Dirk Hendrik Theodoor Vollenhoven (1 November 1892, in Amsterdam – 6 June 1978, Amsterdam) was a Dutch philosopher.
Life history and early work Vollenhoven was born in Amsterdam, son of Dirk Hendrik Vollenhoven and Catharina Pruijs. His father was a custom house officer of telegraphy in Amsterdam. In 1911, Vollenhoven registered in two faculties at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, the Faculty of Theology and the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy and obtained his PhD in philosophy (cum laude) in 1918. He was a pastor of the Reformed Churches, first in Oostkapelle, 1918-1921, then in The Hague, 1921-1926. He was appointed professor of philosophy at the Vrije Universiteit in 1926, and retired in 1963. On 10 October 1918 he married Hermina Maria Dooyeweerd (1892-1973). They had five children, two girls and three boys.Cf. J. Stellingwerff, D.H.Th. Vollenhoven (1892-1978) Reformator der Wijsbegeerte (Baarn: Ten Have, 1992).
Vollenhoven was a person who combined direct clarity with deep insight. He had an analytical mind that mastered many distinctions. He was pious, modest, obliging, and dedicated in his many tasks. In the faculty of Arts and Philosophy he gave, from 1926 till 1954, all the courses in philosophy: history of philosophy, general systematic philosophy, logic, and theoretical psychology (the latter was considered to be a philosophical discipline at the time), and also the mandatory introduction to philosophy for first-year students of all the faculties. 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. A year before gaining his PhD both his father and his supervisor and tutor, Jan Woltjer, died. G.H.J.W.J. Geesink stepped in to supervise the completion of the thesis (now with restricted topic), entitled: “The philosophy of mathematics from a theistic standpoint.”This is the translated title of D.H.Th. Vollenhoven, De Wijsbegeerte der Wiskunde van Theïstisch Standpunt (Amsterdam: G. van Soest, 1918), 444 pgs. 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.”G. Mannoury, [Review of] “De Wijsbegeerte der Wiskunde van Theïstisch Standpunt,” De Beweging. Algemeen Maandschrift voor Letteren, Kunst, Wetenschap en Staatkunde (15, June 1919), pp. 373-374.
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 early 1920s neo-Kantianism was the dominant school in the Netherlands. In philosophy Vollenhoven sought the reconciliation of thought and being, mediated theistically, with the priority given to being. In about mid-1922 this was radicalized: knowing (and thought) is a part of being. Neo-Kantianism, contrariwise, took its departure from thought and justified this in humanistic fashion. In other words, Vollenhoven rowed against the main current of his time. His many commitments and interests led to his becoming overworked. In (mid-)January 1923 he suffered a mental collapse, the recuperation took up most of that year.
Vollenhoven and Dooyeweerd In the meantime Vollenhoven's brother-in-law, chess mate, and former study chum Herman Dooyeweerd became active in philosophy. He visited Vollenhoven in Oostkapelle to discuss how he might work his way into philosophy more methodically. 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. From the end of 1923 on, both advanced a “reformed philosophy” (what they referred to as “Calvinistic philosophy,” now usually called Reformational philosophy). They were simultaneously appointed to university chairs at the Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam in 1926, Dooyeweerd in the Juridical Faculty, Vollenhoven in the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy as the successor of Geesink.Their inaugural addresses have the format of small books. H. Dooyeweerd, De Beteekenis der Wetsidee voor Rechtswetenschap en Rechtsphilosophie (Kampen: Kok, 15 October 1926), 112 pgs. D.H.Th. Vollenhoven, Logos en Ratio, beider verhouding in de geschiedenis der Westersche kentheorie (Kampen: Kok, 26 October 1926), 77 pgs. An English translation of the latter work, including an introduction, is expected to appear in 2013.
As professor, Vollenhoven was exacting but also exploratory and eager to pursue new avenues. Towards his students he was pastorally mild and sympathetic, which won him popularity and respect. In 1929 he became president of the university's alumni organization and in 1930 an honorary member of the student fraternity. Also in 1930 the Calvinistic Student Movement (in Dutch: CSB) was formed, which often called on Vollenhoven for advice and invited him as speaker. From about this time more intense contact took place with Klaas Schilder. Schilder was a Reformed theologian, who played a dominant role in the split in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands in 1944, a development much lamented by Vollenhoven.The Vollenhoven-Schilder correspondence has been published by W.G. de Vries, ed., Eender en Anders. Correspondentie tussen K. Schilder en D.H.Th. Vollenhoven (Kampen: Kok, 1992).
A new anthropology After his illness in 1923, Vollenhoven began openly to criticize the dogma of the immortality of the soul. This was first initiated by A. Janse, a self-taught elementary school principal with whom Vollenhoven struck up a friendship. 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. He took the soul itself to be the central unity of the heart of the human being. 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.
The syllabus for the introductory course to philosophy, entitled Isagôgè Philosophiae (1930), was the first document to summarize the new “Reformational philosophy.”The translated version is based on the final text of 1945. D.H.Th. Vollenhoven, Introduction to Philosophy, ed. by John H. Kok and Anthony Tol, trans. by John H. Kok, with a Preface by Calvin Seerveld and a Foreword by Anthony Tol (Sioux Center, Iowa: Dordt College Press, 2005), 163 pgs. (Vollenhoven always referred to it as “Calvinistic philosophy,” a term he first used in his inaugural address of 1926.) It attracted many and led to the formation of a distinct school in philosophy. In his Vice-Chancellor's oration, given during his term (1932-1933) as Vice-Chancellor of the university, he discussed “The necessity of a Christian logic.”D.H.Th. Vollenhoven, De Noodzakelijkheid eener Christelijke Logica (Amsterdam: H.J. Paris, 1932), 110 pgs. Vollenhoven criticized the so-called “neutrality” of logic. The latter uses logic as mere instrument of analysis, guided by the epistemological subject, rather than viewing logic as contributing substantively to the understanding through its principles. When shortly afterwards Vollenhoven's book appeared, Calvinism and the Reformation of Philosophy (1933),D.H.Th. Vollenhoven, Het Calvinisme en de Reformatie van de Wijsbegeerte (Amsterdam: H.J. Paris, 1933), 319 pgs and 28 pages of notes. this clarified his program, but it also elicited criticism (from H. H. Kuyper, V. Hepp), especially regarding Vollenhoven's opposition to scholasticism. In response Vollenhoven displayed perseverance without becoming polemical: “We must not seek conflict but work constructively.”
While Vollenhoven and Dooyeweerd worked in close cooperation, each retained his independence. Dooyeweerd defended Reformational philosophy from the standpoint of a transcendental critique. This critique sought to expose the dependence of thought, particularly theoretical thought, on religion. Vollenhoven was keener on setting out the viable religious presuppositions of any understanding of reality.
A unique ontology For example, in ontology Vollenhoven opposed the notion of a concept of being that encompasses God, cosmos, and the human being. Vollenhoven's primary distinction was that of the Trinity, who is, the law for the cosmos that holds, and the created cosmos, which is entirely sustained by God. In connection with the cosmos, different fundamental aspects (“law-spheres”) are distinguished—fifteen of which have been made explicit—in which creatures function. 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.”D.H.Th. Vollenhoven, “Plato’s realisme,” Philosophia Reformata 28, 97-133; also a fragment in A. Tol and K.A. Bril, Vollenhoven als Wijsgeer. Inleidingen en Teksten (Amsterdam: Buijten en Schipperheijn, 1992), 155-159; citation from p. 156 (valedictory address 1963).
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. Theology, in turn, is dependent on revelation, rather than on logically drawn conclusions about the being of God. The latter procedure ignores the boundary that defines our human limitation.
On the history of philosophy