philosophia reformata 82 (2017) 26-42 © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi 10.1163/23528230-08201003 brill.com/Phir Thinking Along With Mekkes Sander Griffioen Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands Veelzicht@planet.nl Abstract This essay about J.P.A. Mekkes (1898–1987) is intended to arouse interest in the work of this notable disciple of Herman Dooyeweerd. For those who studied the philosophical writings of Mekkes, his written texts were as dense as his spoken words were inspiring. Given the lack of studies devoted to Mekkes, his thought has very much remained a closed book, also for a wider readership. By using the themes of “antithesis,” “creation and revelation,” and “presencing thought,”1 I would like to show that, notwithstanding appearances to the contrary, Mekkes developed a coherent and relatively accessible philosophy in his own right. Mekkes subjected Dooyeweerdian philosophy to the cri- tique of “presencing thought.” In due course this caused him to become a rather isolat- ed figure even within his own circles. In this phase he also developed a new method of “thinking along” with those of other persuasions. This method I call the sub contrario method. In the closing section of this article I explain how Mekkes’s connection of phi- losophy with creational revelation, for all its inherent one-sidedness, offers an impulse for renewal to reformational philosophy. Keywords Mekkes – Dooyeweerd – Heidegger – presencing thought – dynamics of revelation 1 After ample deliberation the translators chose “presencing thought” to render “present denken” − an expression which among Dutch philosophers became a technical term only with Mekkes. * This is a translation by Harry Van Dyke and Al Wolters of ‘Meedenken met Mekkes’ that ap- peared in Radix, Vol. 42.2 (2016), 96–107. All translations of quotes from Mekkes are theirs. It had been agreed between us that I would take care of final editing. This means that the re- sponsibility for the text as printed rests with me. In the Radix-version I acknowledged already the important help in the form of criticisms, additions and discussion points I received from Bert Balk, Henk Geertsema, Jacob Klapwijk, Egbert Schuurman and Dick Stafleu.