Pages

Monday, April 22, 2019

Finding the Trunk


It is upon the Trunk that a gentleman works.

-        Analects of Confucius, 1.2


I had no idea what this meant, “the Trunk.”  I did some digging.  I found a more complete passage: “…It is upon the trunk that the gentleman works. When that is firmly set up, the Way grows.”

This second chapter of Lewis’s short book is entitled “The Way.”  But I still don’t really get it.  So I found this:

It is upon the trunk [the fundamental] that a gentleman works. When that is firmly set up, the Way grows.  And surly proper behavior towards parents and elder brothers is the trunk of Goodness.

The words “the fundamental” are inserted by the author of the paper.  So, I at least learn that the trunk is fundamental and that the focus is on the family, with proper behavior toward parents and elders as “goodness.” 

But I still don’t get the word “trunk.”  There is an image that I am missing.  Then I found it:

The really wise man, his followers said, works on the "trunk" of the tree, he doesn't fuss with the endless little branches shooting off from it.

Don’t mess with the details.  Get the family right, and society will be right.  Sorry for the diversion, but I had to understand why Lewis placed this quote from Confucius at the beginning of this chapter.

Lewis, for convenience, uses the term the Tao.  He recognizes that others can refer to it as Natural Law, Traditional Morality, the First Principles of Practical Reason, or the First Platitudes.  Whatever one labels it…

… [it] is not one among a series of possible systems of value.  It is the sole source of all value judgements.  If it is rejected, all value is rejected.

I will use the word Tao for this post, as Lewis does in his book; but you can read in its place (as I do) “Natural Law.”

It is worth considering in our ongoing discussion of libertarianism or liberty and where I am headed (at least for now) in this idea that liberty will be found (at least for those of us living in the western tradition) in the convergence of natural law, Christian ethics, and the non-aggression principle.  This, of course, suggests that a free society must first be made up of men who value such things – not subjectively, but objectively.

Lewis goes after the idea that value is subjective.  A hard thing to read when one considers economics; yet, most can recognize (on what basis, I wonder…) that just because each of us hold subjective values, not each value held is necessarily beneficial.  When faced with choosing one or the other, I might subjectively value that sixth Oban Scotch more than buying food for my family, but….  Well, you get my point.

Lewis returns to The Green Book, written by Gaius and Titius: despite its shortcomings as demonstrated by Lewis using the example of the waterfall, the authors must have had some end or purpose in mind – else why write the book. 

Sure, the authors might say that the book was “necessary.”  But necessary toward what?  Toward educating.  But educating toward what?  Eventually an answer must come that ends this line of wonder. 

It all strikes me as very Aristotelian.  And in line with Aristotle (and Aquinas, who developed this further), I don’t think it is acceptable to suggest that my sixth Oban holds more value than feeding my family.

Certainly since Nietzsche (or at least since he announced it), man has been free to develop his own ethics – more specifically, the Übermensch has been given this charge:

A great many of those who ‘debunk’ traditional or (as they would say) ‘sentimental’ values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process.

They claim to cut away the parasitic emotion, religious sanction and other inherited taboos so that real and true values can emerge.  Ultimately, their entire foundation is based on ‘Instinct.’  Where does this leave us?  Nowhere other than in the hands of those that want to hold power.

One way they hold power is to deliver to the rest of us the ethic of being free to obey our own instinct – this is made manifest in numerous ways.  Lewis offers one example: sexual morality:


…the old taboos served some real purpose in helping to preserve the species, but contraceptives have modified this and we can now abandon many of the taboos.

Sexual desire is, after all, instinctive – and a rather strong one, might I add.  Through instinct and technology, we are offered an ethic that appears to give us all we want with nothing that we do not want.  We see how that is playing out, and we are only in the early stages historically speaking.

Telling us to obey Instinct is like telling us to obey ‘people.’  People say different things: so do instincts.

To be free to listen to instinct still leaves us in a bind.  Instincts are often at conflict with each other.  Which instinct do we choose?  On what basis?  By instinct we might choose self-preservation, perhaps the preservation of our children and grandchildren – to the extent such as these exist.  But what of society?  What of future generations?  Will instinct lead us here, or will instinct give us the freedom to safely ignore these?  Does it matter?

No system of values will be found by what Lewis describes as the “Innovator” – consider these as today’s new atheists or yesterday’s Nietzsche.  There is no sustainable basis on which he can rest that doesn’t – in the end – rest on the Tao – found in Confucius (all within the four seas are his brothers), the Stoics (nothing human is alien to me), Jesus (do as you would be done by), or Locke (humanity is to be preserved).

All the practical principles behind the Innovator’s case for posterity, or society, or the species, are there from time immemorial in the Tao.  But they are nowhere else.  Unless you accept these without question as being to the world of action what axioms are to the world of theory, you can have no practical principles whatever.

These cannot be reached as conclusions; these are premises.  Any system that rejects these, or selects only fragments, one can consider an ideology – created arbitrarily.  Can we have liberty without fully embracing the natural law?  It seems not.  This, of course, does not mean that every violation of natural law must come with physical punishment (as Edward Feser suggests), but it does mean that men must be properly taught – and this is where today’s Christian churches must lead.

The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary colour, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in.

And there you have natural law – that beyond which man cannot go, and that without which no system of law can stand.  But does this mean that no criticism is allowed – no evolution, no dealing with contradictions? 

Not at all.  Lewis points to two kinds of criticisms: one from the learned – for example a linguist criticizing his native tongue, or a poet changing the language in the spirit of the language; the other is criticism from the outsider – one not studied in that which he is criticizing.

This seems consistent with the idea that tradition takes priority over reason of the moment – and only those learned in the tradition are truly qualified to criticize the tradition.  Yes, a path also fraught with risk…but such is the case of anything governed by man.

Those who understand the spirit of the Tao and who have been led by that spirit can modify it in directions which that spirit itself demands.

One who understands the whole is capable of working on the whole; those who understand a sliver work on that sliver at the expense of the whole.  Is this where the non-aggression principle sits, in this sliver?  If so, it is a real problem for those who look here as the sole or primary foundation for liberty. 

I do not, and I do not place a heavier burden on the non-aggression principle than it can bear; I do not expect more from it than it is capable of delivering.  It is well-suited for its intent – an intent which I continue to flush out; for now can say it is a guideline for justified violence.

Returning to the necessity of understanding the spirit of the Tao, Confucius offers: “With those who follow a different Way it is useless to take counsel.”  From Jesus, “He that believeth not shall be damned.”  Or from Aristotle, who offers that only those who have been well brought up can usefully study ethics.

The corrupted man from the beginning stands outside of the science of the Tao.

Conclusion

I am simply arguing that if we are to have values at all we must accept the ultimate platitudes of Practical Reason as having absolute validity; that any attempt, having become skeptical about these, to reintroduce value lower down on some supposedly more ‘realistic’ basis, is doomed.

“Practical Reason” equals the Tao equals natural law.

Epilogue

Lewis recognizes that science – the “Innovator” – will not rest here: other seemingly unknowable realities have been made known by science, so this one will also one day become clear.  He offers that dealing with this will be covered in another lecture.  This will be the subject of the next chapter, I believe.

12 comments:

  1. "But I still don’t get the word “trunk.”"

    I think a lot of cultures see truth as represented by a tree.

    Since Lewis was a Christian, I think it may have been a reference to the tree of truth (or the Christian community), as represented in St. Paul's letter to the Romans, to which believers (or adherents of truth) are grafted on and unbelievers cut off.

    Limbs may be grafted on or cut off, but the trunk remains. People may get the truth wrong or right, but underneath the noise of human misconception and corruption lies the untouchable truth.

    This is one of my favorite C.S. Lewis quotes (and from the same work!):

    "We have been trying, like Lear, to have it both ways: to lay down our human prerogative and yet at the same time to retain it. It is impossible. Either we are rational spirit obliged for ever to obey the absolute values of the Tao, or else we are mere nature to be kneaded and cut into new shapes for the pleasures of masters who must, by hypothesis, have no motive but their own `natural' impulses. Only the Tao provides a common human law of action which can over-arch rulers and ruled alike. A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery." - C.S. Lewis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ATL, I would like to consider two of you comments, one from here and one made earlier. I would like to understand your reconciliation of these.

      First, from earlier: "To me liberty is all about personal responsibility, not responsibility lumped on us by others without our consent,"

      Now, from the above: "Either we are rational spirit obliged for ever to obey the absolute values of the Tao...."

      I am not offering a "gotcha" question and I have some idea of how you will respond. I am asking because I am trying to reconcile this in my own mind and you always have an understandable way of explaining your thoughts.

      Delete
    2. I often comment on here (I've noticed) as if I am completely sure of my positions, but I think sometimes I'm only testing the waters. I write it out to organize, analyze, and streamline my thoughts. Surely it must come off as arrogant at times, but I really just get tired of qualifying everything I say with 'I think', 'in my opinion', 'perhaps', or 'possibly'.

      If later I become convinced that I've made a mistake, I'll try and go back and recant what I've stated, or at least refrain from continuing in error any further.

      I'm always weary of changing my opinion on things, because of the ramifications it can have on my consistency of thought. If I change my opinion on one thing, can I still consistently hold onto my opinion on these other things? Consistency is very important to me (if you remember, this was Ron Paul's 'one word' to describe himself and his candidacy during one of his presidential campaigns when asked), so thank you for bringing this to my attention. You have a good eye for these sorts of things.

      Having said that, I think there isn't an inconsistency in abiding the natural law (or the Tao) and rejecting the sloughed off personal responsibility of other people (which is descriptive of most of the non-consensual 'collective' responsibility we carry). Bastiat would say that the perversions of government most often come as a result of the law of solidarity encroaching on the proper realm of the law of responsibility (hence the welfare state).

      According to Lewis, we have a choice to either live rationally by the Law - the Tao, or to live irrationally according to our impulses or those of a ruler with superior force. There is a logical dichotomy here, but in practice of course we are always governed by a mix of the two: impulse and the Law.

      If we wish to live rationally, then we have put an obligation on ourselves to abide the Law. In this way, abiding the Law is consensual, and the responsibilities we assume therein are chosen. Then again the Law may not seem consensual to the serial rapist (governed by his impulses) who is shot to death by the woman (governed by the Law) he is attacking or the 'sovereign' farmer who is besieged by his neighbors for shooting a kid stealing an apple from his orchard.

      Maybe whether or not we choose it the Law governs still, even if we get by for years without paying the consequences for our violations. Even if the Law is distorted for hundreds of years, the social friction from its violation builds heat in a self-reinforcing manner until you get a fire. The fire offers a chance for renewal but also brings the more likely chance to make things worse. If things change for the worse, we get even more friction and a bigger fire. Rinse and repeat until we wind up closer to the Law.

      I'll have to think about this a bit. There's more to say, but I don't have the time to formulate my thoughts any further at the moment.

      Delete
  2. (Bionic wrote): "... Lewis [attacks] the idea that value is subjective. A hard thing to read when one considers [Austrian] economics ..."
    Not a hard thing for the thinking man. Austrian Economics states that value is subjective, not that everything is subjective and has, at its base, the axiom "People Act" - a very non-subjective assertion!

    (Bionic wrote): "... They claim to cut away the parasitic emotion, religious sanction and other inherited taboos so that real and true values can emerge. Ultimately, their entire foundation is based on ‘Instinct.’ Where does this leave us? Nowhere other than in the hands of those that want to hold power ..."
    I like the point you make here. As my favorite hymn states "Freedom and reason make us men; take these away, what are we then? Mere animals and just as well - the beast may think of heaven or hell." (Know This That Every Soul is Free, 3rd verse). Reduce men to the level of instinct and you turn them into animals. Reduce men to animals and you turn them into a commodity to be consumed.

    (Bionic wrote): "... Lewis points to two kinds of criticisms: one from the learned – for example a linguist criticizing his native tongue, or a poet changing the language in the spirit of the language; the other is criticism from the outsider – one not studied in that which he is criticizing. This seems consistent with the idea that tradition takes priority over reason of the moment – and only those learned in the tradition are truly qualified to criticize the tradition. Yes, a path also fraught with risk…but such is the case of anything governed by man ..."
    You are correct to point out that this path is fraught with risk, especially if the tradition is that those who are "learned" exercise authority over those who are not. Basically, you wind up with a society such as existed in Judea around Jesus' time. I also have to point out that the source of all Christianity is an individual who was outside the traditions of the times - this appears to fly in the face of what Lewis is trying to say. I guess I'll have to take a pass on that.

    The appropriate definition of objective for our discussion is "not dependent on the mind for existence - actual". I think that as we continue to investigate this convergence of belief, natural law / tradition and the Non-Aggression Principle, we will come upon objective laws which will build and maintain a free society. My concern is that such laws are not immediately obvious or may be shown to be axiomatic only after all possible outcomes are analyzed - not exactly a ready tool for convincing large numbers of people - especially libertarians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Not a hard thing for the thinking man.”

      Whoa there, Woody. I resemble that remark.

      “You are correct to point out that this path is fraught with risk….”

      I think of a couple of examples worth introducing, if for no other reason than to expand on how I understand this:

      The first is best represented by AOC or any of the numerous screaming immature college-age SJWs: learn something about what you are criticizing before you tear it down. The second is the issue that confronted the Reformers (Luther) as against certain practices of the Church. At least in Luther’s case, he was certainly “learned”; whether one agreed with his positions or not, he argued them from a position of having been trained.

      I don’t make any judgmental statement (at least about the second example); just that these are real-world examples of the “fraught with risk” stuff.

      “I also have to point out that the source of all Christianity is an individual who was outside the traditions of the times…”

      Au contraire, mon frère…He was tremendously learned in the traditions that He was criticizing – one could say no one was more qualified than He to criticize those traditions.

      Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

      Being the author of all of it, no one understood this better than He did. The point is not that one is against or outside of the traditions, I think; the point is that one understands them thoroughly, the reason why they exist, the reasons for counter-arguments, etc.

      Delete
    2. Bionic, I'm not saying that Jesus was unlearned. I am saying that He was rejected by the traditionalists of his day. These people had studied the Talmud for their entire lives. Many of these scholars were much older than Him. It only stands to reason that they would understand better than Him, would it not?

      What I'm saying is that C. S. Lewis' assertion that only those learned in the traditions can criticise it is wrong on it's face. You can't truly look at the life of Christ and validate this statement.

      Delete
    3. Woody

      “What I'm saying is that C. S. Lewis' assertion that only those learned in the traditions can criticise it is wrong on its face. You can't truly look at the life of Christ and validate this statement.”

      Maybe we are just talking past each other. Jesus WAS learned in the tradition, as were – presumably – the “traditionalists” of His day. That Jesus painted a different picture is precisely the point: the learned man (Jesus, in this case) is qualified to paint a different picture – to criticize. Just because the Pharisees rejected His teaching doesn’t discount Jesus’ criticism or that Jesus was learned.

      Jesus perfectly makes Lewis’s point.

      Delete
    4. Logically, that may be so; Jesus was learned and, so, had the right to criticize. However, the tradition was that the elders' opinions had to be respected - in other words, you can present ideas to the elders and if they liked the idea, it was accepted - if they didn't, then you'd better not contradict them or you would suffer the consequences. Jesus did not respect this tradition and was condemned for it. So are you saying that someone learned in the traditions who chooses to criticize them must also then face the consequences of that criticism, which in Jesus' case, was death? Not a very good way of opening up the floor for a debate, if you ask me. Not the sort of society I would want to live in.

      You see, Bionic, I am a heretic. I do not buy into many of the traditions normally taught in orthodox Christianity. Therefore, I myself, am worthy of death in such a society.

      Delete
    5. "So are you saying that someone learned in the traditions who chooses to criticize them must also then face the consequences...?"

      Woody, tell me in what society this is not true.

      Delete
  3. Another excellent post, you are on a roll it seems ;-)

    To me, this post revolves around a central theme which is not disclosed. I think it is genomics, DNA. Survival (= natural law) depends on improving our genes. I believe culture is downstream from the gene, a phenotype of the gene. If we allow our genes to deteriorate, we will experience a decline in our cultural expression. If we select for better and better genes, we will create a higher cultural experience.

    But what is good for the gene is not stable, it differs from time to time and from place to place. Hence natural law is in the end "that which survives". You can have all the liberty you want, but if it kills you with no offspring, it's a false liberty. It is just a personal fad.

    In fact, I would say that liberty as an eternal unchanging value does not exist, only natural law exists. Liberty is -at best- a leaf. It only lasts a short while, then it withers and dies. But it serves a purpose both alive and dead.

    ReplyDelete
  4. When considering "subjective value theory" as written by Mises(and I'm not even sure it's be referred to as "theory" as it seems axiomatic) I think it important to distinguish from the notion itself and the outcomes of individuals choices.

    For example, take the simple Biblical phrase, "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

    This is a Biblical acknowledgement of subjective value, but it is the outcome that is the question.

    Going back to the wiki listing on SVT, take notice of the following:

    "but instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of their desired ends."

    http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

    I don't see an inherent tension between the notion of subjectivity in man's value judgement and Biblical principles. In fact, I think they dovetail.

    The question in my mind is, what is the outcome of subjective value in man's decisions?

    If man's value system leads one down the path of rationalizing the murder of a child over the theft of an apple, and it might in some societies(like many a Middle Easter culture!), the question is can one live with that? I'm fairly certain that from a Christian ethics/morality standpoint, one can not.

    But going back to the Bible, we can see the difference in outcome in both liberty and morality generally speaking(there are always outliers) between a Christian and Islamic value system. Hence, "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

    The problem non-believers have(and as an agnostic I fall into this category) is one of establishing whether there are "absolute" truths or not...it's an area I have no fully thought out but I find the notion of killing a child over an apple as reprehensible even if "logically sound" in terms of defending property rights.

    The problem therein is a question of the outcome of valuing property rights over the life of the child in the big picture....not the notion of subjective value itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. * My statement above, is the justification socialists use in taking someone else's money at times....a problem indeed.

      "It's for the children."

      There is a subtlety between dealing with the theft of an apple and confiscating someone's wealth to feed a child...and I'll leave it at that for now- but I felt obligated to note it in reference to my original comment as I in no way am a proponent of socialism....so I guess call me logically inconsistent(for now).

      Delete