By Stewart Goetz
whereas a lot has been written on Lewis and his paintings, nearly not anything has been written from a philosophical point of view on his perspectives of happiness, excitement, soreness, and the soul and physique. consequently, nobody to this point has well-known that his perspectives on those issues are deeply fascinating and arguable, and-perhaps extra jarring-no one has but properly defined why Lewis by no means turned a Roman Catholic. Stewart Goetz's cautious research of Lewis's philosophical idea finds oft-overlooked implications and demonstrates that it used to be, at its root, at odds with that of Thomas Aquinas and, thereby, the Roman Catholic Church.
Read or Download A Philosophical Walking Tour with C.S. Lewis: Why It Did Not Include Rome PDF
Best religious books
Contributors and teams have lengthy came across id and that means via faith and its collective expression. In faith in global historical past, John C. tremendous and Briane ok. Turley research the worth of faith for reading the human adventure long ago and current. via this they discover these components of faith that top attach it with cultural and political dynamics that experience prompted heritage.
This ebook of unique essays offers a discussion among 4 of the main unusual students now engaged on difficulties of religion, cause, and skepticism. of their essays, William P. Alston, Robert Audi, Terence Penelhum, and Richard H. Popkin tackle either the corrosive and the positive affects of skepticism on Christian and Jewish suggestions of religion.
Why does a loving God enable people to undergo a lot? this is often the most tough difficulties of non secular trust. Richard Swinburne supplies a cautious, transparent exam of this challenge, and gives a solution: the reason for this is that God wishes extra for us than simply excitement or freedom from agony. Swinburne argues that God desires people to profit and to like, to make the alternatives which make nice alterations for solid and evil to one another, to shape our characters within the manner we elect; principally to be of serious use to one another.
Edited by means of Alfred Stepan and Charles Taylor
- Kierkegaard’s Journals and Notebooks, Volume 4: Journals NB-NB5
- The Seductions of Pilgrimage: Sacred Journeys Afar and Astray in the Western Religious Tradition
- Philosophy of Religion: A Contemporary Introduction (Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy)
- Nineteenth-Century Religious Thought in the West
Extra resources for A Philosophical Walking Tour with C.S. Lewis: Why It Did Not Include Rome
You too? , walking) in nature. Hedonism Lewis was well aware that his claim that pleasure is intrinsically good would lead to the charge that he was a hedonist. For example, in the letter to Canon 64 65 66 67 Lewis, The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis: Volume III, 583. Lewis, Out of the Silent Planet, 74. C. S. , 1955), 33. Lewis, The Four Loves, 65. 36 A Philosophical Walking Tour with C. S. Lewis Quick from which I quoted in the Introduction, Lewis said about his book The Problem of Pain that “I wasn’t writing on the Problem of Pleasure!
The nearest we can get to it is in cruelty. But in real life people are cruel for one of two reasons—either because they are sadists, that is, because they have a sexual perversion which makes cruelty a cause of sensual pleasure to them, or else for the sake of something they are going to get out of it—money, or power, or safety. But pleasure, money, power, and safety are all, as far as they go, good things. The badness consists in pursuing them by the wrong method, or in the wrong way, or too much.
For example, see Victor Reppert’s “The Ecumenical Apologist: Understanding C. S. Lewis’ Defense of Christianity,” and Mona Dunckel’s “C. S. Lewis as Allegorist: The Pilgrim’s Regress,” which are both in C. S. Lewis: Life, Works, and Legacy, Vol. 3, Apologist, Philosopher, and Theologian, ed. Bruce Edwards (Westport, CN: Praeger, 2007), 1–28 and 29–49 respectively. 22 A Philosophical Walking Tour with C. S. Lewis not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing?