Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Play

I enjoyed the short piece that was read before class. I felt it encapsulated how we all should play. We should all work hard and play the game no matter what our situations are. We should all apply this concept not only to sports, but to school, and most importantly to life. It was fun to play a little soccer with the class. I can't say that soccer is my sport, or that I'm any good at it. But it was fun being out of my element. It was fun seeing others within their element. It was an enjoyable time.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Temporum

(In response to "Temporum" by C.S. Lewis)

I did enjoy this piece. I felt that it may have been a little over my head. I'm still unsure if it was over my head because I didn't understand at what he was trying to say, or if I understood and believed in what he had to say so much so that I didn't think it worth writing about. I think it becomes clearer in this piece that it may have been my latter thought. Lewis points out two types of people in his piece, those who are of the old storied tradition yet are within the new, and those who are embracing the new with complete disregard for the old. If you are within the first group of people that Lewis talks about it is hard to understand why people think it unimportant to disregard history and things that happened in the past.

"When Watt makes his engine, when Darwin starts monkeying with the ancestry of Man, and Freud with his soul, and the economists with all that is his, then indeed the lion will have got out of its cage." This is a beautifully worded piece of mastery.

"Our rulers have become like schoolmasters and are always demanding 'keenness'. And you notice that I am guilty of a slight archaism in calling them 'rulers'. 'Leaders' is the modem word. I have suggested elsewhere that this is a deeply significant change of vocabulary. Our demand upon them has changed no less than theirs on us. For of a ruler one asks justice, incorruption, diligence, perhaps clemency; of a leader, dash, initiative, and (I suppose) what people call 'magnetism' or 'personality'." I found this part very interesting because I consider myself to be a leader. Lewis appears to be comparing leaders to Rulers. He says that this is a clever word change to change the perception of rulers. He says that they do the same things. I can agree with him in the fact that a ruler and a leader seeks the same goals. I guess that I can somewhat agree with the claims Lewis makes. I do feel that ruler has a negative connotation because of rulers that we have had in the past (e.g. Hitler). But this statement holds a lot of weight for me in terms of self assessment.

At the end of Lewis's piece he talks of a dinosaur coming into your building. He makes the point that all of us would run for the safety of our lives, as to not be eaten. However, wouldn't some of you look back out of curiosity? The dinosaur becomes history in this analogy. There are those who look back at the dinosaur to see how it moves, how it acts, to experience it. And there are those who run backs turned afraid of what they might see. I don't think Lewis's is necessarily pointing out that one is wrong and the other is right. I think he is just advocating on the behalf of those who look back, stating that they to have a valid reason for looking back. They have curiosity. It's not that they dislike the future, its that they are still intrigued by the past.

Abolition of Man (chapter 3)

(In response to the Abolition of Man chapter 3 by C.S. Lewis)

"The last men, far from being the heirs of power, will be of all men most subject to the dead hand of the great planners and conditioners and will themselves exercise least power upon the future." Lewis talks about the exertion of power of man over nature. He describes that man's power is continually diminishing because it can only influence what is left or what has already been influenced by some other man. Adam had the greatest influence among nature because everything he did was in a sense new or different. Now, because there are so many people for this power to be shared with, and because there is less to be discovered, man's power is less.

I can understand what Lewis is talking about within a educational and scientific realm. However, it because less clear when you reflect his views upon a Christian standpoint of redemption, reconciliation, and salvation. In this sense, I believe now more than ever it is imperative that we include all of the men, the task is too great for one single man. We must all take part in this and we all have a huge influence over what we do and the impact we have. The "Butterfly Affect" describes this a little bit.

I enjoyed this series of readings on the "Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis. It was interesting to see him discuss a topic of relevance from a non-Christian standpoint but still argue morally and ethically. This was a truly powerful and influential essay in terms of how to view things both logically and emotionally. In part, I believe this could be called a "non-Christian 'Meditations in a Tool Shed" because I believe they address some of the same issues.

The Way

(In response to chapter 2 of Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis)

"If we lump together, as I have done, the traditional moralities of East and West, the Christian, the Pagan, and the Jew, shall we not find many contradictions and some absurdities? I admit all this. Some criticism, some removal of contradictions, even some real development, is required. But there are two very different kinds of criticism." I believe the two different kinds of criticism are those that construct and those that are just derogatory. Because this is an essay written to address problems of science and the pushing forth of technology it is important to know who Lewis's audience is when he is writing these things. Lewis is not concerned with proving the existence of God here. He is, however, concerned with providing a place for religion within the educational and scientific worlds. That we shouldn't criticize others simply because we think it is ridiculous, rather, we should only criticize to build others up.

Lewis also talked about moral advances which are harder to come by and more powerful, and how they differ from mere moral innovations. He explained that a moral innovation is that which is not hard to accept because it flows out of something from the past. A moral advance on the other hand, is something that does not flow out of a past belief. This is the very reason that a moral advance must be justified, it is harder to justify a moral advance than it is to justify an innovation. This is pertinent to his audience.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Men Without Chests

(In response to C.S. Lewis's "Abolition of Man" chapter 1 Men Without Chests)

In this piece Lewis analysis how people should deal with emotions or logic. He does this by analyzing a text book. He states that the authors of the textbook choose to analyze the emotion of the piece rather than the literary techniques. Lewis acknowledges that it is easier to disprove an argument based on emotional analysis than it is to disprove an argument based on literary techniques.

I feel that this piece may have been directed to what I had said in class on Monday, in terms of something saying a whole lot when in reality it didn't say anything at all. Lewis quotes this belief in his paper, "Their words are that we 'appear to be saying something very important' when in reality we are 'only saying something about our own feelings'" This can be said about a lot of literature; however, we must be careful to fully use our logic before we make an emotional decision.

This goes back to our debate last week... "Someone can see where reason would be used over emotions in making a decision or understanding something, But one cannot see where emotional factors would be considered over logical ones." And I believe the point Lewis is making in this piece is that yes... logic and reason and literary techniques in analyzing literature are necessary and in some cases the only way to discern what is good. However, we cannot simply rule out the possibility that emotions have no weight in our decisions or judgment calls.

Some interesting quotes:
"The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts."

"The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it."

"In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

Monday, April 7, 2008

Thrice

(In response to listening to the song "Abolition of Man" by Thrice)

I liked the lyrics and thought they were intellectually stimulating. The more I listen to the song the more I like it. It gives me an upbeat sensation and a desire to get up and do something. I like the pace of the song, however I feel that the music is sometimes to fast for the lyrics. The words do not move as fast as the music and it makes it a little harder to listen to the lyrics.

I enjoyed this song.

Friday, April 4, 2008

Priestesses in the Church?

(In response to "Priestesses in the Church?" by C.S. Lewis")

For some reason this topic always seems to be a touchy subject with everyone dancing around what they really want to say. In the end nothing really gets said. We talked about the difference between priests and pastors within the church and that because we don't believe that pastors are God's inspired representatives/ direct image bearers that the argument looses its hold. We stated that in the Christian Reformed Church Lewis's argument loses it's weight and falls short. Lewis never makes claim that women are not capable of becoming priestesses. He does say that because priests are image bearers of God that men must fulfill this role. "But it is an old saying in the army that you salute the uniform not the wearer. Only one wearing the masculine uniform can represent the Lord to the Church: for we are all, corporately and individually, feminine to Him."

In class we discussed why we believe women should be able to preach because we are all made in God's image and that women are not less gifted then men, and should be able to express their spiritual gift accordingly. Lewis doesn't dispute this. "No one among those who dislike the proposal is maintaining that women are less capable than men of piety, zeal, learning and whatever else seems necessary for the pastoral office." He says that women can be prophets. I think when we argued this in class we argued whether women could be preachers based on their abilities. Preachers... Everyone can be a preacher, much like Lewis says everyone can be a prophet or prophetess. The question Lewis posed was do you think women should be Reverends. Should women be at the head of the church? Should women be the leader and shepherd of a flock? I'm not sure if we answered this in class.

Lewis poses the question this way: "To us a priest is primarily a representative, a double representative, who represents us to God and God to us... We have no objection to a woman doing the first: the whole difficulty is about the second."

Lewis then goes on to talk about being sexually neuter. "But in our Christian life we must return to reality. There we are not homogeneous units, but different and complementary organs of a mystical body." This is how Lewis describes the difference between men and women. And some may say that it is a cop out. Maybe women should be leaders of the church. But, maybe there are some things we simply cannot explain. Maybe women should not be leaders of the church.

Personally, on the surface I cannot think of any reasons of why a women should not be a leader of the church. However, strong conditioning against it leads me into some sort of apprehension. I'm not sure whether I would want to answer definitively either way. The truth is simply to wonderful for me to know.

The Necessity of Chivalry

(In response to "The Necessity of Chivalry by C.S. Lewis)

In order to discuss the necessity of chivalry it is important to know how we are using the term in this discussion. C.S. Lewis admits that "the word chivalry has meant at different times a good many different things--from heavy cavalry to giving a woman a seat in a train." This means that chivalry is a broad term. Lewis describes a chivalrous man as one who "is a man of blood and iron" yet "almost maidenlike... a gentle, modest, unobtrusive man." I see his point, that a person who is a fighting man can still be humble and meek and show respect to a lady. I do not however, see a contradiction to chivalry in the sense that a Man is not be a fighting man. I find it perfectly plausible for a man to be considered chivalrous if he is not a knight who is involved in war.

Lewis states, "Let us be quite clear that the ideal is a paradox. Most of us, having grown up among the ruins of the chivalrous tradition, were taught in our youth that a bully is always a coward. Our first week at school refuted this lie, along with its corollary that a truly brave man is always gentle." I think what Lewis is saying is that we see that someone who is chivalrous cannot exist, because of who he is and who people say he is he cannot be kind. However, Lewis says that regardless of what other people tell us, personal experience has lied to us, and it is lying to us again. That what seems impossible is actually possible.

"The man who combines both characters--the knight--is a work not of nature but of art". This is a beautiful description of chivalry. I don't think that chivalry is dead. But I do believe that it has taken a back seat to new age independence. People feel that accepting help is a sign of weakness. Others feel that giving help is not their place. As a result chivalry and manners have given way to a new wave of independence among people. Something that cannot be good.

I believe people are way to defensive about image, women are too concerned with looking weak in comparison to a man, and men are too concerned with looking emotional. In the end, we should just be ourselves and let chivalry shine.

As the Ruin Falls

(In response to "As the Ruin Falls" by C.S. Lewis)

Lewis writes a poem while his wife is dying of cancer.

"I never had a selfless thought since I was born/ I am mercenary and self-seeking through and through:" Even though we would all like to believe that we are better than this, that we are in some way humble and thoughtful of others, we are not. Because of sin our relationships with each other are tainted. We cannot be in a relationship without thinking of ourselves. This is a direct result of the fall.

"I talk of love--a scholar's parrot may talk Greek" I think this is a powerful statement. We all talk of love and a relationship as we understand it. However, we don't have a full understanding of a perfect and loving relationship. Only God has a perfect relationship with himself in his Triune self. God had a perfect relationship to man before the fall; however, the fall made it impossible for this to continue. Because we only know what a flawed sense of love is, how great will it be when we are redeemed through Christ and are reconciled to a perfect relationship with God.

It is important to remain in our faith through terrible hardships. God will use our experiences to build a deeper understanding and relationship with him.

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Meditation in a Toolshed

(In response to Meditation in a Toolshed by C.S. Lewis)

This paper got me thinking a little bit about perspective. I think it was a piece to move us to think more clearly about the way we think about things. I don't believe he is arguing for us to think within the light, or to think outside the light. I think he just wants us to recognize that there are different ways to see a situation and that we should try and consider these ways when we make inferences about them.

"You can step outside one experience only by stepping inside another." I think seeing something in its true light requires us to not only see it from inside (or through the light) but from the outside (looking at the light).

As was said in class. I don't believe that there is a time where you could not think rationally about a subject at hand, however, if you only look at something rationally you miss an emotional or spiritual part that is indescribable about said thing. Such as God, he is not necessarily rational, or logically proved, yet we believe in him. If we were to only look at him rationally or logically we would miss the very relationship that brings us to love Christ and allow us eternal life through him.