Okay, I'm a big grammar nut, so when I came across the following passage in Lewis' The Problem of Pain, I had to write a journal entry on it (I took a C.S. Lewis class at school last semester and we were required to keep a journal). It's such a beautiful analogy, IMO.
Here's the entry:
Thursday, April 8, 2004
A Grammar Lesson
They wanted, as we say, to ‘call their souls their own.’ But that means to live a lie, for our souls are not, in fact, our own. They wanted some corner in the universe of which they could say to God, ‘This is our business, not yours.’ But there is no such corner. They wanted to be nouns, but they were, and eternally must be, mere adjectives.
-C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, p. 75
What does Lewis mean when he says that men were and are ‘adjectives,’ but wanted to be ‘nouns’?
Wordnet defines the word ‘noun’ as “1. A word that can be used to refer to a person or place or thing. 2. A word that can serve as the subject of a verb.” I like this second definition best for the sake of the analogy: “A word that can serve as the subject of a verb.” I have learned in all my English classes since elementary school that an action (or a verb) always requires a subject (a noun) to perform that action. Inversely, I think it is fair to say that a noun (as a subject) is the only part of speech which is capable of fulfilling the verb; no other part of speech-- adverb, adjective, or participle-- has been endowed with the power of action. Also, a noun can stand alone and still bear significance: for example, if one sees the word ‘apple,’ the image of an apple immediately comes to the mind’s eye; it is a substantive object that one can easily visualize. Although the exact color and size of the imagined fruit may vary from mind to mind, it still has its sure defining qualities which, when seen, immediately identify it as an apple and not as a mango or a watermelon.
An adjective, on the other hand, if it stands alone, hardly has any meaning at all. What good is the word ‘long,’ for instance, without a noun for it to modify? One must say ‘long hair,’ or ‘long day,’ or ‘long book’ before the word can be given any real significance. In other words, an adjective is always dependent upon the noun it modifies; it is merely an accessory.
So when Lewis says, “They wanted to be nouns, but they were, and eternally must be, mere adjectives,” what he means is, mankind wanted to have the power to act for themselves, to be independent individuals with their own personal identity. They wanted to ‘call their souls their own.’ They didn’t want to be dependent upon God anymore for their lives to have any meaning; they were tired of being mere ‘accessories’ to the One True Noun.
The world is so vehement in encouraging all members of the human race to find their own identity, to be independent people capable of thinking and acting entirely for themselves. I have fallen into this trap probably every single day of my life. But what Lewis says is that the world’s philosophy is wrong: I cannot, by nature, be ‘my own,’ no matter how hard I try. I am, ‘and eternally must be, [a] mere [adjective].’ Alone, I am incomplete, and my purpose is vague. Only when I submit myself to God in all humility can I-- as adjective-- fulfill the grand purposes for which I was brought into being.
The question I must ask myself now is, what kind of adjective will I be?
Sylvia Lee
