Clive Staples Lewis (C S Lewis)

[Bardia]

My favorite author and someone I consider brilliant. What do you think his type is?

C. S. Lewis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[electric sheep]

I think I see some

[Minde]

I think I remember that awhile ago some considered him INTp?

I also like him, though sometimes I find it hard to concentrate on his writings for long stretches.

[electric sheep]

from his wiki page on universal morality:

One of the main theses in Lewis's apologia is that there is a common morality known throughout humanity. In the first five chapters of Mere Christianity Lewis discusses the idea that people have a standard of behaviour to which they expect other people to adhere. This standard has been called Universal Morality or Natural Law. Lewis claims that people all over the earth know what this law is and when they break it. He goes on to claim that there must be someone or something behind such a universal set of principles.

[Minde]

I stumbled across this - apparently one of the very few remaining recordings of him. In this he talks about prayer, the nature of time and God's interaction with it, reasons for soul-cleaning, and failing in trying to be good.





Anyway, watching, or in this case listening to, someone can help give an idea of how they come across, what they emphasize, their focus, manner, etc. So, I thought this could be useful or beneficial here.

[Gilly]

ILI, I think.

[Krig the Viking]

I have thought for a long time that he's pretty clearly Alpha NT. As one example, listen to his description of time in that radio address. He's describing static moment followed by static moment, and theorizing that God must see all of time as one giant static moment. That's a very Alpha NT way of thinking.

I would guess LII > ILE, but that's just a guess.

[DJB28]

I think C.S Lewis is a clear ILI or a possible ILE.
Seems to have an Intuitive-dominant function.. I feel it's but could see arguments for

[Bardia]

Thanks Minde . I'm leaning to INTj for now. I'm in the process of re-reading a book by him. I think I'm going to try to see if i can pull anything useful typing wise out of it.

[Marie84]

I had the opportunity a few years ago to read some of his work, from those, as well as other information, my inclination is that he was an LIE.

This is a rather long analysis but I don't like just dropping around typings without backing them-up if I can :redface:

+ - Facts and reason and ideas that produce a practical approach were highlighted a lot throughout his writing.

"For me, reason is the natural organ of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning. Imagination, producing new metaphors or revivifying old, is not the cause of truth, but its condition."

valuing- ethics, loyalty, and his relationships had a large impact on his views and general beliefs. He often was blunt about a dislike of Fe.
"Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing. There are many things below it, but there are also things above it. You cannot make it the basis of a whole life. It is a noble feeling, but it is still a feeling... Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings come and go... But, of course, ceasing to be "in love" need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense — love as distinct from "being in love" — is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriage) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God... "Being in love" first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise. It is on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it."

"Friendship arises out of mere companionship when two or more of the companions discover that they have in common some insight or interest or even taste which the others do not share and which, till that moment, each believed to be his own unique treasure (or burden). The typical expression of opening Friendship would be something like, "What? You too? I thought I was the only one."

valuing- he is rather abrasive in his views
"The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There's not one of them which won't make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute guide. You might think love of humanity in general was safe, but it isn't. If you leave out justice you'll find yourself breaking agreements and faking evidence in trials "for the sake of humanity" and become in the end a cruel and treacherous man."


He used Te a lot to form his own beliefs, apparently spending many years reading about multiple religions, myths and scientific theories in order to come towards a conclusion as to what made the most sense.
A Ti valuing type would generally only seek information that already supported their views, whereas Lewis sought information from a multitude of views and sources to find the one that looked to be the most logical.
Not to mention the amount of time he invested into his studies and continued to do so long after

He was also a very close friend of J.R.R. Tolkien, who was likely an EII.
Two quotes from him, about Lewis, seem to indicate an LIE, the second looks like a gratefulness of an Fi for receiving Te

"Friendship with Lewis compensates for much, and besides giving constant pleasure and comfort has done me much good from the contact with a man at once honest, brave, intellectual--a scholar, a poet, and a philosopher--and a lover, at least after a long pilgrimage, of Our Lord."

"The unpayable debt that I owe to him was not 'influence' as it is ordinarily understood, but sheer encouragement. He was for long my only audience. Only from him did I ever get the idea that my 'stuff' could be more than a private hobby."

[Minde]

Thanks Minde . I'm leaning to INTj for now. I'm in the process of re-reading a book by him. I think I'm going to try to see if i can pull anything useful typing wise out of it.

No problem. Which book are you reading?

I had the opportunity a few years ago to read some of his work, from those, as well as other information, my inclination is that he was an LIE.

This is a rather long analysis but I don't like just dropping around typings without backing them-up if I can :redface:

Long analyses are welcome, imo. It indicates you've actually put some thought into it, which is to be applauded.

[Bardia]

No problem. Which book are you reading?

I'm rereading Till We Have Faces (my favorite book of his that I have read thus far). I am probably going to reread The Great Divorce after I finish TWHF.

[Marie84]

Long analyses are welcome, imo. It indicates you've actually put some thought into it, which is to be applauded.

Thank you Minde