When I was little…like oh say 15 years ago, my mother explained to me as I was about to throw a tantrum in Toys R Us, “You don’t need it. You want it.” That got me thinking. What is a need? What is a want, for that matter? And why is it that wanting to have that new pink and sparkly toy doesn’t get me anywhere when needing nap time lets me go right to bed?
I think the same is true of desiring and longing. Longing is the need of the emotional world. While I may desire (want) a slice of pizza, but thirty to forty years from now the desire I feel for the slice now will no longer exist. Longing is something that stands the test of time. It's not some infatuation that lasts a few days and then never returns. It takes years to build.
Cornelius Plantinga calls us to have this longing for God in the book Engaging God’s World. He claims that from this longing comes hope. I think that this is true…but I do not believe that hope is a product of longing alone. I think that our hope can also be inspired by the hope we see in others.
They say the road to faith is a journey. I believe that while longing for the end of that journey is important, I feel that it is just as important to enjoy the path itself. Not for the cheep roadside theme-parks, but for the people in the car with you. I think that building the longing that fuels the car is something that must be done with others, but the hope is something that fuels you and keeps you in the car.
While longing gets you where you need to go, I feel that without hope, without other people around you to give and receive hope, longing then becomes a curse. God gives us hope…which we could say stems from our longing for Him, as a tool to commune with others and build that hope. And while Plantinga doesn’t say this, I feel that I must mention that hope is not something that should not be horded for self-served longing, but rather, shared to support the burden of maintaining that longing with others.
So in closing, I hope this weekend finds everyone reaching out to people on their floors or in their apartment to invite their fellow students to engage in building hope. It can be as simple as inviting someone to see a movie or play a card game. Inclusion builds hope, and I feel that while building longing is personal, building hope needs to be public.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
How to defeat selfishness....
Originally, I had a witty first two paragraph about the movie Bride Wars which was recently released, but I decided to cut that bit out and get to my point.
Marriage has become a fad. Socially, marriage is now portrayed on the big screen as made up of a bunch of expensive stuff and, oh by the way, a life commitment. But the actual couple getting married seems almost a side note to the DJ, wedding photos, reception space, wedding dress designer, and how much money was spent on the wedding invitations. It’s almost as if the actual ceremony is now thrown in just the please the parents. An even the life commitment is now questionably fake as well. When girls are planning their weddings to their second and third husbands, something is wrong.
In C.S. Lewis’s essay We have no right to Happiness, he states, “A society in which conjugal infidelity is tolerated must always be in the long run a society adverse to women.” In our class discussion, someone agreed to that statement, saying, “Just look at the number of single mother.”. Society embraces single parents. Perhaps not whole-heartedly, but you never see the worn out single mother coming home to her crying baby after working triple shift at Cosco. No! No one wants reality on primetime. You always see the up beat, cool single mom miraculously balancing kids, work, and putting herself through school. A woman no longer needs a man to raise her own kids, and girls who get that into their heads are in trouble.
I think what we should worry more about than whether we have the right to be happy or not is how society has lost a sense of shame. We’re almost to the point where we might as well be pre-forbidden fruit and have no concept of the word at all. While I could go on saying how Lewis was right about the man’s infidelity, I must say that men (and women) have been committing adultery for centuries and most likely will continue to. The only way that the amount will go down is if we bring shame back into the equation. Shame is the only means we have to control our own selfish desires, and without it, we are free to do as we please with no consequences.
Marriage has become a fad. Socially, marriage is now portrayed on the big screen as made up of a bunch of expensive stuff and, oh by the way, a life commitment. But the actual couple getting married seems almost a side note to the DJ, wedding photos, reception space, wedding dress designer, and how much money was spent on the wedding invitations. It’s almost as if the actual ceremony is now thrown in just the please the parents. An even the life commitment is now questionably fake as well. When girls are planning their weddings to their second and third husbands, something is wrong.
In C.S. Lewis’s essay We have no right to Happiness, he states, “A society in which conjugal infidelity is tolerated must always be in the long run a society adverse to women.” In our class discussion, someone agreed to that statement, saying, “Just look at the number of single mother.”. Society embraces single parents. Perhaps not whole-heartedly, but you never see the worn out single mother coming home to her crying baby after working triple shift at Cosco. No! No one wants reality on primetime. You always see the up beat, cool single mom miraculously balancing kids, work, and putting herself through school. A woman no longer needs a man to raise her own kids, and girls who get that into their heads are in trouble.
I think what we should worry more about than whether we have the right to be happy or not is how society has lost a sense of shame. We’re almost to the point where we might as well be pre-forbidden fruit and have no concept of the word at all. While I could go on saying how Lewis was right about the man’s infidelity, I must say that men (and women) have been committing adultery for centuries and most likely will continue to. The only way that the amount will go down is if we bring shame back into the equation. Shame is the only means we have to control our own selfish desires, and without it, we are free to do as we please with no consequences.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
I know you are but what am I?
“It is the cause, my soul. It is the cause.” ~Hamlet
Bulverism, as C.S. Lewis calls it in his same titled essay, is the illogical, childish counter argument that sometimes comes when people attempt to defeat an argument they haven't thought through. For the questions that have no immediate answers, Bulverism, as Lewis explains, seems to have become the laymen’s means of defeating argument without logic. But is resorting to attacks on character an actual argument defeater? The answer is no.
A classic Bulverist attempt to skirt an argument is an attack on the person arguing. We see is time and again in the news and especially during presidential debates. It the childish answer of, “you shouldn’t trust him because he’s a…” If the answer to what truth is was simply truth, philosophers would have gone home and closed up shop years ago. It would seem that the mainstream’s lack of effort within the field of argument has left a bad taste in Lewis’s mouth.
Logical argument is quantifiable. The facts are true and false. The conclusions valid or invalid. If the logic is not sound then you go back and figure out what is. “I know you are but what am I?” responses do nothing but hinder the pursuit of truth. In fact, these responses do nothing but distract from the actual issue at hand, which is that the person speaking has no answer as to why the argument he is facing is false, and thus is truly a fool.
So if Bulverism is only a means to show your “lack of brightness”, why is it so appealing? It is quick. In one statement, another person’s character has been drug through the mental mud of his audience. It’s the emotional tug of hearing someone is a “republican” or a “foreigner” that creates in the minds of those around them the hatred and distrust that “wins” the debate. That is where Bulverism is truly horrible. The untried audience becomes quick to judge the person, forgetting the argument for their own emotional well-being.
But searching for the motivation of the opponent usually derives this attack on character. The easiest way to combat Bulverism is to examine the motives of the Bulverist, mainly his foolishness, in order to recognize the deceit that is inherit in such general and faulty statements which come from the fear of not having the answer.
Another way to combat the Bulverist is to ignore them. We know they are spouting hot air because they have no argument for their cause, so find someone with an actual argument. C.S Lewis claims that the opponent of the Bulverist is someone whose argument is daunting enough to said Bulverist that all they can do is assault the character of that person. The easiest way to assess for yourself what is truth is to go out and search for it.
In today’s modern society, information free-flows much faster than ever before. Surly with all the advantages we have, Bulverism should not be an option when confronting an argument. And Bulverism should certainly not be treated as an acceptable answer to any argument we have. This mental laziness is something to fear and despise above any type of emotional pay off Bulverism provides.
Bulverism, as C.S. Lewis calls it in his same titled essay, is the illogical, childish counter argument that sometimes comes when people attempt to defeat an argument they haven't thought through. For the questions that have no immediate answers, Bulverism, as Lewis explains, seems to have become the laymen’s means of defeating argument without logic. But is resorting to attacks on character an actual argument defeater? The answer is no.
A classic Bulverist attempt to skirt an argument is an attack on the person arguing. We see is time and again in the news and especially during presidential debates. It the childish answer of, “you shouldn’t trust him because he’s a…” If the answer to what truth is was simply truth, philosophers would have gone home and closed up shop years ago. It would seem that the mainstream’s lack of effort within the field of argument has left a bad taste in Lewis’s mouth.
Logical argument is quantifiable. The facts are true and false. The conclusions valid or invalid. If the logic is not sound then you go back and figure out what is. “I know you are but what am I?” responses do nothing but hinder the pursuit of truth. In fact, these responses do nothing but distract from the actual issue at hand, which is that the person speaking has no answer as to why the argument he is facing is false, and thus is truly a fool.
So if Bulverism is only a means to show your “lack of brightness”, why is it so appealing? It is quick. In one statement, another person’s character has been drug through the mental mud of his audience. It’s the emotional tug of hearing someone is a “republican” or a “foreigner” that creates in the minds of those around them the hatred and distrust that “wins” the debate. That is where Bulverism is truly horrible. The untried audience becomes quick to judge the person, forgetting the argument for their own emotional well-being.
But searching for the motivation of the opponent usually derives this attack on character. The easiest way to combat Bulverism is to examine the motives of the Bulverist, mainly his foolishness, in order to recognize the deceit that is inherit in such general and faulty statements which come from the fear of not having the answer.
Another way to combat the Bulverist is to ignore them. We know they are spouting hot air because they have no argument for their cause, so find someone with an actual argument. C.S Lewis claims that the opponent of the Bulverist is someone whose argument is daunting enough to said Bulverist that all they can do is assault the character of that person. The easiest way to assess for yourself what is truth is to go out and search for it.
In today’s modern society, information free-flows much faster than ever before. Surly with all the advantages we have, Bulverism should not be an option when confronting an argument. And Bulverism should certainly not be treated as an acceptable answer to any argument we have. This mental laziness is something to fear and despise above any type of emotional pay off Bulverism provides.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
The Meditation of C.S. Lewis...in tights?
Is there really such a thing as a rebel without a cause? In Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing, the central action (or reason everything goes “wrong”) is set about by a character, who doesn’t seem to have any reason to create chaos. Looking at him, as C.S. Lewis calls an outside perspective in his essay, Meditation in a Tool Shed, does not show any reason for his action, and thus makes him seemingly cause-less.
Don Jon, as he is so named, is a prince. Though the illegitimate son of the king, he has all the luxury of his brother the legitimate heir, and none of the responsibilities of state. He lacks for nothing. And yet he purposely ruins reputations and lives wherever he goes. But in only looking at Don Jon, to sit down and have coffee with him let's say, you would never see the pain he has caused others. You would see a sweet, quiet, man who humbly serves his brother and country.
Only when one looks along Don Jon, evaluates the internal, does the true evil in his character become realized. His sole motivation is jealousy and hatred. Jealousy of his brother, jealousy of others' happiness, and hatred of all things. His cause is to make everyone as miserable and hate filled as he is. This evil only comes to light in scenes where he is alone plotting with his followers the demise of his brother.
But C.S Lewis raises a shrewd point in his Mediation. “One must look both along and at everything”. So too is it with Don Jon. Though internally he is vile, if we were only to look along that, we would say, “Oh, he is detestable”, but the emotional investment would not be there. Without seeing on the stage before us the results of the plotting; the emotional upheavals of the people around him and the pain he has caused, we would not have a full understanding of just how vile he is as a character. Vile would not truly be vile.
Likewise, if the audience never looked along his character, was never entreated inside the mind of Don Jon, and only looked at him as the other members of the cast do, we would only see a quiet, disenfranchised man, who, though anti-social, still follows the will of his brother like his duty requires of him, without trouble. And even when it comes to light he is the “perpetrator of all”, only looking at him causes confusion in the minds of the cast, and us, as it is that he has no reason to cause evil.
Thus in order to understand Don Jon, one must both look along and at him. C.S. Lewis, though not at all talking about Shakespeare, provides the key to understanding in his Mediation. A criterion of understanding. One could almost see it written out on some ancient cracked scroll: “When has looked at and along an issue, only then does one understand.” And the criterion holds true. Though I apply his criterion to literature, it can be applied in other aspects of life as well.
For instance, I look at someone publicly speaking out on the importance of cancer research. While I can see that they are adamant about their cause, I have never known anyone with cancer and have never had it myself. But if I were to look along them, feel the pain of seeing their loved one die slowly minute by minute, see them caring for and finally laying that person to rest after years of physical and mental pain, only then would I truly understand how important cancer research is.
Without evaluating the inside and the outside perspective, internal and external, looking at and looking along an issue, we cannot truly say we understand something. With one of the two, only knowledge or empathy can exist, but not understanding. Sometimes, all we can hope for is knowledge or empathy. I can know that cancer is a painful and horrible disease, but without having had it I can only empathize with that pain, linking it with things in my own life that were painful. I cannot presume to understand it, as the pains are different. The pain of a bloody knee and the pain of cancer are very different.
C.S. Lewis lays down the groundwork for humility in this way. Only looking at or looking along does not understanding make. In fact, to think that one is enough is quite foolish and is often the subject of much comic relief in fiction. C.S. Lewis thus urges us to be humble, to understand when we do not understand, and to seek the truth. I believe that too often this is forgotten when assessing issues in our world.
Therefore it is important that within all aspects of life we keep in mind "looking at and looking along", situations, issues, etc. and when we cannot have or do both, to understand the truth of that knowledge and walk humbly and with empathy.
Don Jon, as he is so named, is a prince. Though the illegitimate son of the king, he has all the luxury of his brother the legitimate heir, and none of the responsibilities of state. He lacks for nothing. And yet he purposely ruins reputations and lives wherever he goes. But in only looking at Don Jon, to sit down and have coffee with him let's say, you would never see the pain he has caused others. You would see a sweet, quiet, man who humbly serves his brother and country.
Only when one looks along Don Jon, evaluates the internal, does the true evil in his character become realized. His sole motivation is jealousy and hatred. Jealousy of his brother, jealousy of others' happiness, and hatred of all things. His cause is to make everyone as miserable and hate filled as he is. This evil only comes to light in scenes where he is alone plotting with his followers the demise of his brother.
But C.S Lewis raises a shrewd point in his Mediation. “One must look both along and at everything”. So too is it with Don Jon. Though internally he is vile, if we were only to look along that, we would say, “Oh, he is detestable”, but the emotional investment would not be there. Without seeing on the stage before us the results of the plotting; the emotional upheavals of the people around him and the pain he has caused, we would not have a full understanding of just how vile he is as a character. Vile would not truly be vile.
Likewise, if the audience never looked along his character, was never entreated inside the mind of Don Jon, and only looked at him as the other members of the cast do, we would only see a quiet, disenfranchised man, who, though anti-social, still follows the will of his brother like his duty requires of him, without trouble. And even when it comes to light he is the “perpetrator of all”, only looking at him causes confusion in the minds of the cast, and us, as it is that he has no reason to cause evil.
Thus in order to understand Don Jon, one must both look along and at him. C.S. Lewis, though not at all talking about Shakespeare, provides the key to understanding in his Mediation. A criterion of understanding. One could almost see it written out on some ancient cracked scroll: “When has looked at and along an issue, only then does one understand.” And the criterion holds true. Though I apply his criterion to literature, it can be applied in other aspects of life as well.
For instance, I look at someone publicly speaking out on the importance of cancer research. While I can see that they are adamant about their cause, I have never known anyone with cancer and have never had it myself. But if I were to look along them, feel the pain of seeing their loved one die slowly minute by minute, see them caring for and finally laying that person to rest after years of physical and mental pain, only then would I truly understand how important cancer research is.
Without evaluating the inside and the outside perspective, internal and external, looking at and looking along an issue, we cannot truly say we understand something. With one of the two, only knowledge or empathy can exist, but not understanding. Sometimes, all we can hope for is knowledge or empathy. I can know that cancer is a painful and horrible disease, but without having had it I can only empathize with that pain, linking it with things in my own life that were painful. I cannot presume to understand it, as the pains are different. The pain of a bloody knee and the pain of cancer are very different.
C.S. Lewis lays down the groundwork for humility in this way. Only looking at or looking along does not understanding make. In fact, to think that one is enough is quite foolish and is often the subject of much comic relief in fiction. C.S. Lewis thus urges us to be humble, to understand when we do not understand, and to seek the truth. I believe that too often this is forgotten when assessing issues in our world.
Therefore it is important that within all aspects of life we keep in mind "looking at and looking along", situations, issues, etc. and when we cannot have or do both, to understand the truth of that knowledge and walk humbly and with empathy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
