DWill wrote:My impression of what Lewis is trying to do in this chapter as well as in others is to supply a missing ingredient to the "new atheist" discussion. That discussion has always made a strong intellectual case against belief in a creator or managing God, but it has not shown very well how from an atheist view the emotional, and I would say spiritual, needs of people can be addressed. Compassion hasn't been a strong suit of the new atheism.
Yes, I think that's the right way to frame his intent. All in all I think he has made a substantial contribution along those lines. It's very true that the new atheism has shunned compassion - their general approach to people's argument that religion meets their emotional needs seems to be "Don't like it? Tough luck," or "You're delusional."
DWill wrote:Now here is Lewis showing that the facts of our existence can be faced without leaving us bereft of the comfort and support that we all need to get through. We aren't all skilled psychiatrists, but we don't need to be in order to make people in troubles feel less alone and hopeless. I was impressed that Lewis emphasized what he gained from his work with Mabel. This isn't the wise doctor dispensing treatment, but a true relationship.
Once he has eliminated false sources of comfort, as being mainly dangerous set-ups for disappointment, failure or distraction from the real issues, he has some good words for people's ability to play a meaningful role in the lives of others. I would say Christianity and Judaism are moving in that direction, too. Like Lewis in his practice, they are not all that intent on tearing down people's beliefs, but the structure being put up builds very much on interpretations that emphasize our "ministering" to each other.
I also appreciated his role for Mabel. He doesn't seem shy about dispensing treatment when it is called for, but he doesn't call for it reflexively. And his human response seems normal given that he perceived a person who had been embittered by cold people, and who had a perceptive mind and acute sense of humor.
DWill wrote: There is in therapy/counseling an injunction against the therapist meeting his own needs through the relationship, but I sense that Lewis would say that obeying such a precept could actually be bad for the person seeking help.
I can see how that might be an issue. Counter-transferance and all that sort of thing. I'm really glad you commented on this chapter, because this would have gone right by me. But you raise some challenging questions for the nature of therapy. Since positive human involvement is often the person's most critical need, how does the therapist arrange it without just "being human" with the person? It seems there is a serious lack in a therapeutic relationship that only has the therapist in a role of Parent (to borrow TA terms) or possibly Adult. Often person-to-person equal engagement seems it would be much more appropriate, and surely goes on a lot.
DWill wrote:I'll go instead with meaning, significance, and value being in the same range. Purpose is like energy; it's needed to reap meaning but says nothing about whether meaning is captured.
That seems like a good way to see it, for me. In traditional religious terms "spirit" plays both roles, imparting motivation and assuring some value for the effort undertaken. "Power" and "guidance" are the terms I grew up with. But meaning isn't mainly about being "well-guided" either, because it has to make sense for the person being motivated by it. This is actually quite interesting theologically - thanks for the reflection.
I would also note that a person can fail in something they try to do, such as achieving reconciliation with a family member, and still feel that it was a "meaningful" thing to try. To have purpose that leads to success but fails to capture meaning is a different kind of failure. The first examples that come to mind are either tendentious or trivial. Maybe I can be a little loose in citing a claim I have seen in more than one source that "post-modern" analysis often settles for scoring points to show the analyst more clever than others, without actually achieving any insight usable by others. A version I saw about economics was that it has become an enterprise dedicated to "solving the problems of the profession" rather than the problems of society.
DWill wrote:I think you may have said that meaning is something we can all agree on as a "good." It isn't just what automatically comes from our purposeful action, but has qualities that have always been known, and these are part of what religion has enshrined. Meaning is most likely to be present when we're acting on others' behalf, not surprising given that we're preeminently social animals. Perhaps bees feel the same.
That doesn't sound like quite the way I would have put it, but generally the idea that I have. The notion of common endeavor, such as the beauty of ballet or the thrill of a really well-executed play in sports, can broaden this beyond some sense that we are acting purely for the good of others.
DWill wrote:While I agree that abdication of responsibility might be a valid charge in certain cases, it is also true that we cannot intervene wherever a humanitarian crisis exists, at least not with troops. That might even apply to the UN. Almost all of us regret going into Iraq, but are we sure that had we not, many of us would not now be saying we should have used military force against Saddam? Colin Powell's original take on Iraq intervention--the Pottery Barn warning: if you break it, you own it--is worth heeding. We may forestall a serious problem, but this may not count or be recognized if other serious problems emerge from our involvement.
Actually we probably could intervene in every crisis and eliminate all the bad guys. Americans don't have the "stomach" for it, and we have for a long time put a priority on costing few lives when we make these sorts of interventions. Even WWII had enormous adjustments made to avoid squandering lives. We are reluctant to be full-on humanitarians with our military adventures, and that may be appropriate to the world's current state.
As you point out, the effort to take responsibility for other societies is fraught with complications and dangers, and it is nearly inevitable that the more we intervene the more the place we are trying to reshape will put up resistance. (One of the myths gradually growing around the end of the Soviet Union is that the U.S. brought it by "out-racing" them. While there is truth in that, their failure to re-shape Afghanistan seems to have been the triggering event and a heavy forcing factor.) At a minimum, though, we should avoid doing harm by disregarding the legitimate rights of other countries in order to get whatever baubles and trinkets happen to have caught our eye.
DWill wrote:There is judgmentalism in therapy/counseling on this matter of choosing the response to hardship. Maybe Lewis is reflecting on that. Whereas it is widely accepted that addiction is not the person's fault, being less able to fight back is more likely to be held as a moral weakness.
This matches with what I have seen in the popular press. Do you think it may mainly reflect our lack of anything tangible to offer addicts in the way of help? Sometimes we do, and it seems to me most of the moral judgment drops away pretty quickly in favor of applying solutions.
DWill wrote: "don't expect too much," and don't ruin the time you have left with frustration or with determination to leave a legacy of good or to have every moment count.
Or not to become too anxious that we don't have enough meaning in our lives! That quality, too, can be something by which we compare ourselves unfavorably to others, a special tendency in this Facebook age.
It probably sounds funny coming from me, but I definitely think it is futile to pursue meaning like notches on the gunfighter's gun. Rather I see the effort to do meaningful things as entirely natural, and the point of thinking about meaning is to work out how to empower that seeking. Overdoing it is definitely possible, and a few people do. Putting a lot of guilt on oneself about it is also a problem. I think Lewis probably could have said more about that.
DWill wrote: to the extent that we have had some failure, he reminds us this opens a door to empathy with others, since nearly everyone feels some falling short of their hopes for life. I think that is a profound insight - whole books have been written on that topic alone.
The current judgment, "It's all good," just about summarizes. If only we really believed it at the appropriate times. I'm sure that a large percentage of people Lewis treats feels that they've failed to achieve their potential in different ways. Why we are so insistent on being our own harshest critics is something that, as you say, whole books have been written about.
Well I guess it's natural to aim for high standards, and not easy to recognize when we are being "harsh" about it. Many people I know aim to be their own harshest critic to "get there first" so others won't be criticizing them. Probably overdone, but not totally misguided, either. The Catholic ritual of confession offers some help for our self-criticism, since it definitely pronounces forgiveness and also assigns a sort of penance. I am currently quite enthused about the transformational potential of seeing one's failures as a bridge to other fallible people.
In all the flurry of reporting on Brett Kavanaugh's dirty deeds and misadventures, I was taken by surprise by a story in which he had calmed one of the other frat boys, calling him back to reason. Without for a minute excusing his behavior and his lies, that really struck me as a snapshot of being human. We hope that those who know what it is to have gone too far will help to keep others from making the same mistakes.