Space Trilogy: The natural religion

By Katherine Forbes

March 27, 2012

On page 137 of Out of the Silent Planet, Oyarsa describes “laws that all hnau know such as pity, straight dealing and shame,” among which is love of kindred. Oyarsa says that man’s corruption lies in the fact that he can break any and all of these laws. The ‘love of kindred’, though man still naturally abides by it, has been bent so that man is inclined to do evil in the name of a virtue. This sounds very similar to scholar Robert N. Bellah’s theory of natural religion. Bellah defines natural religion as the broad, lowest common denominator between church establishments in America. The principles of which it is comprised have been generally agreed upon for many centuries to be the indispensible prerequisite for government, and scholar Roger Williams describes it as “written in the hearts of all mankind, yea, even pagans.” This notion presented by Oyarsa therefore would seem to have some truth to it, but what is the role of this “natural religion” in society and according to Lewis?

Bellah is using this common morality found between men as an argument for religious toleration, and the foundations of civil government. Without these common notions of good and bad in a society, republican or democratic government wouldn’t be possible. Men are united by these common elements in their thinking, and this is the foundation for peaceful interactions. Lewis is describing these natural laws as inherent to the nature of God’s creations, and that the fall of men from paradise resulted in their ability to break these laws. We can figure from the contrast between Malacandra and Earth that were men to actually abide by natural law, they, like the Malacandrians, could be peaceful. Even the virtues of men such as a love for their own are vulnerable to distortion by the lawlessness and recklessness which seems to dictate the majority of human behavior. The implication therefore is that it is more natural for men to abide by natural law, and arguably better for them, but they have fallen away from their nature. John Locke uses the argument that natural law is found through reason, therefore reason would appear to be our way back to more natural and arguably healthy behavior.

Plato and Lewis' concept of "further up"

By Katherine Forbes

March 27, 2012

On page 195 of The Last Battle Uncle Kirke references Plato’s notion of ‘ideas’ behind perceptions when describing the experience of going further up and further in. Lewis had an extensive education in the classics by modern standards and it’s interesting that he would reference that particular philosophy alongside a concept which wouldn’t initially appear related. I happened to run across a passage in Plato’s Republic which may form the connection between Plato and several of the ideas Lewis develops in The Last Battle. The passage is from Chapter 9, section 586a, but I’ll give a brief description of the argument Socrates engages in leading up to the passage, starting at 582a.

The question Socrates poses is the following, “what is the measure of occupations (how one spends time); and how does one know he is living the most pleasantly (nobly) and least painfully (shamefully)?” The first towards an answer is found at section 584e-585a: When you are sick, you prioritize the desire to be healthy. When you go from being healthy to sick, your definition of illness becomes limited to what you are experiencing; even if you had once been far more ill on a different occasion, your perspective has been altered to the present experience of illness. In the same way, people become acclimated to things: when you become acclimated to the cold, your definition of cold changes. “Then would you be surprised if those who are inexperienced in truth, as they have unhealthy opinions about other things, so too they are disposed toward pleasure and pain and what’s between them…. And as though out of lack of experience of white they looked from gray to black, out of lack of experience of pleasure they look from pain to painless and are deceived?” The argument continues to a new point at 585c: “Judge it in this way: In your opinion which thing is more: one that is connected with something always the same, immortal and true, and is such itself and comes to be in such a thing; or one that is connected with something never the same and mortal, and is such itself and comes to be in such a thing?” “That which is connected with what is always the same far exceeds.”(585d-e) So if it is pleasant to become full of what is by nature suitable (food or knowledge); you would benefit more from that which is closer to being eternal (the soul) than those things which simply benefit the body, because the body has a relative perspective.

Next, starting at 586a, Socrates arrives at the important conclusion he’s trying to draw: “Therefore, those who have no experience of prudence and virtue but are always living for bodily satisfaction, it seems, are brought down and then back to the middle and throughout life wander in this way; but since they don’t go beyond this, they don’t look upward toward what is truly above, nor are they ever brought to it; and they aren’t filled with what really is, nor do they taste of a pleasure that is sure and pure; rather” they keep their faces looking down on bodily pleasures, and in pursuit of them they fight and kill each other “because they are insatiable; for they are filling the part of themselves that is, or can contain anything, with things that are.”

Socrates is of course referencing the “ideas” which he views are so important to seek out because they are closer to the truth. In class we have discussed how these ideas are perhaps farther from the truth because they can exist only in the abstract, but there might be more meaning than that in this paragraph. The action of “looking upward” to Plato is the first step towards finding truth, and I think in a non-literal sense Lewis would very much agree. If someone is looking up, they are seeking something which is outside their normal line of vision; they are questioning and actively seeking out answers. A lot of the characters in The Last Battle are absorbed in what is “down to earth”, and fail to look up and see Aslan when he stands right above them. The metaphor, I think, is the same.

Narnian Cannibalism

By: Katherine Forbes

March 27, 2012

When Eustace, Jill and Puddleglum are staying at Harfang they are at one point served the meat from a talking Narnian Stag by the giants. Upon realizing what they are eating, Puddleglum produces a particularly alarmed response, saying that they are all cursed for having eaten the flesh of a fellow Narnian. We can gather this is probably the equivalent of cannibalism. Although Lewis does not bring the subject up again and this “curse” does not seem to result in anything, the event is still a curious one and prompts several important questions regarding the ethics of eating other animals. This coincides with research I recently conducted on horse slaughter for human consumption: an industry which having been illegal for 5 years was recently legalized, and met with considerable controversy and anger.

One of the best places to look for ethical guidelines regarding the consumption of meat is in the Bible. God provided the Jews with very specific guidelines regarding the treatment and consumption of animal products within Halakha. The foundation for the honorable treatment of animals is based upon the principle that animals are ‘good’ in God’s eyes and therefore worthy of respect when killed to give people nourishment. Kosher guidelines partly insure that all meat consumed is extremely sanitary and safe to eat, therefore animals and parts of the animal which may carry disease are forbidden. Other stipulations are a matter of respect for the animals, for example it is forbidden to eat milk and meat in the same meal. What can we conclude from these? That people are supposed to think about what they put into their bodies, and about the animal which gave its life so that we may continue ours. In our society many foods we eat daily are highly processed and contain obscure ingredients: corn and soy for example can be processed a hundred different ways and added to thousands of foods from soda to sausage links. I think God has given us a certain level of responsibility to understand the foods we eat and whether they are actually good for us.

What are the moral implications of eating certain kinds of meat, beyond the health stipulations? Let’s consider an extreme example: in Sweeney Todd hundreds of customers ate meat cakes composed of human flesh, entirely unaware. Had they realized what the meat cakes they came back for time and time again were composed of, they likely would have been horrified. Did a curse come down upon them for eating the meat cakes? probably not, just like the curse didn’t seem to amount to anything in The Silver Chair: does this make it ok? Most of us are inclined to say no. Why do we consider this wrong though? The consumption of horse meat is another good example. Although it is “more acceptable” to eat a horse than a human, there is a considerable ethical question whether people should when other food is so plentiful. Cannibalism and unethical consumption are oftentimes justified if the purpose is to save someone’s life, but even this is controversial. Americans for the most part have begun to view horses as companion animals (horses are actually more popular than cats as a favorite domesticated animal among Americans) and correspondingly, the consumption of horses has come to be condemned by over 80% of the US population according to two studies conducted by independent polling firms. Eating cats and dogs is also generally disturbing for most people. Yet in Japan, eating all three is acceptable.

One theory as to why cannibalism is viewed as unethical, and to a lesser degree the consumption of companion animals could be described as a social contract. For humans, by entering into society we become kin to a certain extent, and with that notion come various social responsibilities, not to mention emotional ties. For animals, by providing people with companionship among other things, horses, cats and dogs engage in the social contract, and we in turn provide them with food, shelter, oftentimes pampering, and a respectful and painless goodbye when age overtakes them. It is the responsibility we come to owe them through the unspoken social contract and the empathy and respect which we have for these animals, and other people, which makes the thought of eating their flesh entirely revolting.

Daniel Williams: Space Trilogy, Entry 2

The third book in Lewis' "Space Trilogy," That Hideous Strength, is noticeably different than the first two in the series. It emphasizes events on earth rather than on alien planets, and Dr. Ransom is no longer the central character, though he remains an important one throughout. The first two books more easily capture the imagination, whereas the third is far more philosophical in nature. It comments heavily on mankind's attempt to take control of all nature. I think that some readers may perceive the book as anti-scientific, or at least anti-progressive, but I think it is a mistake to treat it so.

The premise of the book is not anti-scientific, but rather it is that humanity must be careful not to use the scientific tool to such an extent that we eliminate all that is human. The N.I.C.E. scientific institute claims that it is working for humanity's progress through empirical means, yet their methods and goals turn them into humanity's most dangerous enemy. Through this antagonist, Lewis warns that humanity must be careful not to attempt to control human nature, lest human nature be redefined entirely. It is evident that Lewis believed in applying ethical principles in order to guide scientific progress, and this story serves as a warning about what may happen should morality be ignored in the pursuit of science.

The story is most emphatically a Christian tale of good versus evil, in which the primary powers are figures that may be considered archangels fighting against one who is clearly Satan. Each side still works through humanity, and the human participants on both sides recognize that supernatural forces are at work, even though on both sides there exist skeptics and disbelievers in the supernatural (MacPhee serves as the skeptic on Ransom's side). I think it is clear that through this work Lewis implies that there is no neutrality, that each human ends up serving on side or the other, whether he or she is aware of the fact or not. Therefore, I expect this tale of good versus evil to be far more controversial than the first two books in the series. I look forward to hearing the discussion and ideas that members of the class will put forth as we discuss the series, and I am especially interested in hearing comments about the role of ethical science as well as supernatural influences in human activity.

Daniel Williams: Space Trilogy, Entry 1

Among my favorite facets of Lewis' "Space Trilogy" is his inclusion of mythical figures in the stories. As the reader learns, Mars and Venus are real beings, the chief eldils of their respective planets, the beings with whom Dr. Ransom comes into contact in the first two novels. Lewis particularly emphasizes the mythical qualities of the series in the second book, Perelandra. Whereas the first, Out of the Silent Planet, reads more like a familiar science fiction novel, Perelandra is heavily populated with mythical ideas. The most obvious of these is the sort of planet Venus is: it is a paradise very reminiscent of the garden of Eden. But there is also included, for example, a reference to the garden of the Hesperides, which is found in Greek mythology.

Lewis uses these mythical references not merely to color his stories, but also in order that he may make an argument. Dr. Ransom notes that human mythology bears an extraordinary similarity to these actual worlds like Venus and to their inhabitants. Human mythology tells different stories, but they distinctly resemble real things. Lewis is arguing, as he does in several other works, that mythology tells stories that enable humans to grasp various features of their world that they may otherwise not perceive.

But the use of these mythical references does indeed add significant depth to his stories, even if one were not to examine them with a philosophical eye. The books, after all, are meant to be read for entertainment, too (not that I am suggesting that philosophy is not entertaining!). The mythological quality in the "Space Trilogy" makes Lewis' worlds seem familiar, even though they are indeed alien planets. They become worlds of beauty, particularly Perelandra (Venus), though even the relatively barren Malacandra (Mars) is enchantingly beautiful. They are not entirely alien, for we are able to connect some of our humanity to these worlds through this mythological quality. The aliens contained within these stories are the same sort of creatures we are, and, therefore, perhaps the term "human" is far too limiting. There is a mutual understanding between them and Dr. Ransom, and understanding with which we, too, can sympathize. And I think that fact is what makes these such fascinating stories: while remaining fundamentally human, they nevertheless allow us to imagine beings that are beyond the human, or even, perhaps, more than human. For no doubt Lewis wishes the reader to take away the idea that all creatures, whether they belong to the same world or not, have a fundamental quality in common: they are all creatures in the original sense of the word, beings created by and therefore united in a Creator.

Daniel Williams: Narnia Entry 2, Narnia's Creation

The first book in Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia, called The Magician's Nephew, details the origin and creation of the world of Narnia. The most memorable and most obvious detail in this creation story is the use of music: Aslan, joined by other unnamed voices, sings into existence the whole of Narnia. Lewis writes that his song changes according to what it is that he is creating: the music matches the very essence of the created. This creation account reminds me of Tolkien's creation myth of Middle-Earth, detailed in The Silmarillion (only part of which I have read), in which music is also involved in the creation process.

I find it fascinating that both these men used music as the means of creation. I think it suggests that they both believed that human creative processes--like music--are related to the creation of all things. In fact, Tolkien uses the term "sub-creation" to refer to the fact that created beings, in imitation of their creator, engage in the act of creation themselves. The Narnian creation myth, like the Christian creation myth, suggests that God is artistic. God's artistry accounts for mankind's own creativity. Creation myths, which are themselves the creations of beings created (by saying so I do not mean to suggest that they are untrue), communicate to those who partake in the myth that artistry is intimately related to reality. Reality, from the mythical perspective, has neither always existed nor simply been thrown into existence; it rather was the work of an artist. This is yet another reason, I believe, that explains why Lewis was a champion of mythology. The medium of mythology communicates reality in a creative manner, which was the very manner in which that reality was created.

When Aslan sang Narnia into existence, he demonstrated that the act of creation was also something to be pronounced good, just like the product created. The music of creation suggests that extravagant beauty is a foundational element of the world. Though we were not there to witness the workings of the artist who created our world, through mythology we are at least permitted to obtain a realistic glimpse of Creator and created.

Daniel Williams: Narnia Entry 1, The Shadowlands

In the seventh and final book of Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia, it is revealed that, along with the destruction of Narnia, Lucy, Edmund, Peter, and others have been brought into the "Real Narnia," through the means known in the "shadowlands" (as Aslan refers to our world and the former Narnia) as death. I recall that when I first read this series a couple years ago, I was startled by the ending and even thought it a little macabre. But as I reflected upon it, I began to see an interesting truth in Lewis' perspective (that it, it appears as a truth to those of the Christian faith): all that we know as "reality" now is, in Christian eyes, a shadow of what will be. It is not unreal; I do not mean to suggest (nor, do I think, did Lewis) that the universe as we know it does not exist or is an illusion. But rather, it is more like an imitation of some more fundamental reality, which one might call heaven or eternal life.

But what I find particularly interesting about this idea is that which is discovered when one examines the relevance of myth to this idea of the "more real" reality. Myth, in the sense that it is the retelling in a poetic format of some aspect of reality, enables us to get a glimpse of, or at least arrive at some concept of the "really real." If indeed human origins are mythical, as Lewis believed, then it should be no surprise that myths themselves will tell something about reality that cannot be grasped by other means. In fact, myth should therefore tell us about or demonstrate in some way the "real Narnia" described in this work. That is to say, if reality as we perceive it now is an image (a shadow) of some more fundamental reality, myth then may serve as the means of communicating that more fundamental reality to us who live in these "shadowlands."

If myth does serve this purpose, then the question of whether a myth is true or false is almost irrelevant. I agree with Lewis that some myths are true and some are false, but it is certainly the case that all myths at least attempt to convey some meaning that is relevant to reality, even if the details of the stories are not themselves factual. A reader is not stopped by the fact that a fictional story did not happen, and so therefore it is not historical facticity that the reader is concerned about. Those fictional stories may nevertheless tell something about the real world, even though they were not themselves historical events. Likewise, a myth, whether true or false, may also convey aspects about reality to the reader.

I think, therefore, that the ending to Lewis' Chronicles provides great insight into Lewis' own philosophy regarding reality, and one can easily connect Lewis' views of myth with that philosophy. For Lewis, we are living in the shadow of what is real, and so the value of myth lies in the fact that it enables us to gain understanding of the reality of which our own world is an imitation.

The logical conclusion is illogical

by Katherine Forbes
March 24, Narnia Entry

One of the most interesting conversations in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is between Uncle Kirke, Peter, and Susan over Lucy’s behavior and her alleged experience in a wardrobe. The question posed, is whether it is possible that something ostensibly irrational could in fact be the most logical explanation. Can reason indicate something outrageous is the truth? In this story, it turns out such is the case, but could this be the case in our own world?

Based on Lewis’s discussion with Tolkien in the chapter Mythopoeia from Carpenter’s the Inklings, this was a manner by which Lewis himself came across particular truths. Myths are something which appears entirely irrational, but there is something about them which draws the reader in and provides the reader great benefit. The quest for understanding the value in myths is a logical one: an analysis of what myths are, and what they communicate. Yet the results of this analysis regard ideas which are not logical, they are entirely irrational: joy has no foundation in reason. I think this is an illustration of a “leap of faith”. Reason can take an individual to the ledge, but they have to make the jump on sheer faith that the truth lies beyond. The Pevensies have the benefit of experiencing truth (Narnia & Aslan) but once they return to the real world they are left with only memories, or abstract notions of real and true experiences they once had. Susan ends up “rationalizing” these memories, and denying their truth, which indicates that despite the experience they were given, a continual leap of faith is required to remember those memories accurately.