I have been thinking that the suit of clothes that fit for both intellectual and emotional shallowness does fit for spiritual shallowness as well - though with complications. Let me start with the basics first. It is not surprising that humility would be a pivot point in a spiritual question, is it? The other two uncertainties...For the set of exceptions of those who are mildly virtuous in all things, we might indeed use the word shallow in their spirituality. But then things change: if one is spiritually solid in a couple of areas - if they are quite generous, they are frequently in prayer for others, and they are chaste and disciplined in their sexual behavior, do we much mind if they are only mostly honest, grudgingly kind, and rather bare minimum in their forgiving and all the rest? So long as they are not notably evil in any of the areas, do we give them credit for being deep because of the few exceptional qualities? Or at least "not shallow?"
I can barely conceive of such a thing, frankly, and I don't know what to call it, but I think we move out of the realm of "deep" and "shallow" altogether. So there is some hiccup here. The Abelard standard that Grim mentioned in the comments, of looking to intention, is also new territory. We don't tend to give credit to someone who intends to think deeply or intends to give of themselves. Yet that is very much a part of what we consider important about spiritual depth.
One interesting addition. In Lord of the Rings, the intention of characters is often ambiguous and much time is spent by others trying to discern this. Sam wonders what Gollum is thinking. Frodo wonders what Boromir is thinking. Gandalf tries to penetrate the plans of Sauron, even as he understands (and exploits) his intentions. But he does not understand the intentions of Saruman, almost making fatal errors. When Gandalf returns from his encounter with Saruman at Orthanc he now reads the signs clearly. Characters do not even fully understand their own intentions, and motives are mixed, with one coming to the fore, then another. It is very much like our own lives, where we discover other motives (usually the negative ones) only later in the story. Three people who I know to be quite brilliant and literate are also not very interested in fantasy literature (no four people...five) and also completely oblivious to their own motives. Tolkien was even singled out as being especially tedious by at least two of those. I wonder if there is some connection, thought I very much doubt whether such things are absolute.
5 comments:
If goodness is the same thing with different expressions, it seems that the human who is good in one thing and not in others is badly mixed.
Jesus' standard is perfection, and I don't know that any "preponderance of virtues" measure doesn't wind up being arbitrary (get out of jail free for practicing the vices I don't worry about so long as you practice my favorite virtues(*)). Indulging vices of any degree seems to testify to some poison in the soul. Shallowness doesn't seem the right paradigm--spiritual disease fits better, though that's not quite right either.
Yet here under the Sun we need to make some judgment calls about relative evil and good: A Policeman's Lot
II would see shallowness as certainty in the face of ambiguity, or certainty in the face of conflicting, if not conclusive, evidence. An answer that begins with, “It depends…” is far more likely to be thoughtful and informative than a bald statement that may or may not actually inform us of anything other than the speakers own prejudices.
the possible link between a disinterest in fantasy, and a lack of ability to see one's own motives, is an idea which depends on the observer discerning the motive where the subject does not. How would you or any observer of another, know?
Tolkien was not keen on another of C.S. Lewis' friends, Charles Williams, it is reported, and the reason given in one book is that 'Tolkien had a profound belief in the devil and all his works, and he did not think that such things should be bandied about in popular novels.'
He just didn't like CW, is all, (who was a bit mystical if not more fantastical than the other Inklings) I think, as he did like Lewis, who wrote the Screwtape character.
So that theory doesn't go far either.
The excellent biography of Lewis by A.N. Wilson borrows an awful lot and very closely from earlier authors, and at times has more mind reading in it than Johnny Carson as Karnak the Magnificent. But it is a great read, if you can ignore 'motives'. As one should, although tempted.
There is nothing wrong with shallow if that word is given to those who admit they cannot see 40 feet below the water surface, and see 'motives'.
The vain and self deluding 'Shallow' of Merry Wives of Windsor meets the criterion. Shakespeare mocked those who called monsters from the vasty deep, as should we for 'motives'.
Returning to the theme that usual understanding of the word ‘shallow’ can be grabbing the wrong end of the stick, consider a ‘Judgement of God’.
That such exist is not the question. The question is of the presumption.
“We don't tend to give credit to someone who intends to give of themselves…”
Widow’s mite, though: she didn’t give much, but intended to give as deeply as she could. Another who gave more but intended less wouldn’t garner the same praise.
The same holds here, I think. The ones who are trying as hard as they can, though accomplishing little due to their lack of capacity e.g. for introspection; those who do their uttermost to understand, but are a little dim…
Post a Comment