|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is it human to be inhumane?
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
Evensong - I must admit that I find CS Lewis to be very obscure - he seems to live in a magical world where the story of Eden is quite literal.
I thought it had been shown by simple experiment that higher primates were conscious of 'self'. (The mirror and spot on forehead trick).
The young are born selfish as a survival instinct and only learn later that there are others hurting.
However, I do understand that he is talking about how this world is set up.
I know that the ability to harm someone has to be part of the package, in this life, with the freedom to choose between boiled and fried egg.
I suppose, in a sense, I have the same failing as Lewis by taking the 'new heaven and new earth' literally.
But if we were born into a situation where it was natural to be unable to harm someone, we would merely be conscious that a good God was in control, accept it and get on with being creative and happy. Or would some be unhappy?
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Evensong - I must admit that I find CS Lewis to be very obscure - he seems to live in a magical world where the story of Eden is quite literal.
No he doesn't. He thinks it a myth with important moral significance. At most, he is open to the idea that some of its details may literally be true, but I'm not aware of any part of his writings where he seems to treat that as an important question.
I think the idea that he thinks that the power to dominate is vital to being human is equally a misreading. The conclusion to "The Problem of Pain" is that we become more truly ourselves when we cease being selfish and become self-giving.
The 'free will defence' to suffering is certainly part of Lewis's thinking, but not the whole of it. I think his view is that currently, for creatures like us, perfect freedom and perfect happiness can't co-exist, but in heaven they will. How that works out is a mystery - none of us have got there yet - but as an expression of the Christian hope it seems to be to be appropriate and orthodox.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
Eliab quote:
perfect freedom and perfect happiness can't co-exist
- but many have a very limited freedom in this life and are able to be happy. I am not sure about 'perfect happiness'. What is it? I know there is another thread and I'd better read it. (Exits singing 'the bear necessities..... ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Eliab quote:
perfect freedom and perfect happiness can't co-exist
- but many have a very limited freedom in this life and are able to be happy. I am not sure about 'perfect happiness'.
I disagree with "perfect freedom and perfect happiness cannot co-exist."
As children we seem to need some structure - some lack of freedom. You must eat your veggies, you must go school, you must go to bed on time - to be happy, because structure is also security. As adults we can choose to avoid veggies, stay home from school or work, stay up all night, but we usually choose not to. We internalize structure because we think it gives us advantages a randomized life doesn't.
If we choose structure, are we acting with freedom or are we surrendering freedom? I say we are choosing, meal by meal whether to eat veggies, so the structure is itself expressing freedom, we are free to change the structure at any time.
And, as Shadeson points out, happiness is not necessarily related to freedom anyway.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If we choose structure, are we acting with freedom or are we surrendering freedom? I say we are choosing, meal by meal whether to eat veggies, so the structure is itself expressing freedom, we are free to change the structure at any time.
And, as Shadeson points out, happiness is not necessarily related to freedom anyway.
Anecdotally, I understand that psycho-therapists deal with a lot of people who need help to change their structures so as to give themselves permission to be happy...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
