Article 2 of 7

Subject:      Re: What would Mr. Lewis think?
From:         Sam Dodsworth <sam@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Date:         1997/02/18
Message-Id:   <0X7b5AAS8bCzEwSR@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 <01bc1d3f$74e8f2e0$LocalHost@m-586>, Russel Trojan
<metanoi1@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
>
>While what you say has merit, it seems to me that one of the ideas that Mr.
>Lewis would emphasize is that it is imperative in the search for truth to
>separate the message from the messenger. It would be all too easy to lose
>the gift while we are busy inspecting the wrapping. 

        To be blunt, I don't agree. What you call the "gift" is not
distinct from what you call the "wrapping", even when the writer is not
trying to be rigorous. The message is expressed in words, and if we
don't read all the words then we've missed part of the message. And how
are we to evaluate the truth of the message if we don't have a clear
idea what the message was in the first place?  

>It has been my
>experience in reading 'rigorous philosophy' that too much time is wasted on
>the wrapping and not enough on the gift. Philosophy becomes difficult and
>rigorous when we try to redefine things in opposition to our common sense.
>(Ah, that's probably not the best way to say it, but many philosophy folks
>tend to take themselves way too seriously when speaking nonsense).

        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?  
        If philosophy (or science or -  as Lewis points out in
"Miracles" - theology) sometimes seems to run contrary to common sense
then it's at least possible that our common sense is at fault. After
all, "common sense" is just a shortcut that substitutes for
understanding. The theory of gravity and the doctrine of the trinity
both contradict common sense, but they're both supported (in their own
ways) by clear evidence if we bother to study the matter.
 
> The
>question to be answered is, are his affirmations valid? 

        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.

> Granted, he may
>not have presented the best arguments, but if he did, what would there be
>for us to do?
>
        Learn from them?
        
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