Mere Christianity
Mere Christianity: I have made little secret of the fact that the works of theology and religion fascinate me. In that vein, allow me to share a brief quote from C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity:
"The truth is, we believe in decency so much... that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves."
As they say, read the whole book. It's a very short and amicable read. Even if you have no intention to read it, please feel free to comment about this-or-that old thing as it relates to the quote.
"The truth is, we believe in decency so much... that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves."
As they say, read the whole book. It's a very short and amicable read. Even if you have no intention to read it, please feel free to comment about this-or-that old thing as it relates to the quote.
posted by Joshua @ 7:44 PM
12 Comments:
Excellent comments, Prometheus! I agree wholeheartedly.
Here's my addition to the stew: how does mental illness factor in? I wonder what religion and theology have to say about mental disorders. For example, bipolar disorder sufferers are at risk for very questionable behavior. It's not caused by certain moods—it's a result of chemical imbalances in the brain. Sure, moods are based on our chemical makeup at any given time, but people who suffer from mental disorders have a different, or insufficient, base set of these chemicals.
So, are people who suffer from mental disorders bad people, inherently? Are they any less a respectable member of society because they have to take medication to be "normal"?
And how has modern life changed the bahavior of all of us? Certainly, even in the days of C.S. Lewis (say nothing about prehistoric times), they didn't have the kinds of stress that members of modern society suffer from today. The quote still applies to us today... but I think there's now more to it then there was in the time when the quote was written.
Gaufridus, that's a good point. I hadn't considered where that would fit in the 'matrix' of so-called inherent characteristics vs. influenced characteristics.
I think - I think - that C.S. Lewis would probably say that each person's make-up is different and we should take that into account when discussing their virtues & vices.
Just to note, I think Lewis's day was pretty stressful. In the foreward, he says the chapters that make up the book came from spoken programs he delivered over the radio while the Nazis were bombing London!
I think most people would agree that there are many natural impulses and inclinations. Furthermore I think most people agree (excluding empty, tautological, or irrelevant philosophical concerns) that people have some degree of choice in what they say and do. Some impulses lend themselves to pleasant dispositions (ie, the desire for companionship) and some to unpleasant dispositions (anger in response to pain). Furthermore, context can turn an impulse from pleasant to nasty (the desire for companionship can make someone gregarious, but also jealous, given competition for a mate). Additionally I think that the things that we consider pleasant or good tend to be those which do not have a negative impact on other people. In other words, being snappy and angry is bad behavior because it causes other people to feel belittled, or assaulted or generally less well. Putting all this together, I would conclude that our moral character consists in how we choose to prioritize things, and in turn, how much effort we put into either fighting, or encouraging a given impulse of ours in a given situation. Perhaps, as Prometheus claims, people do not choose to be unpleasant, but many times they also do not choose to exert much self discipline over their outward words and deeds when their natural inclinations are negative. I might not aim hurt someone, but by not prioritizing their interests or feelings, I am likely to end up being nasty by default if I'm in a stressful situation. So in the end, I would put morality down to a question of how selfish one is, which is another way of saying what Tacitean said a while back about idolatry (in the sense of putting yourself at the center of the universe) being the sin from which all others flow.
Well, yes... I would assume being bombed would be very stressful... and the 9/11 tragedy has been a great stress on the whole of the Nation—even moreso for NYC residents.
Barring specific, tragic, events... I think life today is much more stressful than it was even 30 years ago. That goes double for urban areas. With an ever-increasing number of concerns—ranging from ecological issues to the ever-growing number of drugs on the streets to the amount of money the average American owes (whether is be from services to suit our desire for entertainment—cable television, internet access, etc.—to the vast amounts of money owed to educational loans in a society where the base level of education for many jobs is constantly on the rise). Say nothing about the "smaller stresses" of congested roadways, crowded public transportation, noise pollution, sound pollution, crime (including gang crime)... the list goes on. (Can you tell I haven't lived in a city all my life?)
I'm sure some of these things existed in Lewis' time... but not all of them. And the ones that did, I'm sure are far worse today than they were.
So, I guess I was referring more to everyday life rather than to specific, tragic, events such as war.
Maybe my rantings are what you get when you throw a simple country boy into the urban wasteland. It's 2006, and sometimes I wonder where my next meal is coming from. We all have our unique experiences from which our perspectives are formed.
I, for one, think I would have been better off in the past, despite my love of technoligical goodies. I like working at home, hate microwave meals, and see nothing wrong or distasteful about "rolling my sleeves up."
So, maybe it's just me. But I stand by my comments.
I'd say life was far more stressful 50 or 100 years ago, but I'd say people are probably more stressed out today. I've seen several articles and books (can't remember the names so no links, sorry) about how people are more fortunate today but more fearful. People who lived through the Blitz in London didn't get stressed over much, because they know what it's like to not be sure whether or not you're going to live through the night. They experienced hunger, famine, and fear of disease. Therefore, they didn't sweat the small stuff, and didn't get bogged down waiting for bad things to happen. Today, we're so comfortable, a lot of people out there are scared that SOMETHING will happen, and are scared because they don't know how they'll react to it. Hence the rise of extreme sports. You wouldn't catch anyone jumping out of planes for fun 100 years ago.
Also, I've met many people around the country that are constantly scared of terrorists and bombings, even if they live in, say, New Hampshire. Now, I call most of these people 'crazy,' but I would say they stress themselves out about this far more than your average New Yorker, who's seen what it's like to live through a terrorist attack and have long ago stopped waiting around for it to happen again. I guess this strayed kind of far from what Cato and Gaufridus were talking about, but you know, it's a slow day at work.
This book is total fun, and judging from the reaction here, I think I will post some more fun quote-lets later!
Some excellent points have been made. I guess my point was that perhaps life was more stressful, but people are more stressed today. Here's a quote from the Economist article Cato referred to, that I think supports my arguments to some extent:
"...there is the changing nature of work. Mobile phones and e-mail make people accountable on short notice, and competition may make them less secure in their jobs."
So, yes, people may have more luxuries, but they're also terrified that those luxuries will be taken away from them, or that they might have to be "uncomfortable" at some point in their lives.
I guess my point is this: modern society has spoiled most people (including myself, at times), and they now have more unnecessary stress than ever before. If I am going to be stressed out, I want a damned good reason to be. ;)
Back towards the original passage...
The soul is willing but the flesh is weak. We wish to do the right thing, but find the right thing to be almost excruciatingly difficult at times, and at least inconvenient at others. We know whatwe think is right, and wish to do so, for rare is the Iago in real life situations. In fact, many - like myself - believe that one cannot commit to a choice without a moral rationale for that choice. So when the soul loses the battle to the flesh, we blame the flesh. And then, maybe more insidiously, we take our guilt over such matters as proof of our goodness - we know enough to know right from wrong, after all - and oftentimes feel that the acknowledgement is satisfactory without the action that might have assuaged the guilt in the first place.
I agree. Guilt alone is not enough if it doesn't lead to changing the behavior that caused the guilt.
More at question than guilt itself is what ones does with that guilt. There are options at each end of the spectrum: either we cannot deal with the guilt, and so alter our behavior so as to never have to experience it again; or, we are sociopaths who aren't disposed to such feelings of guilt, and so continue on our charted course.
And, as always, there's a gray area. I shall use the speeding ticket analogy: when one receives a speeding ticket from one of your local municipality's finest, we are shamed by being caught in the act of breaking a law—however trivial some might think it is—and we alter our behavior, and "keep it under [speed limit where the infraction occured]." Of course, that usually is only a temporary change. After a while, we eventually remember how much fun it is to scream around like a bat out of hell, and we fall into our old habits.
I think it all falls onto each of our own interpretations of guilt, and our own ideas of decency. They vary so much from person to person that it's hard to gain a general consensus on each issue that can be raised.
It's a real head-scratcher.
The speeding ticket analogy also brings up the question of altering behavior so as to act in accordance with your ideals, or so as to avoid punishment or other consequences.
Post a Comment
<< Home