Lewis vs Tolkien vs Pullman: Death Match in the Cage!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Honestly, I didn't really care for Lucretius. Epic poems about ancient theories of physics just don't do it for me...

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Honestly, I didn't really care for Lucretius. Epic poems about ancient theories of physics just don't do it for me...

Yes indeedy. I remember as an ardent young atheist eagerly sitting down to embrace this great and noble work of materialist philosophy....

I'm proud to say i did finish it, but with a lot of skimming toward the later verses.

[GrayMouser]

inked said:

Pullman suffers from what many a materialist/atheist suffers, the need for an external standard by which they can judge the world wanting whilst denying that such a standard exists.

Not external, merely alternative.

And, it is that denial of absolute reality governing the reality we indwell (whether in fact or fiction) that renders so banal their attempts to "create" alternatives.

Said one barnacle to the other.
"Look at those foolish fish, thinking they can float around in the Void without any Absolute solid ground to base themselves on. They'll come crashing down soon enough, mark my words."

They in actual practice depend from the tattered remnants of Christian moral and ethical practice or the Tao (as defined by Lewis) to justify their "radical" approach.

"But what exactly does keep them up there?" asked the second barnacle.

"Ummm...momentum, " replied the first after a moment of thought. "Yes, that's it, momentum. You see, they were once on this rock with us, and they used it as a springboard to leap up into all that blue Emptiness. But once that momentum is over, they'll be bound to plummet back down and smash themselves on the Foundation. It'll happen any time now, just you wait and see."

........

"Say, what ever happened to those funny old barnacles who used to be around?" inquired one fish of another.

"Oh, the ones on the turtle's shell? I think the turtle headed off for warmer waters."

"Pity. I used to like to hear them talk, though I could never really understand what they used to get in such a fuss over."

[inked]

"I remember as an ardent young atheist eagerly sitting down to embrace this great and noble work of materialist philosophy...."

Do tell!

I suspect you have been reading entirely too much Lewis than is good for an ardent young atheist, especially as you toss "An Experiment in Criticism" about handily.

Pray tell, what does a materialist base an ethical standard upon? I am all ears!

[GrayMouser]

I was an ardent young atheist; alas, it's been many years since I was either young or ardent about much of anything.

Having come upon the "Experiment" much later, after first encountering critics like Stanley Fish and Wolfgang Isser, I was quite surprised to see Lewis as being more in tune with them and Reader Response theory, as opposed to the New Critics and their "affective fallacy", which was the dominant mode at the time.

Though I think Fish is far too slippery an eel- I'm more of a barnacle than that, and as far as litcrit goes would be happy to consider myself as part of the tribe of Abrams- Doing Things With Texts and all that.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Pray tell, what does a materialist base an ethical standard upon? I am all ears!

As far as a historical account , it goes back to our origins as members of a social species living in co-dependent kinship-based small groups. As such we relied upon others, and they relied upon us.

Kinship-based altruism says you should help others who share your genes; while reciprocal altruism says you should help others in hope of getting future benefits. Both operated in the small bands we lived in on the savannas and woodlands of East Africa- and can be observed in our closest relatives, the chimps and bonobos.

If we had originated in a hive like the ants, bees and wasps, we would have been totally group-oriented, lacking in individuality. If we had evolved from solitaries like leopards or tigers, the idea of morality would never have arisen.

Thus we see the "natural law" operating in human societies:help others when you can, but not to the extent of sacrificing yourself except in extreme circumstances, and generally extend that help to those closest to you.

People who are not "one of us" should be regarded with suspicion; and it's usually okay to treat them with less regard.

Do the right thing in general; it keeps society turning over; but be prepared to cheat, especially if times are tough.

[GrayMouser]

Now, do I say that those limitations are correct, or what we should base our society on?

No, because over the course of our history our wonderfully adaptive brains have taken those instincts and gradually expanded them, just as our early daubings of pleasing colours have led to the glory of our art; the pounding of sticks and hooting around the campfire has led to music; and the telling of stories of why you shouldn't stray from the safety of camp, or how Ug-Ug fought Glup-Glup to gain the privilege of mating with the desirable Weena has developed into our tales of terror and romance.

Just so, the idea that we should treat others justly- because, in a small group what goes around comes around- leads to the freedom to expand that idea to others who were originally excluded from the group of "us".

This has been defined as the essence of liberalism- to expand as widely- as possible the circle of "us" as opposed to "them"- whereas conservatism is the opposite- "don't trust them, they're not like us; they don't share our values"- both traits are valuable and have been necessary at different times, but the trend has been strongly one way.

[GrayMouser]

Does this give us any "Absolute" value to base our morals upon?- No, but the idea of an "Absolute" standard is fallacious to start with.

Where do you find it? In the Bible, where God Himself erupts in anger because his followers have spared captive women and children, and commands that babies be torn from their mother's breasts, and have their heads smashed against rocks before their mothers are run through with spears?

In the glories of the reign of Christendom, where Jews were confined to ghettos, forced to wear distinguishing clothing and subjected to random slaughter every time a wave of holiness swept over their neighbors?

On the multi-culti thread, you keep posting items on the savage intolerance of Islam- advocating murder for apostasy, imposing religious edicts on secular society- IOTW, exactly the things that Christian Churches imposed through out their history before they got too weak and were forced into compromises by the forces of secularism.

I've focused on Christianity here because that's what's generally defended- but every culture has the same problems arising from a belief in an absolute standard of morals.