“When we are considering Man as evidence for the fact that this spatio-temporal Nature is not the only thing in existence, the important distinction is between that part of Man which belongs to this spatio-temporal is not the only thing in existence, the important distinction is between that part of Man which belongs to this spatio-temporal Nature and that part which does not: or, if you prefer, between those phenomena of humanity which are rigidly interlocked with all other events in this space and time and those which have a certain independence. These two parts of a man may rightly be called Natural and Supernatural: in calling the second ‘Super-Natural’ we mean that it is something which invades, or is added to, the great interlocked event in space and time, instead of merely arising from it. On the other hand this ‘Supernatural’ part is itself a created being—a thing called into existence by the Absolute Being and given by Him a certain character or ‘nature’.” (Lewis, Miracles 275).
A thought provoking passage. Lewis supposes the human spirit transcends spatial-temporal existence. But, isn’t the human spirit, i.e. consciousness, spatial insofar as it is centered in a body and temporal insofar as it is always becoming and never final? So that, the supernatural is not a fact of experience but result of the mind’s dialectical tendency. To imagine the physical world as a totality immediately invokes its opposite thus forming a gestalt. Then doesn’t he take a further unnecessary step by concretizing spirit into “a thing”? And doesn’t this in itself contradict the proposition that we are not spacio-temporal as every phenomenal entity of experience is?
For me, the passage smacks of a begrudging affirmation of dualism–two sets of entities, one locked in time and space, the other somehow outside of time and space but somehow connected to spatio-temporal manifestations. The passage is, for me, more confusing than enlightening. But I’m a monist. I’m not sure we can know anything that is separate from consciousness. Spirit is an aspect of the human psyche. It may be a portal from the unknown to the knowable. It may not be a separate entity., i.e, separate from the knower.
Just adding to the Discussion:
Scientists have discovered a potential energy that precedes conscious choice. Could it be then that this readiness is the effect of a soul?
Could be. But, the thing is, whereas you are clearly speculating, I think Lewis is describing his experience. Only problem is that he makes a hidden “leap to faith” as Kierkegaard might say.
Adding a bit more I disagree with Lewis attempt at a platonic proof of the sacred
The problem is in the confidence he shows in the ability of reason alone to determine, from an extrapolation, the existence of the divine.
Is any part of man independent, undetermined by the rest of the material world? How could we know such a thing? Alas, what is certain is that the operations of the body and the mind can be explained to a certain point as determined. But suppose that we did find a part within us that was independent, maybe the energy that we call soul?- even then there is no way, by definition, that the mortal will find knowledge of the immortal,of what is independent of nature. And even this is speculation just as saying something positive is speculation which has to be taken on faith.
In the end it does give Christianity a philosophical vocabulary but one which has been used for centuries from Plato to Plotinus for religions quite different from Christianity. In short, the reasoning might be sound (even if it doesn’t yield any certainty without faith) but it leaves another gulf between the independent, the Absolute and Jesus. Similar problem to a set of scriptures being interpreted vastly different even if both interpretations are theistic.
So what is he trying to prove? That the theist position is reasonable or that there is a rational demonstration for the Trinity?
If one could envisage no abyss between the physical and the spiritual, the only leap of faith necessary would be when mental analyses fail to observe spiritual realities.
Hello irrellus
That is true. But the language sported by religion includes that abyss. It’s not only the legacy of ancient religions but also western philosophy.
Should we maintain this tendency? I don’t know but I thi that withdrawing the separation, that abyss, removes the space normally occupied by the divine. Then reality itself is Devine. But is everything is divine then no thing, no specific thing is divine. the word loses its value.
I think that’s consistent with the Biblical conception of the structure of the human psyche, or at least one traditional hermeneutic through which it is interpreted. The spirit is sometimes equated with the true “I” of centered consciousness. The “I” or spirit is conscious of being embodied. Through the body’s senses the spirit experiences the phenomenal world. The spirit is also conscious of non-sensory contents i.e. the mind. The whole kit and caboodle is the soul. Does this square with your conception?
A connection can be seen in the philosophy of Philo:
Source: Tarnas, Richard (2011-10-19). Passion of the Western Mind (Kindle Locations 8860-8867). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
I’m not sure what you mean. Seem to me, there is a gap between subjectivity and the historic Jesus which can only be overcome by Christian faith and a gap between subjectivity and the Absolute which can only be overcome by philosophical faith. If I have understood you on those points, I still don’t get what you mean by the independent.
Which isn’t a problem if we can accept that none of us possesses of the ultimate interpretation.
He is trying to show that naturalism is a worldview that cannot stand up to philosophical scrutiny.
C.S. Lewis receives indirect support from Kierkegaard’s reading of Socrates:
"Socrates thinks the difficulty through in the doctrine of Recollection, by which all learning and inquiry is interpreted as a kind of remembering; one who is ignorant needs only a reminder to help him come to himself in the consciousness of what he knows. Thus the Truth is not introduced into the individual from without, but was within him. This thought receives further development at the hands of Socrates, and it ultimately becomes the point of concentration for the pathos of the Greek consciousness, since it serves as a proof for the immortality of the soul; but with a backward reference, it is important to note, and hence as proof for the soul’s preëxistence. " Kierkegaard, Soren (2012-08-26). Philosophical Fragments (Kindle Locations 9-13). . Kindle Edition.
I think he is describing the Christian notion of Free Will.
The words “rigidly interlocked” and “certain independence” appear to be pointing to where there is a certain degree of freedom and where there is an absence of freedom. That is, in the physical realm there is no freedom. In the spiritual realm there is “some” freedom. But I have not read any of Lewis’ works and probably will not and so I will not know what Clives’ intent was.
I think you’re right and that would make “free will” a “super-natural” power in the sense that Lewis is using “super-natural” above. So, while everything else in the natural universe may determined in “rigidly interlocked” fashion, the human being could be free by virtue of being "super-natural’’ according to Lewis’ reckoning.
Felix,
“The Kingdom is within.” I think Socrates was on the correct path of discovering this. I like the idea of soul as being a better description of the human trinity than psyche is.