The world recently lost Sinead O'Connor (she was 56). Last night, I watched a documentary on her. I was ten years old in her heyday, and my experience of her largely centered around comparisons between our hairstyles: I often opted for buzz cuts at the time and people often chided me that I looked like her. I might have seen her rip up the photo of John Paul II on SNL, but the meaning of the action was lost on me at the time.
On the last day of last year, it was Pope Benedict XVI's turn (he was 95), and the documentary seems to indicate that both Popes played roles in covering up the rampant sex abuse in the Catholic Church. I always considered John Paul more respectable than Benedict, and the documentary does pause for a moment to acknowledge more specific actions by Benedict, but neither seem nearly infallible as our current Pope who, while not perfect, is certainly the most admirable in my lifetime thus far.
However, I still read Benedict's obituary in the Wall Street Journal. For better or worse, I waded into the comments, and certain elements of his philosophical views were discussed. For there are different shades to Christianity and Catholicism that may lead to vastly different views on what it means to live a Good Life.
One person mentioned Between Heaven and Hell, perhaps comparing Benedict's ideology with that of C.S. Lewis, in this book. I can't recall and I have nothing further to say on Benedict, but this is how I came to reserve this book at the library.
***
This book is 115 pages long and was renewed from the library 8 times. Like Aliss at the Fire, that should be all you need to know about how compelling I found it. The conceit, or concept, however, was compelling enough that I wanted to check it out.
In essence, this book is a 3-person play. It might be more interesting to see it performed as a play, but then again I would probably find it maddening. For this is not a story, per se; rather, a dialogue between famous personages in a certain setting.
The setting is purgatorio and the date is November 22, 1963 and the players are John F. Kennedy, Aldous Huxley and C.S. Lewis.
That alone was compelling. Particularly since November 22 remains a date of many birthdays in my circle. I recently found out that my younger brother will turn 44 on 11/22/33 and I considered this some sort of numerological omen. This year will bring the 60th anniversary of that date, and so a review of this book seems timely.
We all know that President Kennedy was assassinated on 11/22/63. Many of us know that Aldous Huxley died that same day (a hero to just as many of us as Kennedy was). However, I did not know how Huxley died, and so one of the more titillating parts of the book arrived in the epilogue:
"The three deaths were as different as the three lives had been, and providentially perfect templates of the three philosophies of life that had motivated them. Kennedy was murdered by an assassin; for he who lives by politics may die by politics, as 'he who lives by the sword will die by the sword' (Matthew 26:52). Huxley died of an LSD overdose while experimenting with mystical experience; for he who lives by man-made mysticisms will die by man-made mysticisms. Lewis died of bone disease, a few years after he had taken the pain of his dying wife's bone cancer out of her body and into his, beside her bedside; for he who lives by the Way of Exchange will die by the Way of Exchange. Like Christ, he offered God his own life for hers, and on November 22, God accepted the offer." (122)
That excerpt lets the cat out of the bag: it is clear that Kreeft ascribes to the viewpoints expressed by C.S. Lewis in this text. Now then, I had no idea that C.S. Lewis also died on this same day (nor that he was also known as "Jack" by his friends), and I have very little knowledge of him in general. A friend had recommended The Screwtape Letters to me, many years ago, and that is something I've been meaning to get around to for years, and hopefully one day will. I see him like I see J.R.R. Tolkien (whom I also haven't read), but further towards philosophy than fantasy on the storytelling spectrum.
I'm not aware of Huxley's religious affiliation but it seems clear that Buddhism is his lodestar. It's worth noting that Huxley is far more incidental in this book than the other two. The primary dialogue in this book is between JFK and Lewis; there is a second dialogue between Huxley and Lewis that is quite a bit shorter, and probably also the best part of the book, though that isn't saying all that much (for me, personally).
*
One problem I had with this book was the epilogue, for it revealed the book to be Christian propaganda. Now I am raised Roman Catholic and went to Catholic School for 10 years and I am a lapsed Catholic but I greatly enjoyed seeing the Vatican and felt that there should be some kind of birthright trip in order to bolster participation in the Church and to redeem itself from its sordid history--for that sordid history is quite probably the most damning lie over the past 2,000 years of human progress. We believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and we expect him to forgive us all our sins--so I guess that means we can do some of the most horrible things imaginable, go to confession, and get a clean slate, and we're all good? It's a convenient way out of personal accountability. It's a license to behave badly. Nobody is perfect, and believe me, I am not perfect, but this purported forgiveness of sins is problematic insofar as it can lead to a delusional sense of morality. Now of course, we do not encourage people to sin, we encourage them to love their neighbors as themselves, to love God and hold Jesus up as a role model and try to exhibit the goodness that he represents. But we fail and they all know we are going to fail and they all know they fail, quite inveterately. And they want money, lots of it. There's the aspirational part of the Catholic Church and there's the functional part of the Catholic Church and while there is a certain sense that they have acknowledged this "problem" and are taking steps to stop such crimes from happening in the future, some of the hypocrisies of the Church temper such encouraging feelings. Pope Francis, however, has been about as good a Pope as he can be, working within the political framework of the Institution.
Kreeft may not have had any idea that such things were happening in 1982, but most certainly should have in 2008. I believe this is conveniently ignored in the epilogue. Then again, this is not exactly a recommendation to convert to Catholicism because it is the One True Way (though it feels that way).
Really, Kreeft wanted to write a philosophical dialogue, much like Plato did for Socrates. Socrates did not author any works, nor did Jesus, and they are lumped together in this book as "sages" (along with Buddha, Confucius and perhaps Lao Tzu). Other people have to tell their story. Kreeft considers Plato to be singular: "It is surely an almost clumsily obvious piece of divine providence that the father of all philosophy, who wrote nothing of himself (like Jesus and like Buddha), should have history's greatest philosophical poet, Plato, as his biographer." (120)
In Between Heaven and Hell, C.S. Lewis plays the role of Socrates, and JFK/Huxley play the role of Glaucon, albeit more challenging "pupils." The dialogue itself is a Platonic dialogue for beginners on the purported divinity of Christ. There are dialectics in it, and it is not like reading a play. It is not really entertaining. It is somewhat informative. It is an educational tool. The pages have glosses on them that summarize the main point of that section of dialogue ["Jesus, the guru to the Jews?"; "Six crucial differences between Jesus and the gurus"; "(1) God as personal"; "(2) God as Creator"; "(3) God as knowable"; "(4) God as good, not 'beyond good and evil'"; "(5) What must I do to be saved?"; "(6) Hell."]
I don't know what else to say about this book. Based on the above, you can decide for yourself if you want to read it. I don't really recommend it, unfortunately. If you haven't read Brave New World, please, do yourself a favor and read that instead. I also read The Doors of Perception and Heaven and Hell (ironic that the title for this book is so similar; its debt is owed to Lewis, not Huxley) and would recommend those over this. And you need to read Republic or perhaps other things by Plato to "get" this. In short, there are many other texts that one could read that will offer the same or similar revelations.
This is, however, the type of book that can be assigned in high school or college-level philosophy courses. It is useful in its own way. It's short enough that it can fit easily into any syllabus. And the famous people ostensibly add a layer of human interest to the proceedings.
But ultimately it is propaganda. Though Lewis's argument ultimately "wins" the debate at hand, the debate is fixed from the start. Credit Kreeft for examining Christianity through a philosophical lens and offering up his own Defense of Christianity, but know that he reveals himself to be a zealot in the epilogue and post-script. Fortunately, the players do not opine on the sin-status of homosexuality, but perhaps if written today, the issue would find its way into the text.
One excerpt to give a flavor, on knowing that miracles can't happen:
"Lewis: I might ask you what Professor Kirke asked Peter: How do you know that? Has science proved that miracles can't happen? But I've put that line of argument into another of my books, Miracles....No, I didn't think you had read it...and I'd rather follow out the psychological line of argument now. The point of my reference to Lucy was to show that like Lucy and like Buddha, Jesus says incredible things, and like Lucy and like Buddha, Jesus is a credible person. So we must either believe his unbelievable claim or disbelieve his believable personality, his personal credibility.
Kennedy: Let's examine his personality, then, though I'm not sure where it will take us. I do know something about human nature, and human history, and great men of the past. I too wrote a book, you know, Profiles in Courage. No? You haven't read mine either? Well, we're even then. But go ahead with the argument.
Lewis: Let us divide all people into four categories....
Kennedy: Oh, oh. Here we go again. Black-or-white thinking.
Lewis: But surely there are categories. The only question is whether they are appropriate, fitting to the real.
Kennedy: I don't like divisions among people.
Lewis: But all categories are divisions, classifications, outlines.
Kennedy: Putting people into classes has done immense harm throughout human history.
Lewis: Really dividing people, yes. But not mentally dividing them. For instance, to mentally distinguish male and female is good, and necessary (how confused we would be if we couldn't, or wouldn't, as some seem to nowadays). But to really divide them, to isolate them, is usually bad. In fact, to unite them most fruitfully, you must mentally divide them most clearly: vive la difference, and all that. (52-53)
That is one of the more entertaining sections of the book, so be aware that it is not always as intriguing. Miracle is an odd word. It can refer to a miracle performed by Jesus (turning water into wine) or an unbelievably good event. It is not a miracle that the Cubs won in 2016 but many people referred to it as such. It is a miracle when terminal illness is cured, and such situations have been known to occur (exceedingly rare and improbable as they are). There are miraculous survivals, and there are miraculous achievements, but a true Miracle--well, to witness one would be the greatest proof of divine forces at work in this world.
*
Once many years ago during sailing school, I had been put in an Optimist, which is a 1-person boat. The bay was rather rough that day, and while I agreed to take an Optimist, I was very scared. I didn't tell anyone and I kept it to myself and wanted to be brave and prove to myself that I could handle the rough conditions, that my boat wouldn't capsize, but I prayed in my head that something would prevent me from being forced into that situation.
Fortunately, someone soon offered me the alternative of getting into a Beatle-Cat instead. I accepted that offer, and crewed the boat with two other people, and saw a few other schoolmates in Optimists, bailing water out of their vessels. I felt that God had answered my prayers and saved me from a dangerous situation.
*
In hindsight, I was easily convinced. I was still technically in Catholic School at the time, and after going away to boarding school, alone, I did not attend nearly as many services. Many of my classmates were Jewish, and other religious viewpoints entered into my worldview. By the end of high school I defined myself as Agnostic (and I still do, from a certain angle).
Shortly before college, then, a certain incident of running into a certain person at a certain specific time, under rather improbable circumstances, a coincidental encounter of the highest kind, convinced me of proof of divinity in this world. People bandy about the phrase "butterfly effect" and we cannot know how real it is, but ultimately, that is the more accurate explanation for the reality of our existence. Cause and effect, intentional choices, accidents, conflicted decision-making---all affect how we move through this world and comprise the substance of our experience. Perhaps God put everything in place at the beginning, and let human beings do what they would, and that is about as far as I am willing to go.
In other words, Kreeft (and Lewis, really) did not convince me to embrace Catholicism wholeheartedly and without reservation. I wasn't looking for that from this book; I was looking for a modern philosophy book. And while this is a simplified and streamlined version of one, there are other texts that may impart wisdom that do not quite feel like a fait accompli from the start. As a "reboot" and variation of the Platonic dialogues from a more modern perspective, it is not a failure.
Grade: C+
