This was a remarkably insightful view on this sermon and I appreciated contemplating these symbols this Sunday. I am curious about George MacDonald's impact on Lewis and his work as an author--I know he is largely grouped into children's literature but his perspectives on faith and its impact on Lewis were substantial. My main question is--where does his philosophy line up in the eras of the Great Conversation? Was MacDonald's theology characteristic of a later or earlier era? How does this align with Lewis? Thank you so much for your time and thoughts!
MacDonald, I think, was more influencial to Lewis & Tolkien as a pioneer of fantasy literature than as a Christian. That said, checkout Lewis's book George MacDonald Anthology to see first-hand what influenced him, plenty of MacDonald's Sermons (which you can find free of charge in the public domain) are cited in that book.
It isn't Auckland, but here is a wonderful reading of this essay/address: ruclips.net/video/aVzecmgFPq0/видео.html&ab_channel=C.S.Lewisessays (which is already mentioned, I believe, by someone in the comments). I concur that it is an excellent added resource and of benefit to anyone wanted to study/explore Lewis' points as made in this work.
@@LitProf Hello Dr Masson. I like your channel, but Lewis's argument, not so much. I think that one must always motivate a childe when teaching him. The damages of unmotivated study, and in particular, the danger of permanently making a child antagonistic towards learning, outweigh the benefits (and I am saying this as a student of ancient Greek myself.) For this reason Lewis's argument carries no force in my mind at all. You may say that Lewis is merely preaching in the piece that you have discussed in this video, and that he was not trying to prove his point rigorously. But the other arguments you've mentioned are deficient in a manner characteristic to religious and intrinsicist thinking in general, makes me think that no better arguments are to be expected of him. Specifically, one cannot conclude from the inevitable frustration of the pursuit of happiness in this world (which I do not concede for one minute) that there must be some other supernatural dimension where happiness will be attained and satisfaction given. That a state of affairs is tragic does not mean that it is unreal or that it will be made right eventually. This kind of fallacious argumentation is found also in religious thinking on knowledge. Religious people will often claim that God is needed to secure knowledge and truth. Leaving aside the oddity of this claim in and of itself, it does not follow from the desirability of knowledge that it must be attainable. The skeptic may be right (he isn't) even if this is a highly discomforting idea. Such a form of argumentation is also morally repugnant in my opinion, because it is relying on people's sense of despair to give it its seeming plausibility and psychological appeal.
![Eminem - Like My Shit [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vx_IMvFkrfA/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you, Dr Scott. Greetings from norway
You are welcome!
Till we have faces is a great book. Would definitely have to go over it again
Thank You Dr Scott !!!
Just found this channel, thank you for sharing your knowledge!
This was a remarkably insightful view on this sermon and I appreciated contemplating these symbols this Sunday.
I am curious about George MacDonald's impact on Lewis and his work as an author--I know he is largely grouped into children's literature but his perspectives on faith and its impact on Lewis were substantial.
My main question is--where does his philosophy line up in the eras of the Great Conversation? Was MacDonald's theology characteristic of a later or earlier era? How does this align with Lewis?
Thank you so much for your time and thoughts!
MacDonald, I think, was more influencial to Lewis & Tolkien as a pioneer of fantasy literature than as a Christian. That said, checkout Lewis's book George MacDonald Anthology to see first-hand what influenced him, plenty of MacDonald's Sermons (which you can find free of charge in the public domain) are cited in that book.
Hello again.please can you advise me on the next video that follows your Intro lecture on Literary terms ? Thanks
It isn't Auckland, but here is a wonderful reading of this essay/address: ruclips.net/video/aVzecmgFPq0/видео.html&ab_channel=C.S.Lewisessays (which is already mentioned, I believe, by someone in the comments). I concur that it is an excellent added resource and of benefit to anyone wanted to study/explore Lewis' points as made in this work.
An unconvincing argument for the supernatural based on a loose analogy with a badly analyzed example.
So you liked it then? ;)
@@LitProf Hello Dr Masson. I like your channel, but Lewis's argument, not so much. I think that one must always motivate a childe when teaching him. The damages of unmotivated study, and in particular, the danger of permanently making a child antagonistic towards learning, outweigh the benefits (and I am saying this as a student of ancient Greek myself.) For this reason Lewis's argument carries no force in my mind at all. You may say that Lewis is merely preaching in the piece that you have discussed in this video, and that he was not trying to prove his point rigorously. But the other arguments you've mentioned are deficient in a manner characteristic to religious and intrinsicist thinking in general, makes me think that no better arguments are to be expected of him. Specifically, one cannot conclude from the inevitable frustration of the pursuit of happiness in this world (which I do not concede for one minute) that there must be some other supernatural dimension where happiness will be attained and satisfaction given. That a state of affairs is tragic does not mean that it is unreal or that it will be made right eventually. This kind of fallacious argumentation is found also in religious thinking on knowledge. Religious people will often claim that God is needed to secure knowledge and truth. Leaving aside the oddity of this claim in and of itself, it does not follow from the desirability of knowledge that it must be attainable. The skeptic may be right (he isn't) even if this is a highly discomforting idea. Such a form of argumentation is also morally repugnant in my opinion, because it is relying on people's sense of despair to give it its seeming plausibility and psychological appeal.