Recovering Part of a Discarded Image

Last updated on: November 5, 2016 at 9:13 am by John Mark N. Reynolds

Recovering Part of a Discarded Image 2016-11-05T09:13:52-04:00 John Mark N. Reynolds

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Now this is book binding!

CS Lewis wrote an outstanding introduction to Medieval thought in The Discarded Image.

Perhaps we should recover a piece of that image. We can begin by ending what Lewis labels “chronological snobbery,” but since his time has become “chronological bigotry.” He was attacking the disposition of some in his time to think new ideas were automatically better than old ideas. Today one is more likely to meet people who assume all old ideas are false or (at best) useless. One need not argue against an idea further than saying it is old.

This intellectual bigotry gets what little support it has from scientific progress. We have used old ideas about the natural world to develop better ideas and our ability to manipulate nature is much greater than it was. If we wish to know how something works in nature, the newer the resource, the better it (generally) will be.

Natural science knowledge is not like other forms of knowledge. The kind of progress that the scientific methods produce is not replicable in other areas. Ethics, the study of what ought to be, can clarify, examine new problems, but generally does not need “progress.” Killing innocent people for fun is known to be wrong, was known, and will be known. Similarly, philosophy progresses (to the extent it does) through amplification, clarification, and occasionally by the rejection of ideas. A basic concept, like the idea that “mathematical objects exist apart from mind,” might be right or wrong, and arguments about the idea do grow more sophisticated, but the idea itself is very old (pre-Socratic) and is not going anywhere!

Like all forms of bigotry, chronological bigotry keeps us from learning how wrong we are! If we do not approach a writer in charity (a disposition to take him or her at best), then we will not see what we have missed!

Charity toward writers that we know to be brilliant can do no harm, but might do us great good! In reading an author we even might end up disagreeing with like David Hume, we should begin by seeing why such a great thinker thought as he did. We cannot understand fully without learning to love the author and have charity towards his intellectual ideas. Humble reading of great authors helps us participate, even for just a moment, in greatness while arrogance destroys.

There is a deeper skill that the Medievals cultivated that we have lost, however. That is the disposition to harmonize great writers and so produce new and interesting ideas. The Medievals (wrongly) thought that great thinkers could not disagree and so the problem must be their own misunderstanding of the text. This error, however, allowed them to work hard at creating fascinating new structures intellectually. They were mistaken that what they created was what Aristotle, Plato, or some other thinker thought, but the new creation was often as interesting as the original! In the mind of a world class genius like Thomas Aquinas, the result was at least as interesting as the original.

This is the part of the discarded image of the Medieval worldview that we should emulate. What do we make of all the great works we have read? Do they cohere? If so, how? Is there a way of reading Plato and Nietzsche (to pick two seeming opposites) where they agree? This has proven very valuable to me, because finding disagreement is very easy, just as criticism is easier than creation. The work of finding a deeper unity is harder and better for me. Often I find there is a deeper unity beyond superficial disagreement that is in fact part of the original texts. At other times, the synthesis that would be possible was not anticipated by the original authors, but (somewhat) interesting in its own right.

Approaching great texts as if there is agreement and as if we can find that agreement is worthwhile. It takes us out of the role of judge and critic of superior work and sends us on an errand that sometimes finds a treasure: a deeper understanding of the work. Most often, we find some ideas clustered around the authors that are “sort of like” the original ideas and generally inferior . . . neo-Platonism, neo-Nietzsche, neo-Hume . . . but the act of creation, even our inferior creations, is still helpful. Just as writing a poem, even if we cannot be Langston Hughes, is worth doing, so is creating a great synthesis in the way of Saint Thomas.

His was a great cathedral reaching to Heaven with many spires. I can aspire to be a small cottage with a cheery fire around which we gather for intellectual fellowship: a jolly little sub-creation of a cheerful mind.

————————–

This post is (loosely) based on a lecture I gave to students at The Saint Constantine School in November, 2016.

Spiritual Reflections

Previous Post

November 4, 2016

Cubs win! (We should all be thankful for Chicago)

Next Post

November 6, 2016 A Hearty Cheer for Paganism!

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Apologetics Art Culture Education On Books On Education Philosophy Politics Pop Culture Spiritual Reflections Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 July 2025 June 2025 September 2024 July 2024 June 2024 December 2023 June 2023 September 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who fell out of a window and was restored to life by Paul?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Eutychus Barnabas Timothy Silas

Books by This Author John Mark Reynolds

See All Titles »