- The Screwtape Letters
Another book by C.S. Lewis, this one is another Christian apologetic work. The book consists of a series of letters from a senior devil called Screwtape, addressed to his nephew Wormwood, a junior tempter. In these letters, the uncle mentors his nephew on the best ways to tempt humans and win them over to their side. It’s basically a “Guide to Being Miserable,” but with strong Christian undertones. To actually get advice from the book, you have to take all the tips Screwtape gives and invert them.
I liked Mere Christianity more, though I feel The Screwtape Letters is a good addendum to it. Some topics are more appealing than others.
The version I read included the sequel Screwtape Proposes a Toast. The whole book, including the sequel, is rather short.
The final letter, warns of the dangers of “democracy in a diabolical sense”: the idea that “all things are equal” can rob people of their individuality. And only individuals can be saved. It’s an interesting idea. I don’t know if I agree, since the book was written over 50 years ago and the dystopia Lewis feared didn’t quite happen. Though, you could argue that people today are less authentic, less individual, and more herd-minded. I don’t know. I’m always highly suspicious of broad societal claims, because they tend to be so general that they become unfalsifiable — which runs against the idea of what makes a theory scientific, as formulated by Karl Popper.
If a theory cannot be tested and potentially shown to be false, it does not belong to the domain of science.
That said, I do agree with the importance of individuality.
I also agree with the critique of realism. Our society, having been raised to value scientific thinking, often only accepts objectivity and materialism. Whenever something happens that doesn’t fit neatly into those frameworks, it gets explained away. That majestic feeling you have when standing on top of a mountain? Merely subjective, not real. The feeling of religious awe or closeness to God? Just chemicals, no facts, only feelings.
Ask yourself this: if you are a materialistic atheist, what kind of evidence could ever convince you that there’s more than just the mundane, material world? If God appeared in front of you right now, did all kinds of miracles, and then vanished, wouldn’t you dismiss it as a hallucination? Maybe you were dehydrated or had eaten something bad. And if God stayed with you, walking and talking with you for the rest of your life, fully material, fully present, wouldn’t you eventually think you had gone mad or developed schizophrenia? I certainly would. And remember Karl Popper’s theory of falsifiability? If there’s nothing that could convince you that there is more than the mundane, that materialism might be false, how can materialism be called a scientific theory?
In our culture, “subjective” has almost become an insult, a way to belittle everything that isn’t objective. And yet, those subjective experiences may be the most important of all.
- What is Real?
You will notice that we have got them completely fogged about the meaning of the word “real”. They tell each other, of some great spiritual experience, “All that really happened was that you heard some music in a lighted building”; here “Real” means the bare physical facts, separated from the other elements in the experience they actually had.
On the other hand, they will also say “It’s all very well discussing that high dive as you sit here in an armchair, but wait till you get up there and see what it’s really like”: here “real” is being used in the opposite sense to mean, not the physical facts (which they know already while discussing the matter in armchairs) but the emotional effect those facts will have on a human consciousness.
Either application of the word could be defended; but our business is to keep the two going at once so that the emotional value of the word “real” can be placed now on one side of the account, now on the other, as it happens to suit us.
The general rule which we have now pretty well established among them is that in all experiences which can make them happier or better only the physical facts are “Real” while the spiritual elements are “subjective”; in all experiences which can discourage or corrupt them the spiritual elements are the main reality and to ignore them is to be an escapist.
Thus in birth the blood and pain are “real”, the rejoicing a mere subjective point of view; in death, the terror and ugliness reveal what death “really means”.
The hatefulness of a hated person is “real” — in hatred you see men as they are, you are disillusioned; but the loveliness of a loved person is merely a subjective haze concealing a “real” core of sexual appetite or economic association.
Wars and poverty are “really” horrible; peace and plenty are mere physical facts about which men happen to have certain sentiments.
The creatures are always accusing one another of wanting “to eat the cake and have it”; but thanks to our labours they are more often in the predicament of paying for the cake and not eating it.
~ C.S Lewis, Screwtape Letters
- What is Courage?
This, indeed, is probably one of the Enemy’s motives for creating a dangerous world — a world in which moral issues really come to the point. He sees, as well as you do, that courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point — which means, at the point of highest reality.
A chastity, or honesty, or mercy which yields to danger will be chaste or honest or merciful only on conditions. Pilate was merciful till it became risky.
~ C.S Lewis, Screwtape Letters
- On Speech
Your patient must demand that all his own utterances are to be taken at their face value and judged simply on the actual words, while at the same time judging all his mother’s utterances with the fullest and most oversensitive interpretation of the tone and the context and the suspected intention. She must be encouraged to do the same to him.
Hence, from every quarrel they can both go away convinced, or very nearly convinced, that they are quite innocent. You know the kind of thing: “I simply ask her what time dinner will be and she flies into a temper.”
Once this habit is well established, you have the delightful situation of a human saying things with the express purpose of offending and yet having a grievance when offence is taken.
~ C.S Lewis, Screwtape Letters
- Philosophical Ramblings #10: Against "Eat the Rich"
“Eat the rich” is a slogan often used in left-wing circles as a rallying cry to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, in order to alleviate issues like extreme poverty. The exact interpretation varies,for example some argue that billionaires shouldn’t exist at all.
I disagree with this assessment. Why? Because it shifts responsibility away from the individual and places blame on a group one defines as “the rich.” But in reality, we, and by “we” I mean most people in the Western world, are already rich by global standards. Everyone has the ability to help others, yet most people choose not to. Instead, they deflect responsibility and shift the burden to someone else.
This reminds me of a thought experiment by the philosopher Peter Singer. Imagine there’s a child drowning in the sea right in front of you. You see people walking by without helping. When you ask them why, one says, “Why should I help? Someone else probably will.” Another says, “I’m already late for work; I don’t have time.” Another says, “I’m wearing expensive designer clothes and don’t want to ruin them.” In every case, we’d see these people as monstrous. Especially because if everyone thinks this way, the child simply drowns.
Now compare this to the world we live in. Right now, you could literally save a child in Africa dying from malaria, hunger, or contaminated water, by donating to a charity. Just like the drowning child in the thought experiment. If you think the bystanders in that scenario are morally reprehensible, then what excuse do you have for not helping real children suffering today? The only difference is distance, but why should that be morally relevant?
I’m not even saying that everyone must donate to charity or give away all their money. I’m only pointing out a contradiction: if you believe that we should take money from the rich to help the poor, then you should start with yourself. That 5$ Starbucks latte, the new phone, the drinks at the bar, you could have used that money to help someone in need. This is the exact same argument made about billionaires: “They don’t need yachts or private jets; that money could help the poor.” And that’s true. But how is your latte any more necessary?
So the slogan “Eat the rich” ends up removing personal agency. It makes the problem someone else’s fault, someone wealthier, more powerful, more distant. But the truth is: you had the agency all along.
This point is especially relevant for Christians, for whom charity is an explicit virtue. Salvation is received through the grace of God, but only in a soul shaped by virtue.
I2P