So, I haven't posted on here forever... not because I don't want to, but because I feel so completely inadequate to expound on what Lewis talks about. I'm not even sure what he means half the time. I should keep trying though, and not give up!
Ok, so when we look at the laws of Nature, we can say that living things are governed a certain way, and behave in a certain way because that is how they are.
People generally believe one thing or another. Either everything on earth is coincidental, and accident, or it was created on purpose. Materialist view or religious view, though there are many variations of them both, are basically the two viewpoints. These two viewpoints have always existed. Science observes what is there to be seen but it cannot go behind what is seen, it cannot say there is no such thing and on the other hand it cannot say there is such a thing. Not if it is true science.
The only thing we can really observe to find this answer is to look at man, because we are one. If you believe that we are, in fact, under some moral law that we did not create, but feel compelled to obey, but do not want to obey all the time, then where did that come from?
Thursday, 30 May 2013
Monday, 29 April 2013
The reality of the law
So, I just want to say this is harder than I thought it would be. At best I can follow his reasoning on an impression level, once in a while I can follow it on an intellectual level but it is so hard to reitterate. I will continue to try though. Please, if what I say strikes your fancy, read the book. He is so much more eloquent and understandable. :)
Here we go. So, can we say that a rock is "wrong" just because it is a shape or is in a place that is inconvienient for us? Can we say that a tree is wrong for growing where it did and how it did? Does it have a choice? Did it intentionally grow there or exist there because it wanted to? No, that would be absurd. Inanimate objects do not have a will and therefore do not have a choice what to do or not to do. They just do as they were created to do... no apologies, no excuses.
Can you say that someone has good morals? What makes them good? Is it another set of morals outside of that which says they either line up with the ultimate good or not? C.S. Lewis had an illustration about football. Is saying that the point of football is to get a touchdown? Or is that redundant? Getting a touchdown IS football.
Really I am not doing this justice at all. Sheesh. Read the chapter.
Hopefully I do better then next chapter.
Here we go. So, can we say that a rock is "wrong" just because it is a shape or is in a place that is inconvienient for us? Can we say that a tree is wrong for growing where it did and how it did? Does it have a choice? Did it intentionally grow there or exist there because it wanted to? No, that would be absurd. Inanimate objects do not have a will and therefore do not have a choice what to do or not to do. They just do as they were created to do... no apologies, no excuses.
Can you say that someone has good morals? What makes them good? Is it another set of morals outside of that which says they either line up with the ultimate good or not? C.S. Lewis had an illustration about football. Is saying that the point of football is to get a touchdown? Or is that redundant? Getting a touchdown IS football.
Really I am not doing this justice at all. Sheesh. Read the chapter.
Hopefully I do better then next chapter.
Saturday, 27 April 2013
Some objections
This chapter is a little more difficult to interpret. While I understand his reasoning while I'm reading it, I'm not sure I understand it enough to expound on it. But I will try.
Some things in this world are subjective... given to opinion. Morality of a culture is subjective. Each one a little different from the other because of how we see the world. The difference is this. When we look at the morality of several cultures, we judge how "good" that is based not on our own morality but on the Law of Human Nature. There is a plumb line that we are trying to match as close as we can and some are closer than others. So the Law of Human Nature would be an objective thing, not given to change.
Lewis compares it to a piano piece. There are notes that one ought to play, different notes at different times. It is not that one note is always wrong and another one is right but that each when played at their proper time are correct. Our instincts to do one thing is not always right but it is also not always wrong. It is not always wrong to kill (as in a war) and it is not always right to allow sexual desire to be satisfied.
Sometimes one instinct will tell us to do one thing and another instinct will tell us to do something else. The Law of Human Nature tells us which instinct we OUGHT to listen to. The instincts are the merely the keys, but the Law is the composition. We can have an instinct to help someone but also have an instinct of self-preservation. The Law will tell us which one we should obey.
Yes, we can learn this from our parents and teachers but not all will to the same extent. This doesn't make it any less true as not learning your multiplication facts doesn't make them not true, it just makes you less aware of it.
This boggles my mind a bit. I do not think like Lewis does about things, which means it's a stretch for me to attempt to explain them. This is my best effort!
Some things in this world are subjective... given to opinion. Morality of a culture is subjective. Each one a little different from the other because of how we see the world. The difference is this. When we look at the morality of several cultures, we judge how "good" that is based not on our own morality but on the Law of Human Nature. There is a plumb line that we are trying to match as close as we can and some are closer than others. So the Law of Human Nature would be an objective thing, not given to change.
Lewis compares it to a piano piece. There are notes that one ought to play, different notes at different times. It is not that one note is always wrong and another one is right but that each when played at their proper time are correct. Our instincts to do one thing is not always right but it is also not always wrong. It is not always wrong to kill (as in a war) and it is not always right to allow sexual desire to be satisfied.
Sometimes one instinct will tell us to do one thing and another instinct will tell us to do something else. The Law of Human Nature tells us which instinct we OUGHT to listen to. The instincts are the merely the keys, but the Law is the composition. We can have an instinct to help someone but also have an instinct of self-preservation. The Law will tell us which one we should obey.
Yes, we can learn this from our parents and teachers but not all will to the same extent. This doesn't make it any less true as not learning your multiplication facts doesn't make them not true, it just makes you less aware of it.
This boggles my mind a bit. I do not think like Lewis does about things, which means it's a stretch for me to attempt to explain them. This is my best effort!
Friday, 26 April 2013
The law of Human Nature
So, C.S. Lewis starts out that there is a law which most people innately know. Do you think so? Is there a feeling in most of us that there are certain things that are wrong and certain things that are right? Lewis claims that it is a law just like gravity, we can't help it and we can't get away from it. It is there whether we reason it away or not. So what does this law look like? What are some fundamental things that most of the population of this world agree on? This is actually harder than it seems at first glance. I think the rule that really sums up what people think is a standard for practice amongst themselves is "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." Fairness suggests that there is a standard which we deem acceptable and feel unjust if not adhered to. Where does this come from?
The second point that Lewis makes is that we don't keep this standard. As much as we want to and as much as we think everyone else ought to, we have the darndest time keeping it ourselves. We break the "rules" and then make excuses for it. We know we have to make excuses because we know what we did was wrong but it is still very hard for us to do. Why is that? Why do we know the right thing to do and keep doing the opposite? I know some people will say "I'm a good person" and "I do right" but if you really look at yourself each and every day, there will be an unjust thought, a wrong reaction, a judgement and critizism, a wrong motive and we will realize that as much as we want to do what is "right" we still do what is "wrong." We blame our actions on outside influences such as another mean person, fatigue, bad cards, etc. but the reality is that we know what is right and still do not do it.
The second point that Lewis makes is that we don't keep this standard. As much as we want to and as much as we think everyone else ought to, we have the darndest time keeping it ourselves. We break the "rules" and then make excuses for it. We know we have to make excuses because we know what we did was wrong but it is still very hard for us to do. Why is that? Why do we know the right thing to do and keep doing the opposite? I know some people will say "I'm a good person" and "I do right" but if you really look at yourself each and every day, there will be an unjust thought, a wrong reaction, a judgement and critizism, a wrong motive and we will realize that as much as we want to do what is "right" we still do what is "wrong." We blame our actions on outside influences such as another mean person, fatigue, bad cards, etc. but the reality is that we know what is right and still do not do it.
Introduction
I have just recently read this book through and was so intrigued by it that I want to read it again and put down my thoughts as I go. I'm not the best at interpretation, I do concrete very well... and so introspection is something I must practice. Here goes nothing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)