In the first entry in this series, I examined C.S. Lewis's epistemologically faulty claims about scientific and moral laws as articulated in the first few pages of Mere Christianity, and the second entry focused on his dangerous and false claims that all cultures ultimately have shallow differences in their values. I will not cover everything in Mere Christianity, as not everything Lewis says is false, even if much of it is, as well as because different chapters do not always cover subjects that are particularly distinct. This continuation will center on Lewis's further statements about general epistemology and the deep differences between cultural and individual values.
Between the page I last quoted in part two and the page quoted below, Lewis elaborates accurately on how conscience is distinct from various other impulses because it makes people feel certain ways about other desires, but he quickly returns to errors when he begins unveiling his core epistemology. Lewis openly suggests that we are inherently dependent on other people to learn even certain basic mathematical facts, as if absolutely no one would ever have any idea of what the concept of multiplication is without being directly taught specific multiplication tables at school:
"We all learned the multiplication table at school. A child who grew up alone on a desert island would not know it. But surely it does not follow that the multiplication table is simply a human invention, something human beings have made up for themselves and might have made different if they liked? I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behavior from parents and teachers, and friends and books, just as we learn everything else. But some of the things we learn are mere conventions which might have been different . . . and others of them, like mathematics, are real truths." (12)
Here, C.S. Lewis misunderstands the very foundations of knowledge, as he credits social learning with being the means by which people learn mathematical truths--and most or all other foundational truths from which others can be reasoned. However, multiplication could never be discovered if there was no first person to recognize it, which means that it is both possible and necessary for someone to reason this out apart from the help of others! Multiplication is part of mathematics, which reduces down to logic, and logic is accessible by mere contemplation.
Everyone is capable of discovering truths about logic, their own conscious existence and psychology, and their own perceptions without any social input or prompting. Of course, few people will do this on their own, but it is not beyond anyone's reach. Autonomous reasoning is necessary even when others bring up logical facts that one could have thought of on one's own, as the only alternatives are blind acceptance, blind refusal, or neutrality. Knowledge is not possible from hearsay alone, unless one means knowledge of what the hearsay is (as opposed to whether it is true), yet this is not what most people mean when they talk about social learning.
Lewis also suddenly treats moral impulses as if they must be instilled in someone by other people when it is conscience, not social norms, that persuades many people that moral obligations exist. Social conditioning merely shapes what is already present in many cases. Of course, conscience informs us about our own moral feelings, meaning that the actual existence of morality and which obligations it entails are a matter of separate inquiry. Conscience is not a path to knowledge of anything other than one's own mind.
"I conclude then, that though the difference between people's ideas of Decent Behavior often make you suspect that there is no real natural Law of Behavior at all, yet the things we are bound to think about these differences really prove just the opposite." (14)
What people think about moral ideas--unless they have truly made no assumptions and analyzed their own hearts, thoughts, and cultures rationalistically--does not reflect anything other than their own perceptions and assumptions. In other words, it is impossible for anyone to know that morality exists because of so-called moral experience or moral claims from various cultures. The first is subjective and the latter is arbitrary and in conflict with itself. A culture that prides itself on pursuing "justice" while treating people differently based on their gender or race and advocating for torturous legal penalties is fundamentally different from one that prides itself on pursuing justice while treating justice as a social construct. Contrary to what Lewis writes, no one is forced to accept a specific moral system after surveying the historical record and their own culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment