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.

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: 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.

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.