(In response to Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis)
I absolutely loved this book when I first read it last summer. I had been talking to my father about how I had felt concerning the state of the church today. I believe that we fight over things that are so minor. I believe that we have split ourselves and have in a sense become enemies of each other. We all believe in the same Heavenly Father, and to me it is not necessarily important whether you believe women should be in office, or whether you believe children should or should not be baptized. I believe that as a church we should be more ecumenical. I believe in A holy CATHOLIC church. One church... we need to unite together. Outsiders see the fighting within and between our churches and they are pushed away.
Over the coarse of this semester we have talked about a lot of controversial topics. We have discussed them from a Christian standpoint, we have all voiced different and separate views. And yet, together, we are still one class. I believe that this is the way the church should be.
I am happy that we ended the class in reading Mere Christianity. I feel that everyone enjoyed the entire book. I feel like this book is a welcomed slap in the face awakening us to the hypocrisies in the church and urging us to act.
"Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. " Lewis goes on to talk about how we have begun to expect more out of other people than we expect from ourselves. This is a cause of fighting between Christians and non-Christians alike.
I love how Lewis deals with Moral law and how explains them. He makes it clear that moral law is not something that was refined by a "herd instinct" but he also makes it clear that it is something we all have. That it was something developed for a reason. And that God had a hand in it.
"All I have got to is a Something which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong. I think we have to assume it is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know--because after all the only other thing we know is matter and you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions."
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Luke
I can't remember the last name of our guest speaker. I believed that he conveyed a lot of life lessons to us. I truly believe that our knowledge and education is not based on the grades we receive. I believe that it is about the journey. I believe that education is there to shape and mold us into the people we should be. Yes it is important to take school work seriously, and yes we do need good grades, but when our goal is to achieve good grades that is all we have done. We have not learned anything. We have only the grades we received.
I also agreed with some of the highlights of his DCM. I also enjoyed "Learning in Wartime" and "Our English Syllabus" I thought it was a good idea to bring someone in who had gone through this class. It was nice to see where he is at in his life now, and how reading C.S. Lewis had affected his life. Hopefully we can all take something special out of our own personal experiences.
I also agreed with some of the highlights of his DCM. I also enjoyed "Learning in Wartime" and "Our English Syllabus" I thought it was a good idea to bring someone in who had gone through this class. It was nice to see where he is at in his life now, and how reading C.S. Lewis had affected his life. Hopefully we can all take something special out of our own personal experiences.
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.
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 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.
"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."
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
