A beautiful speech. So close to the mark. I find parts of it to be incredibly moving. I’ve listened to it several times now. Hands down the best commeA beautiful speech. So close to the mark. I find parts of it to be incredibly moving. I’ve listened to it several times now. Hands down the best commencement speech ever given and an important reminder to question ourselves, and our “hardwired default setting� of thinking and processing annoying and seemingly meaningless mundane experiences in life that we tend to process in narcissism as happening to us directly, as if God is afflicting us deeply and personally through negative day-to-day experiences.
DFW puts forth the idea that being educated gives us the freedom to choose how to think about things, that naturally I have a default thought-setting that echoes within me at all times claiming that, “Everything in my own immediate experience supports my deep belief that I am the absolute center of the universe, the realest, most vivid and important person in existence.� But that is only the default setting of my mind that developed in a narcissistic, consumerist, and psychological society obsessed with the self. The perpetual ME, ME, ME that beats along inside of us. Yet there are many ways to think about every situation in life. And through education we learn about other ways to think and because of it we can choose to think differently.
And impressively for a man who wasn’t a Christian, DFW understood a profound truth of the human condition. That we all worship something. As John Calvin said, “the human heart is a factory of idols.� (Which to be honest I’m not even sure John Calvin ever said, I’ve never read it anywhere actually, I’ve just heard it thrown around in sermons a lot) DFW articulates this understanding very well in my favorite and some of the most piercing lines of the speech,
“This, I submit, is the freedom of a real education, of learning how to be well-adjusted. You get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn’t.
You get to decide what to worship.
Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship–be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles–is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive.
If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth.
The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.
Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear.
Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they’re evil or sinful, it’s that they’re unconscious. They are default settings.
They’re the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that’s what you’re doing.
And the so-called real world will not discourage you from operating on your default settings, because the so-called real world of men and money and power hums merrily along in a pool of fear and anger and frustration and craving and worship of self. Our own present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The freedom all to be lords of our tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the centre of all creation. This kind of freedom has much to recommend it. But of course there are all different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious you will not hear much talk about much in the great outside world of wanting and achieving�. The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day.
That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.�...more
Just a quick review here for a quick book. A collection of practical and convicting sermons by Chrysostom on marriage and raising children. I must admJust a quick review here for a quick book. A collection of practical and convicting sermons by Chrysostom on marriage and raising children. I must admit, the language of the translation and the material surprised me. There is nothing that dated it really except for the occasional reference to slavery. It could have very well been written or preached today! One of the best books I’ve read on marriage. It convicted me, and made me want to love Christ more, love my wife more, and love my children more. Can’t beat a book like that! Eternal value. ...more
Hopefully, I'll get some more time soon to write down more of my thoughts about this book. I read this one with my good friend. I was extremely impresHopefully, I'll get some more time soon to write down more of my thoughts about this book. I read this one with my good friend. I was extremely impressed by it. Between it's historical importance and influence as a work of trinitarian apologetics and it's accessibility today, I would recommend this one to anyone interested in the person of the Holy Spirit within the Godhead. So useful and informative, and Basil makes excellent arguments and points throughout the entire work. I was impressed by his perspective on baptism, and typology. His chapter on the attributes of the Holy Spirit was breathtaking. Honestly, I used to think of the early church fathers as difficult-reads, dry, and academic. A lot of work to ring out a few gems. That was before I read any of them. They are so refreshing in so many ways, and ringing out their words in the modern world provides an overflowing cascade of spirituality and reverence for God that satiates the soul in a way that nothing modern really can. It's impact on me can be evidenced in that my copy of this book looks like the body of a highly ranked Russian prisoner in the 1950s, in that it is marked up in every blank section that can be, like tattoos upon the pages that show record and rank, and if the ranking of books works in the same way as it does with criminals, I would say this one is one of the baddest dudes around in my personal library. ...more
The penetration of Tolstoy's writing into the profundity of the innermost part of man's psyche in this novella is as proportionately disquieting and rThe penetration of Tolstoy's writing into the profundity of the innermost part of man's psyche in this novella is as proportionately disquieting and realistic as it is profound. I could not help but feel as Ivan Ilych as I read this novella. That Tolstoy had peered into my own soul and wrote about my future demise. As I read, I felt that I (as Ivan) was propelled closer and closer to the ever-enclosing expectation of my own death. The increasing uneasiness fueling the universal outcry in my soul toward the meaninglessness and feebleness of life when faced with the greatest of all existential crises, and the arresting questions that death brings to the heart, mind, and soul. Was it worth it? The money? The wasted time? The selfish pursuits?
Up against eternity, our lives are but a vapor, and death looms before us as a token of our human frailty. We live as if we are eternal, blind to the prospect of our own death until it is upon us. With empty pursuits we delight our hearts in frivolousness and we discount the things that truly matter, the things that transcend our mortal existence, God, love, partner, child, family, and community. Our eternal hope, our faith, and our authenticity. And for what do we sacrifice these things? For a fleeting grasp at the wind, to obtain that which is unattainable, and to maintain an aura of confidence in our heart and mind of human arrogance and pride, but when faced with death the insubstantial house of cards comes tumbling down, and we are left with nothing, only the feeling of utter helplessness, powerless to change the course of our own nature.
And just as Ivan Ilych, our only hope of redemption is to realize this before it is too late....more
At first glance King Lear seems almost nihilistic in its unrelenting tragedy, but upon further inspection we can see a thread of redemption woven throAt first glance King Lear seems almost nihilistic in its unrelenting tragedy, but upon further inspection we can see a thread of redemption woven throughout this play despite its initially dark appearance. And that is the key in my opinion to King Lear; it is in the appearances. Nothing is quite what it seems. In fact, many things are quite the opposite of what they seem. Shakespeare uses paradox as a way of teaching biblical truths. That it is the way of the humble, lowly, and the poor that will be exalted to heaven. That we must be as fools to obtain wisdom, and that we must die to have life. What King Lear looks to teach us is truly magnificent if we have the eyes to see the play on more than one level. I think the play could be separated into several layers. It is a historical play, it is a moral play, it is a tragic play, and it is a theological play that touches on the paradoxes central to the Christian faith. To view this play only one way would very well rob the play of the multi layered complexities that make it so special. To analyze and penetrate this play completely would be an impossible task, in my opinion. The more you begin to unfold or understand in this text the more it opens up interpretations in differing directions. I would like to divide it into a few categories only to better help me sort my thoughts and delve into some of this wonderful complexity in a more organized manner.
First there is the Historic. This play was based on historical events in Britain’s past making the skeletal structure of the play a historic one. King Leir was a legendary king of the Britons whose story was already a play in the time of Shakespeare, more than likely one that he knew well, but most famously the history was told by Geoffrey of Monmouth in 1136 in his History of the Kings of Britain. According to Geoffrey's history of the British dynasty, Leir's reign would have occurred around the 8th century BC, around the time of the founding of Rome. For those who are interested I found parts of the text translated in 1966 that tell the original tale.
Link to Original story here:
This history is most different than Shakespeare’s telling in that Lear goes to Gaul and with his daughter’s help regains his kingdom. It doesn’t have the same tragic ending of Shakespeare’s play, and in that way seems to display more grace to the main characters. Some critics believe that there could have been a political agenda on Shakespeare’s part because King James who was king at the time of Shakespeare’s writing of this play bears similarities to King Lear, and it could have been that Shakespeare was hoping to reach him through the play as a sort of warning about the splitting up of the kingdom between his two sons. This theory could potentially explain the utterly tragic ending. Although it is rather speculative. Either way the play has much more going on than the merely historical aspect, as fascinating as it is.
Second, we can look at this play as a moral one, one which is unrelentingly tragic in it’s unfolding of events. Through the moral perspective we are faced to examine King Lear’s sins and the sins of his two daughters as well as the sins of Edmund and watch the unraveling consequences of these sins kill almost every character in the play. Seeming to illustrate that sin leads to utter destruction and that its consequences must be brought to their full conclusions. Ultimately, that as the Bible says,
“…sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.� James 1:15 KJV
Third, and most importantly for my personal application we have the Christian themes of redemption through-out with Cordelia as a potential Christ-like figure as well as the Christian paradox theme which I see to be absolutely central to this play.
Viewing Cordelia as Christ-like is easily done in my opinion. She is shown to be honest, loyal, self-sacrificing, and as far as we know free from sin. Lear despite his initial sin against her in the first scene finds in her forgiveness and redemption from then on. In act 4 she is the one “who redeems nature from the general curse.� As it is said of Jesus in Galatians 3:13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.�
Even in her death in Scene 5 act 3 King Lear is hopeful in the idea that she has risen from the dead,
“She lives! If it be so / it is a chance which does redeem all sorrows�
This is strikingly similar to the biblical language seen in Isaiah 51:11 “Therefore the redeemed of the LORD shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their head: they shall obtain gladness and joy; and sorrow and mourning shall flee away.�
These speak to Cordelia’s role in the allegory of salvation. I think that the hard part to swallow for most people in viewing Cordelia as a Christ-like figure is that in the end she is killed and King Lear dies so that many people throw out this idea as improbable. Where is the eternal defeat of death in Christ’s resurrection from the dead? The ending seems too dark, and hints more to the idea that all is for nothing (nihilism), but I would argue that what Cordelia teaches King Lear is that through a world of paradox he can be saved even through death. That he can lose his wits even, and find his sanity. It is the way that the play redeems King Lear slowly through paradox that shows the work of redemption, sanctification, and salvation in the play. I think this is where we benefit from viewing this play as a multi-faceted work of art. King Lear does not follow the biblical doctrine of sanctification to its end in Christ’s resurrection, but to deny themes of redemption and sanctification in it because the Christ-like character is not resurrected would be a hollowing oversight.
In the Tragic Sense in Shakespeare by John Lawlor. He says to this issue, "Lear, most would say, has been redeemed... He has indeed learned; he is certainly forgiven ... But what is that to the process he has set in motion?" (166-167). The salvation Lear received spiritually from Cordelia, the representative Christ, did not alter or stop the earthly or mortal effects of the evil he committed. And so, in the Biblical and allegorical sense Cordelia's death was of a redemptive quality, but in the literal and earthly sense her death was the final earthly consequence of Lear's own sin, and ultimately the cause of his own death. Even though he was forgiven by Cordelia for disinheriting her, Lear was still punished for his sin when Cordelia was killed by her sisters. "The world is as Lear made it: he opened the gate that let this folly in" (Lawlor 168)
Setting these issues aside, we can further examine the paradoxes that penetrate King Lear’s heart, and unveil the topsy-turvy world of Jesus Christ central to this work. The Christian bible loves paradox, and these paradoxes are paramount to the follower of Christ. They are embodied in Jesus who being God in the most exalted position chose to make himself low and be made man, and if that were not enough he did not come as a triumphant king (as he deserved) with banners, warriors, and earthly powers, but riding a donkey. Demonstrating humility. He did not come with riches, but with rags. He was put to death as the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of others, so that through His death they might live.
King Lear learns these paradoxes in the wake of his sin, and they begin to awaken his heart and mind to truth. For example, right at the beginning of the play we see Cordelia telling Lear the truth of her sister’s flattery (empty words) for gain, and she is honest with him. Yet, King Lear does not hear what she says as truth, but rather is turned to anger and sins against her by disinheriting her and removing her dowry. Having eyes to see he does not.
“Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:� Jeremiah 5:21 KJV
This theme of having eyes to see yet being blind or in the case of Gloucester being blinded in order to see is a constant theme throughout King Lear, but I would argue that it is part of the larger theme of paradox.
One part of the play that I found to reinforce this theme was in act 3 scene 2 when Lear has a dialogue with the fool while in the middle of a storm. He says to the fool,
“My wits begin to turn. Come on, my boy: how dost, my boy? art cold? I am cold myself. Where is this straw, my fellow? The art of our necessities is strange, That can make vile things precious. Come, your hovel. Poor fool and knave, I have one part in my heart That's sorry yet for thee.�
I think that this is a pivotal moment for King Lear. It seems to be that in the middle of the storm (chaos) and when he has begun to lose his wits, he has this moment of most clarity where he is sympathetic to the fool. I think this is the moment that Lear realizes that HE is the fool. The language here points to his becoming one with the fool. I think it is here, that he accepts this fact and realizes that it is better that way. Even placed at the center of this quote is the idea that vile things become precious echoing the thundering paradoxes so heavily portrayed in this scene. That to become the fool, is to obtain wisdom.
“But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are� 1 Corinthians 1:27-28
And ultimately this culminates in Lear almost completely insane in the last scene imprisoned with Cordelia, speaking these beautiful words, which ring out like a bell of hope and beauty from such bleak circumstances.
“No, no, no, no. Come, let’s away to prison. We two alone will sing like birds i� th� cage. When thou dost ask me blessing, I’ll kneel down And ask of thee forgiveness. So we’ll live, And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues Talk of court news, and we’ll talk with them too� Who loses and who wins; who’s in, who’s out� And take upon ’s the mystery of things, As if we were God’s spies. And we’ll wear out, In a walled prison, packs and sects of great ones That ebb and flow by th� moon.�
And in these words, are the last strands of hope that we see before everyone dies and within it a plea for forgiveness. The idea that Lear and Cordelia have transcended the here and now, and are in a world of their own. A world of hope, of forgiveness, of life. This also bears similarities to Paul’s positive outlook while imprisoned in the New Testament where He and Silas sing songs of praise. Which leads me to the last paradoxes that I will mention, that being imprisoned made them free, and dying made them live.
What more can I say of King Lear? I find that these words from the mouth of old Honest in The Pilgrim’s Progress summarize him very eloquently:
“A man there was, though some did count him mad, / The more he cast away, the more he had.�
Additional bible verses:
Thus saith the Lord GOD; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. Ezekiel 21:26 KJV
He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. Matthew 10:39 KJV
Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. 2 Corinthians 12:10 KJV
But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Philippians 3:7 KJV
But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. Matthew 23:11 KJV
He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them. 1 Samuel 2:8 KJV
Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up. James 4:10 KJV
…If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all. Mark 9:35 KJV...more
Dostoevsky more so than probably anyone else understood the complexities of humanity. He understood with searing clarity the psychology of the people,Dostoevsky more so than probably anyone else understood the complexities of humanity. He understood with searing clarity the psychology of the people, the staggering ideas that they look to uphold, the future that they hope to build from those ideas, and the conclusions of those futures. He understood that man is a collective creature, and that the masses are easily coerced to fall behind the forces of subversion and be used as the main instrument of change through revolution. He foresaw the communist revolution that was to take place nearly 50 years before it happened. Yet, the principals on which he is expounding here are general in their penetration into the mind of man and how he is used collectively by others to pursue their own goals. The book opens with a passage in Luke which brilliantly frames the rest of the story,
“And there was one herd of many swine feeding on this mountain; and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.
“Then went the devils out of the man and entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake and were choked.
“When they that fed them saw what was done, they fled, and went and told it in the city and in the country.
“Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus and found the man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind; and they were afraid.�
Luke, ch. viii. 32-37.
The story then follows the inner-workings of a small Russian town that is a perfect breeding ground for revolutionary ideas. Dostoevsky uses the many varied characters of the town and their interpersonal dialogues to slowly build up to a crescendo of revolutionary destruction and tragedy, demonstrating that this can befall any person and any town. That these ideas of revolution infect the minds of the masses and in that way are like the demons entering the swine in Luke. Thus, the title, The Possessed, or the devils, or demons depending on your translation. Ideas have a way of possessing the collective society and without thinking much about the validity of the idea or the consequence of the idea, they are driven down the hill and plunged into the waters ultimately drowning in tragedy. Dostoevsky demonstrates this at full force in the novel when Stepan Trofimovitch is giving a speech about aesthetics at the end of the reading preceding the ball, but insults the crowd which causes an uproar in the masses and an unknown man gets on the stage and begins to speak in a somewhat vague revolutionary tone that Russia has failed and the people blow up in a frenzy of passion. This is followed by a young girl who gets up to rouse oppressed students to protest. Immediately following is the long-awaited ball which the novel had been building up to, which culminates in someone yelling “fire!� and everyone running for the exits as a failed coup is attempted and a fire breaks out in the town. The governor is hit on the head with a beam because of the fire and loses his sanity, so that he is never again the governor, and we learn later that a Capitan and part of his family was killed. The concluding portion of the novel piles on more death and tragedy, but as is famous of Dostoevsky he does not end on that note. After plunging into the darkness of human depravity and dragging the reader through the muck and filth of sinful man he offers a beautiful transcendent hope to the reader in the concluding sections of his novel.
Dostoevsky is the greatest philosophical novelist because he understands humanity in a way that other philosophers fail to fully realize. He peers into the depths of man’s heart with its selfish ambition, and he asks us to think about the meaning of it all. The purpose of our ideas, the purpose of our desires, of our beliefs, the driving forces behind our politics, behind our ideals, and he rattles the reader’s worldview by the questions he asks. This book asks many such questions, but one of those penetrating questions from this book that held the most weight for me is, if God does not exist what does that mean for man? At the foundation of this question Dostoevsky is in accordance with Nietzsche. In Nietzsche’s The Gay Science he claims by way of the mad man that “God is dead.� The idea that in the wake of the enlightenment and in the birth of modernity, man killed God and the world will now deal with the consequences Dostoevsky and Nietzsche both observe to be true. Where they differ wildly is what that means for mankind. Nietzsche looked at the modern world built on Christian morality and wished that man would release himself from the historic and oppressive chains that bound him to a Christian foundation. Dostoevsky on the other hand peers into the void of Nietzsche’s philosophy and asks what man has to live for if God is not real. What purpose is there to anything at all? In doing so, he stabs a hole through the core of nihilism. He does so most presciently through Pyotr Stepanovitch and Kirillov’s dialogue about suicide:
“Listen to a great idea: there was a day on earth, and in the midst of the earth there stood three crosses. One on the Cross had such faith that he said to another, ‘To-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.� The day ended; both died and passed away and found neither Paradise nor resurrection. His words did not come true. Listen: that Man was the loftiest of all on earth, He was that which gave meaning to life. The whole planet, with everything on it, is mere madness without that Man. There has never been any like Him before or since, never, up to a miracle. For that is the miracle, that there never was or never will be another like Him. And if that is so, if the laws of nature did not spare even Him, have not spared even their miracle and made even Him live in a lie and die for a lie, then all the planet is a lie and rests on a lie and on mockery. So then, the very laws of the planet are a lie and the vaudeville of devils. What is there to live for? Answer, if you are a man.�
Dostoevsky comes out with fists up in full swing against Nihilism here when he says,
“Answer, if you are a man!�
And in Stepan Tofimovitch’s last words in the novel,
“what is more precious than love? Love is higher than existence, love is the crown of existence; and how is it possible that existence should not be under its dominance? If I have once loved Him and rejoiced in my love, is it possible that He should extinguish me and my joy and bring me to nothingness again? If there is a God, then I am immortal. Voilà ma profession de foi.�
“The mere fact of the ever present idea that there exists something infinitely more just and more happy than I am fills me through and through with tender ecstasy—and glorifies me—oh, whoever I may be, whatever I have done! What is far more essential for man than personal happiness is to know and to believe at every instant that there is somewhere a perfect and serene happiness for all men and for everything.� The one essential condition of human existence is that man should always be able to bow down before something infinitely great. If men are deprived of the infinitely great they will not go on living and will die of despair. The Infinite and the Eternal are as essential for man as the little planet on which he dwells. My friends, all, all: hail to the Great Idea! The Eternal, Infinite Idea! It is essential to every man, whoever he may be, to bow down before what is the Great Idea. Even the stupidest man needs something great. Petrusha � oh, how I want to see them all again! They don’t know, they don’t know that that same Eternal, Grand Idea lies in them all!�
Dostoevsky reaffirms this idea that man needs God. That God and love are the transcendent pieces to the puzzle of human existence that provide meaning and hope to all people. That this idea of eternal love and life in God is infinitely great and glorious and that it lies within us all in our very nature....more
It’s hard to say exactly which of Plato’s dialogues is the most relevant to the modern reader, but I think Gorgias would be a major contender. This PlIt’s hard to say exactly which of Plato’s dialogues is the most relevant to the modern reader, but I think Gorgias would be a major contender. This Platonic dialogue takes place between Socrates and a small group of sophists as well as some other guests at a dinner party. What starts off as a defining of what rhetoric is and what its purpose is turns into a philosophical discourse on the Socratic view of natural morality, absolute truth, and self-control as opposed to relative morality, relative truth, and the pursuit of pleasure and excess as the ultimate good as held by the Sophists.
Socrates begins by comparing the techne versus what he calls a knack in rhetoric. He uses the example of medicine versus cookery to demonstrate this idea. The doctor uses pleasant and unpleasant means to bring about health in a person. Surgery is generally unpleasant and painful but brings about health. It is not about the gratification of one’s desires, but rather about one’s health. The Baker on the other hand makes cakes and sweet breads to fulfill personal gratification and desire, but does nothing for the health of the person. Socrates in this Dialogue is the doctor. He is the true politician and philosopher who is ready to use both pleasant and unpleasant means to bring about a healthy soul.
Socrates denies that pleasure can be equated directly to good. He argues that this is demonstrated by the natural world. There are good and pleasant things that can kill us, and there are unpleasant and painful things that can save our lives. In saying so Socrates is claiming that there is a natural morality at play here. That when something is good and pleasurable there is a point when that good and pleasurable thing reaches an excessive point where it becomes bad or harmful. A little bit of alcohol once in a while for example, gladdens the heart and is pleasurable to the body, but the excess of alcohol intake leads to alcoholism and destroys our body, life, and soul. A little bit of sugar here and there is good and pleasurable for the body, but excess causes obesity and disease. Socrates says that the one who places pleasure and desire as the end all goal is harming his own soul and other souls around him. He likens the person to a man with a bucket that has holes in it. That the more the man fills the bucket the more he becomes a slave to keeping it full, and the more he fills it the more holes appear and the faster he has to fill it. This is like the soul of the carnal or hedonistic man.
These two views battling it out here in this seemingly inconspicuous platonic dialogue have massive philosophical implications in the real world. Especially in the political sphere. In many ways this argument has echoed through the ages and continues to be an argument of great importance to anyone and everyone whether they know which side of it they’re on or not. It portrays two views of freedom. One, being freedom as liberty, and the other freedom as autonomy. The sophist view is that of freedom as liberty, that any restriction whatsoever on a person creates repression and unhappiness because true happiness is found in the accumulation and satiation of desires, (this view is represented by many thinkers responsible for the modern mentality in the west, Freud, Nietzsche, etc.) and the Socratic view of freedom as autonomy that argues that true freedom is man’s ability to know restraint and govern himself based on man’s ability to reason and seek virtue.
It portrays two views of truth and ethics. That of the sophist’s relative idea of truth and morality. That you can make an argument for anything by appealing to human emotion and desire. That you can persuade people to whichever view you want as a rhetorician because no view has actual truth. All truth is only perspective. Or the Socratic view of a truth that is true apart from rhetoric, and a moral law that can be found in nature by use of man’s ability to reason.
Plato’s dialogue asks us to consider then, which side of this argument are we on? Will we take the side of Socrates and pursue knowledge and virtue? Or will we take the side of the Sophists and pursue the accumulation and satiation of our personal desires?...more
I was so impressed with how down-to-earth and practical this book was. Aristotle begins pragmatically by breaking down a simple question (well not in I was so impressed with how down-to-earth and practical this book was. Aristotle begins pragmatically by breaking down a simple question (well not in these exact words, but in essence), what is the purpose of man? Or, What is the characteristic function of man? Everything in the world works according to it's function and everything seemingly fulfills it's function. You can't change the characteristic function of a rock to go upward instead of down no matter how many times you throw it into the air. The rock will not change. It just sits there doing it’s thing, being extremely rock-like. Aristotle didn’t know about the universal law of gravity, but you get the picture. What is that for man? What is man made for? What is man's function? According to our nature? Aristotle posits the idea that our function is to be virtuous. The ideal form of a man will be the man that is most virtuous, and the pursuit of a virtuous life is equated by Aristotle to the good life. Because it is what we are made to do. How do we know that the epicurean pursuit of happiness is not equated to the ultimate good? Because we also value temperance and self control as "good". If pleasure=happiness=good there would be no need for temperance. Yet we do value both temperance and the experience of pleasure as good! So, it seems that the virtuous good is in a sort of balancing act.
So how do we know what the virtuous good is? Well, according to Aristotle it is not so easily expressed as this or that specifically because it is found as a mean between two vices—one of excess and one of deficiency. So that in almost anything there is a balance where the virtue lies between two kinds of vices. For example the overindulgence of food is on the extreme end of excess what we call gluttony, yet the one who starves themselves for one reason or another would also be in a vice of deficiency, maybe even to the point of self harm, so that we find the truly virtuous man to be the mean between the two extremes. This example can be extrapolated to almost anything. Anger, action, sexual pleasure, thinking, talking, being a tough-guy, etc. Another example given by Aristotle is that of a courageous man. The excess vice being rashness, and the deficient vice that of cowardice, so that true virtue lies between the two extremes, i.e. courage. He extrapolates this idea with several more examples, pride, ambition, friendliness, truthfulness, etc. He even brings this idea into the realm of the arts and talks a bit about comedy, so that there is is the extreme comic who tries to always get a laugh in at the expense of anything and everything, versus the sort of guy who's a complete bore and can't take a joke even when it is executed wittily and at the precise time, and once again we find the virtuous man in the middle.
I have to say, I really love this way of looking at virtue as a sort of mean on a scale between vices, so that the truly virtuous man is one who we could call 'well-adjusted.' I think this also makes a lot of sense why some people would think differently about what virtue looks like, as if morality was relative, when it is not. If someone naturally finds themselves on one of the extreme sides of the scale they will interpret the truly virtuous as the extreme on the other side. For example, if we look at courage again, if I am naturally on the rash side acting before thinking always and basically being dumb in the name of courageous virtue when the truly virtuous man weighs out the situation before acting, I will likely call him a coward. Likewise if I am naturally a coward, and the virtuous man acts in confidence and is truly courageous, I would be apt to call him rash. Yet, true virtue is a mean between vices, despite what we think about it. The well-adjusted man is, according to Aristotle, the most virtuous.
Following this, Aristotle begins to speak about continence and incontinence. Which, as far as I can understand is that there are basically four types of people and only one of them is completely lost with no hope of redemption.
There is the virtuous man, the continent man, the incontinent man, and the irredeemable.
The virtuous man is someone who knows that something is wrong for him, DOESN'T desire to do it based on his knowledge, and does not do it.
The continent man is someone who knows something is wrong, DOES desire to do it, but lets his wisdom guide him, and does not do it.
The Incontinent man is someone who knows something is wrong, DOES desire to do it, and against his better judgement DOES it.
And the irredeemable man is someone who thinks that the wrong thing is right, DOES desire to do the thing, and does it according to his judgement and wishes.
He is considered irredeemable because his judgement is wrong, and in order to seek repentance from doing an evil act one would need to judge the thing as wrong to begin with. So this man will never be able to repent.
As a reformed protestant this break down was pretty eye-opening for me. I loved this way of thinking about the moral categories of sin, and I think this is similar to the Christian view of sin. The only truly virtuous man was Christ, the perfect man, the exemplar of virtue, the second Adam who was not corrupted by sin, but perfect in all ways. And Christians dealing with the battle of incontinence in their sin and straddling the line between continence and incontinence, and those who believe that evil is good are irredeemable not because their sins are graver, but because they see no need in repentance, because they find evil to be good, and they see no need for Jesus. Yet, the Christian would argue that if God opens this man's eyes to see his evil he then is granted the option to repent.
Following this, Aristotle speaks on friendship, and once again Aristotle is refreshingly pragmatic. He looks at all kinds of friendship, and differentiates between different types of friendships, including the relationships between people who are alike, or different, joyous, or sad, friends who are there for a sort of economic agreement where both receive an equal amount of benefit from the friendship, etc. He differentiates between these friendships and the friendship a lover shares with his or her spouse, or a father to his son, or a son to his father, or a brother to his brother, etc. And he explores what the best version of all of these friendships is. What the virtuous man should look for and find in a friendship. How many friends is too many? etc etc. He truly leaves no stones unturned.
He then looks at the parallels between different friendships and different government systems claiming that each government system is based on a different type of friendship. A timocracy is based on a brotherhood type of friendship in it's honor based ruling, where-as a democracy is based on a more economical type of friendship where the focus is equality, and the monarchy a sort of patriarchal friendship and so on and so forth. I found this part to be truly insightful, and it is the part of this book that I'm most excited to revisit, because he seems to be riffing on Plato's four types of government at the end of The Republic and the how they revolve endlessly from one to the next, yet Aristotle has a different idea about which governments evolve into others, and as far as I could tell (already wanting to re-read this part to clarify) Aristotle seems to be saying that all of these governments are flawed because they function within the framework of only one type of friendship, yet humans are diverse and different, so we need several types of relationships within a government to function correctly. There needs to be "mothers" and "fathers" and "sons" and "daughters" and "friendships on an equal standing" all together. A democracy fails because there is only one type of friendship, that between equals that is purely economical in nature. Yet, we don't respect the people who are authorities above us because we don't believe in authority we hammer everyone down to fit into the same hole, yet it is a fabrication created by the government that tells us that we are all equal when we are not. Likewise in the other forms of government they lack the full spectrum of human relations so that in the end they always fail. That is, if I understood him correctly.
Yet I think his point here, and in the whole book in general is once again unrelentingly pragmatic, wouldn't the perfect governance (just like virtue itself) be a sort of balancing act just like friendship in that it is concerned solely with the good, with the virtuous and by pursuing virtue all parties are benefitted and happy because of the good. One that promotes the self (not in a capitalist/materialist sense but in the sense that virtue is the ultimate good for the self, worth a million times more than material possessions) and by doing so promotes everyone else. One that pursues the happiness and the good of all people by the virtuous pursuit of each individual. It is not black or white. This or that. It is more of a mean between this, this, and that....more
One of my favorite works of philosophy that I have read up to now. The Symposium is both a great literary work and a great philosophical work at once.One of my favorite works of philosophy that I have read up to now. The Symposium is both a great literary work and a great philosophical work at once. It combines into one work through the excellent use of contrast both low-brow comedy, and beautiful prose; high philosophy alongside drunken debauchery, and it is in these well executed contrasts that Plato so magnificently articulates the Socratic view of love. Contrasting the purely material view of love held by Aristophanes and others to the transcendent view of love held by Socrates. Reflecting and building upon the platonic idea of the world of forms explained in the cave allegory in The Republic.
There is a poem by Rumi that articulates this same idea very eloquently,
There is some kiss we want with our whole lives, the touch of spirit on the body.
Seawater begs the pearl to break its shell.
And the lily, how passionately it needs some wild darling!
At night, I open the window and ask the moon to come and press its face against mine.
Breathe into me. Close the language - door and open the love window.
The moon won't use the door, only the window.
There is some Kiss that we want with our whole lives, the touch of the spirit on the body.
Socrates like Rumi makes the argument that this is the driving force behind man's love, a yearning of our souls for eternity....more
"For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice." - James 3:16 ESV
In the analysis of any writing it"For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice." - James 3:16 ESV
In the analysis of any writing it is important to understand the context of the age in which the author is writing to better understand exactly what was intended by the author. Certain things that made much sense to an Elizabethan crowd in England at the theater in the early 17th century might likely go over the heads of modern readers. To that effect, I find it interesting as I am scouring the internet for reviews of Othello, the sea of analysis that seems to take our modern world view with it’s own issues and force it’s progressive and modernist perspective onto the text. Quite interesting in fact, I came across a lecture at Harvard on the analysis of Othello from a number of years ago, and the first theme mentioned by the class was that of race followed by a trickling down of equally hot topics from a modern perspective, that of equality, woman’s right’s, etc. It is most interesting to me that the common way of looking at this play by most people, and even in our societies most prestigious learning institutes is to throw out historical context and see only surface details based on personal worldviews and convictions, without taking even one second to think more about the context of the play. I am not dismissing the idea that black and white play a part in this play, I am only commenting on the rashness of the modern mind to bend every classic writing to it's worldview. In my opinion to focus solely on race because it is reverberating through the halls of our societal hive-mind will not allow us to see beyond the purely physical into the deeper themes at the heart of this play. It is quite obvious to me that there would have been more blatant themes apparent to the Elizabethans of whom this play was intended than purely race and feminism. Themes more relevant to their own age. I would personally make the argument that the most common themes to their era would have likely been biblical and spiritual ones with the most immediate theme in Othello likely being the fall of man from the Christian Bible.
England at this time was steeped head to toe in religious allegory. Many of the most famous writings and paintings of the time referenced the garden of Eden and the fall of man. Every man and woman living in those times would have been hyper-sensitive to even the slightest parallel to a story of such renown, much as the modern west is so readily catching themes of racism and feminism. As, I initially read Othello, I could not help but notice many of these parallels.
First, we have Othello. A black Moor. Although it is never said exactly where he is from, it seems likely that he was from northern Africa. Also worth noting that in this time in England, the Moors from Northern Africa, Morocco, and Mauritania would have simply been called ‘black� by Englishmen, even though nowadays we would not think of them as black. More than likely an Arab with brown skin. More importantly though than the color of his skin, concerning his character there are various confirmations throughout the play that he is an honorable man. He is the idea of a perfect general. At the beginning of the play on multiple occasions he shows himself to be cool, calm, and collected. A truly eloquent leader, this could be looked at as his state of perfection, as that of Adam in the Garden of Eden. I would like to share a quote concerning the Geneva bible and it's references to a black moor from an essay by Ralph Allan Smith that I found particularly enlightening and worth mentioning.
“Ebed-melech ye blacke More� (Jer. 38:7 ff.) The “blacke More� in the story of Jeremiah 38 is a heroic figure who bravely stands up for the persecuted Jeremiah and saves his life. (Altogether the expression “blacke More� appears in eight verses of the Geneva Bible (Jer 13:23; 38:7, 10, 12; 39:16; 46:9; Ezek 29:10; Dan 11:43), though only once in the Bishops Bible (2 Kgs 19:9). As his reward, God saves “Ebed-melech the blacke More� (Jer. 39:16) in the day of the Babylonian invasion. Only the Geneva translation of the Bible renders these verses as “blacke More,� but since it was the most popular translation of Shakespeare’s day, it is certainly possible for the association with Othello to be made.�
Second, is Desdemona the daughter of Brabantio a Venetian Senator. She is the picture of purity and innocence, of love in it’s purest form, of true fidelity. She reflects Eve in her innocence and perfection in the garden.
Third, we have Iago Othello's standard-bearer. Who plays the serpent, or Satan, the great deceiver. The one who places doubt and deception in Othello’s mind leading the way to Othello’s sin and ultimately his fall from his perfect state at the beginning of the play.
Isaiah 14:12-14 ESV “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."
2 Corinthians 11:14 ESV And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
And like Satan he is driven by selfish ambitions and disguises himself as an angel of light to the character's in the play, where he is called many times throughout the play, "Honest Iago." I would like to add as a side note that Iago bears the name "James" in Spanish of which there was a patron Saint famous at the time of this writing named Santiago Matamoros, “mata-moros� literally meaning Moor Killer in Spanish.
Particularly interesting is to examine Iago's tactics of manipulation in comparison to that of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
GENESIS 3
The Fall
1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
The serpent is cunning, slithering about telling half truths in order to win over Eve and set in her the desire to sin against God. "4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. "You shall not surely die" Here we see the serpent twisting the words of both Eve and God as an act of malice for his own evil purposes. Demonstrating master manipulation, with tactics very similar to those we see Iago displaying. Like when Othello similarly to in Eve's discourse says,
Nor from mine own weak merits will I draw The smallest fear or doubt of her revolt, For she had eyes, and chose me.
Iago responding after a few more lines,
She did deceive her father, marrying you
He effectively plants a seed of doubt into Othello's mind by telling him a half truth. When Eve says, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." She points to a stable foundation of truth that she knows and trusts based on the word of God. And the serpent takes the foundation she stands on and cunningly gives her the idea that it is a farce, it is not solid ground. This is exactly the tactic laid out by Iago with Othello in claiming that she deceived her father. He tears away the foundation of trust that Othello is securely standing upon.
Then we have the handkerchief, which Othello has to see in Cassio’s possession with his own eyes in order to believe which upon seeing it gives him in his mind irrefutable knowledge of the Evil committed by Desdemona, functioning as a symbol of the “forbidden fruit� which upon consumption opens Adam and Eve's eyes to good and evil. Viewing it in this light it adds extra significance to Othello's story of how the handkerchief is magic, and held the fidelity of his father to his mother. As long as it is not cast away or lost (as long as the forbidden fruit is not eaten) it maintains a faithful relationship between the man and the woman (or between God and man).
And finally we have the final sinful act of Othello to snuff out Desdemona’s life like the blowing out of a candle as he suffocates her with a pillow. Before he is able to do so completely, he is interrupted and Iago’s master plan of deception begins unraveling as Iago’s wife Emilia lays out the truth to Othello about Iago’s actions. Othello in the wake of this terribly tragic set of circumstances stabs Iago, wounding him but not killing him, then he commits suicide in the realization of what he has done.
I think this ending interestingly says quite a lot about humanity when looked at juxtaposed against the Bible story of Genesis. Like in Othello in Genesis after Adam and Eve eat of the forbidden fruit they realize their nakedness and are filled with guilt and shame. They cannot take back their sin, just as Othello cannot revive Desdemona to life again. The sin brings it’s consequences and those consequences must be faced by Othello and by humanity as a whole. Where this story is so different than the Bible story is that in Genesis God provides to Adam and Eve an act of mercy and grace by killing an animal to give them skins to cover their nakedness (guilt and shame) (Gen 3:21), arguably the first symbol of the sacrificial gospel message of Christ in the Bible. A hope for humanity. Where as in Shakespeare’s construction of this story there is no hope for Othello. I believe this can be looked at as possibly what a tragic state of affairs all men are in when they commit sin and have not Jesus. When there is no hope. They must face the consequences like Othello, with no hope of God’s merciful covering. They must one day face the realities of their evil sin before a just and holy God, and what awaits is eternal torment and destruction. In that vein it could also be that Othello’s blindness to the truth about his wife and his giving into sin (in his case jealousy) instead of seeking out the truth and in finding it being set free of the grip that jealously had upon him is ultimately what all men who are not saved by Jesus Christ face that live upon the earth in sinfulness. They are blind to the truth of God, believing like Othello that what they see is reality, when it is in fact only lies or half-truths told to them by Satan (Iago), and when they die they will be like Othello when he sees the reality of his sin, and they will be utterly crushed, guilty, and hopeless. In this way Othello takes on the form of a sermon, begging the viewer to keep guard against the advances of the enemy, and to hold closely to the hope they have in Jesus so that the hopeless and tragic end of Othello is not also their own end....more
This book has had a massive impact on western civilization. Many great thinkers have taken inspiration from this book both politically and philosophicThis book has had a massive impact on western civilization. Many great thinkers have taken inspiration from this book both politically and philosophically. There have been several interpretations of the text since it came into being. I, leaning toward the Allan Bloom interpretation tend to see this book as a wonderful tool to teach the reader how to think. Not necessarily a view of the perfect utopian society, but a training grounds for the mind to create arguments and tear them down. To build and dismantle arguments in a logical manner, and seek truth above all else. I also believe that there is lots of wisdom here. I was especially shaken up by the critiques of democracy in book 8 where they are analyzing the four common types of government (Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny) and the degradation of one into another. Although flawed, this idea of a cyclical nature to humanity and it's governance seems to be somewhat accurate. With the United States being born out of the British Oligarchy, and the deterioration of democracy into stupidity through hyper-egalitarianism in our modern day.
There is a word in Spanish that has no direct translation in English. Empalagoso. The first time that I heard the word I was learning Spanish in Ecuador, and it was pertaining to a pie that no one wanted to eat. The pie was too sweet to eat they said. It was empalagoso. We might say in English that it was too rich or cloying, but we don't have a word to exactly represent that idea. In the USA we might take a closer look at this idea, that something that is good (sweet) can reach a point of repulsiveness due to excess. Freedom and Equality are both good things, but too much egalitarianism might leave us feeling sick.
I'll leave this excerpt from book 8 that stuck with me. One that seemed especially relevant.
"...And democracy has her own good, of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution?
What good?
Freedom, I replied; which, as they tell you in a democracy, is the glory of the State - and that therefore in a democracy alone will the freeman of nature deign to dwell.
Yes; the saying is in every body's mouth.
I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and the neglect of other things introduces the change in democracy, which occasions a demand for tyranny.
How so?
When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cup-bearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs.
Yes, he replied, a very common occurrence.
Yes, I said; and loyal citizens are insultingly termed by her slaves who hug their chains and men of naught; she would have subjects who are like rulers, and rulers who are like subjects: these are men after her own heart, whom she praises and honours both in private and public. Now, in such a State, can liberty have any limit?
Certainly not.
By degrees the anarchy finds a way into private houses, and ends by getting among the animals and infecting them.
How do you mean?
I mean that the father grows accustomed to descend to the level of his sons and to fear them, and the son is on a level with his father, he having no respect or reverence for either of his parents; and this is his freedom, and the metic is equal with the citizen and the citizen with the metic, and the stranger is quite as good as either.
Yes, he said, that is the way.
And these are not the only evils, I said - there are several lesser ones: In such a state of society the master fears and flatters his scholars, and the scholars despise their masters and tutors; young and old are all alike; and the young man is on a level with the old, and is ready to compete with him in word or deed; and old men condescend to the young and are full of pleasantry and gaiety; they are loth to be thought morose and authoritative, and therefore they adopt the manners of the young.
Quite true, he said.
The last extreme of popular liberty is when the slave bought with money, whether male or female, is just as free as his or her purchaser; nor must I forget to tell of the liberty and equality of the two sexes in relation to each other.
Why not, as Aeschylus says, utter the word which rises to our lips?
That is what I am doing, I replied; and I must add that no one who does not know would believe, how much greater is the liberty which the animals who are under the dominion of man have in a democracy than in any other State: for truly, the she-dogs, as the proverb says, are as good as their she-mistresses, and the horses and asses have a way of marching along with all the rights and dignities of freemen; and they will run at any body who comes in their way if he does not leave the road clear for them: and all things are just ready to burst with liberty.
When I take a country walk, he said, I often experience what you describe. You and I have dreamed the same thing.
And above all, I said, and as the result of all, see how sensitive the citizens become; they chafe impatiently at the least touch of authority, and at length, as you know, they cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten; they will have no one over them.
Yes, he said, I know it too well.
Such, my friend, I said, is the fair and glorious beginning out of which springs tyranny.
Glorious indeed, he said. But what is the next step?
The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; the same disease magnified and intensified by liberty overmasters democracy - the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction; and this is the case not only in the seasons and in vegetable and animal life, but above all in forms of government.
True.
The excess of liberty, whether in States or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.
Yes, the natural order.
And so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty?
If only C.S. Lewis were alive today to write about the bombardment of issues that we are currently dealing with in a post-postmodern world! What wouldIf only C.S. Lewis were alive today to write about the bombardment of issues that we are currently dealing with in a post-postmodern world! What would that book have looked like! I think honestly it would have been quite similar to this one, but with more searing details and clarity as it has become increasingly more obvious as time has passed what the fundamental problems with postmodernism are. C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man is addressing what he sees to be some of the main issues with the world of his time which was straddling the line between modern and postmodern, arguably around the birth of postmodernism as the work was published in 1943, and I think it is a testament to exactly how in-tune Lewis was with his times. He is addressing several issues that would be especially relevant to a postmodern world, and he is observing these issues through the education system or the educational writings of his time.
He opens the book observing a couple contemporary educational books. He draws out of these books some concerns that he takes to reflect a stream of thought that has infiltrated the educational system and from there the society at large, principally that of subjectivism. He then exposes the implications that this kind of subjectivism has on morals, and makes the argument for a moral system that is absolutely true, arguing in favor of an objective natural law. Making the case that human inclination and human nature is not the basis for morality, but as Plato, Aristotle and St. Augustine believed that morality must be taught by the education system, the family, and the society at large. Lewis gives an example of himself to prove this point saying that he is generally not fond of children, but understands that to be a flaw in himself due to his moral upbringing. Thus he holds to the view that morality is not subjective, but is in fact an objective system that is reflected in the worlds major religions and philosophies. This objective system of morals he refers to as the 'Tao', his own terminology for a traditional morality that synthesizes everything from Platonism to Hinduism and everything in-between. A universal and objective natural law for all humans.
This is how he sets up the book for the final chapter where he really starts digging into the book's title, The Abolition of Man, and he does it quite brilliantly by pointing out that if man continues on this Nietzschean path of conquering nature and bending it to his own will (as we are trying to do in the case of morality), he will eventually find himself losing his human nature and having that be made into whatever the leading minds of the day wish. In Lewis' own words,
“What we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.�
“Each generation exercises power over its successors: and each, in so far as it modifies the environment bequeathed to it and rebels against tradition, resists and limits the power of its predecessors. This modifies the picture which is sometimes painted of a progressive emancipation from tradition and a progressive control of natural processes resulting in a continual increase of human power. In reality, of course, if any one age really attains, by eugenics and scientific education, the power to make its descendants what it pleases, all men who live after it are the patients of that power. They are weaker, not stronger: for though we may have put wonderful machines in their hands we have pre-ordained how they are to use them.�
“We have been trying, like Lear, to have it both ways: to lay down our human prerogative and yet at the same time to retain it. It is impossible. Either we are rational spirit obliged for ever to obey the absolute values of the Tao, or else we are mere nature to be kneaded and cut into new shapes for the pleasures of masters who must, by hypothesis, have no motive but their own ‘natural� impulses. Only the Tao provides a common human law of action which can over-arch rulers and ruled alike. A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.�
The progressive ideology uses science as a means to escape nature and to bend nature to it's will, and as technology continues to progress we continue to change our ideas of morality, the last battle will be when humanity finally overcomes humanity itself. When we release man from the jaws of natural consequences and determine for ourselves what human nature is.
“The final stage is come when Man by eugenics, by pre-natal conditioning, and by an education and propaganda based on a perfect applied psychology, has obtained full control over himself. Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to Man. The battle will then be won. We shall have ‘taken the thread of life out of the hand of Clotho� and be henceforth free to make our species whatever we wish it to be. The battle will indeed be won. But who, precisely, will have won it?�
A very Huxleyan diagnosis of the future. We will finally be our own Gods, but as Lewis brilliantly points out, man's conquest of nature is ultimately nature's conquest of man.
“Man’s conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature’s conquest of Man. Every victory we seemed to win has led us, step by step, to this conclusion. All Nature’s apparent reverses have been but tactical withdrawals. We thought we were beating her back when she was luring us on. What looked to us like hands held up in surrender was really the opening of arms to enfold us for ever. If the fully planned and conditioned world (with its Tao a mere product of the planning) comes into existence, Nature will be troubled no more by the restive species that rose in revolt against her so many millions of years ago, will be vexed no longer by its chatter of truth and mercy and beauty and happiness. Ferum victorem cepit: and if the eugenics are efficient enough there will be no second revolt, but all snug beneath the Conditioners, and the Conditioners beneath her, till the moon falls or the sun grows cold.�
Lewis ends the book and all of these ideas with these beautiful words and warns us not to be blind,
“There are progressions in which the last step is sui generis - incommensurable with the others - and in which to go the whole way is to undo all the labour of your previous journey. To reduce the Tao to a mere natural product is a step of that kind. Up to that point, the kind of explanation which explains things away may give us something, though at a heavy cost. But you cannot go on ‘explaining away� for ever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on ‘seeing through� things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to ‘see through� first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ‘see through� all things is the same as not to see.�
Loading...
