RSS
 

Author Archive

C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Truth

09 Mar

We next turn to examine the connection between C.S. Lewis’s idea of myth and Truth (the absolute kind).

Is Truth Real?

If myth is a concrete expression of an idea (in the Platonic sense) it somehow takes Truth (abstract) and transpositions it into reality (concrete). Since Truth has to be transpositioned into reality by myth, it appears to mean that Truth is not real. However, this is not the case.

First, you have to keep in mind the his distinction between ideal and particular, or essence and existence. That sounds tricky, and but it’s not that bad, stick with me. Something’s essence (idea of a tree) is not dependent upon its existence (particular concrete expression of a tree). Lewis seems to hold that Truth is in the realm of essence and not existence.

Second, we have a common notion of “real” that differs from a philosophical notion of “reality.” When we say “real”, we mean that which is opposed to made up. Reality is the realm in which we live, move, experience things, etc. (the realm of existence). Truth is not in that realm and therefore not real – not in the non-made up sense, but in the not part of the realm of reality sense.

Myth’s connection to Truth

Thus, myth is connected to absolute Truth because it moves Truth out of the realm of essence and into the realm of existence. It makes Truth something we can experience.

I realize some of this seems kind of like just playing games with words, but I think it is more than that. It is fascinating to me to think about myth in this way. How a story, a great story, can bring an abstraction into my concrete experience of reality.

Next time

What gets more interesting the connection of myth and Christ. I haven’t even fully played with this in my head, but if Christ claimed he was Truth, then what does that mean in light of what we’ve just looked at? What is the incarnation then?

This post is part of a series of posts on C.S. Lewis and his idea of Myth

 

Books I Directly Used (they go into more depth):

 
No Comments

Posted in everything else

 

C.S. Lewis, Myth and Scripture

04 Mar

We’ve dealt with Lewis view of myth and its relation to historical fact. This leads us directly into our next connection; C.S. Lewis’s idea of myth and its relation to Scripture.

Does Scripture Contain Myth?

It’s important to understand that Lewis was not a professional theologian, nor did he claim to be one. He had extensive philosophical training, but dealt primarily with works of literature. It is from this point of view that Lewis approaches Scripture.

With this in mind, Lewis sees Scripture as containing myth. Some examples of this might be the stories of creation, the Fall, Job, and Jonah. From Lewis’s notion of myth we are to understand these stories as providing us with an experience of reality from an abstract idea. He is not suggesting that there is no historical basis for these stories, nor is he suggesting that there is historical basis. He seems to separate historical fact and truth.

In terms of biblical interpretation, Lewis lies somewhere between the neoorthodox and liberal theologian of his day. To the neoorthodox theologian he suggests that the experience of reality through the story is intimately tied to the words on the page (myth can not be lifted from the words to communicate anything). To the liberal theologian attempting to demythologize Scripture he suggests that the experience of reality is more than an abstract understanding its words (demythologizing simply creates a poorer myth).

What does all of this mean?

If we accept that Scripture contains myth, and we accept Lewis’s notion of myth, then Scripture presents a great myth that transpositions a concrete experience of reality to us from an abstract idea (truth). Scripture is truth in this sense with or without historical fact.

So Lewis’s notion of myth connects to Scripture by showing how the story of the Bible brings us an experience of reality beyond what a simple understanding of an abstract idea can give. The experience is intimately tied to the words and at the same time more than just an understanding of their literal meaning.

Controversy

All this immediately brings up issues with regards to literal truth of Scripture, infallibility, inspiration, historical and scientific accuracy, and so on. Again, its important to note that Lewis was not a professional theologian, and consistently made statements to the affect that these were his tentative thoughts and he’d leave the final say up to the professionals. I can’t comment on Lewis’s exact position with regard to these controversies, nor is that my intent. Neither is it my intent to speak my own position. I am simply hoping to trace some connections between Lewis’s notion of myth and Scripture because I believe it is important to all those trying to understand the Bible. While I’ve tried my best in such a short space, it is necessarily limited and fallible. Hopefully, though, it will spur us on to understanding this connection better. For further insight into Lewis’s thoughts see the books listed below.

It’s your turn. What do you think?

 

This post is part of a series of posts on C.S. Lewis and his idea of Myth

 

Books I Directly Used (they go into more depth):

 
1 Comment

Posted in everything else

 

C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Historical Fact

03 Mar

Having explained Lewis’s notion of myth (albeit a concise explanation), we next explore its relation to historical fact. Understanding this relation is important because the familiar use of the word “myth” implies something imaginary, made-up, or fictitious – and therefore not real. However, Lewis argues that a myth is in some sense more real than historical fact.

To understand this a little further we’ve got to go back to Plato. Yes, him. (In one way or another, everything philosophical goes back to him it seems.) I’ll keep it real brief, one-sentence brief. Plato taught that there are two planes of existence; in the one exists the abstract ideas of which the other holds concrete instances.

Lewis, in this way, sees myth as a “transposition” of an idea in the one plane to an instance in another. In other words, a myth is a concrete expression of an idea (in the Platonic sense). It is more real because the idea flows to the one experiencing the myth as reality without the need for an historical occurrence. In this way truth is communicated not as an abstract idea, but as concrete reality (in the experience of a myth).

So, that a myth is true is not dependent upon any historical occurrence; and at the same time it does not exclude the possibility of historical occurrence. Lewis is attempting to disconnect myth from historical fact, while at the same time connect myth with truth.

So What?

Again it boils down to this question. Why does this matter? Well, you may have begun to quickly perceive the connection that is here with regards to the Bible. Religious writings are always connected in one way or another to some notion of myth. And truth-seekers often consult various religious writings. Lewis’s notion of myth has implications for our understanding of the Bible. My next post will explore some of those implications.

This post is part of a series of posts on C.S. Lewis and his idea of Myth

 

Books I Directly Used (they go into more depth):

 
No Comments

Posted in philosophy, theology, thought

 

C.S. Lewis and Myth

02 Mar

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about C.S. Lewis’s idea of myth.  You might be asking yourself, why would you do that?  Well, its complicated to trace my own path to thinking about this, but there’s a couple reasons one might want to think about it.

  • In reading his work it’s important to have his understanding in mind.
  • The use of “myth” has been used widely in discussions of theology and scriptures
  • It has implications for our understanding of fact, truth, and even Christ.

Since we’re talking about C.S. Lewis’s idea, it should be clear that it is not what you would find in a dictionary under the word “myth” (although since he used that term it bears relation).  Lewis himself considered coining a new term for what he was suggesting, but felt that it would be better to use the term myth in a different sense.

So what does it mean?

We find some help in understanding what Lewis means from J.R.R. Tolkien.  In a discussion on the term, he suggested to Lewis that as speech is to objects, myth is to truth.  For instance, the word “tree” is not itself a tree, but rather something we use to refer to a tree.  Similarly, myth is something we use to refer to truth.  Lewis later suggested in his article, “Myth become Fact” that myths allow us to concretely experience that which is only otherwise known as an abstraction.  So, a great myth gives concrete expression to a truth that is an abstract concept.  But what comes to you in experiencing a great myth is not truth, but reality (because truth is about something of which is reality).

Myth is a story that allows one to experience as concrete reality that which when examined is only an abstraction.

Looking Forward

This idea is something that needs to be chewed on like a good meal – long, slowly, and carefully.  In the future, I’ll post some of my thoughts on how this connects with things such as Historical Fact, Scripture, Truth (the absolute kind), and Christ.

This post is part of a series of posts on C.S. Lewis and his idea of Myth

 

Books I Directly Used (they go into more depth):

 
No Comments

Posted in philosophy, theology, thought

 

How Earplugs Saved My Life

28 Feb

I am a father of four young children from six years down to seven weeks.  I have no nerves left.  The last one packed up and left town about a couple weeks ago.  Being only six years into this job, I’m hoping they’ll return (or new ones will grow back), but if nerves are like hair, my chances are not good. So without nerves I’m forced to find alternatives to maintain any semblance of sanity – and mind you, it is all outward appearance; if my nerves left town a couple weeks ago it was because they could follow the worn path of my sanity.

Tonight my youngest decided to force my hand by screaming (the red face, eyes clamped, extremities flailing, tongue curling kind) for about 45 minutes straight (yes, he’s got a changed diaper and a full belly).  A few minutes into the screaming I went to my work area, grabbed my earplugs, and returned to snatch him from my weary wife.  After four, you’ve learned a few tricks, and I tried them all – rock, bounce, hold tight, hold loose, wrapped in blanket, unwrapped from blanket, gently stroke the temples, talk softly, hum, sing, sit, stand, lay him down, pick him up, take off anything that might appear tight, pacifier in, pacifier out, walk around, be still – to no avail.  Weak, worn-out, and without nerves I was surely sunk, but earplugs saved my life.  I managed to maintain my semblance without nerves.

Earplugs are great.  You can hold a screaming baby and since you can’t hear them nerves aren’t required for sanity.  Since I work at home, I’d wear them all the time, but my wife take issue with that.  I tried it once and it didn’t work too well for me.  But tonight, I was rescued by my earplugs.  So, in cases of dire need, maybe they can help you too.

 
2 Comments

Posted in everything else

 
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »