www.alphadictionary.com

To me, Lewis is way more than a tad more accessible than Kant. Of course, philosophy and theology are home to me, and within that venue people like Lewis and Trueblood are very clear. I admit to loaning Lewis's Problem of Pain to two college teachers, one in nursing and one in higher math, both of whom said they struggled with it.

Ah, sorry Mr Lassiter, I should have pointed out I'm British, hence understatement is a staple. Meiosis and litotes are our standard figures of speech. When thinking of a suitable reaction to events I always think of a Monty Python sketch (in The Meaning of Life I think) where an Army officer loses a leg - asked how he feels he looks at the bloody stump and says 'Stings a bit.'

Perry: As clear as Lewis is, some people just can't deal with him. I give his little book, "The Abolition of Man", as a gift to many friends. It is an essay about the innate tendency to morality and how it can be destroyed by thought control. It leaves some of my friends cold. I personally recommend all of Lewis' writings except "The Pilgrims Regress". At least a doctorate in philosophy is required to understand that book.

Understatement is good, in England or America. I'm currently reading a bio of Calvin Coolidge, also known as "Silent Cal." apparently for him understatement was sometimes eloquent and at other times verbosity.

During the Coolidge administration, Will Rogers made a world tour in which he visited Egypt. When asked if he saw the Sphinx there, Rogers replied that it was not necessary. He had already met Calvin Coolidge.

Understatement is indeed always good, but does not necessarily always convey well on the interwebz, I will confess. Communication often fails even among intimates face to face, so I suppose it may be sensible to avoid ambiguation over distances and cultures. Sadly I must warn I may not heed my own warnings.

Just to clarify, I pick and choose from the ideas of these great men. Lewis is clear but impossible to be taken seriously if you are not already a believer. Of course Kant was reputedly as pious as any so I choose to disregard the fact that he suggests God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality. His criticism of external ritual, superstition and hierarchical church order seem pretty appropriate however! I'm never quite sure whether he really meant to imply he was of the same mind as Spinoza and Einstein at heart - who I think concord most strongly with my own beliefs.

Some of what was posted here on this topic is a little over my head (not having read a lot of Lewis or Kant, etc). This much I do know: when it comes to evil, first we abhor it, then we accept it, then we embrace it. The problem, it seems, is in the definition of "evil" (in the sense that what may be evil to one may not be as evil to another). Personally, I try to live as closely as I can to scriptural edict, although I agree with those posts that say people can/should/ought to be "good" innately, whether or not they believe in scriptural things. Just my opinion.

call_copse: Lewis's apologetics are clear. It is up to the individual to believe or not to believe. They are still excellent apologetics whatever one's decision. If you would like to read a secular Lewis, try the little book "The Abolition of Man". It makes a case for natural morality and doesn't endorse a religion. I don't totally buy it, but it is very well done.

Lewis would probably embrace Kant's categorical imperative as many people seem to do. Even after having read "Kant for Dummies", I still have trouble with it. So like Bamaboy, I guess I will pass.

I understand evil better if I start with it as a given. People are just no damn good. The law of nature is tooth and claw. As the Apostle Paul said, and I paraphrase, "How can I get out of this mess I'm in?" From this perspective Christianity is my only alternative. Other people must chose for themselves.