D. H. Th. Vollenhoven

While preparing his dissertation on the influence of philosophy on mathematics and the natural sciences, Vollenhoven preached practically every Sunday, thereby becoming a well-known figure in the Reformed Churches.

Geesink stepped in to supervise the completion of the thesis (now with restricted topic), entitled: “The philosophy of mathematics from a theistic standpoint.”[2] The Amsterdam mathematician, Gerrit Mannoury, whom Vollenhoven had critically described as being “the most consequential formalist and communistic pragmatist,” responded sympathetically to the dissertation by saying that Vollenhoven had taken a path “that had not been blazed by anyone before,” and that he did this “neither as theologian nor as mathematician, but as one who cherished his faith, yet without despising thought.”[3] In the parsonage in Oostkapelle, and later in The Hague, Vollenhoven performed his duties conscientiously, but he also continued his study of philosophy.

In 1920 he received a scholarship and leave of absence to study psychology under Felix Krueger for five months in Leipzig.

In the meantime Vollenhoven's brother-in-law, chess mate, and former study chum Herman Dooyeweerd became active in philosophy.

When both lived in The Hague, their discussions became more intense and searching, and an enduring partnership in philosophy developed that lasted a life-time.

Yet their personalities were very different: Vollenhoven, with his analytical disposition, was the organizer, systematic thinker, and man of detailed historical overviews; Dooyeweerd, with his musical talent (he was a fine pianist), was a jurist by training, who sought the grand design.

Vollenhoven had worked his way into the problems of mathematics, the natural sciences, biology, psychology, epistemology, and theology, while Dooyeweerd had a good command of sociology, economics, and jurisprudence.

Also in 1930 the Calvinistic Student Movement (in Dutch: CSB) was formed, which often called on Vollenhoven for advice and invited him as speaker.

In “The first questions of psychology” (1929), a published lecture, Vollenhoven explained that the soul, as usually understood, is not an immortal substance but rather the psyche as a function of the human being, which operates within an aspect (or “law-sphere”) of reality.

Vollenhoven had no enemies, but he did gain his first opponents in this connection among psychologists, in particular Jan Waterink, who defended the distinct reality of body, soul, and spirit.

As to the human being, outwardly its functions are “structured throughout,” inwardly there is the direction-determining soul or heart, “out of which are the issues of life.” The law, which in a generic sense forms a boundary limit for created reality, involves a three-fold specification: (i) there is the creation command (the “let there be …” of Genesis 1) relevant to “the origination, structure, whereby is implicit its modal diversity [of law-spheres], and the internal development of each kingdom”; (ii) the love command, which “concerns the [moral] direction of human life in its relation to God and fellow human being”; and (iii) the positive laws, which “bridge the love command and the concrete situation” in need of regulation “in light of society’s purpose, historical phase, and geographical location.”[9] Since “knowing is a part of being,” the theory of knowledge presupposes ontology, hence analysis needs to proceed from created reality and respect its being law-bound.

Seen from a greater range of time, the distinct styles of what were contemporary approaches give rise to historically distinct periods, in temporal succession, that Vollenhoven refers to as “time-currents” in philosophy (e.g., Hellenism, Neoplatonism, Waning Middle Ages, the Age of Enlightenment, Positivism, Existentialism, Postmodernism).

The overall aim of the problem-historical method is to make visible the lay-out of currents and types, and thereby the basic problems of thought throughout the whole history of philosophy, from Hesiod to Martin Heidegger.

de Vogel) to respond and together they aggressively criticized the book, particularly seizing on its ontological take-off point and problem-historical method.

[13] In 1935 Vollenhoven founded the “Association for Calvinistic Philosophy,” with Philosophia Reformata as its academic journal, Mededelingen to report its internal affairs, and Correspondentiebladen for exploratory discussions.

Rather it is the bond to God’s Word, for by grace we have learned to desire to live solely through Christ, [hence] religion, as concern of the heart, has become the center of our whole existence.” Of philosophy, as then current, Vollenhoven said: “[It] knows nothing of a God as understood in the Scriptures; nothing of a heart that can only find rest in Him; nothing of world history, which lies anchored in the first and second Adam; also very little of the difference between life terrains, the distinction of which appears so necessary in daily life.”[14] On 18 November 1938 the curators of the Vrije Universiteit received a formal complaint from the theological faculty (H. H. Kuyper, V. Hepp, J. Waterink, G. Ch.

Aalders, also F. W. Grosheide, and even D. Nauta, but not C. van Gelderen), charging Vollenhoven with departing from the Reformed confession, on two counts: (i) the denial of “the duality of human existence, namely as a material, mortal body and as a immaterial, immortal soul;” (ii) the denial that the Son of God had “an impersonal human nature”—the view of the Son of God having a “personal” human nature, as held by Vollenhoven, was considered to be “an error reminding one of Nestorius.” The first point is confused.

Vollenhoven also argued that the expression “impersonal human nature” does not occur in the main confessions of the church in connection with Christology.

But the theological faculty, seeing its scholasticism threatened, sought to undercut Vollenhoven's popularity and growing influence and used the concern for the confession to that end.

[15] Following World War II, Vollenhoven put into operation the initiative to designate specific chairs for the promotion of Reformational philosophy at public universities in the Netherlands by providing for capital and an organizational base, and also by appointing suitable persons to carry this out.

During the war he had become the chairman of the Algemeene Nederlandsche Vereeniging voor Wijsbegeerte [General Dutch Association for Philosophy].

At the Vrije Universiteit itself, S. U. Zuidema was appointed, in part to relieve Vollenhoven of the introduction to philosophy course, which, with the growth of the student population after the War, had become quite demanding.