Article 28 of 28

Subject:      Re: What would Mr. Lewis think?
From:         Sam Dodsworth <sam@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Date:         1997/02/20
Message-Id:   <yoYqGMAY5EDzEwIm@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Distribution: world
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk
References:   <01bc1d07$a8e6b600$LocalHost@m-586>
Organization: Annexia Free Press
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:   alt.books.cs-lewis



In article <01bc1e91$95e16880$LocalHost@#metanoi1>, Russel Trojan
<metanoi1@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
>Tis true, there are many things that need defining, however I would still
>contend that the obsession with definition is overdone needlessly, which
>make philosophy seem out of reach to the "average Joe". 

        That strikes me as a slightly odd thing to say. Philosophy, like
science or theology, asks difficult questions and sometimes needs a
technical vocabulary to answer them. There's no requirement that I can
see for the whole area to be open to the "average Joe" (or Jane), unless
the "average Joe" is willing to study. Do you expect to be able to
understand your TV set by opening the back and using "common sense"?
There's a real need for "popular philosophy" in the mould of "popular
science" to address these kinds of misconception, but popular writing
isn't a substitute for the activity it describes.

> It seems to me
>that philosophy which seems to have taken on a 'popular' aspect in the 50's
>and 60's has become very much like the Catholic church once was (and still
>is in some places), meaning that it has taken on an attitude that seems
>almost mystical and many practitioners look down their noses at those of us
>without advanced degrees.  It has been my experience that this superiority
>is typically manifested in the tedium of the definition of words.
>
        It's a common lament in some circles that modern philosophy, and
particularly European and American philosophy, has become obsessed with
definitions to the exclusion of all else, but I'd call that the exact
opposite of "mysical". Obsessive precision and endless definition of
terms don't fit my idea of mysticism, anyway. It's also easy to get
intimidated by technical language (in any field) and assume that, becuse
you feel excluded, the people who use it must be "looking down" on you.
This is rarely the case, if only because specialists are often so
wrapped up in their fields that they barely notice that there's anyone
else to look down on. Of course, if you consistently misunderstand what
they're trying to do...
        (And for the record - I don't have any advanced degrees, so I'm
not biased because of that. A pass degree in Classical Civilization and
half a mickeymouse MSc in Computing Science is the limit of my
qualifications.)

>
>I agree that Mr. Lewis might draw back from many of his worshippers being
>somewhat confused by the intensity of their reverence. Yet, I find it hard
>to think that Mr. Lewis did not see himself as some sort of preacher. I
>cannot imagine writing as much as he did and not seeing it as some sort of
>mission. I say this only because I find it harder to believe that Mr.
>Lewis' writings were commercially motivated. 

        Obviously, Lewis was writing because he wanted to. There's a
difference, though, between enthusiasm for a subject and a driving
purpose. I think Lewis wrote discursively on subjects that he cared
passionately about, but your reading makes him sound more like a man
with a mission to convert. I find it hard to reconcile this image with
the little I know about the "real life" Lewis.

>The impression I got from Mr.
>Lewis' writings was that the gift is more important than the wrapping,
>which seems clearly displayed in his freedom to quote and partially endorse
>non-christian sources in support of christian teachings. 
>
        Weird. Am I correct in reading this with your earlier remarks
about "wrapping" as: "we can discard everything in Lewis' writing that
is not Christian Truth because everything that is not Christian Truth is
untrue and irrelevant"? I hope that I'm wrong and you don't subscribe to
this extraordinarily narrow-minded attitude. If nothing else, it makes
for a limited reading-list.

>I started this thread because while reading the postings I was reminded of
>an essay by Mr. Lewis where he takes Biblical critics to task for attempt
>to decipher motives behind the writings of the Bible and the mentioned his
>own experience with critics looking for hidden motives in his own writings
>and not being close to the facts. From this essay, I got the distinct
>impression that Mr. Lewis did not care much for 'reading between the
>lines'.
>
        If my recollection is correct, Lewis was a critic and lecturer
in English Lit - not usually a field you can work in without "reading
between the lines". There is a difference, though, between trying to
guess an author's state of mind from what they write and trying to use
what we know about their state of mind to understand their writing. I
think it was the former that Lewis disapproved of.

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