Lewis sees this kind of feeling as an innate desire for God that we all have, which to him is a main piece of evidence for God's existence. Is there such a thing as evil? In 1932, in a work called Totem and Taboo, Freud made the interesting observation that death does not exist in our unconscious mind: Our unconscious then does not believe in its own death. It's main argument boiled down to: Freud had a depressing life and was an atheist, Lewis had an enjoyable life and was a believer, ergo, believing is the right way to go. I've now watched it two, maybe three times, and while it's shallow in its debate, and far too short to really get to anything meaningful, it's an interesting show and I'll probably watch it yet again! If they are right, then who needs to look at evidence and use reason? Eventually, he came to believe that this someone is the Creator. Having read about Freud and Lewis beyond this book I know that these sorts of labels are not entirely accurate and they only serve to gloss over the complex humanity and the complex message of both of these men.
To a friend he wrote, I find this hard to bear. We add new entries regularly and we encourage your comments and feedback so we can develop a helpful, thoughtful and entertaining resource for you. A celebrated Oxford don, literary critic, and perhaps the 20th century's most popular proponent of faith based on reason, Lewis won international recognition long before his death in 1963. And so interestingly enough, what we have in Lewis is someone who, because he had immersed himself in the world of atheism and concluded it to be intellectually and morally bankrupt, was able to promote Christianity with intellectual rigour and literary imagination — which in many ways makes him unique. The book is flawed, in my opinion, but could of the bias it takes on the side of Lewis. Lewis were both haunted all their lives by a deep yearning with no easily identifiable object — a transcendent longing that Freud called Sehnsucht and that Lewis called Joy.
In the 17th century people turned to the discoveries of astronomy to demonstrate what they considered the irreconcilable conflict between science and faith; in the 18th century, to Newtonian physics; in the 19th century, to Darwin; in the 20th century and still today, Freud is the atheist's touchstone. Their lives are shown through brief vignettes, each demonstrating the two mens' path towards or away from religion. Despite these faults, this remains a delightful and edifying read for a broad range of people: those interested in Freud, in Lewis, in psychiatry, in God, in atheism, philosophy, and in the great questions of life generally. The author, Nicholi, walks a narrow, but fair path between both Lewis's and Freud's divergent philosophies on God and spirituality. They talked and walked for hours along a path called Addisons Walk.
Lewis deals with this objection both by way of imagination by looking at an episode in the Narnia stories, The Silver Chair, and then by way of argumentation in an essay he wrote back in 1941. All in all, definitely worth watching, if a little topical because of the time restrictions and the emphasis placed on the title characters' biographies. Nicholi, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard and a frequent instructor on both men, shows the magnitude of both geniuses' impact in their respective fields. Is literary history repeating itself, with Borges pitting the Emperor Aurelian against John of Pannonia, while St. Perhaps Lewis didnt either in the sense that he was sent away to boarding school because his father was too full of grief to take care of him. And so, the argument goes, people set about constructing religions. Lewis: Christianity claims to give an account of facts — to tell you what the real universe is like.
We must remember that Freud suffered considerably in his life, emotionally as a Jew growing up in an intensely Catholic-biased Vienna, and physically with an intractable cancer of the palate that he struggled with for sixteen years of his life. In a letter to Jones, he wrote, I was about your age when my father died and it revolutionized my soul. I wonder how many of us have sometimes felt that way. He is so in favor of Lewis it's astonishing that he'd even write the book and present it the way he did. Lewis has a heart to walk with non-Christians as far as he can whether you think he goes too far or stops prematurely , but to highlight the significance of the difference where his path parted from his companions. If Freud still serves as a primary spokesman for materialism, Lewis serves as a primary spokesman for the spiritual view that Freud attacked. People in my field say it is the finest work on the process of grief.
It was for sure worth the read; I learned a lot, and I went through different emotions as I read it and thought both about the material in the book and how the ideas fit into my life. The impeccably realized invocation of Freud and Lewis is perfectly embodied by actors Martin Rayner Freud and Mark H. As I mentioned above, the focus on the question of truth is an admirable feature of the play. Yet the same can equally be said of Lewis and Nicholi, for that matter , who uses false assumptions, circular logic and empty metaphors to make his arguments, which he then wraps up in admittedly seductive language the man new how to weave a vibrant fabric of words. See all of my reviews related to C. There are two questions that people who say this kind of thing ought to be asked.
Unlike Freud, Lewis is still viewed as a standard — of Christian apologetics. Earthquakes, tidal waves, complications make no distinctions between the virtuous and pious and the scoundrel or unbeliever. Wherever Freud raises an argument, Lewis attempts to answer it. I I'm a bit conflicted about how I feel about this book. Augustine well knew the power of the libido dominandi. The series frames these questions in the context of the lives of C.
As part of an intellectual legacy, Freud vehemently advocated a secular, materialistic, atheistic philosophy of life. Of course, I agree with that bias and so I understood the conclusions he draws but I don't think he illuminates enough why you draw them. The issue is not, who influenced me to become a Christian, but do I have any reasons for believing Christianity to be true, whether I like it or not, regardless who or what influenced me? Nicholi does a great job of portraying both Lewis and Freud, perhaps two of the greatest minds of the last century. Ive known the most respectable people to do it. Lewis is even used to basically psychoanalyze Freud, but Freud is not used to psychoanalyze Lewis. I have no issue with Christian apologetics that are truthful from the start about what they are and what their intentions will be.
It is certainly one worth having but this book cannot do it justice and to focus so primarily on that is to create more confusion than clarity. In , Lewis described how as an atheist the problem of human suffering, especially the capacity of man to foresee his death while keenly desiring permanence, made it difficult for him to believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God. We use terms such as ego, repression, complex, projection, inhibition, neurosis, psychosis, resistance, sibling rivalry, and Freudian slip without even realizing their source. I wonder if its significant? It is much harder to give that level of weight to a book finished over a few days or in my case, one evening. As a Christian I'm not bothered by that particularly but I do worry that the author is a little too general as he describes each man.