Essay: Finding Our Faces

Before reading this essay, I would recommend reading Till We Have Faces, the novel by C.S. Lewis this essay is based on. I hope you can understand my points without the background, but it's an excellent book, all the same.

~ ~ ~

Makeup, the internet, and programs for editing photographs have made it easy to hide one’s true face. If a woman were not content with her face, for whatever reason, she could hide it under a layer of fake imagery to the point where she became another person. Such a practice has become so commonplace that people have forgotten the importance of having a face. A face does not exist to be pretty, but to distinguish between different people. This idea of being different—of having an identity—has been lost to the materialistic view that there is no moral or spiritual significance to a face. By hiding the faces given to them at birth, such people become faceless in a sense, seeking to blend in with the world’s common desire to be beautiful. C.S. Lewis worked with this idea of facelessness in his novel, Till We Have Faces, which he based on the myth of Cupid and Psyche. The idea Lewis seemed to present in this work was that man has no face before God, unless he has been purged with the blood of Christ, when he is given Christ’s identity.

One of Lewis’ characters in Till We Have Faces, Orual, demonstrated one of the world's uses for having no face: hiding the ugliness of one’s true visage. Throughout the story, Orual became progressively aware of her ugliness, not just physically, but spiritually, too. And as a result, she decided to cover her face with a veil at all times. Orual also despised the vulnerability of going about barefaced. Without a veil, Orual’s eyes—which, in literature, are usually considered the windows to the soul—were open for the entire world to see through. But when she covered them with her veil, her identity disappeared. This idea of hiding is akin to Adam and Eve’s fig leaves in the Garden of Eden, after they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They used their leaves to cover up the shame of their sins, just as Orual used her veil to hide her sins from public view. This protection served her well for a time, when she became the queen of Glome.

When Orual took the throne, her veil was no longer merely a covering for her shame, but also a source of power. Orual’s power came from the fact that she could see the men in her court, but they could not see her, and thus could not judge how best to work with her. In a similar way, man cannot see God in His entirety, but He can see us. Thus, Orual tried to set herself up as a god. Orual’s facelessness was also similar to the goddess Ungit, the deity of Glome. Because Ungit was merely a lump of rock in the temple, and ergo had no face, the people (including Orual) had a tendency toward imagining faces for Ungit. The people also imagined faces for Orual when she wore her veil, varying between ravishingly beautiful and horrifying.

Man was made to have a face, and not just a physical one. He was also made to have a spiritual face in the presence of God. But man, in his sinful state, has no identity unless it is by the will of God Himself. This is because without God, man has no worth, nothing to recommend him to God because of his sinfulness. A man may try to be virtuous through his own power, but he will never be able to do enough on his own that can cover the debt of his sins. However, Christ died on the cross so that man could have standing with God. When Christ died and took on man’s lowly identity, He gave man His, so that he could be righteous in the presence of God. Thus, in a sense, man was given the opportunity to have Christ’s face. In the same way, at the end of Till We Have Faces, Orual looked at her reflection and saw that she looked like Psyche, her beautiful sister who had endured many trials for the sake of Orual.

Although physical beauty loses its purpose in death, the idea behind putting in effort to make oneself appear falsely beautiful applies to the soul, too. For if a woman’s goal in life is to be beautiful enough to fit a man’s ideal in attractiveness, she simply becomes another face lost in the crowd, having no identity. Her focus is centered on the world, not on what is to come after this world has passed away. Orual’s veil in Till We Have Faces was another form of makeup, since without her true face to remind the people of her ugliness, she was considered beautiful by almost the entire kingdom. At the end of the tale, though, Orual forsook her veil and, after a series of visions and arduous tasks, received the beauty of Psyche as her own. So too, Christians were given the beauty of Christ in the eyes of God when He died, taking man’s ugliness upon Himself.

Question 6: Is the Pen Mightier Than the Sword?

Is the pen mightier than the sword?

I have two conflicting sayings to present to you today:

1. The pen is mightier than the sword.
2. Actions speak louder than words.

If the pen is mightier than the sword, does that mean words actually speak louder than actions? And if actions really speak louder than words, then is the sword actually mightier than the pen? Which is it? Or are they both true? I would argue that they both actually have some truth to them. I'll start with the truth behind the first of the two.

What this first statement says is that the words of a skillful writer can sway a mind more thoroughly and more efficiently than a conquering king can in battle. A king can conquer a land, but that does not necessarily put the minds of the conquered people in his hand. They may be in his power for a time, but they do not necessarily believe what he tells them to. The conquered people may follow his laws but rebel against him in their minds if they believe his laws are unjust.

On the other hand, a man can sway a whole country to his views if he uses the right words. He does not even need to conquer the people in battle to win their hearts to him if they believe what he says is true. Even if what he says is not true and he poses his ideas in a desirable way, the people can be swayed. So in that sense, the pen is mightier than the sword.

The second saying can be applied more generally than the first. In any situation in life, if you have to prove an idea is true, you can speak all you like about it and still not have anyone believe you. Even if you speak well, the best method to back up your ideas is to have actions supporting them. This is not to say that words cannot convince people, but that actions are more powerful. Not just actions involving physical combat, like in the first saying, but any kind of action. For example, if you wanted to show the power of forgiveness, you could talk all you liked about and still not make any sense. But if you proved its power by actually forgiving someone yourself, or showing the result of another person forgiving someone, that would have much more weight with your audience.

This idea can also be applied to the first saying. If a man took the first saying to heart and attempted to sway a people with his words instead of the sword, he would still need actions to prove his ideas. He wouldn't have to conquer the people to prove he is powerful, but if he were simply trying to prove the validity of a scheme of government, he could point out examples in history of when it has worked. This would have much more weight with the people, because the man has made it no longer about his own words, but about the proof of the past.

Thus, both ideas are true and can be applied in the same instance. Words are powerful, but can only get you so far before you need examples to back up your ideas.

Question 5: What is Beauty?

What is beauty?

I'd like to start off this question with a Bible verse on the subject of beauty.

Ecclesiastes 3:10-13 - "What gain has the worker from his toil? I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. I perceived that there is nothing better than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil--this is God's gift to man."

There are, no doubt, more verses on the subject of beauty. But this one I find striking, since it says, "He has made everything beautiful in its time." Not just a few paintings here and there. But the verse also specifically says, "in its time." I would take this to mean that we may not see the beauty in everything all at once, but that in God's great plan for the world, everything has its time and place to make God's plan beautiful.

Take a look at these two images:

The first of these is a painting by Andy Warhol. The second, however, is simply a picture of some clouds. Which do you find more beautiful?

Some people may say they find the first picture beautiful. But why is it beautiful? What is it in the image that makes it beautiful? It is merely an image of Campbell's soup cans. All this does is ground the viewer in reality, reminding him or her that soup cans exist.

The clouds, on the other hand, tend to evoke a feeling that there is more to the world than what meets the eye. The clouds can ground us in reality in the same way that the soup cans do, but something about them draws us to God. I would say this is because of what Ecclesiastes 3:11 says, that "he has put eternity into man's heart". Through such images, we see a part of the beauty of God. In a sense, beautiful images serve as vessels for the light of God. We see the vessel, but we also see light shining through it.

The clouds could just be clouds, but they are also awe-inspiring. Their beauty tells us that they did not come about by accident, but by the hand of God. Thus, beauty does not just please the eye. Warhol's soup cans might please some people's eyes, but they do not possess that beauty that draws the viewer out of himself and into the idea that God is beautiful.

But then the next part of Ecclesiastes 3:11 says, "yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end." We see a part of God's eternity through beauty, but we cannot comprehend His entirety because He is God. If we could explain all that He is, He would not be God, but merely another creation of the human mind. But eventually, when this world passes away and those who believe in God go to be with Him, they will see the true beauty of God.

Sorry!

What with the Doctor Who 50th anniversary special coming out today, and everything else going on in my life, I do not have a new post for today. Sorry! I do have a question I plan to answer, though, and I hope to have written something for next Saturday. That question is: what is beauty?

See you next week, and have a happy Thanksgiving!

Essay: Virtue

This essay may look very familiar to you. I posted this essay a few weeks ago, but it has since been expanded to reach the page limit for the Torrey application essay. I like this version much better than the previous one, and I hope you do too.

~ ~ ~

C.S. Lewis once said, “No justification of virtue will enable a man to be virtuous.”  A significant amount of weight lies in this single quote from Lewis’ essay, The Abolition of Man.   For instance, what is virtue?  Once that question has been answered, more arise.  One such question is what Lewis means by a “justification of virtue.”  Another question that demands to be answered is what will enable a man to be virtuous?  In order to begin answering the last two of these three questions, one must naturally answer the first.  For many people, the nature of virtue is ambiguous.  For instance, many people would agree that murder is wrong, but that lying is fine on occasion.  This is perhaps why there are such firm laws against murder but more convoluted ones on what constitutes lying, or fraud.  But when all is said and done, the man himself must choose whether or not to be virtuous, whether laws governing morality are placed over him or not.  Manmade laws only serve as guidelines, not as concrete restraints.  Whether or not a man is virtuous depends on the choice of the man himself, though there are also ways to instill virtue in him from a young age.

Virtue is not rational, insomuch as one cannot explain what drives a man to die for his country without acknowledging the existence of something outside of observable fact.  The act of being virtuous, or morally good, is not something mankind comes by naturally.  Virtue is prompted by the conscience, God’s law of morality, which demands certain actions of man which are morally good.  In truth, every man knows what is morally good, even if he does not always listen to the still, small voice that teaches him.  In a sense, virtue has emotional as well as cognitive properties to it, since the heart recognizes what is beautiful, and the mind seeks to copy that beautiful deed or image.  Returning to the example of a man who is willing to die for his country, Lewis says in The Abolition of Man that such a man would not do such a thing out of rationality.  This is because a rational man would seek his own preservation.  Although the man could argue that he does so for the benefit of future generations, he has not observed them and cannot therefore say whether such a drastic action as his own death for his country would, in fact, benefit them.  Instead, it is out of love that he does such a thing.

While virtue is not a rational concept, a man can attempt to point out what is good and bad using his mind.  He can make lists of moral and immoral actions, but this does not make him virtuous.  Such a man can be an excellent philosopher but still be a scoundrel if he does not follow his own advice.  This can be seen in the life of King Solomon.  He became the wisest man alive, but acted unwisely in following false gods.  Becoming virtuous is not just a cognitive action—one must integrate all the parts of man: the mind, the body, and the heart.  The mind must listen to the heart when it tells him what is good, and the body must act appropriately on what the mind knows is good.

In order to fully integrate these parts of man to become virtuous, one should preferably begin learning and practicing virtue from a young age.  If a man starts learning to become virtuous as an adult, he has already become so hardened in his ways that it is difficult, though not impossible, for him to break his habits and follow the calling of virtue.  One good way to learn virtue is to learn through example.  Reading and hearing about virtue teaches about the idea of virtue, but this only engages the mind.  To engage the heart, selfless love from another is required to awaken the heart to the beauty of virtue.  By learning through example, the child does not simply learn what virtue is, but also how it is to be acted upon.  The child, or anyone who attempts to learn virtue, should also saturate himself in the goodness, the truth, and the beauty of God’s Word, and also in manmade art.  The latter of these is not as important as the former, but it helps the learner to understand human nature and how virtue applies to it.  After a while, such exposure to morally good

stories and images begins to rub off on the learner.

Literature is one of best ways to teach virtue from a young age, or at any age, since a good novel has the potential to be both entertaining and insightful.  C.S. Lewis himself wrote many novels that are still entertaining to both children and adults, in the forms of The Chronicles of Narnia and The Space Trilogy.  These books explore many fascinating concepts and give examples of virtue in action within imaginative settings that draw in the reader’s attention.  A young child often can learn to be virtuous simply by reading such stories or having them read to them.  The trusting nature of a child absorbs tales of virtuous knights like a sponge, aspiring to be virtuous himself.  An adult, on the other hand, must generally make more of an effort to see and act on virtue in novels, reverting usually to skimming over the goodness and truth of a novel to focus on the beauty.  Beauty is good, of course, but a fixation on it, to the point where a man desires beauty for himself, but does not seek it out for the benefit of others, is an erroneous desire.  Theological and philosophical essays can teach an adult about virtue as well, but stories teach what they cannot: how to hope and dream for what is to come – for glory.

Parents must come to understand that no matter how much they may attempt to shelter their children, their children will eventually be on their own in the world and will inevitably encounter evil.  Any child completely sheltered from evil ideas, even if they have been saturated in goodness, having never been exposed to the darkness before, could easily be overwhelmed by the enemy’s arguments and succumb to them.  A parent’s reaction to this potential circumstance should not be to simply inoculate his or her child’s mind with evil imagery but also to show the antithesis to the evils shown to the child.  There may not be a rational counter-argument for every idea the child comes up across, but there will always be a Biblical one.  In addition, a parent’s attitude in the face of an evil that he or she cannot explain should not be to give up, but to seek out answers.  Parents should also teach their children to have this attitude of always seeking out answers, because if a person has this attitude towards evil, he or she will be less likely to be overcome in the face of a seemingly complete defense of sinful ideas.  Even when exposing a child to evil in the world, one should still avoid literature that dwells on evil to the point where it is nearly glorified, like most teenage romance novels of the modern age.  On the other hand, some books, like 1984, George Orwell’s dystopian novel, portray evil in the proper form for such a purpose as exposing a child to the evil of the world.  Such a book shows what evil truly is: something that should not be desired, something that should be avoided in every case.  Books that portray evil as undesirable are important to read since they serve as warnings against sin and, particularly in the case of 1984, apathy towards the evil actions of others.

Although everyone recognizes that there are moral and immoral actions, there are those who would argue that virtue in the Biblical sense either does not exist, or that it is unimportant.  People who believe either case recognize morality for their own purposes, seeking to promote it in others for their own benefit.  Those who say it does not exist are generally materialists, believing that this current, physical life is all there is, has been, or ever shall be.  They argue that man’s capability for thought is merely an evolutionary advance, and that any emotion he might feel is simply a chemical reaction within our bodies.  People with this viewpoint must, of necessity, deny the existence of a conscience, since there is no physical advantage of having one.  However, a conscience is different from instinct in that it points out what is good for others, not what is good for the self.  To borrow an analogy from C.S. Lewis, the existence of hunger proves that bread also must exist, whether or not the hunger in question is sated by it.  Following the same reasoning, because the conscience exists in every person, whether or not it is heeded, it must exist to promote virtue.

As to the second idea, that if virtue exists, it must be unimportant, this is actually a common fault of many people who claim to be Christians, and falls under the heresy of Epicureanism.  Epicureans believe that, once they are saved, it does not matter what they do since when they die they will receive the same reward as Christians who do good works in life.  As a result, Epicureans act on their fleshly desires, living in the moment, and do not care for the good of others.  The problem here is that a person’s actions in life do matter in the long run.  A man’s actions are always taking him in one of two directions: down to Sheol, or to eternal life with God.  And even when a man is saved, and the price of his sin has been paid, if he does not act on his newly-acquired inheritance to become more like Christ, he has not truly grasped the relationship he now has with God.  For a man who truly understands the nature of God will realize that God, as the ultimate good, just, loving being that He is, is someone to aspire to become like, no matter how good the man might already think he is.  For instance, who would settle for begging on the streets when every opportunity had been given him to rise to greatness?  Acting on virtue is important because it combats the darkness of the world and brings the virtuous person out of the depths of sin and closer to becoming like Christ.

Overall, hearing about and knowing the concept of virtue is not enough to be virtuous, just as C.S. Lewis stated.  But knowing the concept is at least a start, since a man must still build on that idea and choose to live in a world filled with good, so that he may learn to be good himself.  Even if it does come down to a person’s choice as to whether or not he or she will not only know good, but also do good, the person must have first somehow learned not only what is good, but what good looks like in action.  Learning what is good can be done through extensive, thoughtful reading; observation of those who are virtuous themselves; and reading of the Scriptures; to name only a few methods.  Mankind learns best through imitation in most cases, and this is certainly applicable to learning virtue.  Christians are called to be a light to this dark world so that others who are lost can learn virtue through their good examples.

Essay: Life, Death, and Bells

Once again I am posting an essay I wrote for class. This one is about a novel I read over the summer for my English class, The Nine Tailors, written by Dorothy Sayers. As it is a mystery novel (and a brilliant one at that!), I would recommend that you read the book before reading this essay, so that the ending is not spoiled for you. It may also help you to understand this essay.

~ ~ ~

A typical reader, upon picking up a copy of Dorothy Sayers’ novel, The Nine Tailors, might expect to have found a tale involving nine crime-solving men whose day jobs are to adjust people’s clothing. As the reader becomes more involved in the story, however, he or she will come to realize that a tailor, as an occupation, has very little to do with the story. Instead the reader will discover that the nine tailors from the title of the book actually refer to church bells. This meaning, though not obvious at first, becomes the most plausible meaning for the title. There is much mention of bells throughout the book, but even so, why would such a great author as Dorothy Sayers title what is dubbed her finest mystery novel after inanimate objects, instead of something more profound? This question itself is flawed, because in the novel, bells are more than just inanimate objects. While the meaning of the title of the book has an obvious meaning apparent to anyone who reads the book, it also possesses many deeper and far more important meanings. Thus, the title of the novel is probably at its most profound.

The first, most apparent meaning for the title of the book becomes known in the first few chapters; the nine tailors are the peals rung for a dead man. Since the book is so focused on the work of the bells, it is important to note that the bells also ring for births, baptisms, and marriages, in addition to deaths. Thus, the existence of the bells is centered around events involving life and death. The term “nine tailors” could also refer to the ringers of the bells themselves. These ringers, who must of necessity be alive, are the ones who ring the nine tailors for dead men. Since life is required to announce the presence of death, life and death are once again intertwined in the novel. This is an accurate portrayal of the reality of life and death in real life, since in order for there to be a death, there must have first been a life. The lives of these ringers are vastly important in the story because not only do they deal with the bells, but they also have to do with the Church itself.

One of the less obvious meanings of the title, The Nine Tailors, involves the symbolism of the Church. In the time in which the book takes place, the Church in England was very tied into life and death. For instance, Christians according to the Bible die to their old selves in baptism. Also, in The Nine Tailors, the church represented life by acting as an ark during the flood at the end of the story. The preacher in this church, Mr. Venables, did his job and acted as the shepherd to his flock by guiding his parish into safety.  1 Corinthians 12:12-13 says, “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jew or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” This picture of the Church is represented in The Nine Tailors in more instances than just when Mr. Venables did his duty and saved his parish. For example, towards the end of the book the main character, Lord Peter Wimsey, unfolds how the victim was killed by the sound of the bells in the church tower. However, it was not just the bells that killed the man—it was also the fault of the ringers themselves. These ringers, members of the body of Christ, worked together to carry out God’s justice in the man’s death.

Yet another important meaning of the title of the book lies in how the justice of God was carried out. Mr. Venables suggests at the end of the book that the bells acted as God’s messengers by killing the victim, Deacon, for his sins. This idea is strengthened by Mr. Venables’ reminder that one of the bells, Batty Thomas, has a reputation for having killed two other men. In a conversation between Lord Peter Wimsey and Hezekiah Lavender, Lavender said, “Yew ain’t no call to be afeard o’ the bells if so be as yew follows righteousness.” Lavender means by this that the bells punish the wicked, like Deacon. Not much can be said for the other two men Batty Thomas killed, but Lavender’s statement definitely fits with the circumstances surrounding Deacon’s death. More symbolism appears in the fact that Deacon died within the church, while harboring sins of greed within his heart. On the other hand, Lavender, a righteous man in this tale, lives to a ripe old age. This once again ties back to the theme of life and death in the book, since the nine tailors protect the lives of the righteous and punish the lives of the unrighteous.

Sayers could have titled her book after its theme, life and death, but she chose instead to add symbolic flair to the title yet still hold true to the novel’s theme. The reader sees time and again that the book’s theme, life and death, ties into the book’s title. This happens mainly when the church bells cause the death of Deacon, but also because of the living men who rang the nine tailors for the dead man. The physical church and the members of the body of Christ both worked together to carry out God’s justice, again relating back to life and death. So in the end, although Sayers did name The Nine Tailors after a set of inanimate objects, these inanimate objects serve as a symbolic bridge between what we observe and what she wants to teach the reader about life and death.

Essay: The Moral Dimension of Grammar

The following is an essay I wrote last year for my English class. I apologize for posting so many old essays, instead of answering new questions, but NaNoWriMo is now taking up a lot of my time. Throughout the month of November I may not have time to do much more than this, but in December I hope to start back up again answering questions. If you have any you'd like me to answer, just post them in the comments!

~ ~ ~

Texting lingo is threatening to take over the world. The world is becoming more and more fast-paced, and as a result, abbreviations are becoming more and more prevalent. Although abbreviations do allow for quicker communication, are they really necessary, and in such abundance? Are they even as beneficial as has been claimed? The answers to these questions lie in the very basis of grammar. Jane Austen explores the use and importance of grammar indirectly in her novel Pride and Prejudice. In this novel, whether or not her characters use correct grammar often speaks for their morality. Jane Austen was a talented author who was able to read people’s characters very well, so much so that if we look at people as she did, we can observe the same ideas about grammar in others as she did. Overall, speaking with correct grammar not only aids in clear communication, but it also affirms the existence of God in an increasingly nihilistic world.

Almost all of the characters’ uses of grammar in Pride and Prejudice speak for their morality, but some of the more prominent examples are of Lydia Bennet, Mr. Darcy, and Elizabeth Bennet. In Pride and Prejudice, Lydia constantly uses slang when she speaks. She also speaks in short, simple sentences for the most part. Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth go through a much more complex development in their uses of grammar. For the first half of the book or so, Mr. Darcy barely speaks at all to Elizabeth. On the other hand, although

Elizabeth speaks to Mr. Darcy more than he speaks to her, she is witty and therefore unclear in her choice of words. Later on in the book, when Mr. Darcy first proposes to Elizabeth, he is very clear and outspoken in his address to her. In response, Elizabeth makes a point of telling Mr. Darcy exactly what she thinks of him. Once this is made known to Mr. Darcy, he leaves, but writes her a letter with an explanation of his actions up to that point.

The words and actions of Lydia, Mr. Darcy, and Elizabeth all correlate with the idea that there is a moral dimension to grammar. After all, the definition of morality implies that there is a right and a wrong action, thought, or feeling. When compared with grammar, one sees that there is a right and a wrong use of grammar. Lydia uses grammar improperly throughout Pride and Prejudice, though perhaps not to the extent that it is misused today. The end of the story makes clear to the reader that Lydia has made bad choices, and continues to do so. This is not a direct result of her using improper grammar, but it does show that she subscribes to faulty morals. Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth show what happens both when improper grammar is used, and what happens when proper grammar is used. When the two do not communicate well, they misunderstand each other and are tainted by pride and prejudice. When the two begin to communicate with each other more, they discover how wrong they each were and as a result grow closer together. Thus, when the characters do not speak clearly, there is definitely a correlation to their morals.

Morality does not just correlate with grammar in stories; it applies to real life, as well. In “The Real Reason Our Educational Elites Don’t Like Grammar,” by Martin Cothran, Cothran writes that grammar is based on the existence of right and wrong. Right and wrong implies that morality must exist, and therefore implies the existence of God. Cothran also talks about Nietzche and how he was opposed to the use of grammar. He says that Nietzche was not opposed to grammar itself, but being a nihilist, was opposed to what it was based on. Nietzche did not want to use correct grammar because he wanted to kill God. Thus, the obvious reaction to this for a Christian is to speak correctly.

Every time a person speaks clearly, he or she affirms the existence of order, and ergo of God. If modern teenagers continue to use texting lingo as they do, followers of Nietzche’s prophecy may believe they have won. But the introduction of cell phones to the world is not the end of God, and never shall be. God is not merely an idea—He is the creator of ideas, and must always exist for anything else to exist. No matter what man can say, he will always exist, and therefore God will always exist. Even if we cannot count on humanity to remain educated in the proper use of grammar, we can count on God to exist to maintain order.

Essay: Virtue

This is yet another essay I have written for my philosophy class. It is based off of a quote from C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man.

~ ~ ~

C.S. Lewis once said, “No justification of virtue will enable a man to be virtuous.” There is a lot of weight to this single quote from Lewis’ essay, The Abolition of Man. For instance, what is virtue? Once that question has been answered, more arise. One such question is what Lewis means by a “justification of virtue.” And of course, what will enable a man to be virtuous? In order to even begin answering the last two of these three questions, one must naturally answer the first. For many people, the nature of virtue is ambiguous. For instance, many people would agree that murder is completely wrong, but that lying is fine on occasion. This is perhaps why there are such firm laws against murder, but slightly vague ones on lying, in the form of fraud. But when all is said and done, it is the choice of the man himself that allows him to be virtuous, whether laws governing morality are placed over him or not. Rules only serve as guidelines, not as concrete restrictions. But although whether or not a man is virtuous depends on the choice of the man himself, there are ways to instill virtue in him from a young age.

Virtue is not rational, insomuch as you cannot explain what drives a man to die for his country without acknowledging the existence of something outside of observable fact. The act of being virtuous, or morally good, is not something we come by naturally. Virtue is prompted by our conscience, God’s law of morality, which demands certain actions of us which are morally good. In truth, everyone knows what is morally good, even if they do not always listen to the still small voice that teaches them. In a sense, virtue has emotional as well as cognitive properties to it, since the heart recognizes what is beautiful, and the mind seeks to copy that beautiful deed or image. Going back to the example of a man who is willing to die for his country, Lewis says in The Abolition of Man that such a man would not do such a thing out of rationality. This is because a rational man would seek his own preservation. Although he could argue that he does so for the benefit of future generations, he has not observed them and cannot therefore say whether such a drastic action as his own death for his country would, in fact, benefit them. Instead, it is out of love that he does such a thing.

While virtue is not a rational concept, a man can attempt to point out what is good and bad using his mind. He can make lists of morally good and bad actions, but this does not make him virtuous. Such a man can be an excellent philosopher but still be a scoundrel if he does not follow his own advice. So much can be seen in the life of King Solomon, in the Bible, when he became the wisest man alive, but acted unwisely in following false gods, after he was commanded not to by God. Becoming virtuous is not just a cognitive action—one must integrate all the parts of man: the mind, the body, and the heart. The mind must listen to the heart when it tells him what is good, and the body must act appropriately on what the mind knows is good.

In order to fully integrate these parts of man to become virtuous, one should preferably begin learning and practicing virtue from a young age. If a man starts learning to become virtuous as an adult, he has already become so hardened in his ways that it is difficult for him to break his habits and follow the calling of virtue. One good way to actually learn virtue is to learn through example. Reading and hearing about virtue certainly teaches about the idea of virtue, but this only engages the mind. To engage the heart, selfless love from another is required to awaken the heart to the beauty of virtue. By learning through example, the child does not simply learn what virtue is, but also how it is to be acted upon. The child, or anyone who attempts to learn virtue, should also saturate themselves in the goodness, the truth, and the beauty of God’s Word, and also in manmade art. After a while, such exposure to morally good stories and images begins to rub off on the learner.

Overall, hearing about and knowing the concept of virtue is not enough to be virtuous, just as C.S. Lewis stated. But knowing the concept is at least a start, since you can still build off of that idea and choose to live in a world filled with good, so that you may learn to be good yourself. Even if it does come down to a person’s choice as to whether or not they will not only know good, but also do good, the person must have first somehow learned not only what is good, but what good looks like in action. We learn best through imitation, which is certainly applicable to learning virtue. We are called to be a light to this dark world so that others who are lost can learn virtue through our good examples.

Question 4: Good and Evil

What is the nature of good and evil?

At first glance, you might think you can answer this question. You might say that obviously, murder is evil. But there is really a lot more depth to this question. For example, why is murder evil? That's what the question is really asking. It's not asking what actions are good and what actions are evil, but what it is about these actions that makes them one or the other.

I've had several thoughts on this, but I know I don't have the answer quite yet. So I'm answering this question today not so I can give you the one correct answer, but to show you where I'm at in my own thinking. And honestly, this applies to the rest of my posts, too. You can choose whether or not you want to believe me -- I'm just showing you where I'm at in the hope that it may somehow help you.

A book that I read recently made me want to try answering this today. I first started thinking more deeply about this three years ago when I first read Confessions, by St. Augustine. But the book I read recently that prompted this question for my blog was The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, by Robert Louis Stevenson. In this story, Dr. Jekyll makes himself a potion that will transform him into a being of pure evil, namely, Mr. Hyde. In order to change back to the form of Jekyll, he must drink the potion again. One twist I found interesting, though, and one which I think many people who have not read the story do not realize, is that although Hyde represents pure evil, Jekyll does not represent pure good. Jekyll does have good in him, unlike Hyde, but it seemed that when he transformed into Hyde, he basically lost whatever good he had temporarily. As the story progresses, it becomes more difficult for Hyde to transform back into Jekyll, until eventually he is stuck as Hyde.

One reason I have trouble explaining the idea of good and evil is that if you say that both good and evil exist, where did they come from? Based on Genesis we know that God created everything and saw that it was good. But then sin and evil entered the garden when Eve was tempted, and she and her husband ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But did God create evil along with good? Because if He did, then there must have been evil in Him, as well, for it to have come from Him. But this is completely contradictory to God's nature. If God were evil He would not be God. So since God could not have created evil, how then did it come about? I would have to say that evil is a perversion of the good that God created. Take the sin of gluttony, for example. We were given good things to be enjoyed so that we praise God for them, but a consumption of good things to the point where your focus is on the object and not on God makes the desire for the thing evil.

Now back to Jekyll and Hyde. Jekyll said in the story that his motive for creating his potion was that he could not stand living with two warring sides existing within him: one desiring good, and one desiring evil. Thus, he wanted to separate the two so that they could more fully exercise their desires. Instead, his potion fed the evil within him and made it stronger. What I do not agree with here is his belief that evil is somehow equal with good and that it should be allowed to thrive along with good. I would say that although sin is powerful in its hold over our hearts, God's grace has conquered it so that it does not have the same sway over us as Christians. Of course we are still tempted, but with God in us, we are made able to become more like Christ. Ultimately, although evil is strong, God's goodness is infinitely stronger.

What I do agree with, and what I think should be a warning to us all, is that as tempting as it may be to give in to evil, doing so only allows the evil more power over us. Giving in to evil does not do away with evil, as much as we might want it to. The only way to be rid of it is to accept God and grow more like Him--to fill ourselves with good.

Essay: Peeling the Onion

My post for this week has been adapted from an essay I wrote in my philosophy class this year. While this essay seems clear enough to me to understand without having read either That Hideous Strength (the last book of C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy) or The Inner Ring, I would highly recommend reading both.

- - -

A common issue faced by believers and unbelievers alike is that of peer pressure. Usually peer pressure becomes a problem for believers when a person’s peers try to convince the person to do something sinful. However, even for unbelievers peer pressure is an issue when the action in question involves taking drugs, drinking alcohol, or other unlawful deeds. While unbelievers may not accept sin as a valid reason for avoiding peer pressure, they do often accept breaking the law as a good reason. C.S. Lewis did an excellent job covering the idea of peer pressure in his paper titled The Inner Ring. He also applies the same ideas he discusses in The Inner Ring to his novel, That Hideous Strength, in the shape of his character Mark Studdock. His representation of peer pressure in the form of Studdock not only reveals the danger of the Inner Ring, but also what it takes to remove oneself from the temptation of it.

According to Lewis, Inner Rings exist in almost every part of life, especially in universities. He represents the main concept of the Inner Ring as an onion which a person continues to peel the layers off of. Eventually, all the layers will be peeled back and nothing will remain. The closer you get to the center of the onion, the less the onion is valued. Lewis also says that the Inner Ring is not necessarily evil, but that it is unavoidable. For instance, friendships formed between coworkers are not evil, but are in fact good. The idea of the Inner Ring can lead to evil, though. When the members of the Inner Ring follow a certain practice, anyone who doesn’t follow that practice immediately becomes an outsider. So if the Inner Ring became sinful, virtuous people would be outsiders, and anyone trying to be an insider would necessarily become a scoundrel. Overall, the main idea behind the Inner Ring is that of belonging to something or someone. This is because all humanity is made to want to belong, since we all belong to God.

Mark Studdock, in Lewis’ novel, That Hideous Strength, lived by this idea of belonging. In the beginning of this story his wife Jane was, in Studdock’s mind, only a part of this plan as a trophy. He did not value her for herself, but for what she might bring him in his attempt to belong to the Inner Ring. Studdock wanted to be viewed as one of the academic elite by becoming important in Bracton College. As Studdock progressed further into the Inner Ring, he rarely agreed with the ideas and methods of his colleagues, but he followed along with them so that he would not lose his job. Even though there was a darker purpose behind what the N.I.C.E. (one of the Inner Rings Studdock found his way into) did, Studdock mainly chose to ignore it and to simply belong. He was pulled into evil actions and purposes merely by his instincts.

When Studdock finally came to realize the evil he had become a part of, he was disgusted and rebelled against his captors. Even before this point, Studdock had found very little to like about his new colleagues in the Inner Ring. He was repelled by Fairy Hardcastle, annoyed by Withers, and terrified of The Head. Studdock was also frustrated upon first entering the N.I.C.E. because he was not allowed to follow his career. When Studdock was taken captive by Frost, who tried to eradicate Studdock’s instincts, Studdock came to hate Frost and merely pretended to go along with his ideas. In the end, after Studdock had seen the truth behind the Inner Ring and was disillusioned by it, he escaped with the aid of Mr. Bultitude and Merlin.

The help Studdock required in escaping the Inner Ring provides an interesting illustration of how we cannot escape the power of the Inner Ring without help, as well. Our help, however, comes from God. But in order to escape, we also must want to leave. We must first break the power of the Inner Ring by understanding how pointless it is, and by going on with our proper work. When we have done this, we become what Lewis calls “sound craftsmen,” people who do what they are meant to do with their professions. Lewis also calls this group of sound craftsmen an Inner Ring of its own—one full of worthwhile people and worthwhile work. This is what Studdock truly wanted all along, but never found in the N.I.C.E. We too, in order to avoid falling into the same trap as Studdock, must find our Inner Rings of sound craftsmen to fill our lives with truth and goodness.

Question 3: Our Identities

Do our abilities and accomplishments define our identities?

The reason I want to answer this question in particular is that I find it so relevant to where we are today. The American mindset is currently to get a good job, have a family with the average two-and-a-half children, and retire with a large fortune. Right now, I want to show to the best of my ability how this idea is faulty.

From a young age, children are constantly asked what they want to grow up to be. Some want to be firemen, some want to be doctors, but they all have some dream of becoming a famous hero of the human race. This on its own is not necessarily bad, but as the child matures and reaches high school, their dreams often fade away under the quest of deciding on a well-paying career. This idea carries the student through college, all the way to adulthood, and even though at that point such a person has already found a career, their goal in life remains the same: make a fortune, live in paradise, and die with the most fame.

Of course, very few Americans ever actually reach this status. They try and try again, but often encounter setbacks. But even if they don't, and they eventually reach their goal, they will end up making yet another, more difficult goal for themselves. This kind of person is never satisfied with what they actually have, since riches are worth nothing in the end, when everyone must eventually die and leave behind all his or her accomplishments. When people deny that something exists beyond death--beyond humanity--their main recourse is this mindset.

Christianity presents an idea vastly different to this, and much more hopeful. Essentially, we have our identity in Christ, not in our own abilities. Christianity acknowledges that we are all given unique abilities, but these also pass away like a puff of smoke as soon as we die. So it is not our abilities which shape us, but rather what shapes us is what we choose (or choose not) to do with them. Our choices can take us in one of two directions: towards becoming more Christ-like, or becoming less human.

What do I mean by becoming more Christ-like? I mean, simply, that we should love others as Christ loved us. After all, the golden rule is to love others as you love yourself. And how do you love yourself? To take a page from C.S. Lewis' book, Mere Christianity, we do not love ourselves by always thinking good things about ourselves. The way we love ourselves is by always wanting good for ourselves. Therefore, we should always want good for others, whether we think good things about them or not. So in a way, our actions shape our identities, because we have to respond in some way to Christ's love for us. If we accept it and act towards becoming more like Christ, that takes us in one direction. But if we reject it and try to forge our own path to greatness, we don't have a strong goal and are merely stuck in our own desires, which in the end make us more animal than human.

This latter option is what Americans today seem to have chosen. Instead of choosing to want good for others, they merely want good for themselves, and get so caught up in this that they lose sight of the big picture and only find out their fault too late. Without Christ, we have no hope of anything after death, and are stuck in the pain and despair of the present. "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away" (Revelation 21:4). In the end, all of the horrible things we know in this life will be obliterated, and we will be with God in eternal glory.

Gray Kitty

~Today I bring you a short story I wrote a few years ago for my last blog. This has been edited several times since I first wrote it, and was also modified last year to make a narrative speech. Enjoy!~

A loud thump, thump, thump resounded throughout a little house in a large, busy world. No one would yet take notice of the young girl who sat playing with her toys, which she imagined to be alive. She had no desire to see the world around her but was instead content to play her games and revel in her fantasies for a few more years.

The girl's days at that time were long and filled with joy. On one such long day, her birthday, she received a small stuffed animal fashioned as a gray, striped cat. It was quickly put to good use indoors and outdoors and was merely named “Gray Kitty.” This new toy, given out of love, was received with love and cherished well.

A year went by and still the young girl cherished the toys she considered her friends. For unknown reasons, she cared for them like no other human being could. Despite being rubbed, ripped, and tossed in the air constantly, the girl loved all her toys, especially Gray Kitty. Gray Kitty did everything with her: they climbed trees together, they finished the young girl’s homework together, and they slept together at night. Gray Kitty was always by the girl’s side.

Gray Kitty wasn’t the only toy that the girl cherished, however. Her brother had a few toys that she considered neglected. Though still young, her brother had found much greater things to set his sights on than stuffed animals. The young girl, caring not only for her own toys but also for her brother’s, took in the wayward plushies. She cared for them as her own, even brushing their hair and tying ribbons around their necks.

Over the years, the girl’s toys became more and more worn out. Still the girl loved them, still the girl cherished them. Eventually, however, the girl set them all aside. It was not because she no longer loved them but that she, too, had finally set her sights on greater things. She had found things beyond her home that excited her and was no longer content to play house with all her stuffed friends. But even after they were set aside, the toys waited patiently for her.

Every now and then, when the girl was not busy with all the matters that now occupied her life, she would stop to pick up and play with her old toys. Gray Kitty remained close to her heart and was always the first to be picked up. Even after having her fur rubbed flat against her body, the stuffing within her smashed to oblivion, and her whiskers cut off, Gray Kitty still to loved the young girl who once had played with her, and still the girl loved Gray Kitty.

Long years passed as the girl steadily forgot about all of her old toys. Then the girl left the home of her youth, and the toys would have given it all up as a lost cause had Gray Kitty not reassured them that one day, though how far away that day might be she did not know, the young girl would return to them.  And so they waited.

More years passed in silence until the girl eventually returned. Gray Kitty waited anxiously in the young girl’s old room. The girl passed through her old home, chatting with her mother and looking at the old couch where she used to do her homework, the old tree she used to climb, and finally the old bed where she used to sleep. She looked around her room curiously, and walked up to her old dresser. All her old toys were still piled on top of the piece of furniture.

After standing still for a few moments, the girl picked up one toy in particular that caught her attention: Gray Kitty. The girl touched the place where the whiskers once had been, stroked the now rough fur, and felt the stuffing poking out of a hole in Gray Kitty’s side. She hugged Gray Kitty close, holding her over her heart. She remained in that pose for several minutes as she felt her beating heart through Gray Kitty’s cloth body. She fancied that the heartbeat she felt resounded from Gray Kitty’s own heart.

The young girl smiled and gently set the old toy back on its shelf. As entertaining as they may have been, the girl’s fantasies could not replace all the truths she now knew. The woman turned to leave and continue exploring the great, busy world beyond.

_________________

"When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." ~ 1 Corinthians 13:11-12

Question 2: Myths

Is there any truth in Greek mythology?

In order to begin answering this question, let's first look at a few examples from Greek mythology:

1. Cupid and Psyche. The gist of this story is that Psyche is given in marriage to Cupid, thinking, along with everyone else, that her husband is a horrible serpent. After her marriage, Psyche is forbidden by Cupid to look at him, though she is fairly certain that he is not a horrible serpent after all. But then she is tempted by her sisters to look at him, and she does. Cupid wakes up and curses her. A lot more happens later and they eventually get back together again.
2. Narcissus. This young man is so beautiful that all the nymphs have fallen in love with him, especially one named Echo. But Echo is then cursed to forever repeat the last words someone else says. Narcissus never even notices or cares for Echo, or any of the other nymphs, but in the end falls in love with his own reflection, and dies trying to reach it in a pond.
3. Demeter and Persephone. In this story, Persephone, the daughter of Demeter, is kidnapped by Hades to be his bride. Demeter casts the world into a frozen wasteland until Hades returns Persephone to her. But before Hades lets Persephone go, he makes her eat a pomegranate seed, which will cause her to always return to the Underworld for a third of the year. So for a third of each year, the world is cast into a frozen wasteland as Demeter weeps for her lost daughter.

There are many more examples I could bring up, but these are some of the easiest ones to explain. Each one has its truths. In the story of Cupid and Psyche, we learn that without any trust in a marriage, the marriage will fail. In the story of Narcissus, we see what pride does to a person. Narcissus was prideful because he thought so highly of himself that he didn't care for the praise of others, considering them beneath him. In the tale of Demeter and Persephone, the Greeks tried to explain the change of the seasons with the actions of their deities.

So for each of these three myths, and in pretty much any myth written by the Greeks, there is some truth, whether the story tries to explain a physical or a non-physical truth. However, none of these stories tells the whole truth. For instance, none of them agree that there is only one God, and in most of them, nature is at war with itself, when really the natural world works together amazingly well.

You can find such truths not only in mythology, but also in pretty much any novel. You just have to be careful what you pick out as truth and what you pick out as a lie. The best way to find truth in a novel is to test it against the Scriptures. But there are also a few other pieces you can look at when analyzing a book for truth.

Some books tend to have more truth in them than others. Having only some truth doesn't necessarily make a book good. Why the truth is written about, how the truth is written about, and what the truth is are also important. Why the truth is written about is important because sometimes, truths are merely used as evidence for a false conclusion. When reading such a book, you need to be able to distinguish between the actual truth and the false conclusion. How the truth is written is important because good truths are often wrapped in evil in a novel. For example, an angst-filled teenage love story may contain truth, but do you really need to endure the angst for the sake of the little truth in the story? Lastly, what the truth itself is is important because although such things as abuse exist, do we need to go into detail about them? Do those who have endured abuse need to relive it in the form of a novel? I would argue that such topics are unnecessary to be dwelt on in a novel, even if they do exist.

In the end, yes, Greek mythology does contain some truth. But it doesn't capture the whole truth, so we must be wary when reading it, just as we should be wary of calling lies the truth in any other fiction we read.

Question 1: If you were stranded on a desert island...

To kick off this blog, I want to start with a question. This will be the main format for my posts from here on out, though I might include essays I write for class, drawings, or anything else I might think is interesting. I intend to post once a week on Saturdays, so stay tuned!

My question for this week comes from the application to the Torrey Honors Institute (which I intend to fill out soon):

If you were stranded on a desert island and you already have your Bible, what other two books would you want with you? Why would you choose these books?

There are four distinct qualities I can think of for choosing these two books: personal preference, utility, education, and whether or not the books build up my soul. Personal preference in this case is really a minor quality and should be considered last. Utility only refers to books that would help me to live longer on the island, like a wilderness survival guide. That can only take me so far, since eventually I will die, whether I have such a book or not. Education could be a good quality to look at, but what purpose would it serve on a desert island? I would be building up my mind with no person to share my thoughts with. And lastly, whether or not the books are uplifting... The only book I really need for this last purpose is the Bible, which I am already given in the question.

So I have pretty much eliminated any books that would help me to survive, since they would only really extend the short amount of time I already have in which to live. Educational books may be interesting, but serve little purpose with no one to share your ideas or discoveries with. Any books that would be uplifting would only be in addition to the Bible. I have pretty much settled that one of the most uplifting books I have ever read, and which is my top choice for taking to this imaginary island, is Confessions, the autobiography of St. Augustine.

Now I want to look back to personal preference. I did not completely throw out this option because there is some purpose behind it. If I were stranded on a desert island, life could get pretty boring pretty quickly. Because of this, I'd probably want the second of my two books to be either a novel or poetry. But to make the most of this choice, I would want a story that is uplifting, as well. So here is a list of possibilities: 

• The Count of Monte Cristo. This is my favorite novel at the moment, and because of its length, I could read and re-read this many times over. 
• The Nine Tailors. I recently read this for English, and we were able to pull so much from it that I'm sure I could pull even more out of it if I had it with me on this desert island. 
• The Divine Comedy. I have only read Inferno, but I'm sure Purgatorio and Paradiso would be very interesting reads, as well. 

I'm sure I may come up with more options in future, but as of right now these are my three main choices for that second book. Out of the three, I would probably choose the Divine Comedy, since I've only read part of it and could probably learn more from it than the other two options.

So in the end, my choice of books is Confessions and The Divine Comedy.