Jump to content

Talk:C. S. Lewis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Former good articleC. S. Lewis was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 2, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
February 5, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 17, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 29, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 27, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2024

Change British to Irish nationality. He was born in Belfast pre-partition, and was extremely clear of his Irish identity. 91.125.2.180 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Belfast is in Northern Ireland 102.132.159.77 (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not say "Irish and British"?. He was Irish and British, and under the current Good Friday agreement, someone can legally identify as both or either. 46.226.190.155 (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hick

I have reverted out information restored in a perfectly good faith edit here [1]. I reverted under WP:ONUS and because I think the initial removal has a point, although perhaps more under WP:DUE than fringe. So the challenged material has:

The Pluralist theologian John Hick claimed that New Testament scholars do not now support the view that Jesus claimed to be God.

The statement is sourced and probably correct inasmuch as Hick said it, but the page is about Lewis, not Hick. If Hick is claiming that as phrased there, we could criticise Hick, but Hick's criticism is not particularly representative of criticism of Lewis. I don't see what it is doing there. Now if Lewis specifically addressed Hick, that would be due, but this, phrased in this way is not a criticism of Lewis' argument per se. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Hick, I think there may be something we could say here that does quote Hick, but what we have is not right. Hick specifically does attack Lewis on page 29, and does base this on his own view that NT scholars do not believe Jesus claimed divinity (but his evidence includes quoting authors that simply dismiss the historicity of the claims in the gospels - a move that does not criticise the argument per se). I think the nub of the argument is that if Jesus did not claim to be God, then the trilemma fails. Hick is not alone in claiming that Jesus did not claim to be God, but he doesn't have the near unanimity he claims either. I think this could be written more clearly and then go back in. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hick's central argument is that Jesus' apparent claims to be God in the Gospels are now generally accepted by scholars to be later additions; that the earliest Christian belief was that Jesus became divine, by the gift of God, upon his resurrection – a view he supports with quotes not only from other scholars but also from the Book of Acts and St Paul's epistle to the Romans. He then addresses Lewis's argument in one sentence:
All this rules out the once popular form of apologetic which argues that someone claiming to be God must be either mad, or bad, or God; and since Jesus was evidently not mad or bad he must have been God (e.g. Lewis 1955, 51-2).
Calling this an attack is a bit of a stretch, I feel. It is a cogent answer to Lewis's argument, but only mentions Lewis himself in passing. I feel we should still mention it, but I do agree it would be better to find someone specifically criticizing Lewis's formulation of the argument on similar grounds.
VeryRarelyStable 09:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political Views

Recent edits have added a political views section that tells us some thought he was a classical liberal, that he believed in a small state but did not oppose a welfare state, and that he was not an egalitarian but a democratic monarchist. His views on class and gender were essentialist and ultimately he was therefore a conservative. This is perhaps on the back of the attempts to add Lewis as a leading light of political conservatism with a certain template that was added.

I find the whole focus of this section to be wrongheaded, sorry. I think we are starting with a modern set of partisan ideas and concepts and trying to shoehorn Lewis into these. If that is just to claim him for the conservatism template, that would be quite wrong. But in any case, we are starting at the wrong end. We can't take questions like the small state one and try to make those fit with Lewis' thinking based on comments he has made. That looks like WP:OR. Instead we should start with Lewis, and what he said and what he wrote. And on that, there are very few sources on his political thought, because Lewis did not regard himself as a great philosopher - certainly not a political philosopher, and he absolutely eschewed partisan politics, and politicians in general. Every single person who knew him well was perfectly clear that he eschewed politics. His objective in his writings, and his focus, was as a Christian apologist. His beliefs began with a Christian worldview. And note: that does not equate to conservatism, regardless of any modern conception in the US of a religious right.

There is one very good source, however, that does look at his writings and attempts to discern his underlying political views - because yes, every person has some of those. That work is C.S. Lewis on politics and the natural law.[1] Whilst we could make use of that work to describe Lewis' political views, this section would then look quite different. We would have to begin (as they do) with how he disliked partisan politics and politicians and eschewed the political sphere, and thus refused a knighthood. And note the title: the only thing on which he really has a lot to say is the concept of natural law. Not as a partisan viewpoint but grounded in his apologetics. His contributions on the subject, according to Dyer et al, were on Natural law, the importance of moral education and individual freedom. Inasmuch as these are political, we could say that. But they are not partisan, and should not be described as such.

References

  1. ^ Dyer, Justin Buckley; Watson, Micah Joel (2016). C.S. Lewis on politics and the natural law. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 1107108241.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2024

Change British to Irish 109.76.5.236 (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - This has been frequently discussed. See the latest discussion in archive 9: [2]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InternetArchiveBot – can someone please report a false positive?

As we've all seen who have this page on our watchlists, InternetArchiveBot keeps falsely tagging the link to Lewis's Encyclopedia of Fantasy entry as a dead link. I've tried to report it as a false positive but it seems I don't have the requisite permissions. Can someone who has, please do this for us? —VeryRarelyStable 07:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reported this (probably in the wrong place) last year, and the reponse was pretty dismissive, so I just resigned myself to undoing the bot whenever necessary. At least it seems to have stopped doing the same thing on Tolkien's page. Deor (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish nationality

Has it yet been mentioned that Lewis was in fact , Irish? The article has some misleading statements regarding him as british.

Thanks for the soon to come changes and all the work yall do! 2600:1004:B106:FE:F8D2:419B:9059:8866 (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. read up 3 paragraphs. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]