What's in a straight line . . .
I came across this doozy today . . . it'd been a while since I read the book. I remember being so impressed by this in High School and I used it. I used many things Lewis had to say . . . and now, I really don't know why I was so impressed. It's so fascinating to me now to deconstruct the very idea of this, like when he says, "But how had I got this idea of just and unjust?" That is one of the things that sparks questionable energy in me most, is when people use that, backed in, presuppositionalist line of reasoning where god must already exist for us to be able to comprehend such social or moral constructs.
This makes no sense to me. For example, if we are to take the words "just and unjust" and question the nature and origins of them, we should trace them through the linguistic evolution that they follow and how we might relate to that . . . not just assume that they come from a god and should, therefore, have no claim to them. If we are to view this on biblical standards it is really confusing. Or even any religious standard. We have come so far as a society since the beginnings of language, as we know them, and since we have recorded them. When I think about this in regards to the history of religion or language, the first question I think of is: How had we got this idea of god?
When I think of the word god . . . side note.
Typiclly when I write the word god, I do not capatalize it because the capatalization comes from the Christian idea of god being monotheistic and I do not view the Christian god as monotheisitic. I view the Christian god as polytheistic because of the triune god philosophy.
When I think of the word god, I have to ask where we got the word from. Our Germanic origin of it (which eventually led to the english) was in the 6th century, I think. The Judaic origin was Old Testament, but had so many titles. Which one do we choose? Do we choose the formal acceptance of the tetragrammaton, which can't be pronounced, or do we choose Yahweh? The names go on through the ages as to what god is supposed to be, but it is impossible to know which one to accept. So, I refuse to accept any. Given the history and knowledge that we have accumulated and obtained, I see no reason to perceive a crooked line and call it unjust. And if I were to see the unjust as crooked, then I would call god a crook.
Just because we can't define the exact origin of a word or a concept does not mean that we should have the freedom to make it up and define it as we please. We come to reason together.
So, how had we got this idea of just and unjust? Maybe I punched my dinner guest in the face for having passed the bread to their left instead of to their right and had then seen the look of dismay upon their face. Maybe I disrespected family or friend and upon seeing the hurt expression on their face . . . knew better. What I do not look to for these moral philosophies, is religious scripture. If we take what may be beautiful teachings out of the dogmatic and mythological text, it may actually mean something in reality. However, when it is surrounded by the vitriol of god . . . it really is "cruel and unjust".