This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Was Lewis a Platonist

The man. The myth.

Was Lewis a Platonist

Postby Robert » July 14th, 2004, 1:43 pm

After reading the Last Battle, I was tempted to say that Lewis must have put a lot of stock in Platonism. I saw at least two, one subtle one not, allusions to Plato's philosophical doctrine. The first, and most obvious, was when Digory simply stated that Plato must have been right. He was referring to the doctrine of the Forms, where everything that we perceive with the senses, the material world, is but a shadow of the real, more tangible world of the spirit. Furthermore, Digory went on to describe how everything that they had experienced in their life was there, in Heaven, but in a more expressively full manner. He seemed to be insinuating that everything that is good in our lives are retained eternally, where a sifting process, of sorts, is immediately apparent in the Heavenly product of our eternal existence.

Another Platonic reference is in the huddling of the dwarves. THis is similiar to the cave analogy of Plato. Like Plato's model for ignorance, the dwarves refuse to 'see' the truth of reality which is around them. Instead they decide to 'play it safe' with standing in a huddle. Their own fears distort their senses, i.e., when the others try to offer them food from the banquet table and they equate it to refuse. The cave analogy of Plato is somewhat different, in that, the people who are under an illusion of the nature of what is real are shackled, and likewise, their eyes are open although they are looking at shadows from a nearby fire (the real light is of course outside with the sun). But, nevertheless, the similiarity is in the idea of self disillusionment. IN the case of the dwarves, they have their eyes shut, while in the case of the cave dwellers, they are shackled and thus forced to see only shadows. However, even in the latter case, Plato makes it clear that one can free themselves from this bondage, but it is a difficult process of struggling with the chains. But, in the case of the dwarves, although physically speaking it is easier to open one's eyes, the struggle is the same. The dwarves must struggle with the idea of fear (they are afraid of what they may see-a dark shed with an awful creature ready to pounce on them), while the cave dwellers in Plato's vision of self induced ignorance, must struggle with the chains and the fear of ridicule by the others in bondage. After all, fear is a form of bondage. One is chained to their own fear.

I also see this as a picture of Hell. I am not saying that Plato had such an idea in mind, but it could be argued that Plato saw an inevitable rationale to the doctrine of Hell in his pagan, pre-Christian mind. As to the picture of the huddling dwarves, I am not sure if this is what Lewis had in mind or not. I am inclined to think that this is what he had in mind though. The self-disillusionment of thinking that there is no 'better' place. The smallness of Hell, as is we see in the fact that the further they went in to to shed, the bigger it got. IN the Great Divorce, this concept of Hell being a smallness, a crowding of entities into the smallest possible space mirrors the idea that Hell is this choosing of less than what is real, of what is less than what is meant for persons.

Thoughts?
[I am] Freudian Viennese by night, by day [I am] Marxian Muscovite

--Robert Frost--
User avatar
Robert
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 579
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Under the stars and in the midst of things

Re: Was Lewis a Platonist

Postby Steve » July 14th, 2004, 2:01 pm

Another reference, the Professor in LWW amazed that the children have a hard time believing in Narnia, saying "Its all in Plato."

And another, in one of his essays commenting on the tendency of students to want to read a modern book explaining Plato rather than reading Plato himself.

Undoubtedly Lewis enjoyed Plato and had a high regard for his writings.

I wonder though whether Plato's doctrine of Ideal Forms is in fact true. If I understand right, according to Plato, the reason why there are no perfect circles or spheres in nature, is that the natural spheres are imperfect copies of the Ideal Sphere. But maybe, God delights in individuality, and creates individual spheres that are round in general terms, but not perfectly round so that they are different one from another. Maybe there is no Ideal Sphere, but this is only an abstraction in our minds to categorize what spheres are like.


And on another topic, I don't think Lewis would have approved of Plato's program (from Republic) of raising a caste of philosophers to rule the world (the philosophers are supposed to have no family background, are not supposed ever to know who their parents were). This sounds like a preparation for the tyranny of moral busybodies that Lewis condemns.
User avatar
Steve
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 730
Joined: Aug 1999
Location: Waxhaw, North Carolina, USA

Re: Was Lewis a Platonist

Postby Robert » July 15th, 2004, 3:23 am

Perhaps I should have said Neo-Platonist. I am sure that Lewis didn't agree, as any good Christian shouldn't, with the political optimism of Plato's view of an autocracy of Philosophers. In a like manner, the doctrine of the forms was one that implied that indeed there was a perfect circle (perfect man, chair, etc...) which the particular manifestations we see in the physical universe mirrored. The Neo-Platonists, however, took the doctrine of the forms and applied it to Christainity, i.e., the ideas of God are the forms, every 'good' thing we experience in this life is but a shadow of the truly 'real' and perfect example of these things in Heaven, adn so forth. Perhaps Lewis had more sympathy for Platonism ala Augustine, Anselm and Bonaventure. Nevertheless, he certainly had much esteem for the doctrine as a way of explaining the contrast between the lower and the higher things of creation.
[I am] Freudian Viennese by night, by day [I am] Marxian Muscovite

--Robert Frost--
User avatar
Robert
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 579
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Under the stars and in the midst of things

forms

Postby Steve » July 15th, 2004, 10:18 am

User avatar
Steve
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 730
Joined: Aug 1999
Location: Waxhaw, North Carolina, USA

Re: forms

Postby Robert » July 15th, 2004, 1:11 pm

I don't think that one can draw such a conclusion of the 'perfect man' as being racist, in that, this perfect man is not privy to the senses. Since this ideal man is not privy to the senses, to point to any example in the physical universe (like this race or that race) is betraying the doctrine of the forms. I am not saying that I accept the doctrine of the forms lock, stock and barrel, but I will say that there is much truth, I think, in it. For example, when we speak of the 'perfect man', in a neo-platonic sense, we can appeal to 'what we should be'. I don't think that we must look at this 'ideal man' as a separate entity from us, but rather, as what we will be 'like'. Obviously, the ideal man was, and still is, Jesus. We can say that we are not Him, but we can say that one day we will be like Him as much as we should be. Just like the example in The Last Battle, the peculiarity and particular'ness' of the lives of the Narnian travelers when they died was not only restored to them but refined. The house they lived in, the city they lived in, not one minute detail of their lives had gone away, rather, there was 'more' to it than they had seen in life, in the shadowland of the physical universe. This place was the From of their life, where as, when they were alive it had only been a shadow tainted by the ravaging nature of time (which deteriorated it) and limited space. This was much more real and perfect. I think that this is a good view of neo-platonism, perhaps not platonism, in that, Plato seemed to put less emphasis on the particular, where as, something being peculiar and unique is a Good thing. He just couldn't understand how the universal and the partucular were related. But I think that the the characters of The Last battle knew, in the end, how they were related.
[I am] Freudian Viennese by night, by day [I am] Marxian Muscovite

--Robert Frost--
User avatar
Robert
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 579
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Under the stars and in the midst of things

Re: forms

Postby Stanley Anderson » July 15th, 2004, 2:17 pm

[from Steve]:
>To say there is an Ideal Man is to potentially invite racism or
>sexism. Is the Ideal Man male or female?

Only if "idealness" limits things in that way. Is there an ideal "idealness"? I say that humourously, but does the Ideal Cube have a particular dimension on its side, say, 4.5 inches?

Or, to follow your lead, does the Ideal Object invite shapism or formism? Is the Ideal Object even human? In other words, whatever truth there is in the concept, it must include levels or distinctions of some sort (ie if there is an Ideal Object, can there not also be an Ideal Human? And if there is an Ideal Human could there not also be an Ideal Male or Ideal Female, or Ideal example of whatever race one chooses?)

I tend to think (as might be expected from my many posts on the subject:-) that the quantum physical idea of a particle taking "all" paths (until it is observed and the collapse of the wave function occurs) plays into this idea of Ideal Forms somehow -- that the "idealness" somehow incorporates "all paths" or "all forms" that make, as an amalgam (not a good word -- I feel like something like the Athanasian Creed is necessary here to avoid some kind of quantum heresy:-), the completeness of the ideal form.

All vague and shadowy, I know, but we are probably only able to see a shadow of this idea of ideal forms while we are still in the cave.

--Stanley
User avatar
Stanley Anderson
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 3251
Joined: Aug 1996
Location: Southern California

Re: forms

Postby Steve » July 15th, 2004, 2:42 pm

Well this makes some sense. So the Ideal Forms specify some things, but leave other things unspecified (or specify several possible options)?
User avatar
Steve
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 730
Joined: Aug 1999
Location: Waxhaw, North Carolina, USA

Re: forms

Postby Steve » July 15th, 2004, 10:10 pm

The Ideal Form probably wouldn't be the 1040, would it?

All seriousness aside, I think you've said in other words what Robert was saying. I do like your analogy of the particle occupying all possible locations until it collapses into one.
User avatar
Steve
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 730
Joined: Aug 1999
Location: Waxhaw, North Carolina, USA

Re: forms

Postby postodave » November 11th, 2004, 11:42 am

Can I make a suggestion here that Plato has confused two different issues. The extension he makes from the existence of perfect mathematical forms to the existence of perfect chairs isn't valid. It would be possible to be a realist (essentialist) about some things eg. geometrical entities and a nominalist about others eg life forms, artifacts. Or if you want to start from the idea that all creation 'pre-exists' in the mind of God to say that somehow we have access to the former but not the latter. We can know what a perfect circle is like or what a line is even though these things have no physical existence but that does not mean we can intuit a perfect man or a perfect chair. John Polkinghorne explains this by talking about a created noetic realm which is real but non-physical and non-temporal. In this realm mathematical entities can subsist. Descartes took the same view believing that even number was part of creation and Pascal also thought basic mathematical knowledge eg that 1+1=2 came by direct intuition.
postodave
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Oct 2004


Return to C. S. Lewis

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 13 guests