Keely's review

Keely, I would love to hear your thoughts on this. This is a book that would benefit from your ornate approach to reviews...

I think you have it rated about right; though maybe i'd give it a three.

Well, here's my problem: with a simple book, I feel I can adequately cover a fairly in-depth analysis in a review. The ideas which sprout from a criticism or reading often blossom into something much wider and greater than the original work, at which point one might stray to those other points and use the work to express something more about humanity, the world, literature, &c.

The problem with trying to review this work is that I would feel it necessary to give the author his due. This is usually my general motivation, and so my reviews either head towards rather complex to those books I feel I can capture in the space allotted, or to more simplistic impressions and ideas, such as in the case of this book, where a complete and respectful analysis is a work unto itself.

Not only this, but to confront this book and look at the points of self-contradiction, or straying, or inapt metapohor, or tautology would summarily and immediately bring me into a much vaster arena of Theological debate, which is an arena vastly larger than Lewis has devised here (or indeed, in his works in general).

Indeed, he admits this himself, but it remains part of his problem. There is a sense to which he is prone to a sort of chiaroscuro oversimplification, and of course he attests to his fondness for duality in this work. The problem there is that a system of duality automatically becomes not only defensive, but also paints itself as persocuted victim.

I would not claim that I have answers or that I am free from these same sorts of self-conflicts, but then I never claim to be, nor do I go out of my way to justify that I am in some sense 'correct'.

There are many who feel an itchy finger at this point, and would like to refute pointedly that assertion, but there is a distinction here. I do not value myself, my opinions, or my position out of a sense of correctness, but out of a sense of striving for correctness.

I do not respect the confident expression of ideas: this is more often a sign of being deluded than being informed. I respect in others the due diligance behind whatever they may or may not express. This becomes the failing behind Lewis, as well, and has been the failing I have sadly met in any theological (and most political, social, personal, &c.) conversations I've been fortunate enough to have.

I express confidently what I feel I have done the work to earn; not that this separates me from anyone else expressing themselves. However, the purpose of my expression is never to convince others or to ultimately 'be right'. I express myself in order to be tested and ultimately, realize why and how I am mistaken about the world.

Every expression is a hypothesis to be tested, again and again, and the stronger the confidence which experience has taught me to express it, the more I hope to be proven wrong and be opened to a new reality.

In short, if I am looking to be convinced, proven wrong, and challenged, and if Lewis has not only completely failed to do this, but is less convincing than others who came before him, then all he has become is a fan to the flame of tautological self-justified delusion.

As much as Dawkins has informed me, he is really the same creature for the other side, ultimately unconvincing because he, himself, is too convinced and too doggedly attached to see properly anymore.

Of course, it shouldn't be surprising that Lewis would entertain a false romanticism to entertain the adoration of the public without sacrificing an iota of his stuffy, Tory hubris: Tolkien did the same thing.

I'm glad you willingly gave this a read and some serious thought, even if it failed to impress you.

Yet, if your goal really is never to assume you're right about anything, I can't imagine you could ever be convinced of anything by anyone. (And yet I suspect you may have many assumptions you believe to be right.)

I myself, of course, think I am right about everything. What's the point of maintaining an opinion I believe to be wrong? If I thought it was wrong, or if I became convinced through debate with another that it was wrong, I would change it until, once again, I thought I was right.

I'm not sure man has ever been capable of purely detached rational thought. We are more than brains. In the last few decades, we are certainly less capable than ever, but that is a byproduct of a modern education system that discourages critical thinking.

I'd never suggest mankind was ever capable of being so detached, or that such a thing should even be the goal. Indeed, there is much of the world and of the self which is sensory and ephemeral and trying to rationalize everything, including that we don't understand, is usually just a technique for self-delusion and avoidance.

That being said, if approached the right way, the ideal of rational thought is certainly one worthy to seek. We should endeavor to be rational in the search of self-discovery and increased knowledge of the world, especially as this rationality helps us to recognize and avoid our own cognitive biases.

We may bear the goal of thinking critically and without bias as an ideal, but if we should never imagine that we will reach this state. Once we think that we are already unbiased, we will no longer look for and try to weed out our own bias.

In this sense, I would never imagine I am correct because to do so would mean that I wouldn't leave open the possibility that I am wrong about something, and hence the goal of learning and personal growth is discarded for the comfort of belief.

I have never encountered anyone who was ever 'right' about anything. There is nothing to which cannot be leant a further and deeper understanding through new data, discussion, and thought.

Critical thinking means always searching for a better answer, always testing what you have learned. If there are better answers and greater experiences out there, I cannot ever consider myself to be 'right'. I may have good ideas, ideas which tend to work, but simply because these often serve me well, I should not mistake this for some 'true understanding'.

I may be able to make certain predictions about the effects of gravity which will prove true, over and over, but this is no more an understanding of the concept of gravity than the ability to drive a car represents the knowledge of how one works.

I may be able to pilot a life on this earth, but I wouldn't pretend that means I understand how it all works.

If you consider yourself 'right', and then are proved wrong and change your opinion, then you must realize you were never right in the first place. So, why assume that you are right now when you weren't so before?

I don't really disagree with anything you've said in the comment above. I was being too flip. We arrive at our opinions not because we think they are "right" in an absolute sense, but because we think they are "more right" than something else. And when we find something that seems "more right" than that, we change the opinion. (If we are thinking creatures, that is.) I just find it amusing in debate when, if I defend a position, someone will fling back, "You think you're right about everything, don't you?" Well, I'm defending this position, because it seems more defensible to me than your position at this time. It doesn't mean I can't change it one day if I'm confronted with more convincing arguments on behalf of some other position, but I don't spend any amount of time defending positions I believe to be wrong.