Buy the audiobook: www.amazon.com/C-S-Lewis-Coll... Schizo-posters will be tolerated Aggressive ath*ists will be kept on a short leash Blessed posters are welcomed
@@Tom_Tom_Klondike. At the risk of giving you a straight answer, no. But isn't your question beside the point? We're your feelings hurt by the cautionary statement? If you like, we can talk about that. Lewis was an atheist, by the way.
This is a great one. Demonstrates that arguing against the man is fool hardy. It's why we are told in the scripture that we don't fight against flesh and blood.
Yes, that sounds about right for one of those followers of "science". Aren't they just adorable? According to the wisdom of our age that should have made Lewis a hero.
If the tainting is not so much that it destroys reason, then there is no coping necessary, if it is so much that it destroys reason, nothing can cope to provide you with reason. Because your very ideas to cope will themselves be tainted thoughts.
How does a white man argue? You should have asked your friend. It has nothing to do with race by the way. Do you know who Thomas Sowell is? That's a straight question. Hint: he doesn't argue theology, and publicly, as far as I know, doesn't discuss religion.
@@peterplotts1238 At the time I did not know who Thomas Sowell is. It was in a class and she wasn't a friend, I figured she meant with logic although I would never say someone couldn't argue logically because of their ethnic background. I took her statement as concession that she had lost the argument.
@@morefiction3264 I never forget that my own "white" European forbearers not so long ago were tribal pagans and among the last to achieve civilization, which they did not invent on their own.
Of all the things you can know about a person, their race is perhaps the least useful fact when it comes to understanding who they are. Would you ever pretend that you had someone figured out because their eyes were brown or blue? Sounds absurd doesn't it? Because it is absurd.
As a Latter-day Saint (mormon) this was actually pretty reassuring to hear. C.S. Lewis's idea of Bulverism is a very cogent observation. Despite all the evidence, I sometimes worry that I suffer confirmation bias. But the facts speak for themselves.
@@michaelhicks4196 My religion, the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Particularly when concerning the Book of Mormon. You can learn about it here if you'd like: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RMV90SEhPjY.html I find this playlist to be one of the best compilations of evidence for the faith, well structured and presented like a court case.
It’s not exactly the same. The ‘genetic fallacy’ just means dismissing an argument based on its source. Bulverism rather dismisses an argument by attempting to provide the reasons for why it is believed by the opponent. Both are pretty similar. But there’s a distinction
Zizek puts this reasoning in reverse, saying lets look at the underlying motivations even if the claims are true, the mad man may think there is a conspiracy against him but if by coincidence he turns out to be right he is still none the less mad.
I think C.S Lewis is saying here that bulverism is "dismissing an argument or idea based on the identity of the person forwarding it rather than on if it is logical or evidenced". Edit: "like" changed to "think"
@@cameronbaines9691 Well yes, such would always apply. I was just wondering the what the origin of the term was. Maybe Lewis just invented it, however, it sounds specific.
@@cameronbaines9691 That's fairly close. Lewis coined the term to refer to the tactic in an argument that revolves around assuming your opponent is wrong from the outset and merely providing reasons as to why they assume the position they do. It's the tendency to circumvent refutation in discussions in order to "win". It was apparently prevalent in modern thought and it seems to have permeated our own thinking in the postmodern age.
