Scielo RSS <![CDATA[Koers]]> vol. 79 num. 3 lang. pt <![CDATA[SciELO Logo]]> <![CDATA[<b>Nuances in the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea</b>]]> <![CDATA[<b>Nuanses in die filosofie van die wetsidee</b>]]> <![CDATA[<b>Nuances in the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea</b>]]> This article comments on Danie Strauss's Philosophy: Discipline of the disciplines. It deals with some differences between the author's interpretation of the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea and the views of Dooyeweerd and Strauss. I call these differences 'nuances' because our religious starting point is the same. This implies a realist religious view, confessing that God created the world according to laws which are invariant because He sustains them. We know God only through Jesus Christ, who submitted himself to God's laws. Partial knowledge of God's laws can be achieved by studying the law-conformity of the creation. In particular, I shall discuss the relevance of artefacts for the future development of the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea.<hr/>Hierdie artikel lewer kommentaar op Danie Strauss se Philosophy: Discipline of the disciplines. Dit behandel enkele verskille tussen die outeur se interpretasie van die Wysbegeerte van die Wetsidee en die opvattings van Dooyeweerd en Strauss. Hierdie verskille word as 'nuanses' bestempel, omdat hierdie denkers se religieuse uitgangspunt dieselfde is. Dit impliseer 'n realistiese religieuse opvatting, waarin bely word dat God die wêreld volgens wette geskep het wat invariant is omdat God hulle onderhou. Ons ken God alleen deur Jesus Christus, wie homself aan God se wette onderwerp het. Ons kan gedeeltelike kennis van God se wette verkry deur die wetmatighede van die skepping te bestudeer. In hierdie artikel word veral die relevansie van artefakte vir die toekomstige ontwikkeling van die Wysbegeerte van die Wetsidee bespreek. <![CDATA[<b>Systematic considerations within the <i>Philosophy of the</i> <i>Cosmonomic Idea</i></b>]]> Stafleu has distinguished himself with ground-breaking work on the theoretical foundations of physics. Subsequently he has broadened his scope and entered the field of general philosophy - including reflections on artefacts and technology. In his assessment of what I have done in my 2009 work on Philosophy: Discipline of the disciplines he raises a number of issues to which I respond in what follows below. In some instances it appears that we opt for different designations of the same states of affairs, but different understandings do surface in some other cases. Stafleu's objection to the expression 'sphere sovereignty' because 'no modal aspect is ruled by a sovereign' reveals a misunderstanding of metaphorical language, which prompts a brief discussion of analogies and metaphors. The complicated challenge to find an appropriate designation of the core meaning of the physical aspect receives some attention as well as the distinction between modal laws and type laws. The nature of the transcendental-empirical method is briefly highlighted. In the past it has prompted me to pay attention to the meaning of both the social and the cultural-historical aspects of reality and to consider some implications for the nature of technology and tools. Stafleu does advance a new and insightful discussion of particular human skills characterised by different modal aspects.<hr/>Stafleu het homself onderskei met baanbrekerswerk op die gebied van die teoretiese grondslae van die fisika. Hy het mettertyd sy blikveld verbreed en ook die terrein van die algemene filosofie betree - insluitende nadenke oor artifakte en tegnologie. In sy waardering van wat ek in my 2009 werk oor filisofie as wetenskap van die wetenskappe gedoen het, het hy 'n aantal sake uitgelig waarop ek reageer in wat hieronder volg. In sommige gevalle blyk dit dat ons daarna streef om dieselfde stand van sake op verskillende maniere aan te dui, hoewel daar in ander gevalle egte uiteenlopende sienings na vore tree. Stafleu se beswaar teen die uitdrukking 'soewereiniteit-in-eie-kring', naamlik dat geen modale aspek deur 'n soewerein geregeer word nie, openbaar 'n misverstand rakende metaforiese taalgebruik, wat gevolglik aanleiding gee tot 'n kernagtige bespreking van analogieë en metafore. Die gekompliseerde uitdaging om 'n toepaslike aanduiding van die kern-sin van die fisiese aspek te vind ontvang ook aandag, sowel as die onderskeiding tussen modale wette en tipe-wette. Die aard van die transendentaal-empiriese metode word saaklik toegelig. In die verlede het dit daartoe aanleiding gegee dat ek ook aandag aan beide die sosiale en kultuur-historiese aspekte van die werklikheid sou gee en om sommige implikasies daarvan vir die aard van tegnologie en gereedskap aan die orde te stel. Stafleu bring inderdaad 'n nuwe en insigvolle diskussie oor besondere menslike vaardigheid na vore - wat telkens deur uiteenlopende modale aspekte gekarakteriseer word. <![CDATA[<b>A philosophy-based 'toolbox' for designing technology: The conceptual power of Dooyeweerdian philosophy</b>]]> In this article the conceptual power of Dooyeweerdian philosophy for designing technology is reviewed. It is shown that the philosophical richness of the theory of modal aspects, the theory of individuality structures, and the theory of ground motives has to be disclosed to engineers in order to apply them in their daily practice. The Triple I model has been developed with engineers in a dialogical process. This model takes user practice as a starting point and analyses this practice from three different perspectives: identity or intrinsic values of the user practice; inclusion of the justified interests of stakeholders, and the ideals, dreams and values that co-shape designs. Other philosophical tools are the theories of modal aspects and of individuality structures. All these tools are made concrete for engineering practice by means of schemes, drawings, design questions, moral standards, check-off lists and design heuristics. By adopting this model, it is hoped that these tools can be fruitfully applied in engineering practice.<hr/>Hierdie artikel ondersoek Dooyeweerdiaanse filosofie se konsepsuele krag vir die ontwerp van tegnologie. Dit blyk dat die filosofiese rykheid van die teorie van modale aspekte, die teorie van individualiteitstrukture en die teorie van grondmotiewe aan ingenieurs ontbloot moet word sodat hulle hierdie teoretiese insigte in hul daaglikse praktyke kan toepas. Die Triple I-model is in 'n dialogiese proses saam met ingenieurs ontwikkel. Hierdie model neem die gebruikerspraktyk as uitgangspunt en analiseer hierdie praktyk vanuit drie verskillende perspektiewe: identiteit of intrinsieke waarde, insluiting van die geregverdigde belange van belanghebbendes, en die ideale, drome en waardes wat die ontwerp saam vorm gee. Verdere filosofiese hulpmddels is die teorie van die modale aspekte en die teorie van die individualiteitstrukture. Al hierdie hulpmiddels vir die ingenieurspraktyk kan konkreet gemaak word deur middel van skemas, tekeninge, ontwerpvrae, morele standaarde, oorsiglyste en ontwerpmetodes. Die gebruik van die model kan hopelik tot die vrugbare toepassing van hierdie hulpmiddels in die ingenieurspraktyk lei. <![CDATA[<b>Understanding artefacts related to human aspects: The case of information technology and systems</b>]]> This articlehas two aims. One is to critique and expand Stafleu's ideas about artefacts. The other, which may be seen as a demonstration of this expansion, is an outline of a rich view of the type of artefact that is information and communication technology (ICT) and its use in human life as information systems (IS). ICT is a kind of artefact that is more complex than those covered by Stafleu's idea, and it has been considered in at least five ways: the artificial intelligence question of what is the computer, the computer question of the generation of software libraries, the question of how to develop good information systems, the question of benefits and harm when using ICT, and the question of impact that ICT and society have on each other. An important sixth question is about the varied nature of research into all the above, which goes beyond Stafleu's idea of scientific research to include design, interpretive and critical research. For each of these questions, a brief outline of mainstream approaches is followed by an approach based on various parts of Dooyeweerd's philosophy. The final two sections consists of a discussion of the assistance that Dooyeweerdian philosophy can offer in these six areas and, in turn, how research in these areas might contribute to Dooyeweerdian philosophy.<hr/>Hierdie artikel het twee doelwitte. Die eerste doelwit is om Stafleu se idees oor artefakte te kritiseer en uit te brei. Die tweede doelwit, wat as 'n demonstrasie van hierdie uitbreiding beskou kan word, is om 'n uiteensetting van inligtings-en kommunikasietegnologie (IKT) as 'n tipe artefak te bied, sowel as om na die gebruik daarvan in die menslike lewe, as inligtingsisteme (IS), te verwys. IKT is 'n tipe artefak wat meer kompleks is as daardie artefakte wat deur Stafleu se idee gedek word. IKT is al op minstens vyf maniere benader: die kunsmatige intelligensie-kwessie oor wat die rekenaar is, die rekenaarkwessie oor die generering van sagteware-biblioteke, hoe goeie inligtingstelsels ontwikkel kan word, die vraag oor die voordele en skade in die gebruik van IKT, en die vraag oor die wedersydse impak van IKT en die samelewing. 'n Belangrike sesde vraag handel oor die uiteenlopende aard van die navorsing soos dit in bogenoemde na vore kom, wat verder gaan as Stafleu se idee van wetenskaplike navorsing om ontwerp, interpretatiewe en kritiese navorsing in te sluit. 'n Kort oorsig van die hoofstroom-benaderings word vir elk van hierdie ses kwessies uiteengesit, gevolg deur 'n benadering wat gebaseer is op aspekte van Dooyeweerd se filosofie. In die laaste twee afdelings word aangedui hoe Dooyeweerd se filosofie van waarde kan wees in hierdie ses areas, asook hoe navorsing in hierdie areas op hulle beurt 'n bydrae kan lewer tot Dooyeweerdiaanse filosofie.