Path: ultra.sonic.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!news.walltech.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!207.172.3.52!feed1.news.erols.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!aristos.demon.co.uk!aristos.demon.co.uk!sam From: Sam Dodsworth Newsgroups: alt.books.cs-lewis Subject: Re: What would Mr. Lewis think? Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:38:57 +0000 Organization: Annexia Free Press Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <01bc1d07$a8e6b600$LocalHost@m-586> <01bc1d3f$74e8f2e0$LocalHost@m-586> <0X7b5AAS8bCzEwSR@aristos.demon.co.uk> <01bc1e68$caddd920$LocalHost@#metanoi1> NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.01 <7c0azr3XvpMr4dZzpifF$I+pPf> Lines: 55 In article <01bc1e68$caddd920$LocalHost@#metanoi1>, Russel Trojan writes >Sam Dodsworth wrote in article >> That's because you've missed the point. Many of the ideas we >> consider obvious are anything but when we examine them more closely. >> What does it mean to say that something "is" a cow? What's the >> connection when we use the same verb to say that someone "is" sad or >> something "is" green? How can we "search for truth" if we don't even >> know what we mean when we say that something "is" true? > >This is a good example of the overstudied complexity of the obvious. It >would be my wager that if I were to say 'that thing over there is a cow', >that you would know exactly what I'm talking about without hesitation. The >idea has been communicated and we are both focused on the same thing. The >need to question meaning and intent, while valuable at times, is not >necessary for every aspect of every utterance. In my experience, too many >strain out gnats while swallowing camels. The trouble is, it's only obvious when we're talking about familiar things - in your example, we have to agree on what a cow is. This becomes more difficult when what we're trying to talk about is an abstract idea like truth, or knowledge. We need to define our terms precisely because isn't always a concrete example we can point to and, as I demonstrated with the different uses of "is", because one word can sometimes have several meanings. Whic is not to say that philosophy doesn't sometimes end up in dry, rather futile arguments over definitions. This is why I'm not a philosopher so much as an apologist for philosophy. > >> I'm not sure an affirmation can be valid, but an argument can be >> and it's Lewis' arguments that I've been discussing. A conclusion is not >> the same thing as an affirmation. >> >This is probably a language thing, I would say that it is the affirmation >that is valid while the arguments demonstrate the validity. Your point is >noted and I will attempt to do better. > >So, what would Mr. Lewis think? > Difficult to say, of course, but... I think he'd be flattered that people still found his work worth talking about, pleased that what he wrote was encouraging people to think about philosophy and theology (he was, after all, an Oxford don), and perhaps a little surprised at how much energy everyone was putting into the whole enterprise. I don't think Lewis saw himself as a prophet or a preacher with a message to get across, so I don't think he'd be worried about missing the "gift" in favour of the "wrapping" - and I think he'd be a little embarassed by his more passionate fans. But we all project our own opinions onto what we don't know, so I don't think I'm right. What do you think? Sam Dodsworth (sam@aristos.demon.co.uk) "I think there should be more sex and violence on television, not less. Both are powerful catalysts of social change, at a time when change is desperately needed." -J.G. Ballard