C.S. Lewis and Idealism
Lindén, Lilian (2024-06-14)
Åbo Akademis förlag - Åbo Akademi University Press
14.06.2024
This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
The permanent address of the publication is
https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-389-065-7
https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-389-065-7
Abstract
The aim of this dissertation is to explore Lewis’ relation to idealism. As a means of studying the topic, I have chosen to focus on three main questions: What philosophical idealism did C.S. Lewis adhere to before he became a Christian, how did George Berkeley’s subjective idealism influence him and what impact did Owen Barfield have on Lewis when it came to shifting from realism to idealism. All these questions are related to the impact idealism in its various forms had on Lewis’ philosophical journey, mainly before but also after he became a Christian. Some of the questions have been discussed by other scholars, but have not yet received final answers.
My method of research is textual analysis, which in this case means to read a text carefully and formulate my own opinion about it. After reviewing what other scholars had written on my research questions, I studied the primary sources in detail on my own and only in the final stages of the study did I return to the findings of other scholars to compare my analysis with theirs.
The first main question is to determine what philosophical idealism Lewis adhered to before he became a Christian. Lewis used the term “philosophical idealism” when he meant Absolute idealism and he adhered to it from the beginning of 1922. The second idealism Lewis called solipsism or pantheism, depending on the source, and he described it in most detail in 1928. My analysis of the steps on the way from realism to theism is one of the contributions to the research about Lewis.
Throughout the study I have stressed the importance of understanding Absolute idealism as a unique philosophy with peculiar characteristics, closer to realism than to the solipsistic belief that Lewis developed based on Berkeley, at least regarding its practical consequences. If this is not understood, wrong conclusions will be drawn about when he became an idealist in the first place and when he shifted to the next phase, to pantheism, in earnest.
The second main question is to determine in what ways Berkeley’s subjective idealism influenced Lewis. It turned out that in 1924, Lewis acquired two questions and a vision. The questions raised concerned nature and other selves, as to whether they existed independently of the self. As part of the solipsism he developed in 1928, Lewis concluded that both matter and other selves exist solely in the mind, the mind of the Spirit.
From Berkeley Lewis also acquired the vision of an all-powerful Spirit that did not create in an instant, once-and-for-all, distant act in history, but instead was an active entity who creates everything in a single, simultaneous and continuous act. In the act, three parts are present and created reciprocally: the individual, other selves and nature. I propose that Lewis adhered to this belief all his life, and this is the main reason why Lewis was thankful to Berkeley all his life, also as a Christian.
As part of the thesis, it became necessary to study letters between Barfield and Lewis, known as the “Great War” letters. The analysis led to new views, including that the Great War started later than supposed, when Barfield delved deeper into anthroposophy, which involved attaining new knowledge by occult meditation. Barfield coined it “the inspiration-imagination process” while Lewis called it “poetic imagination”. Because of their contents, I suggest that the GW II letters should be placed in the beginning of the controversy, not in the end of it. Lewis ended the “Great War” because he did not want to discuss anthroposophy anymore.
The third main question is what impact Barfield had on Lewis when it came to shifting from realism to idealism. In his autobiography, Surprised by Joy, Lewis gave Barfield credit for this shift, but to date, no scholar has been able to explain why he did so. My suggestion is that Lewis obtained from Rudolf Steiner what he owed to Barfield, an argument against materialism which enabled him to abandon the “technical” realism he had adhered to as an Absolute idealist. In a private letter, Lewis mentioned Steiner with appreciation for his “case against the common modern pseudo-scientific attitude”. This, in turn, made possible switching his belief in nature as rock-bottom reality to the Spirit as the cause of all there is. This left the way open, first, for Berkeley, and later, for Christianity.
My method of research is textual analysis, which in this case means to read a text carefully and formulate my own opinion about it. After reviewing what other scholars had written on my research questions, I studied the primary sources in detail on my own and only in the final stages of the study did I return to the findings of other scholars to compare my analysis with theirs.
The first main question is to determine what philosophical idealism Lewis adhered to before he became a Christian. Lewis used the term “philosophical idealism” when he meant Absolute idealism and he adhered to it from the beginning of 1922. The second idealism Lewis called solipsism or pantheism, depending on the source, and he described it in most detail in 1928. My analysis of the steps on the way from realism to theism is one of the contributions to the research about Lewis.
Throughout the study I have stressed the importance of understanding Absolute idealism as a unique philosophy with peculiar characteristics, closer to realism than to the solipsistic belief that Lewis developed based on Berkeley, at least regarding its practical consequences. If this is not understood, wrong conclusions will be drawn about when he became an idealist in the first place and when he shifted to the next phase, to pantheism, in earnest.
The second main question is to determine in what ways Berkeley’s subjective idealism influenced Lewis. It turned out that in 1924, Lewis acquired two questions and a vision. The questions raised concerned nature and other selves, as to whether they existed independently of the self. As part of the solipsism he developed in 1928, Lewis concluded that both matter and other selves exist solely in the mind, the mind of the Spirit.
From Berkeley Lewis also acquired the vision of an all-powerful Spirit that did not create in an instant, once-and-for-all, distant act in history, but instead was an active entity who creates everything in a single, simultaneous and continuous act. In the act, three parts are present and created reciprocally: the individual, other selves and nature. I propose that Lewis adhered to this belief all his life, and this is the main reason why Lewis was thankful to Berkeley all his life, also as a Christian.
As part of the thesis, it became necessary to study letters between Barfield and Lewis, known as the “Great War” letters. The analysis led to new views, including that the Great War started later than supposed, when Barfield delved deeper into anthroposophy, which involved attaining new knowledge by occult meditation. Barfield coined it “the inspiration-imagination process” while Lewis called it “poetic imagination”. Because of their contents, I suggest that the GW II letters should be placed in the beginning of the controversy, not in the end of it. Lewis ended the “Great War” because he did not want to discuss anthroposophy anymore.
The third main question is what impact Barfield had on Lewis when it came to shifting from realism to idealism. In his autobiography, Surprised by Joy, Lewis gave Barfield credit for this shift, but to date, no scholar has been able to explain why he did so. My suggestion is that Lewis obtained from Rudolf Steiner what he owed to Barfield, an argument against materialism which enabled him to abandon the “technical” realism he had adhered to as an Absolute idealist. In a private letter, Lewis mentioned Steiner with appreciation for his “case against the common modern pseudo-scientific attitude”. This, in turn, made possible switching his belief in nature as rock-bottom reality to the Spirit as the cause of all there is. This left the way open, first, for Berkeley, and later, for Christianity.
Collections
- 614 Theology [83]