18 ms·

His work is often quietly cited by a handful of moral philosophers. In particular, The Discarded Image, anytime someone is writing about medieval philosophy. A

His work is often quietly cited by a handful of moral philosophers. In particular, The Discarded Image, anytime someone is writing about medieval philosophy. Anyway, being a philosopher simply isn't what the guy did and academics are fairly dismissive without consideration anytime religion (and specifically Christian apologetics) gets in the mix.

n4r9 3y ago
I'd interested to take a look if you have any further info about which moral philosophers and which works cite The Discarded Image? I admit I haven't read that one myself; my own take on him as a philosopher stems from reading Mere Christianity and summaries of Surprised by Joy, and not being aware of any references to his work by more recent philosophers that I've been interested in such as Chomsky, Zizek, or Dennett. I got a strong feeling that Lewis' arguments and exposition were guided by something other than logic, though they pretended to be following it. The trilemma is an example of this.
- undershirt 3y ago
  > I got a strong feeling that Lewis' arguments and exposition were guided by something other than logic, though they pretended to be following it. The trilemma is an example of this. One way to discover that we necessarily have worldviews outside of logic is to look at a statement like this, and realize it appeals to something outside of logic (feelings) to critique how someone else is only pretending to follow it.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    I am not saying that I or anyone am perfectly logical or uninfluenced by feeling. Hume was exactly correct when he said the reason is the slave of the passions. But - with his trilemma, Lewis claims "here is a logical argument for believing in the Christian god", and then presents a weak and illogical argument. It's difficult to know what to make of this except that Lewis was somehow blinded to the logical flaws.
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      What do you think are the logical flaws in the trilemma argument?
      - n4r9 3y ago
        It's highly debatable whether Jesus believed himself to be divine. There are more than three options, for example Jesus may have simply made a mistake in his own reasoning. It is not as inconceivable as Lewis makes out that Jesus was a lunatic or a liar.
      - cool_dude85 3y ago
        It's a false trilemma, as there are othe possibilities: he did not actually exist historically, or he was a wise, nice guy and others made up all the God stuff over the years, or he was a nice guy trying to help people and he thought tactically the mystical claims would allow him to help more people. One can probably imagine a bunch more or less realistic possibilities given a little while to think about it.
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        You must remember that the trilemma exists in a context. Lewis set it up as a reply to people who "say that they're ready to accept Jesus as a good human teacher, but not ready to accept him as God". That is, they already accepted that he existed, and that the set of teachings recorded was more or less accurate. That rules out "did not actually exist historically" and "others made up all the God stuff over the years". (I mean, those exists as possibilities in an absolute sense, but not as possibilities that he had to answer, because the people he was answering didn't hold those as options.) And to me, "a nice guy trying to help people and he thought tactically the mystical claims would allow him to help more people" sounds a lot like "liar". Liar with good intentions, but still liar.
        cool_dude85 3y ago
        Well, if you have to presuppose that the gospels are true then you are probably arguing with a tiny slice of people: those who believe the gospels are more or less accurate down to the specific quotes of Jesus but do not believe he was the son of God. I would say that "accept Jesus as a good human teacher" is a far broader category than this and nothing about it implies a particularly strict belief in the truth of the gospels. I'd also say that, even accepting the gospels, we have to really take wide views of "liar, lunatic, or Lord" to make it work. Lewis himself further described the "liar" as akin to the "Devil of Hell" - I wouldn't characterize the liar I described as such. And he said the lunatic was akin to "the man who says he is a poached egg", but people are great at compartmentalization and can hold some very silly specific beliefs while still being otherwise rational, sane people. Even "Lord" admits plenty of things we wouldn't recognize as Christianity, e.g. rejecting the trinity or plenty of other heresies.
- busterarm 3y ago
  Mary Midgley
  - johngossman 3y ago
    Thank you! I love Mary Midgley and now that you mention it, it makes sense. Of course, there's the Oxford connection, and Midgley was critical of reductionist materialism, though she was no Christian apologist. There are loops within loops here, such as the Anscombe connection to both of them. Your comment led me to this: https://www.lewisiana.nl/marymidgley/ https://www.lewisiana.nl/marymidgley/
  - n4r9 3y ago
    Thank you. The name vaguely rings a bell but certainly not someone I know much about. The natural follow-up question -although probably hard to answer - is whether the existing philosophy faculty includes others like Midgley who have a positive view of Lewis, to the extent that it would influence this decision. I would have expected most of the philosophers there to be in the analytic tradition, but happy to be shown wrong.
- goatlover 3y ago
  My feeling is that Chomsky, Zizek and Dennett aren't free of being guided by something other than logic for some of their arguments as well. For example, Dennett's arguments against the hard problem of consciousness come across as dogmatic materialism.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    Could you expand on that, and perhaps provide an example? I've heard similar claims, and people using the phrase "consciousness explained away". Certainly Dennett is an unashamed materialist. The word "dogmatic" however suggests he holds that position as a matter of faith, which I think is a misrepresentation.
wizzwizz4 3y ago
> academics are fairly dismissive without consideration anytime religion (and specifically Christian apologetics) gets in the mix. In fairness, it's a good heuristic. Most Christian apologetics are just less poetic subsets of the Book of Job, but their authors act like they have some new and exciting insight that will prove Christianity 100% for sure this time. It's a total waste of time to engage. C.S. Lewis's works are the exception, not the rule, since there's actually something there to engage with. Plus, he's just a good author.
- busterarm 3y ago
  Maybe. I don't disagree with you at all really, but I don't think it's "Christian apologetics" who get derided in academic spheres. Being openly religious (specifically Western religions, other world religions get virtually no pushback) at all is considered gauche. People I've known to be religious in these spheres are typically very quiet about it. I'm not religious, but lean more towards agnosticism than atheism and I don't feel comfortable sharing that in these circles. If there's any place you should be comfortable saying "I don't know" it SHOULD be this one. It's also really weird in fields like archaeology/anthropology in North American institutions where western religious texts are given no consideration (not that they should) whereas Native American creation myths are given a kind of deference. White guilt is a powerful thing.

n4r9 3y ago

I'd interested to take a look if you have any further info about which moral philosophers and which works cite The Discarded Image? I admit I haven't read that one myself; my own take on him as a philosopher stems from reading Mere Christianity and summaries of Surprised by Joy, and not being aware of any references to his work by more recent philosophers that I've been interested in such as Chomsky, Zizek, or Dennett. I got a strong feeling that Lewis' arguments and exposition were guided by something other than logic, though they pretended to be following it. The trilemma is an example of this.

undershirt 3y ago
> I got a strong feeling that Lewis' arguments and exposition were guided by something other than logic, though they pretended to be following it. The trilemma is an example of this. One way to discover that we necessarily have worldviews outside of logic is to look at a statement like this, and realize it appeals to something outside of logic (feelings) to critique how someone else is only pretending to follow it.
- n4r9 3y ago
  I am not saying that I or anyone am perfectly logical or uninfluenced by feeling. Hume was exactly correct when he said the reason is the slave of the passions. But - with his trilemma, Lewis claims "here is a logical argument for believing in the Christian god", and then presents a weak and illogical argument. It's difficult to know what to make of this except that Lewis was somehow blinded to the logical flaws.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    What do you think are the logical flaws in the trilemma argument?
    - n4r9 3y ago
      It's highly debatable whether Jesus believed himself to be divine. There are more than three options, for example Jesus may have simply made a mistake in his own reasoning. It is not as inconceivable as Lewis makes out that Jesus was a lunatic or a liar.
    - cool_dude85 3y ago
      It's a false trilemma, as there are othe possibilities: he did not actually exist historically, or he was a wise, nice guy and others made up all the God stuff over the years, or he was a nice guy trying to help people and he thought tactically the mystical claims would allow him to help more people. One can probably imagine a bunch more or less realistic possibilities given a little while to think about it.
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        You must remember that the trilemma exists in a context. Lewis set it up as a reply to people who "say that they're ready to accept Jesus as a good human teacher, but not ready to accept him as God". That is, they already accepted that he existed, and that the set of teachings recorded was more or less accurate. That rules out "did not actually exist historically" and "others made up all the God stuff over the years". (I mean, those exists as possibilities in an absolute sense, but not as possibilities that he had to answer, because the people he was answering didn't hold those as options.) And to me, "a nice guy trying to help people and he thought tactically the mystical claims would allow him to help more people" sounds a lot like "liar". Liar with good intentions, but still liar.
        cool_dude85 3y ago
        Well, if you have to presuppose that the gospels are true then you are probably arguing with a tiny slice of people: those who believe the gospels are more or less accurate down to the specific quotes of Jesus but do not believe he was the son of God. I would say that "accept Jesus as a good human teacher" is a far broader category than this and nothing about it implies a particularly strict belief in the truth of the gospels. I'd also say that, even accepting the gospels, we have to really take wide views of "liar, lunatic, or Lord" to make it work. Lewis himself further described the "liar" as akin to the "Devil of Hell" - I wouldn't characterize the liar I described as such. And he said the lunatic was akin to "the man who says he is a poached egg", but people are great at compartmentalization and can hold some very silly specific beliefs while still being otherwise rational, sane people. Even "Lord" admits plenty of things we wouldn't recognize as Christianity, e.g. rejecting the trinity or plenty of other heresies.
busterarm 3y ago
Mary Midgley
- johngossman 3y ago
  Thank you! I love Mary Midgley and now that you mention it, it makes sense. Of course, there's the Oxford connection, and Midgley was critical of reductionist materialism, though she was no Christian apologist. There are loops within loops here, such as the Anscombe connection to both of them. Your comment led me to this: https://www.lewisiana.nl/marymidgley/ https://www.lewisiana.nl/marymidgley/
- n4r9 3y ago
  Thank you. The name vaguely rings a bell but certainly not someone I know much about. The natural follow-up question -although probably hard to answer - is whether the existing philosophy faculty includes others like Midgley who have a positive view of Lewis, to the extent that it would influence this decision. I would have expected most of the philosophers there to be in the analytic tradition, but happy to be shown wrong.
goatlover 3y ago
My feeling is that Chomsky, Zizek and Dennett aren't free of being guided by something other than logic for some of their arguments as well. For example, Dennett's arguments against the hard problem of consciousness come across as dogmatic materialism.
- n4r9 3y ago
  Could you expand on that, and perhaps provide an example? I've heard similar claims, and people using the phrase "consciousness explained away". Certainly Dennett is an unashamed materialist. The word "dogmatic" however suggests he holds that position as a matter of faith, which I think is a misrepresentation.

wizzwizz4 3y ago

> academics are fairly dismissive without consideration anytime religion (and specifically Christian apologetics) gets in the mix. In fairness, it's a good heuristic. Most Christian apologetics are just less poetic subsets of the Book of Job, but their authors act like they have some new and exciting insight that will prove Christianity 100% for sure this time. It's a total waste of time to engage. C.S. Lewis's works are the exception, not the rule, since there's actually something there to engage with. Plus, he's just a good author.

busterarm 3y ago
Maybe. I don't disagree with you at all really, but I don't think it's "Christian apologetics" who get derided in academic spheres. Being openly religious (specifically Western religions, other world religions get virtually no pushback) at all is considered gauche. People I've known to be religious in these spheres are typically very quiet about it. I'm not religious, but lean more towards agnosticism than atheism and I don't feel comfortable sharing that in these circles. If there's any place you should be comfortable saying "I don't know" it SHOULD be this one. It's also really weird in fields like archaeology/anthropology in North American institutions where western religious texts are given no consideration (not that they should) whereas Native American creation myths are given a kind of deference. White guilt is a powerful thing.