by JSD » July 10th, 2006, 3:56 am
Lewis on Desire: But this brought me already into the region of awe, for I thus understood that in deepest solitude there is a road right out of the self, a commerce with something which, by refusing to identify itself with any object of the senses, or anything whereof we have biological or social need, or anything imagined, or any state of our own minds, proclaims itself sheerly objective. Far more objective than bodies, for it is not, like them, clothed in our senses; the naked Other, imageless (though our imagination salutes it with a hundred images), unknown, undefined, desired.
Kolbitar,
I agree with argument by desire, as I think I mentioned. On the whole I think it a wonderful contribution to apologetics. And, it matches and resonates with my life.
At bottom, that fact it relies on most, is an observed experience within Lewis himself, which clearly has assent form many as an experience in them as well. The above articulates it.
And the above, of course, is not the argument by desire itself, but a statement that considers the phenomenon of the kind of desire that Lewis spoke about. He writes … for I thus understood ….. and then sets out the distinction he is making, a desire exists that is not identified with anything on earth, permits commerce with it, is outside of self, is not imagined etc. …. all set down with felicity.
I was merely saying that that kind of thing, that kind of writing is not strictly logical. He says of the desire that it “proclaims itself”. Well, such language is not subject to proof of any kind, but is part of that particular definition. To suggest that a desire proclaims itself is to speak the language of spirit, to believers, but the mere language of psychology to the naturalist.
Two observations (the second of which I may be too tired to makes properly).
1. I am viewing this generally from the perspective of a non-believer. As a believer I have no trouble picking out the desire Lewis speaks of from any number of desires prodding me at any point in time. And it has long been associated to God in my life, but associated not through reason but that reassurance of the spirit, which is language I am forced to use to explain the firmness of my unproveable knowledge. I cannot deny the facts, nor the experience, nor the holiness.
2. The second point is that this is a lovely example of Lewis’ other great talent; namely expressing himself by leaning on that power of myth to tell the truth. Lewis understood that in myth the truth comes closest to be tasted as well as known – to use his own words and to reference his comment on this in “On Stories”. It is my view that he was adept at capturing the mythical quality, not only occasionally in his narratives but also in his prose, even his expository prose. The response that is made to certain writing is like that response that is made to myth. A kind of touching of the truth, logic aside. Lewis, like Plato, often proceeds in utter logic from pages, and then, nearing his end, he leaves off and accesses the higher truth of where he wants to go through writing that is more imaginary than anything else. That is not to diminish it, but just to say it is not the standard of scholarship. It is just this skill, in my view, which contributes so much to why people love Lewis, not just read him. And what set him apart from better academics who are as boring as concrete.
John
