Friday, October 31, 2008
Questionable Logic
As I read C.S. Lewis' chapter upon Eros for the second time, his logical argument refuting nakedness as truly self-revealing appears to have a major logical flaw. Lewis' only supports for the natural nature of clothedness come from human convention - primarily language. According to Lewis, the word naked began as "a past participle . . . the naked man . . . had undergone a process of naking" (104). Human beings cannot trust language to provide deep and original insight into concepts, for language itself had a human origin. Even though the word "naked" was once a past participle, that has nothing to do with whether or not fallen humanity was correct in labeling the word as such. Bringing language - a human creation - into an argument about the natural nature of nudity does not seem like a wonderfully logical decision.
Eros and the Beloved as a Picture of God and the Church
Though Lewis expresses the importance of a sense of humor, I think the function of Eros in a love relationship has been grievously misconstrued by our culture. Eros is nearly always portrayed in relation to Venus, and though Venus is often born from Eros, it is important to consider Eros in itself. Lewis stresses this distinction, for by this very difference, we find the greatest danger in erotic love. Though it might seem that Venus poses the gravest threat of spiritual undoing, Eros holds the most potential for obsession. On this matter, Lewis’ appeal draws upon the ideas of St. Paul, “It is marriage itself, not the marriage bed, that will be likely to hinder us from waiting uninterruptedly on God” (96).
Indeed, Lewis is careful to describe Eros and Venus as separate entities. He specifies: “Sexual desire, without Eros, wants it, the thing in itself; Eros wants the Beloved” (94). Somehow, this image of Eros’ desire for the Beloved brings to mind images from the Scriptures in which God describes his relationship with his own Beloved. As the Lord speaks in Jeremiah 2, “I remember you [Israel], the kindness of your youth, the love of your betrothal, when you went after Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown…Yet my people have forgotten Me days without number.” Though I am not reading sexuality into this verse, the desire of God for Israel here resembles Eros much more closely than Charity. Though God is the personification of Gift-love, it is ironic that one of the most prominent metaphors God uses to picture his relationship with the Church involves Eros. God does not have need of us, but in the depths of his love for a thing created in his very image, he is fixated on the features and life of his Beloved. Even when the love is not returned, his desire is still for the love of his bride. This stands as a deep mystery – that the Godhead, perfectly complete in itself, allows itself to feel desire. I am undoubtedly opening a can of worms by this very suggestion, but in addition to the reality that we are created in the image of God, perhaps another of the reasons we are the crown of God’s created order is that we, as the Beloved, have the free will to return that love, as Need-based as it may be.
When I consider Lewis’ presentation of the loves, however, perhaps Affection is the best in the human sense, for unlike the non-necessity of Friendship or the unpredictability of Eros, Affection is a steady companion that tempers our days. As Lewis writes, “…Affection, besides being a love in itself, can enter into the other loves and colour them all through and become the very medium in which from day to day they operate” (34). Indeed, Lewis goes on to describe that this appreciative love adds “peculiar charm” both to Friendship and Eros. Though I am not even mentioning Charity in this post, Affection seems to be the means by which we navigate the other two Loves, in the sense that it provides a steadfast foundation.
Indeed, Lewis is careful to describe Eros and Venus as separate entities. He specifies: “Sexual desire, without Eros, wants it, the thing in itself; Eros wants the Beloved” (94). Somehow, this image of Eros’ desire for the Beloved brings to mind images from the Scriptures in which God describes his relationship with his own Beloved. As the Lord speaks in Jeremiah 2, “I remember you [Israel], the kindness of your youth, the love of your betrothal, when you went after Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown…Yet my people have forgotten Me days without number.” Though I am not reading sexuality into this verse, the desire of God for Israel here resembles Eros much more closely than Charity. Though God is the personification of Gift-love, it is ironic that one of the most prominent metaphors God uses to picture his relationship with the Church involves Eros. God does not have need of us, but in the depths of his love for a thing created in his very image, he is fixated on the features and life of his Beloved. Even when the love is not returned, his desire is still for the love of his bride. This stands as a deep mystery – that the Godhead, perfectly complete in itself, allows itself to feel desire. I am undoubtedly opening a can of worms by this very suggestion, but in addition to the reality that we are created in the image of God, perhaps another of the reasons we are the crown of God’s created order is that we, as the Beloved, have the free will to return that love, as Need-based as it may be.
When I consider Lewis’ presentation of the loves, however, perhaps Affection is the best in the human sense, for unlike the non-necessity of Friendship or the unpredictability of Eros, Affection is a steady companion that tempers our days. As Lewis writes, “…Affection, besides being a love in itself, can enter into the other loves and colour them all through and become the very medium in which from day to day they operate” (34). Indeed, Lewis goes on to describe that this appreciative love adds “peculiar charm” both to Friendship and Eros. Though I am not even mentioning Charity in this post, Affection seems to be the means by which we navigate the other two Loves, in the sense that it provides a steadfast foundation.
Lucifer
When reading about the pleasures of appreciation and the need-pleasures, I thought about different applications to for them other than alcoholics. Lewis talks about how an appreciation-pleasure can become a need-pleasure with the consequences being a terrible thing. I was wondering if something like that happened to the devil. He started out as the most beautiful of angels. He may have enjoyed the reputation or attention just like a person may enjoy a little wine every now and then. The problem was that maybe he started needing the attention and more of it just like an alcoholic starts needing an alcohol. Perhaps his need became so large that he challenged God and was thrown out of heaven.
The Naked Truth
It is Halloween, the time of the year when children get the opportunity to be, goblins, Gabriella, football players, and small dutch children for one night. What a fantastic time. Why not pretend to be someone else for a night, you have to where regular clothes the rest of the year, and be yourself every day. Is that true? that clothes define who you are? In the case of Halloween I'm sure that we can all agree that the answer is no. ( Unless you lack spirit) But I don't think that clothes define who someone is. I could be misinterpreting Lewis when I read that people are more themselves when they have clothes on. So does this mean if I wore a nascar shirt tomorrow that I am a nascar fan? Keep in mind I think Nascar is dumb. Or does it not have anything to do with the type of clothes you whear as long as you are covered.
I don't agree with either option, types of clothes don't define who someone is. As far as being covered, I don't think that it really maters that much. However, I will defend nakedness.
Lewis uses the word "Naking" I am sort of confused about it. He uses it in the context that Adam and Eve had to go thru the process of "naking" which I understand to be taking off clothes. But that simply isn't the case. God created people without clothes, and they were fine until they sinned. When they sinned they were ashamed, who wouldn't be they screwed up the only rule that the God of the universe provided to them. Were they ashamed of being naked? or just a little startled? I feel that maybe the whole being naked thing probably brought on some sexuall desires , which I think is where the whole being ashamed thing comes in, they didn't know it was wrong to feel that way before.
Flash forward a long long time, to the era of designer clothes, and hollewood. I think that being naked now is still a good thing, under the right cercumstance. Lewis uses the idea of the sence of community that takes place in a bath house. I can jive with this. It does bring around community, but it doesn't take away from self. I understand (I could be wrong) that Lewis thinks, that all the people in the bath house being naked takes away there individual identity. (all people are the same because every one looks similar) What I think Lewis is missing here is the sincear conversations you can have with someone when you are totally volnerable and open. Thats when you find out who people are, when they are open, and when you are open with them. Thats when you find the individual. Clothes make people feel secure, take that away and feel a little ashamed for awhile and pretty soon you feel comfertable. You actually gain self confidence because when people are taught that they need to cover themselves up all the time because being naked is bad, it makes them feel like whats under the clothes is no good.
I don't agree with either option, types of clothes don't define who someone is. As far as being covered, I don't think that it really maters that much. However, I will defend nakedness.
Lewis uses the word "Naking" I am sort of confused about it. He uses it in the context that Adam and Eve had to go thru the process of "naking" which I understand to be taking off clothes. But that simply isn't the case. God created people without clothes, and they were fine until they sinned. When they sinned they were ashamed, who wouldn't be they screwed up the only rule that the God of the universe provided to them. Were they ashamed of being naked? or just a little startled? I feel that maybe the whole being naked thing probably brought on some sexuall desires , which I think is where the whole being ashamed thing comes in, they didn't know it was wrong to feel that way before.
Flash forward a long long time, to the era of designer clothes, and hollewood. I think that being naked now is still a good thing, under the right cercumstance. Lewis uses the idea of the sence of community that takes place in a bath house. I can jive with this. It does bring around community, but it doesn't take away from self. I understand (I could be wrong) that Lewis thinks, that all the people in the bath house being naked takes away there individual identity. (all people are the same because every one looks similar) What I think Lewis is missing here is the sincear conversations you can have with someone when you are totally volnerable and open. Thats when you find out who people are, when they are open, and when you are open with them. Thats when you find the individual. Clothes make people feel secure, take that away and feel a little ashamed for awhile and pretty soon you feel comfertable. You actually gain self confidence because when people are taught that they need to cover themselves up all the time because being naked is bad, it makes them feel like whats under the clothes is no good.
We're just Cruisin' Along...
"To rise above it when it is fully satisfied and as little impeded as earthly conditions allow- to see that we must rise when all seems so well already- this may require a subtler conversation and a more delicate insight" (p136).
When Lewis says this, he is talking about the difficulty of rising above our natural loves...rising to charity; I think that his point is extremely true. When Jesus talks about the difficulty of the rich entering into Heaven He may not have been talking purely in the literal sense- perhaps what he means by rich is content. I think, at least in my own experiences, that it is hard to ask for help when everything is going alright. Lewis also points out that "frets and rubs" are not only beneficial, but also necessary. I certainly do agree with this- when I have a bad day, I seem to think about the "deeper issues" much more readily than when I am just cruisin' along.
When Lewis says this, he is talking about the difficulty of rising above our natural loves...rising to charity; I think that his point is extremely true. When Jesus talks about the difficulty of the rich entering into Heaven He may not have been talking purely in the literal sense- perhaps what he means by rich is content. I think, at least in my own experiences, that it is hard to ask for help when everything is going alright. Lewis also points out that "frets and rubs" are not only beneficial, but also necessary. I certainly do agree with this- when I have a bad day, I seem to think about the "deeper issues" much more readily than when I am just cruisin' along.
Does Need-love come from sin?
During our discussion today, I had a question that’s a little random (which is why I didn’t know whether or not to bring it up), so I thought I’d put it out there here. If I don’t get any comments, I’ll probably ask it in class anyway because I’m really curious about what you guys think.
So my question has to do with Need-love and Adam and Eve. In the end of The Four Loves, Lewis mentions that Need-loves “have no resemblance to the Love which God is.” (p.127) But then why did He create the female human? In the Genesis story, the account goes that God created Eve when He saw that Adam needed a companion. (I know there’s a couple creation variations, but as far as I know this is in at least one of them.) This, to me, demonstrates Need-love. Adam needed another person. However, if God is all we need (as most Christians would assert), then how can this be? And this was before the fall, so sin shouldn’t have factored in yet; we can’t argue that Adam was only human so he could need things he shouldn’t.
Need-love is one that God doesn’t seem to have, even according to Lewis, so it seems like it’s a twisted version of God’s love. And that sounds worse than I mean it because it gives the feeling that humans did it on purpose which I don’t think is the case. But if Need-love is something that God doesn’t have, then it follows (for me, at least) that humans only have it because we’re separated from Him. But that doesn’t make sense if Adam had it before sin even became a factor.
Or maybe we only have Need-love because we’re less than God. That would be true with or without sin so maybe that takes care of all these problems? But then, if we’re made perfect eventually, and this is considered a restoration to our true form, and God is all we need…it still goes back to the seemingly imperfect fact that we need other humans, too.
I’m sorry if this circular thinking came out confusing. I’m still trying to wrap my head around my own question, so feel free to leave comments that just ask more questions about what I’m even trying to ask. :) Thanks!
So my question has to do with Need-love and Adam and Eve. In the end of The Four Loves, Lewis mentions that Need-loves “have no resemblance to the Love which God is.” (p.127) But then why did He create the female human? In the Genesis story, the account goes that God created Eve when He saw that Adam needed a companion. (I know there’s a couple creation variations, but as far as I know this is in at least one of them.) This, to me, demonstrates Need-love. Adam needed another person. However, if God is all we need (as most Christians would assert), then how can this be? And this was before the fall, so sin shouldn’t have factored in yet; we can’t argue that Adam was only human so he could need things he shouldn’t.
Need-love is one that God doesn’t seem to have, even according to Lewis, so it seems like it’s a twisted version of God’s love. And that sounds worse than I mean it because it gives the feeling that humans did it on purpose which I don’t think is the case. But if Need-love is something that God doesn’t have, then it follows (for me, at least) that humans only have it because we’re separated from Him. But that doesn’t make sense if Adam had it before sin even became a factor.
Or maybe we only have Need-love because we’re less than God. That would be true with or without sin so maybe that takes care of all these problems? But then, if we’re made perfect eventually, and this is considered a restoration to our true form, and God is all we need…it still goes back to the seemingly imperfect fact that we need other humans, too.
I’m sorry if this circular thinking came out confusing. I’m still trying to wrap my head around my own question, so feel free to leave comments that just ask more questions about what I’m even trying to ask. :) Thanks!
On Charity...
In the last chapter of The Four Loves Lewis begins to discuss the love of God/our love of God. He sites many of his own reasons for leaving this as the last point of his book one of which being, “it is dangerous to press upon a man the duty of getting beyond earthly love when his real difficulty lies in getting so far”. I really enjoyed this point although I believe there is a tension between this and Lewis’ idea that all loves that are not from God or take the place from God are unworthy and unfulfilled. It would seem, under this light, that the difficulty in earthly love comes from not knowing divine love. I do agree with Lewis’ first point I just think there is a tension point there.
Moving on, the thing that really interested me in this chapter was Lewis’ description of heartbreak and hell. For a little while Lewis describes all the ways a person can become heart broken; broken marriage, lost friendship, even hobbies and nature. It seems that an attachment to anything in this world has the possibility of leaving one with a broken heart. The natural progression then, as Lewis points out, is to lot let your happiness depend on anything you may lose - I.e. let it depend on God, the thing that will not pass away.
None of this is really new thought or anything but I found it interesting and a great backdrop for his next point. Lewis says the only way to protect ones heart then is to wrap it up carefully in selfishness and keep it there. Here is says it will not become broken but it will change. Lewis points out that when not allowed to love the heart will become dull, dead, motionless. Eventually, he describes this as hell by saying, “the only place outside of Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell”. If we describe hell as an absence of God and his presence I do think it is correct in assuming that it also entails the absence of love and a person living without love may be living in hell already.
Moving on, the thing that really interested me in this chapter was Lewis’ description of heartbreak and hell. For a little while Lewis describes all the ways a person can become heart broken; broken marriage, lost friendship, even hobbies and nature. It seems that an attachment to anything in this world has the possibility of leaving one with a broken heart. The natural progression then, as Lewis points out, is to lot let your happiness depend on anything you may lose - I.e. let it depend on God, the thing that will not pass away.
None of this is really new thought or anything but I found it interesting and a great backdrop for his next point. Lewis says the only way to protect ones heart then is to wrap it up carefully in selfishness and keep it there. Here is says it will not become broken but it will change. Lewis points out that when not allowed to love the heart will become dull, dead, motionless. Eventually, he describes this as hell by saying, “the only place outside of Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell”. If we describe hell as an absence of God and his presence I do think it is correct in assuming that it also entails the absence of love and a person living without love may be living in hell already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)