Saturday, January 10, 2009

No right to worldly happiness...

Humans always need to be happy. They receive it through love, relationships, desires, possessions, and anything else you can think of. But once they receive happiness they just want more. In Lewis' "Have No 'Right to Happiness'" this is the case with Mr. A. When he divorced with Mrs. A to marry Mrs. B he said it was because he had a "right to happiness". This is worldly happiness, the kind of happiness that will never be fulfilled. This happiness we should not indulge in, there needs to be an end to it.
In class we discussed that happiness was a choice. To make a marriage work you need to make the choice to be happy and to love the person, otherwise the pursuit for happiness will never end.

This goes along with the first chapter in Plantinga's book "Engaging God's World". This chapter talked about how humans have a longing, and with this longing comes the need of hope. People who are unaware of Jesus always feel the need for something more, and they feel that they need to satisfy this need. Thus, they indulge themselves in the many pleasures of this world, trying to fill the emptiness inside of them. For Christians its the hope of Jesus Christ. And we justify this hope by examination of the Bible.

After reading Lewis I found this reading kind of dull. Most of his points were taken from other authors and scholars, where as Lewis would come up with these amazing original ideas.
However, I did find the fact that Hope comes from the sin of this world interesting. Without the evil in this world we wouldn't need hope. This points to the possibility that the bad things that happen in this world all work out for the good. They point for our need of something more, which is hope.

1 comment:

  1. Dear Tyler,

    I love the comments and the fact that you can see both positive and negative aspects in them. Seeing both sides of the matter allows us to see more than just a quick glimpse would do, but most of all: your sincerity is to be commended!

    On your comment on Plantinga’s reading as being ‘kind of dull’; I have to agree. The reading is quite different, and the ‘rhythm’ of the writing is slower paced, with fewer ‘Socratic’ interjections (a calm sea after a heavy storm). Some of you commented it (Plantinga’s) as being peaceful. It is hard to ‘change gears’ and continue to enjoy the scenery if it suddenly slows down a lot. However, this will give us time to see flowers and animals otherwise not seen.
    Furthermore, Plantinga is not that deep in philosophy, he is much more the theologian, that is another change in pace. However, may I disagree on the ‘most of his (Plantiga’s) points were taken from other authors and scholars, whereas Lewis would come up with these amazing original ideas’? I am sorry to say that Lewis was not that original as you suggest, but he was incredibly well read and the quotes of other scholars of different ages and languages where all his for the taking under a nail-sharp analytic mind. So, Lewis ‘wove’ his writings with quotes, but he possessed them all personally and expected us all to know them too, so no need for references.
    I am happy you where able to catch some ‘glimpses of redemption’ from Plantinga! Let’s keep investigating all that is offered us! A fruit will never taste like meatloaf! Nonetheless, both are nutritious and/or may contain toxins; only prayer, careful reading versus living will open our minds to discernment.