Discussion about this post

User's avatar
King Laugh's avatar

Presuppositionalism is the cauterized wound where Evangelicals amputated philosophy. It is an entirely defensive apparatus to keep out infection and provide a simulacrum of the epidermis for that body. You should not consider it a conversation partner or interlocutor, at least in the traditional sense, because it does not share interest in understanding the world. It isn't an alternative philosophy so much as the explanation of why philosophy is unnecessary, unhelpful, or perilous, even if some of the bolder proponents take a dip in the moat from time to time out of boredom.

--

To me, the bigger question is that of the "Christian philosopher". There are two ways that this may be parsed:

1. That a philosopher may be Christian. To put it another way, that a philosopher may come to Christian conclusions without ceasing to be a philosopher. Or, to rephrase, that Christian conclusions are--at least theoretically--philosophically valid.

2. That there is a way of doing philosophy--a philosophically valid way--that is uniquely Christian. This might take several forms, but a common one would be as a vantage, starting, or given point from which the subject engages with the objects of philosophy. Or, it could be viewed as a sort of calibration of which sorts of philosophical questions one asks and answers--"if this is so" or "assuming that such and so is valid and/or sound" may be perfectly reasonable places to begin if one does not wish to litigate first things for one's whole career or life.

--

A third way does exist, which is to assume that philosophy is either a euphemism for Satan's alternative theology or that it is synonymous with theology. Presuppositionalism seems to ride a little toy train along tracks built at the top of the fence between the second and third position, but it really is this third position, at root. I would suggest that you say as much and begin engaging with the first two groups of people.

--

Which is not to say that you shouldn't write on the subject or continue to speak to Presuppositionalists, just that you should do so knowing that they don't have any interest or intent in doing philosophy and that they may well be willing to debate or argue about it--to keep up apologetic street cred, if nothing else--but will be either bad faith actors or so deceived about what they are doing that they behave like Pharisees. Don't throw peals before swine, lest they attack you and trample the pearls.

--

LOVE LOVE LOVE having the ability to listen to this while doing the dishes. I cannot express how valuable the feature is to me and how sufficient the British robot voice is--apart from turning Kripke into a Crip like Snoop Dogg.

Expand full comment
David Jamison's avatar

This is a really interesting read, and much of it is over my head! Thanks for writing!

As per the claim that Presuppositionalism doesn’t have the proper prescription to the problem, I think it’s important to consider that in Van Til’s book Defense of the Faith he wasn’t calling for us to examine presuppositions like “Nature has no moral valence,” “Only what science discovers is true,” and “There is no truth, only power.” The entire book is structured by examining metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Instead of “There is no truth, only power,” Van Till says to examine the philosophical first principles presupposed behind it. In my reading of Van Til he’s not nearly as separated from Philosophy as you make him appear in this.

To me it seems that presups, according to Van Til, have both the right diagnosis and the same solution you do: philosophical presuppositions.

I am not getting a PhD so I know I’m probably wrong somewhere I here, what am I missing?

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts