C.S. Lewis vs. Friedrich Nietzsche

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Just as C.S. Lewis believed that true desire has its origin in the divine and is not a product of natural instincts, so did he believe that the base of all human ethics and morality is supernatural: it proceeds from above, not from below. Lewis resists and rebuts Modern notions of ethics that began with the Enlightenment and were accelerated by Nietzsche. That is to say that Lewis denies both that ethics are a human product and that they can only be founded on rational, a posteriori grounds. For Lewis, morality rests on a divine, a priori code that must be accepted as a given: a gift of revelation and conscience, not a product of reason and will. Though one can (and should) be trained in ethical thinking and moral behavior, the teacher does not make up the code; he or she merely receives and passes it on. Indeed, the role of prophets and moral teachers (from Moses to Buddha, from Socrates to Christ) is not to introduce new Laws but to remind us of the old ones. Lewis calls this code the Tao and asserts, in opposition to entrenched modernist thought, That the Tao is universal and absolute. Unlike some Christian apologists, Lewis is willing to find aspects of truth in all religions and cultures: Christianity, that is, is not the only truth in the world.

His full defense of the universality of the Tao, however, is more complex. Lewis begins by noting something peculiar about human beings: we constantly appeal, in our statements, to standards of behavior. Even a professed relativist, if someone cuts in front of him in line, will feel indignation at the rogue’s violation of a clear code of gentlemanly conduct. The modernist will argue that so-called ethical behavior is merely the acting out of a natural instinct (for survival, for procreation, and so on). But, replies Lewis, what of moral dilemmas in which two instincts are at odds with each other; what do we do then? We appeal to a third thing some standard or touchstone that will allow us to choose which instinct we will obey. If this third thing allows us to choose between instincts, then it cannot itself be an instinct; Even the most radical relativists will assert that democratic ethics are superior to Nazi ethics, but to do so, they must appeal to a standard that transcends both.

- Source credit: Louis Markos, Ph.D.
Click to expand...
.

Friedrich Nietzsche famously announced that “God is Dead.” This is by no means merely a thesis about religion and religious belief. It relates to the whole mind-set of the West, the insistence on Eternity, the obsession with unity and coherence, the demands for predictability and justice in a world that is neither predictable or just. Nietzsche argues it is possible, is to rid ourselves of the pathologies of guilt and sin.

1. Nietzsche disliked some things about Christianity, particularly what Kierkegaard calls “Christendom,” the Christian mob.
2. Nietzsche admired those exceptional Christians (including Jesus) who really lived what they claimed to believe in.
3. He objected to the hypocritical and self-righteous attitudes that some Christians take toward their religious beliefs.

Nietzsche rejected Christianity, but he also accepted it as a necessary step in human evolution. It served an important historical function:

1. Nietzsche praised the spirituality of Christianity.
2. He saw the original teaching of Jesus as having been perverted by the Church.

Nietzsche declared war on the concepts of guilt and sin. Like Freud, he finds guilt and sin psychologically debilitating.

Nietzsche did retain the notion of conscience:
1. Nietzsche did not give up spirituality but transformed it.
2. Nietzsche wants to return us to a state of innocence, as opposed to guilt.
3. He wants to return us to self-esteem, after science has shown us that we are not the center of the universe or the pinnacle of nature.
4. Nietzsche calls for a spirituality of this world.

-Source credit: Professor Robert C. Solomon, University of Texas at Austin
Click to expand...
 
Thomas Jefferson and the authors of the Declaration of Independence unequivocally believed in a universal, transcendent natural law bestowed on humanity. That is not too far from Lewis' assertion of a transcendent moral consciousness.

The thing I like about Nietzsche is that he seeks to transcend the slavery of guilt and repentance, and to take control of one's own life and make it a work of art
 
Cypress said:
Thomas Jefferson and the authors of the Declaration of Independence unequivocally believed in universal, transcendent natural law bestowed on humanity. That is not too far from Lewis' assertion of a transcendent moral consciousness.

The thing I like about Nietzsche is that he seeks to transcend the slavery of guilt and repentance, and to take control of one's own life and make it a work of art
Click to expand...

No such thing as natural law. Just something right wingers say,
 
Jack said:
You know where Cypress stands on this.
Click to expand...

I am a seeker,
and apparently one of the few on this board who does not have all the answers.

That is precisely why my posting record on this subforum routinely looks to a spectrum of atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, animist, Confucian, Deist, Stoic thinkers and intellectuals.
.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
I am a seeker,
and apparently one of the few on this board who does not have all the answers.

That is precisely why my posting record on this subforum routinely looks to spectrum of atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, animist, deist thinkers and intellectuals.
Click to expand...

You're a religious authoritarian.
 
BidenPresident said:
You're a religious authoritarian.
Click to expand...

If you are supposedly so anti-religion on genuinely principled grounds, then why don't you explain why you only get angry at anything written by a Christian intellectual, but you always maintain strict radio silence if I post anything by a Confucian, Buddhist, Animist, or Hindu intellectual?
 
Cypress said:
If you are supposedly so anti-religion on genuinely principled grounds, then why don't you explain why you only get angry at anything written by a Christian intellectual, but you always maintain strict radio silence if I post anything by a Confucian, Buddhist, Animist, or Hindu intellectual?
Click to expand...

You think anyone who disagrees with you must be emotional and not rational.
 
BidenPresident said:
You think anyone who disagrees with you must be emotional and not rational.
Click to expand...

So you are not actually anti-religion as you claim.

You are just strictly and militantly anti-christian.

That sounds more like an emotional or psychological problem, than a principled intellectual position.
 
Cypress said:
I am a seeker,
and apparently one of the few on this board who does not have all the answers.

That is precisely why my posting record on this subforum routinely looks to a spectrum of atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, animist, Confucian, Deist, Stoic thinkers and intellectuals.
.
Click to expand...

Yeah. We all are. By this time in Life, most of us know 'Religion' isn't an Answer. It's a dogmatic mindset.

"What is dogmatic thinking?
To be dogmatic is to follow a set of rules no matter what. The rules might be religious, philosophical, or made-up, but dogmatic people would never waver in their beliefs so don't even think of trying to change their minds."
https://www.vocabulary.com › articles › pragmatic-dogma...
 
Jack said:
Yeah. We all are. By this time in Life, most of us know 'Religion' isn't an Answer. It's a dogmatic mindset.

"What is dogmatic thinking?
To be dogmatic is to follow a set of rules no matter what. The rules might be religious, philosophical, or made-up, but dogmatic people would never waver in their beliefs so don't even think of trying to change their minds."
https://www.vocabulary.com › articles › pragmatic-dogma...
Click to expand...


Yes. No matter what you say to Cypress, he attacks you for being emotional. Ironic.
 
BidenPresident said:
Yes. No matter what you say to Cypress, he attacks you for being emotional. Ironic.
Click to expand...

"A straw man or straw person is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. Wikipedia"
 
Jack said:
"A straw man or straw person is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. Wikipedia"
Click to expand...

We have had 2000 years to evaluate the truth of Christianity. Anyone pretending to find a new argument is deluded.
 
Jack said:
Yeah. We all are. By this time in Life, most of us know 'Religion' isn't an Answer. It's a dogmatic mindset.

"What is dogmatic thinking?
To be dogmatic is to follow a set of rules no matter what. The rules might be religious, philosophical, or made-up, but dogmatic people would never waver in their beliefs so don't even think of trying to change their minds."
https://www.vocabulary.com › articles › pragmatic-dogma...
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have it all figured out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top