Masters Degrees (Philosophy)
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing Masters Degrees (Philosophy) by Subject "Dissertation (M.A. (Philosophy))--University of the Free State, 2013"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Cartesianism and reformed scholastic theology: a comparative study of the controversy between Christoph Wittich and Petrus van Mastricht(University of the Free State, 2013-07) Schlebusch, Jan Adriaan; Rossouw, J. H.; Zietsman, J. C.; Goudriaan, A.English: The significance of the dispute between the two 17th century Dutch Reformed Scholastics, Christoph Wittich and Petrus van Mastricht, within the theological and philosophical context of Post-Reformation Protestant Scholastic Theology can scarcely be overestimated. The issue of the authority of Scripture, itself the epistemological standard upon which the Reformation was built, is at the very core of the dispute. From the historical context of their dispute as well as the philosophical presuppositions with which they approach the issue at hand, one can glean the differing philosophical lines of thought present in the exegetical approaches of the two respective authors. An epistemological battle regarding the foundation and nature of true knowledge is at the heart of this dispute. Cartesianism gained increasing popularity in 17th century Dutch academic circles, and René Descartes’s Accommodation Theory, i.e. his attempt to reconcile his epistemological methodology of liberation from deception via hyperbolic doubt with Divine Revelation, plays a central role in Wittich’s dealings with Scripture. Wittich’s acceptance of this element of Cartesian epistemology should be seen in light of his desire to reconcile Copernican physics with the revelation of the Holy Scripture. Van Mastricht on the other hand, responds with an attempt to prove that the application of the Accommodation Theory in the field of Biblical exegesis, particularly with regard to passages where moral and practical matters are adressed, is heresy, since he regards Wittich’s approach is fundamentally rooted in the presupposition that human reason is not fallen and enslaved to sin as Reformed Theology has historically taught, and that this forms the premises from which Wittich understands its ability to function perfectly well without the need of being redeemed and sanctified first. The net effect of these differing philosophical and theological presuppositions is that the authors’ respective interpretations of the same Biblical texts radically differ, as what Wittich constantly sees as the Holy Spirit’s accommodation of absolute truths to the beliefs of the original audience to whom the books of the canon were adressed, is viewed by Van Mastricht as the mere rendering of absolute truths by the Holy Spirit within the particular historical and social context in which they were written. Therefore Van Mastricht views Wittich’s application of Cartesianism to the exegesis of Scripture via the Accommodation Theory to be at odds with the historic Calvinist doctrine of Divine Accommodation in special revelation. Van Mastricht defends Scripture’s absolute authority in the midst of potential skepticism caused by an incorporation of Cartesianism into Reformed Theology.Item Open Access Key structures in philosophical discourse : a universal semantics of kernel phrases(University of the Free State, 2013-02-01) Van Reenen, Dionne; Visagie, P. J.English: Key theory, or Logosemantics, was formulated by Johann Visagie as part of a larger project known as Discourse Archaeology (DA) which is an interlocking set of sub-theories designed to investigate the structures, systems, patterns and relationships that occur in philosophical discourse. The present study gives a brief overview of the whole of DA so that Key theory can be placed in the context of Visagie’s expansive venture. The historical background from which Key theory emerged is sketched showing where the theory finds points of contact with thinkers in the field of philosophy who previously considered such occurrences in discourse. The systematic context looks to formulate a detailed explanation of Key theory components and their functions, as well as demonstrate its critical, pedagogical and descriptive import in the field of philosophy. A number of different philosophers’ work from varying fields, epochs and traditions is used to illustrate the diverse applications of the theory. In contrast, similarities between key elements are further used to diagnose typologies and trends across different time frames and conventions of thought. Seeing that all of the DA sub-theories operate within a systematic approach, the links to the sub-theories of Figurative Semiotic theory and Epistemic theory will also be explored as they are housed in the same faculty of the broader theory. In order to reach a fully generative analysis, it has proven fruitful to interface various departments with one another in order to form complexes which show the protological diversity required to begin asking the kinds of questions that initiate a detailed analysis. The target area for forming this line of inquiry is chosen as ethics and morality as it is an area which has proven notoriously complicated and often difficult for philosophy to deal with effectively either in explanation or evaluation. The link to Anthropology theory gives a brief outline of the possibility that the hierarchical structure contained in keys is universally representative of human theory-forming capacities. We seem to be constrained in some way to think like this and, consequently, we do not propose a rejection of all keys. We do suggest a deconstruction of keys so that the careful unpacking of concepts contained in, and implied by, key formulations can be evaluated and reconstructed with as much legitimacy as possible. The anticipation is to investigate the validity of acceptable key formulations and look for new conceptual links to replace or rework unacceptable formulations. This is a multi-disciplinary move away from absolutizations of thought and pure theory which we no longer consider plausible in philosophy.Item Open Access Key structures in philosophical discourse: a universal semantics of kernel phrases(University of the Free State, 2013-02) Van Reenen, Dionne; Visagie, P. J.English: Key theory, or Logosemantics, was formulated by Johann Visagie as part of a larger project known as Discourse Archaeology (DA) which is an interlocking set of sub-theories designed to investigate the structures, systems, patterns and relationships that occur in philosophical discourse. The present study gives a brief overview of the whole of DA so that Key theory can be placed in the context of Visagie’s expansive venture. The historical background from which Key theory emerged is sketched showing where the theory finds points of contact with thinkers in the field of philosophy who previously considered such occurrences in discourse. The systematic context looks to formulate a detailed explanation of Key theory components and their functions, as well as demonstrate its critical, pedagogical and descriptive import in the field of philosophy. A number of different philosophers’ work from varying fields, epochs and traditions is used to illustrate the diverse applications of the theory. In contrast, similarities between key elements are further used to diagnose typologies and trends across different time frames and conventions of thought. Seeing that all of the DA sub-theories operate within a systematic approach, the links to the sub-theories of Figurative Semiotic theory and Epistemic theory will also be explored as they are housed in the same faculty of the broader theory. In order to reach a fully generative analysis, it has proven fruitful to interface various departments with one another in order to form complexes which show the protological diversity required to begin asking the kinds of questions that initiate a detailed analysis. The target area for forming this line of inquiry is chosen as ethics and morality as it is an area which has proven notoriously complicated and often difficult for philosophy to deal with effectively either in explanation or evaluation. The link to Anthropology theory gives a brief outline of the possibility that the hierarchical structure contained in keys is universally representative of human theory-forming capacities. We seem to be constrained in some way to think like this and, consequently, we do not propose a rejection of all keys. We do suggest a deconstruction of keys so that the careful unpacking of concepts contained in, and implied by, key formulations can be evaluated and reconstructed with as much legitimacy as possible. The anticipation is to investigate the validity of acceptable key formulations and look for new conceptual links to replace or rework unacceptable formulations. This is a multi-disciplinary move away from absolutizations of thought and pure theory which we no longer consider plausible in philosophy.