By Stewart Goetz
whereas a lot has been written on Lewis and his paintings, almost not anything has been written from a philosophical standpoint on his perspectives of happiness, excitement, soreness, and the soul and physique. accordingly, nobody to date has famous that his perspectives on those issues are deeply attention-grabbing and debatable, and-perhaps extra jarring-no one has but safely defined why Lewis by no means grew to become a Roman Catholic. Stewart Goetz's cautious research of Lewis's philosophical inspiration unearths oft-overlooked implications and demonstrates that it was once, at its root, at odds with that of Thomas Aquinas and, thereby, the Roman Catholic Church.
Read or Download A Philosophical Walking Tour with C.S. Lewis: Why It Did Not Include Rome PDF
Best religious books
In line with a profile within the mother or father, Mary Midgley is 'the premiere scourge of clinical pretensions during this nation; anyone whose wit is well-known even by way of those that think she occasionally oversteps the mark'. one in every of Britain's most interesting philosophers, Midgley exposes the illogical common sense of negative doctrines that guard themselves at the back of the status of technology.
Walter Kaufmann committed his lifestyles to exploring the spiritual implications ol literary and philosophical texts. Deeply skeptical in regards to the human and ethical bene? ts of recent secularism, he additionally criticized the hunt for simple task pursued via dogma. Kaufmann observed a hazard of lack of authenticity in what he defined as unjusti?
Dave Webster’s booklet is a counter-blast opposed to the culturally approved norm that spirituality is an important and demanding consider human existence. Rejecting the assumption of human well being as predicated at the religious, the booklet seeks to spot the poisonous influence of non secular discourses on our lives. Spirituality makes us stressed, apolitical and depressing - no matter if that spirituality is from traditional spiritual roots, from a new-age buffet of ideals, or from a few re-imagined historic method of trust.
- Algebraic Riccati Equations
- Religious Education in a Multicultural Europe: Children, Parents and Schools
- Science and Religious Anthropology (Ashgate Science and Religion)
- From East to West: Odyssey of a Soul
Extra info for A Philosophical Walking Tour with C.S. Lewis: Why It Did Not Include Rome
Nuttall highlights the similarity of Lewis’s view that pleasure is good with that of Moore. . . ”42 Again, some comments are warranted. Nuttall is saying that there is the experience of pleasure and the evaluation of the objective goodness of pleasure. ” Indeed, pleasure is intrinsically good. To say, as Moore did, that the goodness of pleasure is non-natural is to say that though the goodness of pleasure is real and known to be so, it is not apprehended by means of one or more of the five senses; it cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, touched, or heard.
Mr. ”5 However, Lewis would have defended his treatment of Satan on the very grounds that it accorded with common sense. . ”6 When we turn to Lewis’s discussions of ethics, we get a similar appeal by him to what most people believe. Thus, when describing what Jesus came to teach, Lewis made clear that he did not come to proclaim something new about morality. Jesus simply presupposed commonsense morality (the common moral law) or what Lewis in The Abolition of Man called the Tao. Had Jesus done otherwise, Lewis believed that he would have failed to connect with the ordinary person.
S. Lewis of being right asks of some action whether God commands that it be right because it is right, or it is right because God commands that it be so. Lewis answered that [w]ith Hooker, and against Dr Johnson, I emphatically embrace the first alternative. . . 44 As I hope to make apparent two sections hence, Lewis believed that morality (principles of morally right and wrong action) is basically about the happiness of others. , with preserving or increasing that happiness). Given that happiness consists in experiences of pleasure that are intrinsically good, God could not command that hatred be morally right because hatred leads to actions whose purpose is either to decrease pleasure or increase pain in the lives of others.