Sunday, February 25, 2007

The chapter “Friendship” chapter of C.S. Lewis’ “The Four Loves” offered surprising criteria for a love to be classified as a friendship. Lewis alleges that only love founded on a common interest, rather than a basis of interest in the other person. What struck me as we were discussing this apparent aberration in Lewis’ argument in class was that, perhaps, he thought this sort of third-party friendship to be more spiritual because it denies us the opportunity to be flattered by another’s’ interest, and therefore to be further entangled with the enchantments of self. Perhaps Lewis feels that we aren’t supposed to find “our other self,” as Prof. Jensen said. Lewis states: “Affection and Eros were too obviously shared with brutes, you could feel these tugging at your guts and fluttering in your diaphragm. But in friendship- in that luminous, tranquil, rational world of relationships freely chosen-you got away from all that” (59). Perhaps Lewis is saying that by placing the emphasis of our friendships on a commonality rather than attraction to one another’s personality we are edifying and elevating one another in the spirit. Maybe Lewis’ theory is that if we separate ourselves from this earthy love, this interest in the possibly finite components of our persons, compel us towards a deeper knowledge of God’s love.

Labels:

2 Comments:

Blogger CJWurpts said...

Wow... your post is really well thought out. Great job. My thoughts on the friendship/common ground issues:

Lewis' perspective on the "friendship" love is interesting, thought-compelling, but ultimately, in my opinion, flawed. I think that one of the biggest misconceptions concerning the discussions in class was that we were talking about movies and books and what sort of ice cream (go bubble gum!) two people might have in common.

I don't have any proof to back this up (as I don't have my copy of the book with me at the moment), but I think Randy alluded to a very good point that I think needs to be said outright: the common interest that Lewis talks about is less of personal tastes and more of similar personalities. That is, two people, while perhaps not alike in every way, that are at the very core of their being similar.

Let me clarify:

The friends that I have here at Northwestern like a lot of the same things I do. Comic books, video games, funny movies, etc. But those similar interests wouldn't mean anything if I didn't feel like I could connect to them in some way. That is, if I didn't feel a kinship to them because of our similar (compatiable) personalities. I mean, I know plent of guys that like comic books (okay, maybe not), video games, and funny movies, but I don't get along with them because I can tell we aren't similar, that we wouldn't connect at the core of who we are.

I think Lewis' perspective on this is flawed because he does claim that friendship is to be detatched from our 'brute' feelings that normally are found in Eros and the like. But I don't think that the two are easily separated; you can't separate friendship and the gut instincts you have about who you get along (and hang out) with.

What do you all think?

7:02 PM  
Blogger natalie said...

I agree with you, but I do feel that there is some value in Lewis' argument. Perhaps the happy medium is one where the love between friends isn't so close as to become obsessive or parasitic (as in Till We Have Faces), but one that, though founded in "kinship", compells the friends towards a closer relationship with God.

8:17 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home