I am constantly amazed at how fast I will belittle the arguments of individuals based on my own knowledge of their hypocritical life style or inconsistent practice of what they are professing. It is almost the idea of making the individual feel unworthy of being allowed to predicate on a specific topic. I found myself smirking at Lewis idea of Bulverism. It is truly a profound idea to set ourselves out side of personal prejudice and the ease of personal attacks and analyze the actual validity of the statements, not the person arguing them. Lewis introduces his idea of Bolverism by using the example of Freudian psychology. Lewis states that Freud, in his psychological evaluation of the human mind and thought, ends up breaking up thoughts and thinking in general into two camps both untainted thought and tainted thought or bias and prejudice. I would like to believe as an astute student of psychology that Freud would respond to such an allegation by saying that all thought is subject to some taint, and that "taint" is not a single essence but a collaboration of all the natural process that surround individuals. Freud was a behaviorist in many senses who believed that what we think and do is the result of the environment around us and previous experiences and presuppositions, ie Lewis's "taint". Freud would say that his thoughts were in fact tainted, but tainted through his natural experiences, which lead him to his incites. Obviously we don't all undergo the same experiences and therefore our thoughts and perceptions then lead us, as Lewis would say to be on different branches. Despite the broad, less specific, view on Freudism Lewis's final conclusion and observation on the matter does not change in its validity. Lewis is right to say that when we use Freudian psychological analysis of an individual to interpret if what they think, or most importantly why they think something is correct, to discredit what they are thinking, it deviates from the actual question of truth and leads to Lewis's Bulversim.
I find it fascinating how Lewis reasons his way into the identity of the supernatural. It is interesting to see Lewis's circular logic and how he begins with the idea of our understanding of Will and Reason, and their complete abstract from nature. It is truly interesting to see Lewis's understanding of imagination and its place in world, and its abilities as well as its limitations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Josh,
ReplyDeleteI think it is very humble how you introduced the topic by putting it on yourself, something I failed to do in my blog. Though I do admit that we all fall victim to Bulverism and Buvlerising (if you will). I liked how you brought a new depth to Bulverism in Freudianism.
I enjoyed reading your thoughtful insight into Freudian thought. You managed to humbly combine your knowledge of psycology and C.S Lewis into an honest, well written reaction.
ReplyDeleteI think that, while not a fan of Freud, you showed the good of his theory through your analysis of Lewis's character, while showing where Freudian thought does fault to Bulverism in order explain and reject the thoughts of an individual for the sake of diagnosis.
I agree with both your comments and Lewis himself: trying to analyze and discredit an opponent on the grounds that they are a man, or a child, or an Atheist, or because their mother chain smoked is a grave deviation from the objective truth of Reason. As Lewis states, we can only know the world through our own experiences. And even though this is true, our ability to use Reason and Will come from God, and not Nature. Therefore even though we as humans experience the world subjectively, we can still find Truth through our ability to use that Reasoning which exists without and throughout us. This is why Bulvarism is such a travesty when we are trying to prove another person is wrong.
ReplyDelete