort of understand how modern science can only deal with data (the many) but never come up with some sort of unifying idea of what it all means. CVT goes on to say that if this empericism ever led one to the knowledge of the One that the knowledge would be swallowed up into pure Being. He states that Roman Catholicism is utterly foolish for trying to be moderate empiricism and moderate rationalism combined but that Greek philosophy could never lead to the truth of Christianity.
1. Please correct my language here and help me understand what CVT is talking about.
2. Please help me understand how this can be used effectively against the average scientist or self-avowed rationalist who, like me, would give you a blank stare when you started talking about the One and the Many. I mean, seriously, it might be right philosophically but how does one use it for your average dude who thinks philosophy is for academics anyway (as I used to think when I was studying engineering).