Just in case you were wondering, the layout that I was using broke, so I'm now using one of the basic blogger layouts.
Friday, July 30, 2010
A Few Quick Thoughts: Compassion and Empathy
I was curious as to what the Bible had to say about these things, so I took some liberty to spend some time and look it up. Here is some of what I found. All quotes are taken from the NIV. My comments (if any, as most of these verses speak for themselves a lot better than I could!) are in italics.
Romans 12:15
Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.
This is probably about as straight-forward and blunt as I've seen Paul get, though he usually is pretty frank.
Romans 15:3
For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who you insult have fallen on me."
This always makes me think of the story that always seems to find its way mass forwarded into my e-mail inbox (by the way, if any of you send me that kind of stuff, I usually delete it without reading... just to let you know!). It's about a group of students and the teacher tells them to draw a picture of someone that has somehow wronged them before. The teacher tapes the pictures onto the wall and allowed the students to throw darts at the board, telling them to take their anger and frustration out on the pictures. At the end, the teacher removed all the student-drawn pictures to reveal a picture of Jesus with the holes and tears from the darts all over him.
1 Peter 3:15-17
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.
Admittedly, this verse has less to do with the theme and more to do with life in general, but it was in the same section of my notebook as the other verses, so I must've had something in mind by putting it there. Whenever I read this verse, I can't help thinking of one of my friends saying that you can deal with people by "smacking them uptop the head with your character".
Galatians 6:2
Carry each other's burdens, and in this way, you will fulfill the law of Christ.
Is this not a command to help others and show compassion? If it isn't, I don't know what is.
2 Corinthians 1:3-7
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows. If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you the patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort.
I'm really not sure if I have anything to point out about this, other than the fact that God is always the one who initiates. We just respond.
1 Peter 2:24
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.
Whenever I think of this verse, aside from thinking of the song, I think of what Steve (our church pastor) was talking about one Sunday back in January. We were in the middle of a unit on the Holy Spirit and actually in the books of Luke and John, but he brought up the point that one of the things that Jesus did (and I think it's probably one of, if not the, most important things!) was that he swallowed the pain, brokenness and suffering of the world. I mean, he did so much that he had to die to accomplish what needed to be done, but he still willingly did it. If nothing else, that's showing love and compassion.
So those are just a few thoughts. Let me know what you think, okay? If it seems like this is thrown together quickly, it kind of was, but maybe it's better left like that.
So those are just a few thoughts. Let me know what you think, okay? If it seems like this is thrown together quickly, it kind of was, but maybe it's better left like that.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Not What My Hands
If you haven't heard this song by Aaron Keyes, I suggest you go listen to it. I know I haven't posted since November, but things have gotten pretty crazy around here recently... December was spent preparing for exams and then going back home and spending time with my family, whom I hadn't seen since June. January was spent holed up in the library or the lab, working on papers or other various assignments.
Anyhow, we sang this song at church last night (as a side note, yesterday was fun...) and I thought you might like to listen to it. I'm glad I was able to find the song and find lyrics to go with it.
As a completely separate note, I've decided to keep a notebook of quotes that I like. Mostly encouraging ones and things to make me feel happy, but maybe I'll have to share some of them with you here in the future. I just started the collection yesterday, though, so it's still a bit short.
Anyhow, we sang this song at church last night (as a side note, yesterday was fun...) and I thought you might like to listen to it. I'm glad I was able to find the song and find lyrics to go with it.
As a completely separate note, I've decided to keep a notebook of quotes that I like. Mostly encouraging ones and things to make me feel happy, but maybe I'll have to share some of them with you here in the future. I just started the collection yesterday, though, so it's still a bit short.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Is God Really Dead?
This was written after reading a bit of Nietzsche for a philosophy class I'm taking. First half is summary, second is a bit of commentary. I do hope you enjoy it and he's actually a really interesting thinker. You can decide whether or not you think I agree with what he says... or even if I fully agree with what I'm saying in the commentary.
In this particular section, Nietzsche attempts to provide a critique for Christianity. He begins by talking about how power is what motivates humans to act and should be the standard for happiness (and therefore, the standard for what is good, also). He then moves to say that pity is the greatest evil and that the Christian religion is the result of the greatest culmination of pity for other people and their failures. Weakness is bad, he argues and there is a vicious cycle between pity, suffering and weakness, which causes humanity to spiral downward. This vicious cycle, which keeps humanity from power and happiness, is one of the greatest problems of mankind. Since “Christianity is called the religion of pity” (1036), and pity completes the cycle, Christianity is responsible for the downward spiral that mankind finds itself in.
He then moves on to talk about nihilism and how pity is the practice of such. If pity is the practice of nihilism and Christianity is the religion of pity, would it not follow that Christianity is nihilistic in its nature? At the end of this piece, Nietzsche talks about condemning Christianity and the church. The church has corrupted everything, he claims, and that the only way to remedy this is to completely annihilate the church and all organised forms of religion. It’s worth paying attention to the language Nietzsche uses. He calls the church a parasite and claims that parasitism is the only thing that the church knows and he is very, very intent on assuring that everyone knows the evils of religion.
To get a better feel for what Nietzsche was actually saying, one must look at the overarching ideas of what he wrote, not at the specifics and nor at him saying “God is dead”. I took a bit of time to re-read through the rest of the section and I actually found myself enjoying– and agreeing with– a lot of what he had to say. One of his main overarching themes is talking about how most people don’t think for themselves. They blindly follow along with whatever the outside forces say to do, like lemmings all falling into the water and drowning because their leader chose to do so. In Nietzsche’s case, the outside force is religion, specifically Christianity, but really, he seems to hold disdain for all sorts of organised religion, but the culprit does not have to be religion. One can apply part of Nietzsche’s ideas into the context of modern society and find that this is very prevalent, particularly in middle school and high school. Teenagers blindly do whatever the popular kids do just so they won’t get ridiculed, without even a thought to the potential consequences. Although I think that Nietzsche took his ideas a bit further than is necessary, he does have some good points. What is really sad is that his assertion of the role of the church in corrupting people is not far from the truth. At a lot of the churches that I have tried out, people go to service, listen to the band sing (occasionally they will sing along) and hear what the preacher has to say. I must admit that few things disgust me more than people following along blindly.
In response to Nietzche’s most famous statement of “God is dead and we have killed him” (1022), it is interesting to note that he is attempting to take God out of morality. Take the command of “thou shall not murder”, for example. Ann, a Christian, can follow this commandment because God told her not to murder and she’s afraid of going to Hell, while Bob, who is an atheist, can follow it because he simply wants to and Carl, who follows it because the government tells him that murder is bad. Ultimately, the outcome (none of these three will commit murder) is the same, regardless of their motivations. If other influences (whether internal or external) can produce the same outcome (there will be no murder), then is God really necessary for morality? Nietzsche’s answer is an obvious no and really, I can’t argue with that, especially since it’s nearly impossible to tell what another person’s motivations are for their actions and I’ve seen situations where one cannot tell the difference between Christian and Atheist. Strictly speaking, this is a question of ethics, not of metaphysics or epistemology. What we think doesn’t matter; it’s our actions that make a difference.
In this particular section, Nietzsche attempts to provide a critique for Christianity. He begins by talking about how power is what motivates humans to act and should be the standard for happiness (and therefore, the standard for what is good, also). He then moves to say that pity is the greatest evil and that the Christian religion is the result of the greatest culmination of pity for other people and their failures. Weakness is bad, he argues and there is a vicious cycle between pity, suffering and weakness, which causes humanity to spiral downward. This vicious cycle, which keeps humanity from power and happiness, is one of the greatest problems of mankind. Since “Christianity is called the religion of pity” (1036), and pity completes the cycle, Christianity is responsible for the downward spiral that mankind finds itself in.
He then moves on to talk about nihilism and how pity is the practice of such. If pity is the practice of nihilism and Christianity is the religion of pity, would it not follow that Christianity is nihilistic in its nature? At the end of this piece, Nietzsche talks about condemning Christianity and the church. The church has corrupted everything, he claims, and that the only way to remedy this is to completely annihilate the church and all organised forms of religion. It’s worth paying attention to the language Nietzsche uses. He calls the church a parasite and claims that parasitism is the only thing that the church knows and he is very, very intent on assuring that everyone knows the evils of religion.
To get a better feel for what Nietzsche was actually saying, one must look at the overarching ideas of what he wrote, not at the specifics and nor at him saying “God is dead”. I took a bit of time to re-read through the rest of the section and I actually found myself enjoying– and agreeing with– a lot of what he had to say. One of his main overarching themes is talking about how most people don’t think for themselves. They blindly follow along with whatever the outside forces say to do, like lemmings all falling into the water and drowning because their leader chose to do so. In Nietzsche’s case, the outside force is religion, specifically Christianity, but really, he seems to hold disdain for all sorts of organised religion, but the culprit does not have to be religion. One can apply part of Nietzsche’s ideas into the context of modern society and find that this is very prevalent, particularly in middle school and high school. Teenagers blindly do whatever the popular kids do just so they won’t get ridiculed, without even a thought to the potential consequences. Although I think that Nietzsche took his ideas a bit further than is necessary, he does have some good points. What is really sad is that his assertion of the role of the church in corrupting people is not far from the truth. At a lot of the churches that I have tried out, people go to service, listen to the band sing (occasionally they will sing along) and hear what the preacher has to say. I must admit that few things disgust me more than people following along blindly.
In response to Nietzche’s most famous statement of “God is dead and we have killed him” (1022), it is interesting to note that he is attempting to take God out of morality. Take the command of “thou shall not murder”, for example. Ann, a Christian, can follow this commandment because God told her not to murder and she’s afraid of going to Hell, while Bob, who is an atheist, can follow it because he simply wants to and Carl, who follows it because the government tells him that murder is bad. Ultimately, the outcome (none of these three will commit murder) is the same, regardless of their motivations. If other influences (whether internal or external) can produce the same outcome (there will be no murder), then is God really necessary for morality? Nietzsche’s answer is an obvious no and really, I can’t argue with that, especially since it’s nearly impossible to tell what another person’s motivations are for their actions and I’ve seen situations where one cannot tell the difference between Christian and Atheist. Strictly speaking, this is a question of ethics, not of metaphysics or epistemology. What we think doesn’t matter; it’s our actions that make a difference.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Problem of Pain and the Great Divorce
Wrote a bit on The Problem of Pain, part two and The Great Divorce. Of course, I haven't actually re-read the latter yet, but I will...
The more I read of this book, the more interesting it is, though chapters six and seven held my interest particularly strongly. In chapter six, Lewis goes through and talks about why people have to suffer and in chapter seven, he outlines this even more. One thing that struck me really hard and really fast was how Lewis comments that “when souls become wicked they will certainly use this possibility to hurt one another” (601 ), which is something that I have seen over and over again in life. People, whether this is a conscious desire or not, will often use their talents and abilities to hurt others because we are subbourn, rebellious creatures who refuse to go down without a fight. It is in human nature, I believe, to take something that we’ve been given, pervert it into something atrocious and then hurt as many people as possible (including ourselves often enough) in the process.
However, Lewis also talks of justice and how one might get what he deserves. Pain from justice, Lewis argues, is a good thing because at some level, everyone agrees that the good guys should get rewarded and the bad guys should get punished. But when does this idea of giving the bad guy what he deserves cross the fine line into becoming what Lewis terms as “vindictive passion”? Who are we, as humans, to decide what a fair and just punishment for another human would be? Who makes sure that the punishments that we give out are fair and just?
By far, one of my favourite things that Lewis talks about in the reading for this week is his idea of the necessity of pain in the role of knowing God and responding to him. In order to make a choice, we must be educated about the different options, Lewis argues. Before we experience pain, we live in the dangerous illusion that all of life is good. In this sense, what pain is able to do is provide a wake-up call and alerts us to the fact that there is a greater reality outside of our own little world. He comments that even atheists, who claim not to believe in God’s existence, become upset at him when they experience pain. This is rather interesting and quite true. You cannot deny that something exists and simultaneously be angry at it. Take gravity, for instance. If you jump off a cliff because you do not believe in the existence of gravity, you cannot logically blame gravity and become upset at it when you fall to the ground and hurt yourself. It is the same way with God. You can either deny his existence (and therefore, he cannot be blamed for anything, nor thanked... he’s like the tooth faerie or Santa Claus) or you can accept that he exists and get angry at him. You cannot logically have it both ways.
A couple last points of interest... I thought it noteworthy to mention that Lewis alludes to the idea of Pascal’s wager, particularly when he comments that “it is hardly complimentary to God that we should choose Him as an alternative to Hell” (606). It is also interesting to note that Lewis acknowledges that his explanation of suffering is theological in nature.
Even though Lewis primarily argues from an intellectual standpoint, he is very aware of the personal issues that may arise and at least in my eyes, this improves his credibility. I think that for everyone, the problem of pain is a very personal issue and it is something that has the potential to break a person’s faith. In all truth, I don’t think that the problem of pain can be argued from a purely logical and theoretical standpoint, as it is something that we all have to deal with on a very personal level and if you’ve ever dealt with someone who has faced those questions (or perhaps these are questions you’ve faced yourself), you will find that it is utterly absurd to expect that a philosophical argument will provide any comfort.
On a completely separate note, I thought that The Great Divorce was brilliantly written. It is one of my favourite Lewis books and it is interesting to see how he was so heavily influenced by the ideas of Plato, specifically the idea of Plato's cave and the world of the forms. In The Great Divorce, the narrator is no stranger of pain. In fact, he experiences a great amount of pain when he first arrives in Heaven (the sun is too bright and the grass is as sharp as razor-blades). This ties in very nicely with the idea in The Problem of Pain that one must be able to experience pain in order to know God.
The more I read of this book, the more interesting it is, though chapters six and seven held my interest particularly strongly. In chapter six, Lewis goes through and talks about why people have to suffer and in chapter seven, he outlines this even more. One thing that struck me really hard and really fast was how Lewis comments that “when souls become wicked they will certainly use this possibility to hurt one another” (601 ), which is something that I have seen over and over again in life. People, whether this is a conscious desire or not, will often use their talents and abilities to hurt others because we are subbourn, rebellious creatures who refuse to go down without a fight. It is in human nature, I believe, to take something that we’ve been given, pervert it into something atrocious and then hurt as many people as possible (including ourselves often enough) in the process.
However, Lewis also talks of justice and how one might get what he deserves. Pain from justice, Lewis argues, is a good thing because at some level, everyone agrees that the good guys should get rewarded and the bad guys should get punished. But when does this idea of giving the bad guy what he deserves cross the fine line into becoming what Lewis terms as “vindictive passion”? Who are we, as humans, to decide what a fair and just punishment for another human would be? Who makes sure that the punishments that we give out are fair and just?
By far, one of my favourite things that Lewis talks about in the reading for this week is his idea of the necessity of pain in the role of knowing God and responding to him. In order to make a choice, we must be educated about the different options, Lewis argues. Before we experience pain, we live in the dangerous illusion that all of life is good. In this sense, what pain is able to do is provide a wake-up call and alerts us to the fact that there is a greater reality outside of our own little world. He comments that even atheists, who claim not to believe in God’s existence, become upset at him when they experience pain. This is rather interesting and quite true. You cannot deny that something exists and simultaneously be angry at it. Take gravity, for instance. If you jump off a cliff because you do not believe in the existence of gravity, you cannot logically blame gravity and become upset at it when you fall to the ground and hurt yourself. It is the same way with God. You can either deny his existence (and therefore, he cannot be blamed for anything, nor thanked... he’s like the tooth faerie or Santa Claus) or you can accept that he exists and get angry at him. You cannot logically have it both ways.
A couple last points of interest... I thought it noteworthy to mention that Lewis alludes to the idea of Pascal’s wager, particularly when he comments that “it is hardly complimentary to God that we should choose Him as an alternative to Hell” (606). It is also interesting to note that Lewis acknowledges that his explanation of suffering is theological in nature.
Even though Lewis primarily argues from an intellectual standpoint, he is very aware of the personal issues that may arise and at least in my eyes, this improves his credibility. I think that for everyone, the problem of pain is a very personal issue and it is something that has the potential to break a person’s faith. In all truth, I don’t think that the problem of pain can be argued from a purely logical and theoretical standpoint, as it is something that we all have to deal with on a very personal level and if you’ve ever dealt with someone who has faced those questions (or perhaps these are questions you’ve faced yourself), you will find that it is utterly absurd to expect that a philosophical argument will provide any comfort.
On a completely separate note, I thought that The Great Divorce was brilliantly written. It is one of my favourite Lewis books and it is interesting to see how he was so heavily influenced by the ideas of Plato, specifically the idea of Plato's cave and the world of the forms. In The Great Divorce, the narrator is no stranger of pain. In fact, he experiences a great amount of pain when he first arrives in Heaven (the sun is too bright and the grass is as sharp as razor-blades). This ties in very nicely with the idea in The Problem of Pain that one must be able to experience pain in order to know God.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Quick Update + Narnia
I'm kind of really sorry that I haven't been updating here (I'm still not sure how many people read this, other than my mom and maybe my sister), but I've been swamped with stuff going on IRL. We've had the first wave of exams this week and last week, so I've had tests in four of my five classes. I've been trying to make an effort to work out some personal issues that I've been having. I'm not going to go into that here, but suffice to say, I've been learning a lot and it hasn't necessarily been easy.
Anyhow, I thought I'd leave you with a quotation that I found while reading yesterday. I've been re-reading through CS Lewis' Narnia books, specifically this time, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. First of all, two of the more "fun" quotes, then a serious one.
"There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it." (CS Lewis' narration, when he's talking about Eustace. This is the first sentence in the book...)
"Between ourselves, you haven't been as bad as I was on my first trip to Narnia. You were only an ass, but I was a traitor." (Edmund to Eustace after the dragon incident. You'll have to read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe or at least be familiar with the storyline of that book to understand the full scope of this.)
"Dearest," said Aslan very gently, "you and your brother will never come back to Narnia."
[...]
"It isn't Narnia you know," sobbed Lucy. "It's you. We shan't meet you there. And how can we live, never meeting you?"
"But you shall meet me, dear one," said Aslan.
"Are--are you there too, Sir?" said Edmund.
"I am," said Aslan. "But there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. That is the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there."
I don't think I really need to say anything about that last quote, other than it's at the very end of the book. And it's become one of my favourite CS Lewis quotes in a very short amount of time. Anyhow, take care, everyone!~
Anyhow, I thought I'd leave you with a quotation that I found while reading yesterday. I've been re-reading through CS Lewis' Narnia books, specifically this time, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. First of all, two of the more "fun" quotes, then a serious one.
"There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it." (CS Lewis' narration, when he's talking about Eustace. This is the first sentence in the book...)
"Between ourselves, you haven't been as bad as I was on my first trip to Narnia. You were only an ass, but I was a traitor." (Edmund to Eustace after the dragon incident. You'll have to read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe or at least be familiar with the storyline of that book to understand the full scope of this.)
"Dearest," said Aslan very gently, "you and your brother will never come back to Narnia."
[...]
"It isn't Narnia you know," sobbed Lucy. "It's you. We shan't meet you there. And how can we live, never meeting you?"
"But you shall meet me, dear one," said Aslan.
"Are--are you there too, Sir?" said Edmund.
"I am," said Aslan. "But there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. That is the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there."
I don't think I really need to say anything about that last quote, other than it's at the very end of the book. And it's become one of my favourite CS Lewis quotes in a very short amount of time. Anyhow, take care, everyone!~
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Plato's Cave: A Brief Reflection
These are just some reflections on Plato's story about the man in a cave... first half is summary of what happened and the second half is just some thoughts. I hope you enjoy~
This section of the book starts out with a telling of a story of a man who has been kept in a dark cave for his entire life. The only available view he has of anything that is going on around him is a shadow, not unlike the ones created by children standing behind a sheet and using a light to make shadows and tell a story though that. Plato makes the point that if all the man knows are these shadows, then how is he to know that these shadows are not real and that they are made by other objects? To the man, these shadows would appear to be the ultimate reality, as this is all he knows.
As time passes, the man is allowed to see the objects that create the shadows, but is still kept in the cave. Now, he might believe that the shadows created are not the ultimate reality, but rather these objects that created these shadows. Although this is a slightly more accurate view of the world, he has still not seen any real objects; that is, to say that the items he is seeing are merely an imitation of their counterparts in the real world. Instead of seeing a live dog, he might be seeing a paper cut-out of a canine and before, he would have seen the shadow of this paper cut-out. In order to experience the real object, the man must be allowed to leave the cave.
Plato then continues to explain that the man is allowed to leave the cave and sees his own reflection in a lake and is able to view such objects as the trees, the sun and everything else that a regular person would be used to seeing. He makes the case that since the person has been living in a cave and watching shadows for his entire life, it will take a fair amount of adjustment to seeing real objects. He must get used to one object (ie, the sun) before he can get accustomed to the world at large and before he can learn to function in such a place.
This analogy is a familiar one, as it can be likened to a Christian living in this world. To a Christian, the ultimate reality is what is to come when the new Heaven and new Earth are created. What a Christian sees in this world is merely a shadow or a faulty imitation of this ultimate reality. The edges are blurred and people have no definite way of knowing whether or not what they see is real.
The idea of having to spend time to grow accustomed to physical stimuli draws a strong comparison to what happens in CS Lewis’ The Great Divorce. In this story, the narrator takes a journey from a town where the ultimate reality is thoughts and where people construct their houses simply by wishing for a house, but these houses are little more than shadows and do not protect them from the weather. As he journeys into Heaven, he notes that the sun is much too bright for many of the passengers and how the grass is sharp enough to cut his feet. He must spend time in this new place to get accustomed to the reality.
If a person believes in the Christian philosophy that what he sees here on Earth is not the ultimate reality and is merely a shadow of things to come, he must prepare himself or, like the man in the cave or the narrator in The Great Divorce, this reality (that is, Heaven) will come as a shock.
What is so fascinating about this story that Plato relates to the listener is how many different ways it can be interpreted. Here was a man who lived in the time of the ancient Greek empire and obviously had no knowledge of the Judeo-Christian themes and heritage, yet Christians have used this point to argue that what happens on Earth is not the ultimate reality. Even CS Lewis, arguably one of the greatest Christian apologists of all time and most certainly in the twentieth century, draws inspiration from this piece that was written over two thousand years prior.
Another interesting thing to note is that, while Christian arguments have probably used this illustration by Plato more often than arguments for other religions, Plato’s analogy does not necessarily point to the higher reality that is described by Christianity; it merely makes the case that a higher reality is possible and that in order to fully experience it, one must take the time to prepare himself for all possibilities.
This section of the book starts out with a telling of a story of a man who has been kept in a dark cave for his entire life. The only available view he has of anything that is going on around him is a shadow, not unlike the ones created by children standing behind a sheet and using a light to make shadows and tell a story though that. Plato makes the point that if all the man knows are these shadows, then how is he to know that these shadows are not real and that they are made by other objects? To the man, these shadows would appear to be the ultimate reality, as this is all he knows.
As time passes, the man is allowed to see the objects that create the shadows, but is still kept in the cave. Now, he might believe that the shadows created are not the ultimate reality, but rather these objects that created these shadows. Although this is a slightly more accurate view of the world, he has still not seen any real objects; that is, to say that the items he is seeing are merely an imitation of their counterparts in the real world. Instead of seeing a live dog, he might be seeing a paper cut-out of a canine and before, he would have seen the shadow of this paper cut-out. In order to experience the real object, the man must be allowed to leave the cave.
Plato then continues to explain that the man is allowed to leave the cave and sees his own reflection in a lake and is able to view such objects as the trees, the sun and everything else that a regular person would be used to seeing. He makes the case that since the person has been living in a cave and watching shadows for his entire life, it will take a fair amount of adjustment to seeing real objects. He must get used to one object (ie, the sun) before he can get accustomed to the world at large and before he can learn to function in such a place.
This analogy is a familiar one, as it can be likened to a Christian living in this world. To a Christian, the ultimate reality is what is to come when the new Heaven and new Earth are created. What a Christian sees in this world is merely a shadow or a faulty imitation of this ultimate reality. The edges are blurred and people have no definite way of knowing whether or not what they see is real.
The idea of having to spend time to grow accustomed to physical stimuli draws a strong comparison to what happens in CS Lewis’ The Great Divorce. In this story, the narrator takes a journey from a town where the ultimate reality is thoughts and where people construct their houses simply by wishing for a house, but these houses are little more than shadows and do not protect them from the weather. As he journeys into Heaven, he notes that the sun is much too bright for many of the passengers and how the grass is sharp enough to cut his feet. He must spend time in this new place to get accustomed to the reality.
If a person believes in the Christian philosophy that what he sees here on Earth is not the ultimate reality and is merely a shadow of things to come, he must prepare himself or, like the man in the cave or the narrator in The Great Divorce, this reality (that is, Heaven) will come as a shock.
What is so fascinating about this story that Plato relates to the listener is how many different ways it can be interpreted. Here was a man who lived in the time of the ancient Greek empire and obviously had no knowledge of the Judeo-Christian themes and heritage, yet Christians have used this point to argue that what happens on Earth is not the ultimate reality. Even CS Lewis, arguably one of the greatest Christian apologists of all time and most certainly in the twentieth century, draws inspiration from this piece that was written over two thousand years prior.
Another interesting thing to note is that, while Christian arguments have probably used this illustration by Plato more often than arguments for other religions, Plato’s analogy does not necessarily point to the higher reality that is described by Christianity; it merely makes the case that a higher reality is possible and that in order to fully experience it, one must take the time to prepare himself for all possibilities.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)