Morality C.S. Lewis

Well said, and I agree with almost every point. I'm not sure about Truth. I assume, for the purposes of this discussion, we aren't talking about honesty. But rather Truth as "what is." If I'm wrong about your intent, please correct me. I see Truth as less of a Principle than simply a definition. Truth exists regardless of consciousness.

But Justice. Now that is interesting.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
LHG...i am not sure how much you actually know about Lewis the man....but he was seriously one of the best read men of his time. he was the professor of medieveal literature at oxford for many years and one of his books (i can't even remember which one now) mentions many of the classic works he read....it was absolutely astounding how many of them i had not even heard of but were considered great books of classic literature or ancient literature. it was his opinion (that essay "on fern seeds and elephants" or something like that) was that the gospels don't look like any ancient form of myth that he is aware of. he actually argues this fairly compellingly in this short essay. of course, it was a bit of an argument ad authority type fallacy in that he was saying that it was his educated opinion, but it was nonetheless quite compelling.

note: i think i misspoke, the correct fallacy would be "appeal to authority" and i am not aware of the latin.
 
he seems to have read tons and tons of ancient literature as well and would have the best informed opinion on this matter of anyone i know of. that doesn't mean there aren't better, but if there are, i don't know of them.
 
LHG,

You are very well read and I respect that you have done infinitely more study in this area than 99% of HF's posters. You state that you have reached an opinionated conclusion on the historical inaccuracy and authenticity of the Gospels based on your research.

Would that mean that you are not open to further discourse especially if there may be new or unvisited evidence? For example, that would be like the student who learns that God "created the Dinosaurs" 6000 years ago with man and then closes his mind to investigate other claims or evidence because "My Sunday school teacher told me."


Furthermore, I would think you would have to then question the historical accuracy of most anything recorded, translated and reproduced from the late BC, early AD period. What else has more historical and anthropological evidence than the early Gospels?
 
LHG:

Are you still with me?

So what is Justice? Justice is the mode of relational truth that is proper or suitable for the related things. Two things may, at various times, find themselves in many different "modes" of relation. That 4 + 4 = 8 is not something that we've just arbitrarily agreed on, as Gone to Texas seems to believe. It is a mode of relational truth that is right, or just. If we say that 4 + 4 = 7.9, then we have created a relation that is not proper: the equal sign denotes that the thing to the left of it and the thing to the right of it, in order to be proper, must be equal. But they are not. And if we say that 4 + 4 = 6, then we've created a relation that is even less proper than the first improper equation.

This logic works through many examples. In music, if we tune the strings of a guitar properly according to "standard tuning", we are saying that the strings relate to each other in specific ways. Our "standard" tuning system, as all tuning systems throughout the world, are based on the relational truth of octaves. If we ignore that truth, we create an improper relation between the 6 strings, and the instrument is out of tune. Even if I tune to an open chord, the relational truth of octaves must be respected; only then will the tuning will be proper. So, you can tune your guitar improperly, and that is a truth we can perceive; but only one mode of tuning is proper, or emblematic of justice.

Relational truth may be properly or improperly manifested in language. True, there are many conventions that we use in language -- things we've arbitrarily agreed to do. But the most basic principles that govern our sytactic arrangements appear to be derived from what is called a "Universal Grammar". There are only a few structures that we may use coherently. English has 8 such structures. Other languages have their own versions of these 8. Ignoring these structures, whether in spoken or written form, will likely result in miscommunication. It is improper. To speak properly is to achieve a sort of justice within the language. I may say, "I was understood the sentence". But to mix a passive tense verb, "was understood", with a direct object, "the argument" is quite obviously against the Universal Grammar that all languages reflect. Now if I said it, then it would be "true" -- in the sense that it existed -- but it would not be proper. It would be an unjust sentence.

So these proper modes of relational truth exist not as constructs, but as a Universal expression of justice.

Well, then, what of morality? I said earlier that morality is the part of justice that impels rational beings to interact properly with other rational beings.

But what does "properly" mean in this case? When we behave in a "proper" moral manner, we behave in a way that regards others as valuable for their own sake, and not merely for ours. It is a sort of proper balance in the relationship between two individuals. If one steals from the other, the balance is disturbed. If my neighbor lends me his brand new pitching wedge and I damage it by negligently hitting off a pile of rocks, then the balance is disturbed. If I exact revenge by seducing his wife, then the balance is further thrown off.

Morality, then, is that part of justice that impels rational beings to behave properly with regard to other rational beings. Immorality is that part of justice (or injustice, in this case) whereby rational beings place an exaggerated value on the self, at the expense of others.
 
Coel, yes and I have a much longer post that I'm formulating in response. I definitely want to continue the discussion. It was just a busy weekend and I haven't had time to put my thoughts together fully.

mop, Philip Pullman was a classmate and equally well read as Lewis. I don't agree with him any more than I do with Lewis. It is up to everyone to do their own research. In this area, one must research the authors as much as the work itself. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I just disagree.

NEWDOC, I'm absolutely up for listening to evidence of which I'm unaware in the area. I've just stopped actively investigating. The guys on the "pro" side that I've considered are Lewis, Stroebel and McDowell. I'm open to new information. I do require that such evidence include extra-canonical texts, research into other early Jewish sects influenced by Jesus (including Gnostics and others), and thoughtful consideration of the political climate that influenced early Christianity through at least the Nicene Councils. I can provide a rough bibliography of the works that I've considered. I'll try to get that on this thread soon. Those works are most investigative works themselves, referencing source documents from the time, including canonical texts, extra-canonical texts (Google Nag Hammadi if you need to get started there), reliable letters and reports from Roman politicians up to Constantine and his direct influence on ecumenical councils in unifying Christianity and defining its tenets.

I'm really not trying to be bitchy or try to look like I know more than I do. I'm seriously open to new information. Do you have any?
 
just another echo that the LLL paradox applied to jesus not the authors. The only way out, and I've thought about this alot lately, would be to argue inaccuracy in the accounts of christ's life (I.e. that he didn't make those claims of himself) but as he was essentially killed for making these claims that seems a bit of a stretch to my way of thinking.

I've skipped over much of this thread but will read more carefully and critcally tommorrow.
 
Well, I read Godel's Proof in college. I recall being confused by the details at many times, but getting the basic points. Needless to say, I must confess I'm incapable of explaining the details today! So... I'll let Wikipedia do the expanding for me
wink.gif
 
LG-

Thanks for your post on EoR, I had not read on that before and it was interesting.

I hope I'm not misreading you in saying it sounds like you believe in Fundamental principle (or trancendent or truth).

You say you have a problem with Lewis and the argument doesn't work for you that there must be theism b/c of it, why not, or am I misreading you and you are a theist.

Lewis was a theist for 2 or 3 years before he was a christian, and having read mere christianity recently and just having discussed it with my Cousin I thought he spent way more time proving up the existence of God then he did that of Christ (almost acting as if that was self evident, which he shouldn't have believed since it took him 2 or 3 more years to get to that point).
 
I probably am a theist. Not to be repetitive, but it is probably a matter of definition. What are your minimum criteria for God?

Omniscient? No. Omnipotent? No. Creator? No. Judge? No. Responsible for reward/punishment? No. Hence, not Christian on lots of counts. Not even theist, depending on what you mean by that.

I do believe in the things as I've described them here. Justice/EoR. Truth/Integration. I feel that I am a part of and therefore responsible to a purpose that includes everyone and everything. Is that enough to call God?
 
Christianity has little or nothing to do with the belief in God, probably 5 billion people in this world believe in god, but less than a billion are self proclaimed christians I believe.

I don't understand from your world view where you get the idea of something trancendant without God- what or who placed it there? That's the part I think I need help with to understand.

I thought that was Lewis best argument, that from the fact that something is more or less written on our hearts (Truth- he called it the tau others call it morality) there must be a writer).
 
LG-

Your paragraph about humans being drawn to the existence of God b/c it lets us off the hook is central to Lewis argument about christinaity and part of why he believes it to be the "true myth". Basically, the argument goes, that if humans are left to create religion they do so like the Greeks and Romans, with God's battling around in the sky and affeting earth matters willy nilly and releasing themselves from responsibility for their actions.

Christianity is different in the sense that we condemn ourselves as sinners and then are called to live a life of service to others and denial to self- something hedonistic man would not have come up with on his own.

I don't really derive God from natural wonder (if that's the way the last thread got interpreted it's my fault for being clumsy with my wording) but rather stand in awe at times of his creation that he has made for us, fallen though we are taught that it is.

I have little to no doubt that it is possible that what you and I seem to be saying is not mutually inconsistent, but rather that God gives us (all of his creation, no matter how many worlds or universes) whatever we can comprehend to lead us to him, and it's likely that if there are more worlds out there that he came and appeared and touched them in ways different then he did ours.

As a btw, and probably in the wrong place, yes, I do require a begginning and a creator for a God. I can't get past the idea of nothing from nothing or an existence without a begginning. That could well just be my own personal hang up though.
 
LHG:

Yes, it has been fun. Clearly there are many things we agree upon regarding the Universality of the Universe. There are a couple issues I want to ask you about, however.
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Coel, I posted this last without having seen your most recent. Yours will take time to digest and consider. I promise I'll get back with you on it. I just wanted you to know that my last post was not intended to respond to yours and any time lag between it and a futher followup isn't because I'm ignoring you.
smile.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top