The Necessity of Chivalry - C.S. Lewis

Post Reply New Topic

Another C.S. Lewis doodle, if you'll indulge me.

That was a pretty neat presentation, thanks!

As Carl Jung Relates Integrating the Anima
The Divine Feminine of Love And Grace In Balance
With The Divine Masculine of Will And Strength

Where Shadow Meets Angel Wings This

Is Most Definitely A Necessity

of Chivalry As C.S. Lewis Relates

too So Basically The Lion And Lamb

Will Thrive in the Same Human Being

For It's Also True Angels, Humans, Gods

With Only Wings Without the Ability

To Withstand Dark of Danger

Do Tend to Fall

Prematurely

Whether

By Word of Culture

Or Flesh And Blood

Yet It's Worth Noting

For Knights of Honor

Either Male And or Female

In Grace of Will And Strength

Bringing Love's Light Inspired by Dark

A Greatest Martial Artist Never Strikes

A Blow

For Wit

Is A Weapon

That Stings Yet Does Not Bleed...

Falling Upon Humanity's Otherwise Fur of Swords...

Yeah It's True Fur Means Warmth And Teeth And

i'm Not one of

'Those Dudes'

Who Shaves His Fur....

Hehe Just A Trim Here And THere..

Anyway Thanks Mikah for the Inspirational

Video this will make an Excellent Introduction

For an Even Deeper

Story Hehe..

And It's

True This

Is An Art of Innate
Instinct And Intuition
That Will Be Conquered By No

Book or Words Alone Feeling Sensing So Much More

As Indeed the Feelings And Senses of Life ARE Our Deeper Stories....

Of Shadow

And Wings Alike...

And Also For The Dudes
And Sadly The Incels of Life
MiSSinG Art of HeARTS Now
And Only Leaving He With NO Art

LEarning HTML 'How To Meet Ladies' this way

is Crucial Indeed.... For the Oldest

Beauty And Beast Stories...

Not Altogether Surprised
'This Thread' Isn't Getting
More Response Yet i surely
Am A Fan And Understand why....

We LiVE iN A Diluted
Human World Losing

Our

Fur

Losing

Our Teeth Far Above

Below Human Potential Still to come...

Lol.


I think the trouble we're into now:

People to power: "We think you need to be more well-rounded, you should work on meekness."

Power to people: "Make me."

I don't know if our culture is made of anything that can combat this issue aside from hard times making strong men again - or human extinction solving the whole problem.

I think that the ideas are filled with contradictions and based on fantasies that shift on the perspective.

It posits ideas like labeling societies as either the good guys or the barbarians, with ill definitions of who might count as what. Where does colonialism fit within this model? There is weird mixes of might makes right, and fear that the non correct ideologies would become stronger, and a criticism of being able to solve problems through more diplomatic means.

The fantasy comes in from the idea of a knight, especially using the example of the fictional knight Lancelot. The idea of knights being by nature chivalrous is just a big push of emotion for cultural nostalgia, and ignores the many characteristics of such figures from time periods that would not be so idealistic, such as the inherent classism that would not be extended the same treatment. And of course the sexism. The ideals of acting chivalrous to a lady is usually met by equal amounts sexism, from a woman not being able to handle certain things, to a man not being allowed to show weakness. You see it in people who fit the modern idea of a "nice guy", who displays the supposed etiquette and then expects a little something something in return.

Sure, I will open a door and let people in first, but these classical ideas of chivalry are just the opposite side of the coin to many of the worst natures.

I always like these doodle-type presentations for video essays. Helps visualize things better.

Lewis raises some interesting points, but on the whole I think his view as put forth here is somewhat reductive. The world is more than meek men and cruel men. Someone can be cruel in war and meek in peace without knowing the first thing about chivalry. People are very messy and morally uneven. This has been a result of nature far longer than it has been a result of art.

Not realizing this leads to Lewis dividing the world into too discrete of categories:
- Those meek in both peace and war, characterized here as sheep,
- Those brutal in both peace and war, characterized here as wolves,
- Those meek in peace and brutal in war, the chivalrous,
- And those brutal in peace and meek in war, a sort of craven brutes.

This feels like an oversimplified view of humanity. There are plenty who nearly fit into one of those categories, but many more who do not. Lewis's analysis here feels antiquated in its absolutism and romanticism. He almost sounds like he longs for a return to a sort of feudal class structure to recreate the chivalrous class to act as a moral example for the meek commoners and cruel rulers. There will always be those who are what Lewis categorizes as chivalrous: brave and brutal when needed, meek and gentle when not needed.

The concept of chivalry was a means for the feudal warrior class to give moral legitimacy to their higher social status. If history is any indication, it seems like more often than not this resulted in knights who became convinced that they were chivalrous because of their station, and neglected to ensure their actions matched this ideal. Similar to feudal rulers who rationalized anything they did with the idea that they were chosen by God to rule.

The warriors of today are romanticized much like how knights were. The troops are held as heroic and noble by default--any excesses of brutality are treated as necessary, or, at least, that overlooking them is necessary to keep soldiers from feeling they need be overly meek and cautious. This is how war crimes are rationalized.

I will give Lewis some credit though. As someone who lived through the WWII, it can be hard not to romanticize the soldiers to whom you owe your protection. The Axis powers were also unambiguously depraved in their aims. Characterizing them as wolves is accurate. Say what you will about WWI, WWII was far, far less morally grey. Given such a black and white(/grey) contrast between the sides, it surely felt to Lewis and many others that chivalry was desperately needed.

Tldr; don't oversimplify things, Lewis. And don't romanticize those who make war just because they're nice when they're not making war.

The (unidentified) doodler is good at drawing, but that doesn't change the fact that chivalry is largely a fictional construct.

The romanticized accounts of Charlemagne and Roland and the - completely imaginary - accounts of Arthur, Lancelot and Siegfried have little resemblance with the actual conduct of medieval knights...

Where was chivalry when the Crusader knights raped and pillaged their way through Constantinople in 1204?

Last edited by GGPViper on 31 Dec 2020, 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

C.S. Lewis is alive and well!?

Just edited my post... obviously, he is not... He died in 1963...