What do you think?
Rate this book
The Abolition of Man: Readings for Meditation and Reflection
C. S. Lewis sets out to persuade his audience of the importance and relevance of universal values such as courage and honor in contemporary society.
128 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1943
About the author
C.S. Lewis
1,178 books44.8k followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Clive Staples Lewis was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably one of the most influential writers of his day. He was a Fellow and Tutor in English Literature at Oxford University until 1954. He was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include Mere Christianity, Out of the Silent Planet, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters, and the universally acknowledged classics The Chronicles of Narnia. To date, the Narnia books have sold over 100 million copies and been transformed into three major motion pictures.
Lewis was married to poet Joy Davidman.
W.H. Lewis was his elder brother]
Clive Staples Lewis was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably one of the most influential writers of his day. He was a Fellow and Tutor in English Literature at Oxford University until 1954. He was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include Mere Christianity, Out of the Silent Planet, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters, and the universally acknowledged classics The Chronicles of Narnia. To date, the Narnia books have sold over 100 million copies and been transformed into three major motion pictures.
Lewis was married to poet Joy Davidman.
W.H. Lewis was his elder brother]
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 3,053 reviews
March 12, 2010
When things get bad, I take out the bourbon. When, as occasionally happens, time drags on and things don't get any better, I put the bourbon away and take out C. S. Lewis. His books are short, readable, and filled with an uncanny amount of wisdom. His genius, and the reason he's always been a comfort to me, lies in his ability to convince me that the world as it appears to be, the world that seems so oppressive, is not the whole story.
The lifeline of depression, the fuel from which it draws all of its power, is the mind's misguided belief that it is able to encompass the complete truth about past, present, and future. C. S. Lewis invites the mind into a conversation, using humor, commonplace observations, and logic. He welcomes you into a warm place, like visiting your grandparents at Christmas when you were eight years old. He takes hold of the worldview that led you to him. With gentle, honest, understanding hands he wraps his palms around the neck of that worldview and proceeds to strangle it until it is dead, dead, dead.
Lewis is known as a Christian writer. Most people I know want absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, to the extent that, for example, a friend of mine told me that despite my fervent recommendation, he refused to listen to anything by Leonard Cohen because he "heard he sang about religion." Though this particular book is not about Christianity, if you are of the camp that really doesn't want to hear the first word from someone who is religious, you may find this book annoying. Be forewarned.
The book is divided into three sections. The first, "Men Without Chests," begins with an example taken from a grade school grammar textbook. In the example, the authors of the textbook imply that there are no sublime things in the world, only feelings of sublimity within us. There is nothing that really deserves respect or castigation, no right responses or ways of thinking about things: there is only opinion.
Against this idea Lewis brings to bear the moral and ethical traditions of basically every culture that has ever existed. He lists all the rather startling similarities between, for example, Confucianism, Greek culture, Hinduism, and Jewish and Christian moral tradition. I'm talking about things like finding joy in children, having reverence for old people, respecting your neighbor, being courageous, helping those less fortunate, protecting your family, and not lying about other people for your own gain. In fact, in a long appendix at the end of the book, Lewis takes each of these ideas and gives examples of it in a myriad of different cultures throughout history.
Lewis calls this group of ethical ideas "The Tao." And it is at this point that the book gets really startling. First, these ideas are of a dual nature. They are somehow natural to man (exemplified by their reappearance throughout history), yet at the same time they must be taught from one generation to the next.
I see this in my three year old son. Through great effort, again and again, I try to teach him to respect other people. Not to, for example, hit other people when he is angry. The behavior I'm trying to teach is, most emphatically, not what comes naturally to him.
Yet even in my own personal example I can see the duality Lewis talks about. What arguments can I make to dissuade him from hitting someone out of anger? "If you do it and I see you, I will punish you"? But that's not an argument against doing it, it's an argument against getting caught. "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" But we're not talking about someone doing that to him, we're talking about him doing it to someone else. (He pointed this out, by the way.)
In the end, and it has taken me quite a bit of thought to understand this, I have to actually convince him that it's wrong. And this is something different than logical argument. In order to do it, there must be some latent sense of...what? Justice? Proportion? Something that already exists within him that my words can latch on to. Something already within him that the word "wrong" speaks to.
So the duality is there, present in the facts that I a) have to teach him this and, b) can only make him really understand it and feel it by appealing to something which he already possesses and carries with him. The main point is this: the idea of what one ought to do cannot be brought before the judge of logic. Lewis made me realize that the word "ought," used so often in our culture, is in fact one of the strangest words ever. What does it really mean?
Fortunately (and here comes another startling argument from Lewis) great thinkers like Aristotle and Plato have already thought over this idea. What is "ought"? Whatever it is it's the same thing, it comes from the same place in our thoughts (or our bodies), that our appreciation of good art comes from. The organ used to judge beauty is one and the same as the organ that tells you what you ought to do.
When I read this, I almost couldn't believe it. Of course, I've heard this argument before: I remember writing "What the fuck are you talking about?" in the margins of my copy of Plato's dialogues when he brought up much the same argument. At the time, I thought it was completely ridiculous. But reading it now, in the present, it seemed startlingly true.
I thought back to some of the times I've had a strong sense of "ought". Years ago, exhausted and tired, my girlfriend and I were driving home from a late night movie. Rounding the curve of a deserted Austin freeway at three in the morning, our car passed a lone truck, sitting still by the side of the road, rammed into one of those gargantuan streetlights they've put up every 100 feet or so. The streetlight had broken at its base and fallen directly on top of the cab of the truck.
In the compressed seconds after the image of the truck flashed by, the following thoughts went through my mind: I ought to pull over this car, run over there, and do what I can to help. I don't have a cell phone. I don't have any medical training. There's nothing I can do. I'm really tired. Somebody else with a cell phone will be along in a minute or two. Could I really make any kind of difference? What if there's a lot of blood and I have to take him to the hospital? I don't even know if there's anybody in that truck.
While all these thoughts were going on in my head, my stomach was fluttering with worry. But in between...in between my stomach and my head, there was another place: the chest. What we often refer to as the heart. While one part of me was fluttering with emotion, and another part was dithering with logic, this third part spoke its solution with an almost harmonic simplicity. I mean that though my chest (my heart) spoke a single answer, it felt as if this answer were made of a number of unified objects or notes or ideas. Like when someone strikes an e-major on a well-tuned guitar.
That, I think, is the "ought" that Lewis is talking about. And he is right: it does come from the chest. It is the chest. Compare this to the experience of viewing something really beautiful, such as a cathedral or sculpture or a vast rock wall, full of shades and contrast, carved out over centuries by falling water. Lewis claims that you will realize, perhaps to your surprise, that the two feelings come from exactly the same organ.
The more I read of books written from the 1900s onward, the more I become convinced that we are all in the middle of a fierce debate that started somewhere around that time, and that continues on to this day. This debate is over the future of mankind, the meaning of progress and, in the end, what it means to be human.
The remainder of the book concerns this debate. During Lewis's time eugenics was popular. One hopes that the current reader will regard, as Lewis did, the concept with great distaste. But however unpopular eugenics may be at the moment, Lewis points out that it is the concepts and philosophical ideas behind eugenics that are what are truly hideous.
Any vision of a perfect utopian society, or of any real progression toward it, must hold somewhere within its core, whether acknowledged or not, the idea that people must be changed. People must be made "better." And the only way to do this, in the end, is to strike at the heart, the chest, inside each person. The only way is to attempt to change that organ, that function, that I have been trying to describe.
This is the meaning of the title of the book. Lewis argues that the essence of what man is can be found in that organ in the chest, the heart. And in order to achieve utopia, men in power are more than willing to modify, dull, or, if necessary, rip out the heart in order to achieve their goal. And when they do so, they will discover, to their (perhaps) horror, that what they have left is not a man at all.
Examples of this kind of coerced modification of the chest can be listed endlessly. To use the media to present something as ugly which people never thought of as ugly before. Or to make people think of certain other people as weak and diseased who are not. Or to deliberately try to make people afraid out of all proportion to what they have to fear. Or to attempt to redefine what people ought to do, based on the recommendations of some experts. Or to paint some people as corrupt and evil, and as the cause of the problems of society.
In the end, the ugliness comes from looking at another person and judging them: judging the "ought" they have come to within themselves. That, after all, is what you are doing every time you say you need to make a person (or group of people) better. As it is, this would just be ugliness. But when the massive power and coercion of the state becomes involved, as it always seems to, then the ugliness turns into something much, much worse. The course of history over the last century will provide plenty of examples, all provided courtesy of people whose goal was to make mankind better.
Of course, now that we all recognize how horrific all of that was, we are no longer engaged in the business of making people better. We are no longer involved in using the pronouncements of doctors, scientists, famous people, and intellectuals to dictate through force or influence what people ought to do, or how they ought to think. Nor do we disparage those with ideas different from the common culture. Nor does society lean on businesses, artists, and families to believe and behave in certain ways.
Now, we recognize that a diverse, vibrant society takes all kinds of viewpoints. As long as none of those viewpoints profess or seem to profess any wrong ideas, all voices are welcome. We invite everyone to join in the national discussion about which of the many new laws being proposed are the best ones to get people to behave more like they ought to, and to move our society into a better future.
As if all this weren't enough content for a rather flimsy paperback, there is yet another startling argument that Mr. Lewis makes. He calls our attention to the nature of science. Accepting that science has certainly given us many wonderful things, can we say anything about what, exactly, science is?
Science is a way of looking at material objects in which we deliberately dismiss some aspects of those objects. Not only spiritual or emotional aspects, but also even physical aspects that are not of concern to the nature of our inquiry. In science, we deliberately blind ourselves to the whole of something, in order to better understand some part of it.
Many would argue, perhaps truthfully, that a clear understanding of the parts leads to a better understanding of the whole. Certainly, a clearer understanding of the parts allows us in many cases to manipulate the whole.
Through a really inspired comparison of Bacon's New Organon to Goethe's Faust, Mr. Lewis argues that, in doing this, we are making a kind of deal. The result will be increased ability to get the stuff we want: medicines, airplanes, cheap food, more leisure time, sex without pregnancy. And what are we giving up to get all this stuff that we want? Are we giving up anything?
Before I read this book, my answer would have been: "No. What could we possibly be giving up?" Now, I'm not so sure.
Mr. Lewis states emphatically that he is not anti-science. He just wants us to be clear about what we are doing when we embrace science whole-heartedly. I think that's fair. If we pretend we are not making a choice when in fact we are, then somewhere down the line a point is going to arise when there are consequences that we didn't realize. I think that time is now. I think the fact that we have made this choice, and we didn't realize we were making a choice at all, has resulted in many of the conflicting views in our current society.
What are we giving up? We are giving up our view of the whole object: the object with all of its philosophical, emotional, and spiritual aspects intact. This is, in actuality, the object as it appears to us before we apply the scalpel of science to it. Yes, science can help us find out things, but only by a deliberate destruction, in our minds and often in physical reality, of the whole of the thing.
Take the following story as an example. In college, during a cat dissection, my partner and I were working on the large intestine. The room smelled of formaldehyde and our cat was stretched on a stainless steel table, his four paws tied with rope to allow us the easiest access to cut into his chest cavity.
Our lab assistant came over. "Oh, let me show you this," he said. We stood back. He gathered the intestines in his hand and plopped them out onto the table beside the cat's body. There was a thin membrane covering them which he proceeded to pull off and stretch out. It stretched like a balloon, him pulling the transparent membrane between his hands. There were blue and red vessels (colored with some kind of dye they'd put into the cat) running through the membrane that reminded me of scraggly branches of trees.
He held the membrane up, still stretched between his fingers. I saw his face on the other side of the membrane, staring at the criss-crossing vessels. "Isn't it absolutely beautiful?" he said.
It was beautiful. But suddenly I was hit with the strangeness of what we were doing. That membrane was never meant to be stretched out like that: between someone's hands in a lab room. Those veins were never meant to be that color. That cat, whatever he was, whatever personality he had, was gone forever.
The cat as he had been presented to the world, a living organism with certain habits and tendencies, in fact a unique thing in all the history of the world, had been destroyed. This was done so that we could learn something that ostensibly was about all cats, and was about ourselves as well: how the organs in mammals function.
I am not against dissections. I'm glad I did it and I would do it again. My only point is that a choice was made. Our minds were made to focus on certain aspects of the cat at the expense of others.
Mr. Lewis asks whether we don't lose some of our essential humanness in viewing things in this way. Do a dissection once and you might think about the things I thought about. Do it a thousand times and what happens?
I chose a cat dissection as my example because I thought it might carry more weight with modern readers, distant as they are from slaughterhouses. But Mr. Lewis is actually talking about every aspect of science.
I doubt anyone who reads this has performed a thousand dissections. But I would wager that there are things that everyone (including myself) who has grown up in our science-worshipping culture has thought about only scientifically a thousand times a thousand times. And Mr. Lewis argues, I think rightly, that this must have the same effect.
I read this book four times, thought about it for weeks, and tried to boil down what I thought about it into something succinct. Obviously, I was unable to do so. Looking back over the review now, I see that I have, for example, neglected Mr. Lewis's incredibly profound statement that all that we think of as evil is simply the good of a part of The Tao magnified in importance so that it dwarfs all the other aspects of The Tao. That thought alone is worth the price of admission.
There are probably five other main points of the book like this: points that I have missed. This book is simply too full of interesting points for any review of mine to do it justice. Five stars.
The lifeline of depression, the fuel from which it draws all of its power, is the mind's misguided belief that it is able to encompass the complete truth about past, present, and future. C. S. Lewis invites the mind into a conversation, using humor, commonplace observations, and logic. He welcomes you into a warm place, like visiting your grandparents at Christmas when you were eight years old. He takes hold of the worldview that led you to him. With gentle, honest, understanding hands he wraps his palms around the neck of that worldview and proceeds to strangle it until it is dead, dead, dead.
Lewis is known as a Christian writer. Most people I know want absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, to the extent that, for example, a friend of mine told me that despite my fervent recommendation, he refused to listen to anything by Leonard Cohen because he "heard he sang about religion." Though this particular book is not about Christianity, if you are of the camp that really doesn't want to hear the first word from someone who is religious, you may find this book annoying. Be forewarned.
The book is divided into three sections. The first, "Men Without Chests," begins with an example taken from a grade school grammar textbook. In the example, the authors of the textbook imply that there are no sublime things in the world, only feelings of sublimity within us. There is nothing that really deserves respect or castigation, no right responses or ways of thinking about things: there is only opinion.
Against this idea Lewis brings to bear the moral and ethical traditions of basically every culture that has ever existed. He lists all the rather startling similarities between, for example, Confucianism, Greek culture, Hinduism, and Jewish and Christian moral tradition. I'm talking about things like finding joy in children, having reverence for old people, respecting your neighbor, being courageous, helping those less fortunate, protecting your family, and not lying about other people for your own gain. In fact, in a long appendix at the end of the book, Lewis takes each of these ideas and gives examples of it in a myriad of different cultures throughout history.
Lewis calls this group of ethical ideas "The Tao." And it is at this point that the book gets really startling. First, these ideas are of a dual nature. They are somehow natural to man (exemplified by their reappearance throughout history), yet at the same time they must be taught from one generation to the next.
I see this in my three year old son. Through great effort, again and again, I try to teach him to respect other people. Not to, for example, hit other people when he is angry. The behavior I'm trying to teach is, most emphatically, not what comes naturally to him.
Yet even in my own personal example I can see the duality Lewis talks about. What arguments can I make to dissuade him from hitting someone out of anger? "If you do it and I see you, I will punish you"? But that's not an argument against doing it, it's an argument against getting caught. "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" But we're not talking about someone doing that to him, we're talking about him doing it to someone else. (He pointed this out, by the way.)
In the end, and it has taken me quite a bit of thought to understand this, I have to actually convince him that it's wrong. And this is something different than logical argument. In order to do it, there must be some latent sense of...what? Justice? Proportion? Something that already exists within him that my words can latch on to. Something already within him that the word "wrong" speaks to.
So the duality is there, present in the facts that I a) have to teach him this and, b) can only make him really understand it and feel it by appealing to something which he already possesses and carries with him. The main point is this: the idea of what one ought to do cannot be brought before the judge of logic. Lewis made me realize that the word "ought," used so often in our culture, is in fact one of the strangest words ever. What does it really mean?
Fortunately (and here comes another startling argument from Lewis) great thinkers like Aristotle and Plato have already thought over this idea. What is "ought"? Whatever it is it's the same thing, it comes from the same place in our thoughts (or our bodies), that our appreciation of good art comes from. The organ used to judge beauty is one and the same as the organ that tells you what you ought to do.
When I read this, I almost couldn't believe it. Of course, I've heard this argument before: I remember writing "What the fuck are you talking about?" in the margins of my copy of Plato's dialogues when he brought up much the same argument. At the time, I thought it was completely ridiculous. But reading it now, in the present, it seemed startlingly true.
I thought back to some of the times I've had a strong sense of "ought". Years ago, exhausted and tired, my girlfriend and I were driving home from a late night movie. Rounding the curve of a deserted Austin freeway at three in the morning, our car passed a lone truck, sitting still by the side of the road, rammed into one of those gargantuan streetlights they've put up every 100 feet or so. The streetlight had broken at its base and fallen directly on top of the cab of the truck.
In the compressed seconds after the image of the truck flashed by, the following thoughts went through my mind: I ought to pull over this car, run over there, and do what I can to help. I don't have a cell phone. I don't have any medical training. There's nothing I can do. I'm really tired. Somebody else with a cell phone will be along in a minute or two. Could I really make any kind of difference? What if there's a lot of blood and I have to take him to the hospital? I don't even know if there's anybody in that truck.
While all these thoughts were going on in my head, my stomach was fluttering with worry. But in between...in between my stomach and my head, there was another place: the chest. What we often refer to as the heart. While one part of me was fluttering with emotion, and another part was dithering with logic, this third part spoke its solution with an almost harmonic simplicity. I mean that though my chest (my heart) spoke a single answer, it felt as if this answer were made of a number of unified objects or notes or ideas. Like when someone strikes an e-major on a well-tuned guitar.
That, I think, is the "ought" that Lewis is talking about. And he is right: it does come from the chest. It is the chest. Compare this to the experience of viewing something really beautiful, such as a cathedral or sculpture or a vast rock wall, full of shades and contrast, carved out over centuries by falling water. Lewis claims that you will realize, perhaps to your surprise, that the two feelings come from exactly the same organ.
The more I read of books written from the 1900s onward, the more I become convinced that we are all in the middle of a fierce debate that started somewhere around that time, and that continues on to this day. This debate is over the future of mankind, the meaning of progress and, in the end, what it means to be human.
The remainder of the book concerns this debate. During Lewis's time eugenics was popular. One hopes that the current reader will regard, as Lewis did, the concept with great distaste. But however unpopular eugenics may be at the moment, Lewis points out that it is the concepts and philosophical ideas behind eugenics that are what are truly hideous.
Any vision of a perfect utopian society, or of any real progression toward it, must hold somewhere within its core, whether acknowledged or not, the idea that people must be changed. People must be made "better." And the only way to do this, in the end, is to strike at the heart, the chest, inside each person. The only way is to attempt to change that organ, that function, that I have been trying to describe.
This is the meaning of the title of the book. Lewis argues that the essence of what man is can be found in that organ in the chest, the heart. And in order to achieve utopia, men in power are more than willing to modify, dull, or, if necessary, rip out the heart in order to achieve their goal. And when they do so, they will discover, to their (perhaps) horror, that what they have left is not a man at all.
Examples of this kind of coerced modification of the chest can be listed endlessly. To use the media to present something as ugly which people never thought of as ugly before. Or to make people think of certain other people as weak and diseased who are not. Or to deliberately try to make people afraid out of all proportion to what they have to fear. Or to attempt to redefine what people ought to do, based on the recommendations of some experts. Or to paint some people as corrupt and evil, and as the cause of the problems of society.
In the end, the ugliness comes from looking at another person and judging them: judging the "ought" they have come to within themselves. That, after all, is what you are doing every time you say you need to make a person (or group of people) better. As it is, this would just be ugliness. But when the massive power and coercion of the state becomes involved, as it always seems to, then the ugliness turns into something much, much worse. The course of history over the last century will provide plenty of examples, all provided courtesy of people whose goal was to make mankind better.
Of course, now that we all recognize how horrific all of that was, we are no longer engaged in the business of making people better. We are no longer involved in using the pronouncements of doctors, scientists, famous people, and intellectuals to dictate through force or influence what people ought to do, or how they ought to think. Nor do we disparage those with ideas different from the common culture. Nor does society lean on businesses, artists, and families to believe and behave in certain ways.
Now, we recognize that a diverse, vibrant society takes all kinds of viewpoints. As long as none of those viewpoints profess or seem to profess any wrong ideas, all voices are welcome. We invite everyone to join in the national discussion about which of the many new laws being proposed are the best ones to get people to behave more like they ought to, and to move our society into a better future.
As if all this weren't enough content for a rather flimsy paperback, there is yet another startling argument that Mr. Lewis makes. He calls our attention to the nature of science. Accepting that science has certainly given us many wonderful things, can we say anything about what, exactly, science is?
Science is a way of looking at material objects in which we deliberately dismiss some aspects of those objects. Not only spiritual or emotional aspects, but also even physical aspects that are not of concern to the nature of our inquiry. In science, we deliberately blind ourselves to the whole of something, in order to better understand some part of it.
Many would argue, perhaps truthfully, that a clear understanding of the parts leads to a better understanding of the whole. Certainly, a clearer understanding of the parts allows us in many cases to manipulate the whole.
Through a really inspired comparison of Bacon's New Organon to Goethe's Faust, Mr. Lewis argues that, in doing this, we are making a kind of deal. The result will be increased ability to get the stuff we want: medicines, airplanes, cheap food, more leisure time, sex without pregnancy. And what are we giving up to get all this stuff that we want? Are we giving up anything?
Before I read this book, my answer would have been: "No. What could we possibly be giving up?" Now, I'm not so sure.
Mr. Lewis states emphatically that he is not anti-science. He just wants us to be clear about what we are doing when we embrace science whole-heartedly. I think that's fair. If we pretend we are not making a choice when in fact we are, then somewhere down the line a point is going to arise when there are consequences that we didn't realize. I think that time is now. I think the fact that we have made this choice, and we didn't realize we were making a choice at all, has resulted in many of the conflicting views in our current society.
What are we giving up? We are giving up our view of the whole object: the object with all of its philosophical, emotional, and spiritual aspects intact. This is, in actuality, the object as it appears to us before we apply the scalpel of science to it. Yes, science can help us find out things, but only by a deliberate destruction, in our minds and often in physical reality, of the whole of the thing.
Take the following story as an example. In college, during a cat dissection, my partner and I were working on the large intestine. The room smelled of formaldehyde and our cat was stretched on a stainless steel table, his four paws tied with rope to allow us the easiest access to cut into his chest cavity.
Our lab assistant came over. "Oh, let me show you this," he said. We stood back. He gathered the intestines in his hand and plopped them out onto the table beside the cat's body. There was a thin membrane covering them which he proceeded to pull off and stretch out. It stretched like a balloon, him pulling the transparent membrane between his hands. There were blue and red vessels (colored with some kind of dye they'd put into the cat) running through the membrane that reminded me of scraggly branches of trees.
He held the membrane up, still stretched between his fingers. I saw his face on the other side of the membrane, staring at the criss-crossing vessels. "Isn't it absolutely beautiful?" he said.
It was beautiful. But suddenly I was hit with the strangeness of what we were doing. That membrane was never meant to be stretched out like that: between someone's hands in a lab room. Those veins were never meant to be that color. That cat, whatever he was, whatever personality he had, was gone forever.
The cat as he had been presented to the world, a living organism with certain habits and tendencies, in fact a unique thing in all the history of the world, had been destroyed. This was done so that we could learn something that ostensibly was about all cats, and was about ourselves as well: how the organs in mammals function.
I am not against dissections. I'm glad I did it and I would do it again. My only point is that a choice was made. Our minds were made to focus on certain aspects of the cat at the expense of others.
Mr. Lewis asks whether we don't lose some of our essential humanness in viewing things in this way. Do a dissection once and you might think about the things I thought about. Do it a thousand times and what happens?
I chose a cat dissection as my example because I thought it might carry more weight with modern readers, distant as they are from slaughterhouses. But Mr. Lewis is actually talking about every aspect of science.
I doubt anyone who reads this has performed a thousand dissections. But I would wager that there are things that everyone (including myself) who has grown up in our science-worshipping culture has thought about only scientifically a thousand times a thousand times. And Mr. Lewis argues, I think rightly, that this must have the same effect.
I read this book four times, thought about it for weeks, and tried to boil down what I thought about it into something succinct. Obviously, I was unable to do so. Looking back over the review now, I see that I have, for example, neglected Mr. Lewis's incredibly profound statement that all that we think of as evil is simply the good of a part of The Tao magnified in importance so that it dwarfs all the other aspects of The Tao. That thought alone is worth the price of admission.
There are probably five other main points of the book like this: points that I have missed. This book is simply too full of interesting points for any review of mine to do it justice. Five stars.
July 23, 2017
Excellent. Read various times. Just listened to an audio version in the fall of 2015. Although I have read this book multiple times, the last time through on audio, I noticed that the last section contained layers I had not ever really understood. I listened to it again (Jan. 2016) with that in mind, and yep, definite layers. This book is deep.
Listened to it again in October of 2016. And yet again in July of 2017.
Listened to it again in October of 2016. And yet again in July of 2017.
December 9, 2007
I have so many quotes marked from this book that I might as well just memorize the entire thing. This book alone introduced me to the writings of C.S. Lewis, and I am forever indebted to perceptions. Virtue, as he defines it, is the ability to recognize what is true, good and beautiful. To be able to admit that something has value.
Difficult in our world.
How did we get to the point that recognizing the goodness or beauty in something or someone else makes us feel as though part of our own soul is being worn away? So backwards.
Difficult in our world.
How did we get to the point that recognizing the goodness or beauty in something or someone else makes us feel as though part of our own soul is being worn away? So backwards.
September 14, 2017
This book is definitely one that gets better the more times you read it. I can remember understanding very little of it except the famous paragraph at the end of the first chapter the first time I read it, “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”
Certainly, that paragraph itself is worthy of 5 stars.
This time around, my fourth or fifth reading, I read it with our new book club in view, underlining and making notes for our group. This helped me see it with fresh eyes. I remembered how confusing it was the first time I read it and I was happy to realize more of it made sense to me now. Still can't say the whole thing was wide open to me but more than before.
Let me add that today I believe the single most important message in this book is the use of the word 'debunking' by Lewis. As Christians we often guilty of being debunkers and I believe it is a way that we undermine our message even as we are giving it. We need to read this book often and ponder how we have joined the culture of debunking which is deadly.
Certainly, that paragraph itself is worthy of 5 stars.
This time around, my fourth or fifth reading, I read it with our new book club in view, underlining and making notes for our group. This helped me see it with fresh eyes. I remembered how confusing it was the first time I read it and I was happy to realize more of it made sense to me now. Still can't say the whole thing was wide open to me but more than before.
Let me add that today I believe the single most important message in this book is the use of the word 'debunking' by Lewis. As Christians we often guilty of being debunkers and I believe it is a way that we undermine our message even as we are giving it. We need to read this book often and ponder how we have joined the culture of debunking which is deadly.
January 9, 2023
Check out this guide by Michael Ward.
Assigned in Ralph Wood's Oxford Christians class at Baylor (Fall 2014). Assigned for CAS faculty at Regent (2019–20).
Excellent. Lewis said that this was his favorite book of his non-fiction writings (see Collected Letters 812, 897, 941, 1040, 1148, 1181,1214, 1419). "The Green Book" is Lewis's way of referring to Alex King and Martin Ketley's The Control of Language: A Critical Approach to Reading and Writing. Abolition is the nonfiction version of That Hideous Strength (see here for some connections). See Plodcast, Episode #6, where Wilson recommends reading Lewis's Discarded Image (or the condensed article in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature) and Planet Narnia.
Here's a helpful link for quotes and allusions in this book; see the summary and brief summary here. See here for Latin uses in AoM. See Mark Ward's review here. TGC has some helpful drawings (Doodles no longer available on YouTube). Audio available here.
Alternate title: Reflections on education with special reference to the teaching of English in the upper forms of schools
Book epigraph from Confucius (Analects II.16): "The Master said, He who sets to work on a different strand destroys the whole fabric."
Ch. 1: Men without Chests
epigraph [from the 14/15c medieval poem/carol "Unto us is born a son"]: "So he [Herod] sent the word to slay / And slew the little childer" [—> interesting to ask who is Herod, and who are the children, and what is being done to them]
1: issue of elementary textbooks; charitable reading (also pp. 4–5, 11-13)—authors didn't intend harm (but CSL doesn't have anything good to say about them)
2: "Gaius" and "Titius" [G&T] and The Green Book
2: quotation of Coleridge (waterfall is "sublime" or "pretty") —> G&T say comments about the waterfall's sublimity are only statements of personal feelings/emotions (but not objective, fitting comments on reality)
3–4: This practice leads to absurdities (If someone says, "You are contemptible," should we take such a comment as reflective of reality, or only that the person feels that way?).
4–5: Young readers are taught two things: 1) predicates of value convey the emotional state of the speaker, and 2) such statements are not important. 1': Students will extend such a lesson to other predicates of value (whether or not the authors of such predicates desire their comments to be indicative of their personal emotional state). 2': The use of only emphasizes the unimportance of the feeling/emotion.
4–5: The G&T lesson isn't stated explicitly, but it's teaching (conditioning) students nonetheless.
6–7: example of bad advertisement writing; missed opportunity to put bad writing next to good writing (e.g., Johnson, Wordsworth) and show why bad writing is bad (hard to do p. 13)
8–9: The effect is that students are taught to debunk lofty emotions evoked by nature ("debunking" language continues throughout the chapter). Such emotions are "contrary to reason and contemptible."
9: two ways to avoid the effect of such bad travel ads: 1) have real sensibility, or 2) be a "trousered ape" (cf. political ad: those immune are true patriots and cowards [cf. a Joel Osteen book: those immune are solid Christians and atheists]); G&T are cutting out the student's soul
10–11: similar debunking example with horses (by "Orbilius"); those immune are lovers of horses and the "urban blockhead"
11–12: G&T probably weren't trying to completely sweep away traditional values.
12–13: propagation vs. propaganda (see p. 23)
12–14: G&T have unintentionally slipped into propaganda because 1) explaining why bad writing is bad is difficult; 2) they think the world is too swayed by "emotional propaganda" (Lewis: people need to be rescued from emotional propaganda and rescued from "cold vulgarity" [not being awakened to noble emotions]; don't starve students of good emotions); and 3) they don't believe that sentiments are reasonable (see pp. 19–20).
13-14: "The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts. The right defence against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments. . . . [A] hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head." [Lewis believes that the debunking of G&T's textbook hardens students' hearts. See the Herod epigraph.]
14–19: digression on how G&T (and their "educational predicament") are different from earlier educators; earlier educators believed that emotional reactions could be consonant with reality (other words Lewis uses are congruous, merit, just, ordinate, appropriate, due, according to, participation, harmony, conform, reasonable, fits, agreement, in accord [thru p. 21])
16–17: Augustine on virtue as ordered loves (ordo amoris); Aristotle on education (liking what one ought to like); Plato's Republic (training is necessary to hate the ugly and love the beautiful)
17: Hinduism's (India) Rta: the order revealed in the cosmos, morality, and temple ceremonies; connect with satya/truth (correspondence to reality)
18: The Law is true (Ps. 119:151; see note 19 on pp. 104–05: "emeth").
18-19: Chinese Tao ("the Way"—Ch. 2); Lewis takes all talk of objective values (Plato, Aristotle, Stoicism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism) and calls it "the Tao"; emotional responses should be in accord with nature (the heart should obey the head)
19–21: For G&T, feelings and facts [heart and head] "confront one another, and no rapprochement is possible." The educational predicament/problem is that G&T stand without the Tao instead of within it.
21: The task of education (from within the Tao) is to train students to have appropriate responses. Those "without" (on the outside of) the Tao must either debunk the sentiments or else make up another reason for the response (see the following example).
21-22: example of a Roman father teaching his son that it's objectively sweet and fitting (dulce et decorum) to die for one's country (also p. 30)—G&T can't agree in principle (either they debunk the emotion, or else they must say that the emotion is useful but not objectively true—see p. 21)
23: old/traditional education initiates students to reality (propagation); new/modern education conditions students (propaganda); G&T actually fit more with the debunking (they don't like propaganda)
24–26: training in virtue; even if G&T could justify virtues theoretically, the virtues need to be integrated (by training) into the intellect and emotions so that in real-life situations, virtue is just what comes out by instinct; Plato's Republic deals with the reason-spirit-appetite relationship (The head rules the belly through the chest); just head = mere spirit, and just belly = mere animal—humans have the middle/chest part, which makes them distinct from spirits and animals; G&T produce Men without Chests (the humanizing part)
26: famous gelding quote (we demand virtues from adults in society, yet we let G&T teach our kids)
Ch. 2: The Way
epigraph: Confucius highlights the importance of the "Trunk" (chest/emotions) for a "gentleman."
27: Accepting G&T's education will practically result in the destruction of society, although this in itself isn't iron-clad proof that it's wrong. But there are theoretical difficulties with G&T too. (Ajax prayer to Zeus in Iliad, Book 17)
27-28: As subjective at G&T seem, they still (ironically) want to produce a certain thinking in their pupils (at least for practical purposes, if not transcendent/objective ones).
28–29: G&T clearly want their readers to agree with them, not simply to conclude that the book is a collection of G&T's subjective emotions. G&T clearly approve and disapprove of certain values (see n1 on pp. 105–06). Their skepticism of values, therefore, is shallow, because they hold to values "in the background." (See pp. 105–06n1 for lists of what G&T approve/disapprove of.)
29ff.: Lewis will speculate about what would happen if emotion and religion really were stripped away. [CSL's method is very presuppositional in that he pushes the presuppositions (what's "in the background") to their logical conclusions. See p. 72 where's he's explicit about this process.]
30–32: Lewis keeps the "death for a good cause" topic to make his point [remember that AoM was published in 1943 during WWII], and he supposes that an "Innovator" [sarcastic] strips away emotions/sentiments to get to the "ground" of particular values. But when you strip away the sentiments, no motivation is left; it's no more or less rational to resist sacrificing oneself than to consent to sacrifice oneself. You can't move from a factual proposition to a conclusion without a mediating ought; the indicative/is doesn't automatically imply the imperative/do (see p. 37).
32: The only way around this problem (for all of us) is to acknowledge that "oughts" can be rational; the only alternative is to abandon the search for a rational motivation (the Innovator has set out to destroy the first option, so he is likely to choose this second option).
33ff.: Instinct
33: The Innovator rejects a rational core in favor of "Instinct" (as a basis for ethical "oughts"). This, along with contraceptives, paves the way for a new sexual morality.
34: Instinct doesn't really explain anything. If it's innate and widely felt, we don't need The Green Book to tell us to do what's inevitable (see pp. 106–09 for Lewis's objections to I. A. Richards's argument that we can construct a value system based on satisfying impulses).
35–36: The same problem exists with Instinct: There's no ought. Even the Innovator has to agree that some impulses (ones destructive to society) should be controlled. We should obey each instinct just as we should obey each person—that is to say, we have no reason to. Additionally, we can't follow each instinct, because some of them conflict. So how do we choose without an arbitrator distinct from Instinct? (See pp. 106–09n2 for objections to I. A. Richards's theory of value based on satisfying impulses.)
37: If our "deepest" instincts are actually something external that gives instincts value, then the project to discover value that is derived from itself has failed. If our "deepest" instincts are just the ones we feel strongly about, then it's just a feeling that has little significance. We're at the same dilemma (p. 32): either there's an outside imperative, or we're stuck with the indicative. (See pp. 109–11 for Lewis's application of his argument to Waddington's attempt to base value on fact [whatever occurs is valuable; "existence is its own justification"]. Basically, Waddington would have to approve of traitors [quislings] and Nazi puppets [men of Vichy]. Lewis references Johnson's Rasselas.)
37–39: Lewis questions whether we even have an instinct to care for posterity or preserve the species. Most of us are concerned with self-preservation or immediate family preservation (species preservation is too abstract).
39: repeated statement that neither factual propositions (see p. 31) nor Instinct (see p. 33) provide a basis for a system of values
39: Confucius, Jesus, and Locke all say things consistent with the Tao
39–40 (analogy): practical principles (re: posterity, society) within the Tao : the world of action :: axioms : the world of theory
40: "If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all."
41: Ironically, any attack of the Tao (objective truths) requires some reliance on it (or else the attack is baseless). [See Wilson's debate with Hitchens. An atheist can't complain that religion is evil, because an atheist has no basis for evil. By what standard does an atheist call anything evil?]
41–43: The Innovator (outside the Tao) has no warrant for picking and choosing some values (feeding and clothing people) while debunking others (justice, honor).
43: Other names for the Tao include Natural Law, Traditional Morality, etc.
43–44: The Tao is the only source of value judgments, and any attempt to raise a new system (ideology) is simply borrowing from the Tao. Ideological rebellion against the Tao is like branches rebelling against the tree: to succeed is to fail.
44–46: Not all traditional morality is correct, but criticism and confronting contradictions must occur from within the system (organic/advance), not from without (surgical/innovation).
46–47: Moving from a Confucian teaching to a Christian one is appropriate. Discarding everything for Nietzschean nihilism is absurd. "From within the Tao itself comes the only authority to modify the Tao."
48: An open mind is useful only for non-ultimate things. "Outside the Tao there is no ground for criticizing either the Tao or anything else."
48–49: No one can demand that the Tao provide credentials. Foundational things don't have foundations.
49–50: CSL isn't trying to prove theism; he's making a logical point that ultimate values are absolute—there's nothing below them that provide more of a foundation.
50–51: The penultimate paragraph is a question CSL poses from a modern perspective (it's not Lewis proposing this). The proposition is that the human conscience may be like anything else: useful to a point in human history, but eventually bypass-able.
51: CSL will address this position in the final lecture (Ch. 3).
See the rest of the review here.
Assigned in Ralph Wood's Oxford Christians class at Baylor (Fall 2014). Assigned for CAS faculty at Regent (2019–20).
Excellent. Lewis said that this was his favorite book of his non-fiction writings (see Collected Letters 812, 897, 941, 1040, 1148, 1181,1214, 1419). "The Green Book" is Lewis's way of referring to Alex King and Martin Ketley's The Control of Language: A Critical Approach to Reading and Writing. Abolition is the nonfiction version of That Hideous Strength (see here for some connections). See Plodcast, Episode #6, where Wilson recommends reading Lewis's Discarded Image (or the condensed article in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature) and Planet Narnia.
Here's a helpful link for quotes and allusions in this book; see the summary and brief summary here. See here for Latin uses in AoM. See Mark Ward's review here. TGC has some helpful drawings (Doodles no longer available on YouTube). Audio available here.
Alternate title: Reflections on education with special reference to the teaching of English in the upper forms of schools
Book epigraph from Confucius (Analects II.16): "The Master said, He who sets to work on a different strand destroys the whole fabric."
Ch. 1: Men without Chests
epigraph [from the 14/15c medieval poem/carol "Unto us is born a son"]: "So he [Herod] sent the word to slay / And slew the little childer" [—> interesting to ask who is Herod, and who are the children, and what is being done to them]
1: issue of elementary textbooks; charitable reading (also pp. 4–5, 11-13)—authors didn't intend harm (but CSL doesn't have anything good to say about them)
2: "Gaius" and "Titius" [G&T] and The Green Book
2: quotation of Coleridge (waterfall is "sublime" or "pretty") —> G&T say comments about the waterfall's sublimity are only statements of personal feelings/emotions (but not objective, fitting comments on reality)
3–4: This practice leads to absurdities (If someone says, "You are contemptible," should we take such a comment as reflective of reality, or only that the person feels that way?).
4–5: Young readers are taught two things: 1) predicates of value convey the emotional state of the speaker, and 2) such statements are not important. 1': Students will extend such a lesson to other predicates of value (whether or not the authors of such predicates desire their comments to be indicative of their personal emotional state). 2': The use of only emphasizes the unimportance of the feeling/emotion.
4–5: The G&T lesson isn't stated explicitly, but it's teaching (conditioning) students nonetheless.
6–7: example of bad advertisement writing; missed opportunity to put bad writing next to good writing (e.g., Johnson, Wordsworth) and show why bad writing is bad (hard to do p. 13)
8–9: The effect is that students are taught to debunk lofty emotions evoked by nature ("debunking" language continues throughout the chapter). Such emotions are "contrary to reason and contemptible."
9: two ways to avoid the effect of such bad travel ads: 1) have real sensibility, or 2) be a "trousered ape" (cf. political ad: those immune are true patriots and cowards [cf. a Joel Osteen book: those immune are solid Christians and atheists]); G&T are cutting out the student's soul
10–11: similar debunking example with horses (by "Orbilius"); those immune are lovers of horses and the "urban blockhead"
11–12: G&T probably weren't trying to completely sweep away traditional values.
12–13: propagation vs. propaganda (see p. 23)
12–14: G&T have unintentionally slipped into propaganda because 1) explaining why bad writing is bad is difficult; 2) they think the world is too swayed by "emotional propaganda" (Lewis: people need to be rescued from emotional propaganda and rescued from "cold vulgarity" [not being awakened to noble emotions]; don't starve students of good emotions); and 3) they don't believe that sentiments are reasonable (see pp. 19–20).
13-14: "The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts. The right defence against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments. . . . [A] hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head." [Lewis believes that the debunking of G&T's textbook hardens students' hearts. See the Herod epigraph.]
14–19: digression on how G&T (and their "educational predicament") are different from earlier educators; earlier educators believed that emotional reactions could be consonant with reality (other words Lewis uses are congruous, merit, just, ordinate, appropriate, due, according to, participation, harmony, conform, reasonable, fits, agreement, in accord [thru p. 21])
16–17: Augustine on virtue as ordered loves (ordo amoris); Aristotle on education (liking what one ought to like); Plato's Republic (training is necessary to hate the ugly and love the beautiful)
17: Hinduism's (India) Rta: the order revealed in the cosmos, morality, and temple ceremonies; connect with satya/truth (correspondence to reality)
18: The Law is true (Ps. 119:151; see note 19 on pp. 104–05: "emeth").
18-19: Chinese Tao ("the Way"—Ch. 2); Lewis takes all talk of objective values (Plato, Aristotle, Stoicism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism) and calls it "the Tao"; emotional responses should be in accord with nature (the heart should obey the head)
19–21: For G&T, feelings and facts [heart and head] "confront one another, and no rapprochement is possible." The educational predicament/problem is that G&T stand without the Tao instead of within it.
21: The task of education (from within the Tao) is to train students to have appropriate responses. Those "without" (on the outside of) the Tao must either debunk the sentiments or else make up another reason for the response (see the following example).
21-22: example of a Roman father teaching his son that it's objectively sweet and fitting (dulce et decorum) to die for one's country (also p. 30)—G&T can't agree in principle (either they debunk the emotion, or else they must say that the emotion is useful but not objectively true—see p. 21)
23: old/traditional education initiates students to reality (propagation); new/modern education conditions students (propaganda); G&T actually fit more with the debunking (they don't like propaganda)
24–26: training in virtue; even if G&T could justify virtues theoretically, the virtues need to be integrated (by training) into the intellect and emotions so that in real-life situations, virtue is just what comes out by instinct; Plato's Republic deals with the reason-spirit-appetite relationship (The head rules the belly through the chest); just head = mere spirit, and just belly = mere animal—humans have the middle/chest part, which makes them distinct from spirits and animals; G&T produce Men without Chests (the humanizing part)
26: famous gelding quote (we demand virtues from adults in society, yet we let G&T teach our kids)
Ch. 2: The Way
epigraph: Confucius highlights the importance of the "Trunk" (chest/emotions) for a "gentleman."
27: Accepting G&T's education will practically result in the destruction of society, although this in itself isn't iron-clad proof that it's wrong. But there are theoretical difficulties with G&T too. (Ajax prayer to Zeus in Iliad, Book 17)
27-28: As subjective at G&T seem, they still (ironically) want to produce a certain thinking in their pupils (at least for practical purposes, if not transcendent/objective ones).
28–29: G&T clearly want their readers to agree with them, not simply to conclude that the book is a collection of G&T's subjective emotions. G&T clearly approve and disapprove of certain values (see n1 on pp. 105–06). Their skepticism of values, therefore, is shallow, because they hold to values "in the background." (See pp. 105–06n1 for lists of what G&T approve/disapprove of.)
29ff.: Lewis will speculate about what would happen if emotion and religion really were stripped away. [CSL's method is very presuppositional in that he pushes the presuppositions (what's "in the background") to their logical conclusions. See p. 72 where's he's explicit about this process.]
30–32: Lewis keeps the "death for a good cause" topic to make his point [remember that AoM was published in 1943 during WWII], and he supposes that an "Innovator" [sarcastic] strips away emotions/sentiments to get to the "ground" of particular values. But when you strip away the sentiments, no motivation is left; it's no more or less rational to resist sacrificing oneself than to consent to sacrifice oneself. You can't move from a factual proposition to a conclusion without a mediating ought; the indicative/is doesn't automatically imply the imperative/do (see p. 37).
32: The only way around this problem (for all of us) is to acknowledge that "oughts" can be rational; the only alternative is to abandon the search for a rational motivation (the Innovator has set out to destroy the first option, so he is likely to choose this second option).
33ff.: Instinct
33: The Innovator rejects a rational core in favor of "Instinct" (as a basis for ethical "oughts"). This, along with contraceptives, paves the way for a new sexual morality.
34: Instinct doesn't really explain anything. If it's innate and widely felt, we don't need The Green Book to tell us to do what's inevitable (see pp. 106–09 for Lewis's objections to I. A. Richards's argument that we can construct a value system based on satisfying impulses).
35–36: The same problem exists with Instinct: There's no ought. Even the Innovator has to agree that some impulses (ones destructive to society) should be controlled. We should obey each instinct just as we should obey each person—that is to say, we have no reason to. Additionally, we can't follow each instinct, because some of them conflict. So how do we choose without an arbitrator distinct from Instinct? (See pp. 106–09n2 for objections to I. A. Richards's theory of value based on satisfying impulses.)
37: If our "deepest" instincts are actually something external that gives instincts value, then the project to discover value that is derived from itself has failed. If our "deepest" instincts are just the ones we feel strongly about, then it's just a feeling that has little significance. We're at the same dilemma (p. 32): either there's an outside imperative, or we're stuck with the indicative. (See pp. 109–11 for Lewis's application of his argument to Waddington's attempt to base value on fact [whatever occurs is valuable; "existence is its own justification"]. Basically, Waddington would have to approve of traitors [quislings] and Nazi puppets [men of Vichy]. Lewis references Johnson's Rasselas.)
37–39: Lewis questions whether we even have an instinct to care for posterity or preserve the species. Most of us are concerned with self-preservation or immediate family preservation (species preservation is too abstract).
39: repeated statement that neither factual propositions (see p. 31) nor Instinct (see p. 33) provide a basis for a system of values
39: Confucius, Jesus, and Locke all say things consistent with the Tao
39–40 (analogy): practical principles (re: posterity, society) within the Tao : the world of action :: axioms : the world of theory
40: "If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all."
41: Ironically, any attack of the Tao (objective truths) requires some reliance on it (or else the attack is baseless). [See Wilson's debate with Hitchens. An atheist can't complain that religion is evil, because an atheist has no basis for evil. By what standard does an atheist call anything evil?]
41–43: The Innovator (outside the Tao) has no warrant for picking and choosing some values (feeding and clothing people) while debunking others (justice, honor).
43: Other names for the Tao include Natural Law, Traditional Morality, etc.
43–44: The Tao is the only source of value judgments, and any attempt to raise a new system (ideology) is simply borrowing from the Tao. Ideological rebellion against the Tao is like branches rebelling against the tree: to succeed is to fail.
44–46: Not all traditional morality is correct, but criticism and confronting contradictions must occur from within the system (organic/advance), not from without (surgical/innovation).
46–47: Moving from a Confucian teaching to a Christian one is appropriate. Discarding everything for Nietzschean nihilism is absurd. "From within the Tao itself comes the only authority to modify the Tao."
48: An open mind is useful only for non-ultimate things. "Outside the Tao there is no ground for criticizing either the Tao or anything else."
48–49: No one can demand that the Tao provide credentials. Foundational things don't have foundations.
49–50: CSL isn't trying to prove theism; he's making a logical point that ultimate values are absolute—there's nothing below them that provide more of a foundation.
50–51: The penultimate paragraph is a question CSL poses from a modern perspective (it's not Lewis proposing this). The proposition is that the human conscience may be like anything else: useful to a point in human history, but eventually bypass-able.
51: CSL will address this position in the final lecture (Ch. 3).
See the rest of the review here.
September 11, 2024
2022 Review
I turn "wow, this book was really profound, I should make sure I re-read it a few times to fully explore the nuance" and then never actually reading it again into an art form.
Thankfully, I've got book clubs to bring me back and remind me why I love Lewis so much.
2015 Review
A ton of profound thought in this relatively short book. Having concluded my first reading, I feel like I haven't even scratched the surface. I'm amazed at Lewis's relevance, even so many years later.
I turn "wow, this book was really profound, I should make sure I re-read it a few times to fully explore the nuance" and then never actually reading it again into an art form.
Thankfully, I've got book clubs to bring me back and remind me why I love Lewis so much.
2015 Review
A ton of profound thought in this relatively short book. Having concluded my first reading, I feel like I haven't even scratched the surface. I'm amazed at Lewis's relevance, even so many years later.
August 22, 2011
How could I have done an Arts degree without reading this book?! Lewis was a genius, and everything he writes here feels indescribably relevant to the present time. I had goosebumps while reading it.
So many voices call for the abandonment of all value systems except their own, wishing somehow to 'free' society from the laws that have governed it only to impose their own, more arbitrary code.
Every humanities student (not to mention teacher) must read it.
So many voices call for the abandonment of all value systems except their own, wishing somehow to 'free' society from the laws that have governed it only to impose their own, more arbitrary code.
Every humanities student (not to mention teacher) must read it.
July 20, 2020
Published in the 1940ths this is a work of a brilliant mind!!!
C. S. Lewis "The Abolition of Man" is also a timeless wake up call to all of us..
What does it means to be human?
What about honor?
Which values needs to be held up?
Must we defend or surrender our way of life?
For sure a work needed to be reread again and again..
Entertains and teach at the same time!!
I would say the right book for this time!!!
Highly recommendable..
Dean;)
C. S. Lewis "The Abolition of Man" is also a timeless wake up call to all of us..
What does it means to be human?
What about honor?
Which values needs to be held up?
Must we defend or surrender our way of life?
For sure a work needed to be reread again and again..
Entertains and teach at the same time!!
I would say the right book for this time!!!
Highly recommendable..
Dean;)
April 25, 2020
This is a very short --but pithy-- book, with actually only 113 pages, and only the first 81 of those make up the main body of the text; the rest are the Appendix and end-notes (mostly documenting sources). The three main chapters are the texts of the three Riddell Memorial Lectures delivered on successive evenings in February 1943 at the Univ. of Durham's King's College. It's sub-titled "Reflections on education with special reference to the teaching of English in the upper forms of schools," starts with a critique of some aspects of a 1939 British high school textbook, The Control of Language: A Critical Approach to Reading and Writing (although Lewis didn't name the book), and is cataloged by most U.S. libraries that have it with books about education. However, the real focus is on fundamental philosophical questions of value and morality, which of course necessarily underlie whatever approach one takes to education, but which underlie every other aspect of human life as well.
By 1943, the British intellectual establishment, like their counterparts everywhere else in the Western world, had pretty much totally embraced the view that the concept of right and wrong has no objective validity, and that human emotional, affective responses to persons, things or situations in the world are purely biochemically determined reactions, with no legitimacy apart from whatever evolutionary survival value they might have (or formerly have had) for the human species as a whole. The task of education and of social engineering generally, in this view, is to systematically debunk transcendent ethical values and whatever emotions support them. Lewis' message here is a root-and-branch rejection of this view, and a thumbnail case for debunking the would-be debunkers. (Since the establishment consensus in 2020 is the same as it was in 1943, with the only differences being that it now has, if anything, more political power, less willingness to tolerate opposition, and the benefit of nearly 80 more years of time to further its mission of social and cultural demolition, it's clear that the debate set forth here is as relevant as ever.)
Basically, to paraphrase and condense the contents of these lectures in my own words, Lewis' contention is that there is an underlying Natural Law of right and wrong, wholesome human relations, and appropriate response to the beauty and majesty of the natural world and universe, the existence of which can not be demonstrated by reason (though it is not contrary to reason), but which rather has to form the first axiom of moral reasoning, and which is intuitively perceptible by the inborn human conscience. (This has a similarity, as Lewis recognizes, to "instinct," the existence of which his opponents admit, but transcends the idea of purely biochemical instinct for evolutionary survival value.) This Natural Law, which Lewis here (as he does sometimes elsewhere) calls the Tao, has been recognized as valid throughout human history by cultures around the world, with considerable unanimity as to its basic concepts. Whether or not this Tao derives ultimately from Divine revelation (although Lewis himself believed it did, as he asserts in other writings) is immaterial; the important thing is that it exists as the bedrock postulate of reality, however you explain it, and conveys information about moral truth that we neglect at our peril.
In his novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Philip K. Dick suggests that the basic difference between his androids and humans is that the latter can feel genuine empathy for their fellow humans and other living creatures, while androids can not. Though they're very different writers writing decades apart, Lewis here is saying something similar. Natural feelings of love, pity, respect, reverence, family affection, patriotism tempered by general fellow-feeling for all humans, delight in beauty are the things that make us truly human, more so than the dispassionate operations of our reason, and which mediate the demands of reason to our bodies, which by themselves wouldn't be anything but animal. Annihilating human capacity for these kinds of emotions produces "men without chests" (alluding to the idea of the heart as the seat of emotion), and really would, for all practical purposes, mean the "abolition of Man" as genuinely human. (He's using "Man" here generically, of male and female humankind, and all readers in 1943 would have taken it that way.) He also suggests that the social engineering that brings about the creation of such post-humans is not an elevation of humanity in general, but simply an elevation of the engineers to absolute power, which according to their own principles would be exercised without ethical values. This main body of the text is very rigorously reasoned, and can be demanding to follow.
The Appendix is a roughly 19-page collection of quotations from around the world, drawn from a variety of cultures and representing sources ranging from ancient to modern, roughly topical in organization, designed to illustrate the universality of the Tao. (The quotations are not intended to be comprehensive.) Three of these are taken from American Indian sources, and what cost the book a star in my rating is that the cultural source of these is identified as "Redskin." (Wikipedia has a very comprehensive discussion of the etymology and use of the term, and its gradual pejoration in the 19th and early 20th centuries, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin .) I do not think Lewis consciously intended the term as a slur, and it was not apparently as pejorative in British as in American English at this time. But it was still a slangy term not normally used in formal contexts, as it is here, and as such I think reflects a lack of respect. (This would have been general among British intellectuals on both the Right and the Left in 1943 --some of whom still advocated the extermination of "inferior races," for which Lewis to his credit called them out elsewhere-- and his opponents at the time had no objection to it; but it's nevertheless objectionable to me.)
Note: The Goodreads description of this edition states that it's "Permanently unavailable owing to copyright issues." Since it was originally published in 1943, which under the terms of current U.S. copyright law (a.k.a. the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act") would presumptively remove it from the public domain, I'm guessing these "issues" would have been the result of some lawsuit against the publisher, Harper. However, the terms of whatever verdict or settlement was reached presumably wouldn't have required the surrender of copies sold before the suit took place. One of these was donated to the Bluefield College library in 2016, and was the one that I read. (As an author, albeit in a small way, and a librarian, I support reasonable copyright protections. I don't consider perpetual "copyright" reasonable, and I doubt that Lewis would have, either.)
By 1943, the British intellectual establishment, like their counterparts everywhere else in the Western world, had pretty much totally embraced the view that the concept of right and wrong has no objective validity, and that human emotional, affective responses to persons, things or situations in the world are purely biochemically determined reactions, with no legitimacy apart from whatever evolutionary survival value they might have (or formerly have had) for the human species as a whole. The task of education and of social engineering generally, in this view, is to systematically debunk transcendent ethical values and whatever emotions support them. Lewis' message here is a root-and-branch rejection of this view, and a thumbnail case for debunking the would-be debunkers. (Since the establishment consensus in 2020 is the same as it was in 1943, with the only differences being that it now has, if anything, more political power, less willingness to tolerate opposition, and the benefit of nearly 80 more years of time to further its mission of social and cultural demolition, it's clear that the debate set forth here is as relevant as ever.)
Basically, to paraphrase and condense the contents of these lectures in my own words, Lewis' contention is that there is an underlying Natural Law of right and wrong, wholesome human relations, and appropriate response to the beauty and majesty of the natural world and universe, the existence of which can not be demonstrated by reason (though it is not contrary to reason), but which rather has to form the first axiom of moral reasoning, and which is intuitively perceptible by the inborn human conscience. (This has a similarity, as Lewis recognizes, to "instinct," the existence of which his opponents admit, but transcends the idea of purely biochemical instinct for evolutionary survival value.) This Natural Law, which Lewis here (as he does sometimes elsewhere) calls the Tao, has been recognized as valid throughout human history by cultures around the world, with considerable unanimity as to its basic concepts. Whether or not this Tao derives ultimately from Divine revelation (although Lewis himself believed it did, as he asserts in other writings) is immaterial; the important thing is that it exists as the bedrock postulate of reality, however you explain it, and conveys information about moral truth that we neglect at our peril.
In his novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Philip K. Dick suggests that the basic difference between his androids and humans is that the latter can feel genuine empathy for their fellow humans and other living creatures, while androids can not. Though they're very different writers writing decades apart, Lewis here is saying something similar. Natural feelings of love, pity, respect, reverence, family affection, patriotism tempered by general fellow-feeling for all humans, delight in beauty are the things that make us truly human, more so than the dispassionate operations of our reason, and which mediate the demands of reason to our bodies, which by themselves wouldn't be anything but animal. Annihilating human capacity for these kinds of emotions produces "men without chests" (alluding to the idea of the heart as the seat of emotion), and really would, for all practical purposes, mean the "abolition of Man" as genuinely human. (He's using "Man" here generically, of male and female humankind, and all readers in 1943 would have taken it that way.) He also suggests that the social engineering that brings about the creation of such post-humans is not an elevation of humanity in general, but simply an elevation of the engineers to absolute power, which according to their own principles would be exercised without ethical values. This main body of the text is very rigorously reasoned, and can be demanding to follow.
The Appendix is a roughly 19-page collection of quotations from around the world, drawn from a variety of cultures and representing sources ranging from ancient to modern, roughly topical in organization, designed to illustrate the universality of the Tao. (The quotations are not intended to be comprehensive.) Three of these are taken from American Indian sources, and what cost the book a star in my rating is that the cultural source of these is identified as "Redskin." (Wikipedia has a very comprehensive discussion of the etymology and use of the term, and its gradual pejoration in the 19th and early 20th centuries, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin .) I do not think Lewis consciously intended the term as a slur, and it was not apparently as pejorative in British as in American English at this time. But it was still a slangy term not normally used in formal contexts, as it is here, and as such I think reflects a lack of respect. (This would have been general among British intellectuals on both the Right and the Left in 1943 --some of whom still advocated the extermination of "inferior races," for which Lewis to his credit called them out elsewhere-- and his opponents at the time had no objection to it; but it's nevertheless objectionable to me.)
Note: The Goodreads description of this edition states that it's "Permanently unavailable owing to copyright issues." Since it was originally published in 1943, which under the terms of current U.S. copyright law (a.k.a. the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act") would presumptively remove it from the public domain, I'm guessing these "issues" would have been the result of some lawsuit against the publisher, Harper. However, the terms of whatever verdict or settlement was reached presumably wouldn't have required the surrender of copies sold before the suit took place. One of these was donated to the Bluefield College library in 2016, and was the one that I read. (As an author, albeit in a small way, and a librarian, I support reasonable copyright protections. I don't consider perpetual "copyright" reasonable, and I doubt that Lewis would have, either.)
June 13, 2013
I've meant to read this for a long time. The edition of this I read had both The Great Divorce and The Abolition of Man. The Great Divorce is one of my all time favorite books, of any genre. This book is also excellent, though of a totally different type.
This book will/does require multiple readings if we want to get the most out of it. Also considering when this book was written (1943) then looking at the world today and seeing how things have progressed it could be eye opening and even a bit frightening.
I can recommend it highly. I will not try to lay out what the book is about and the premise of the book. I could never do it justice. C.S.Lewis was/is a gift to humankind and I'd really recommend his writings not be missed.
Think you disagree because you're and atheist? I humbly suggest you actually read his writings and see if you disagree. After all C.S.Lewis was at one time a confirmed atheist also.
Quote from, Surprised by Joy: "A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." - C. S. Lewis
This book will/does require multiple readings if we want to get the most out of it. Also considering when this book was written (1943) then looking at the world today and seeing how things have progressed it could be eye opening and even a bit frightening.
I can recommend it highly. I will not try to lay out what the book is about and the premise of the book. I could never do it justice. C.S.Lewis was/is a gift to humankind and I'd really recommend his writings not be missed.
Think you disagree because you're and atheist? I humbly suggest you actually read his writings and see if you disagree. After all C.S.Lewis was at one time a confirmed atheist also.
Quote from, Surprised by Joy: "A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." - C. S. Lewis
August 2, 2023
If only C.S. Lewis were alive today to write about the bombardment of issues that we are currently dealing with in a post-postmodern world! What would that book have looked like! I think honestly it would have been quite similar to this one, but with more searing details and clarity as it has become increasingly more obvious as time has passed what the fundamental problems with postmodernism are. C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man is addressing what he sees to be some of the main issues with the world of his time which was straddling the line between modern and postmodern, arguably around the birth of postmodernism as the work was published in 1943, and I think it is a testament to exactly how in-tune Lewis was with his times. He is addressing several issues that would be especially relevant to a postmodern world, and he is observing these issues through the education system or the educational writings of his time.
He opens the book observing a couple contemporary educational books. He draws out of these books some concerns that he takes to reflect a stream of thought that has infiltrated the educational system and from there the society at large, principally that of subjectivism. He then exposes the implications that this kind of subjectivism has on morals, and makes the argument for a moral system that is absolutely true, arguing in favor of an objective natural law. Making the case that human inclination and human nature is not the basis for morality, but as Plato, Aristotle and St. Augustine believed that morality must be taught by the education system, the family, and the society at large. Lewis gives an example of himself to prove this point saying that he is generally not fond of children, but understands that to be a flaw in himself due to his moral upbringing. Thus he holds to the view that morality is not subjective, but is in fact an objective system that is reflected in the worlds major religions and philosophies. This objective system of morals he refers to as the 'Tao', his own terminology for a traditional morality that synthesizes everything from Platonism to Hinduism and everything in-between. A universal and objective natural law for all humans.
This is how he sets up the book for the final chapter where he really starts digging into the book's title, The Abolition of Man, and he does it quite brilliantly by pointing out that if man continues on this Nietzschean path of conquering nature and bending it to his own will (as we are trying to do in the case of morality), he will eventually find himself losing his human nature and having that be made into whatever the leading minds of the day wish. In Lewis' own words,
The progressive ideology uses science as a means to escape nature and to bend nature to it's will, and as technology continues to progress we continue to change our ideas of morality, the last battle will be when humanity finally overcomes humanity itself. When we release man from the jaws of natural consequences and determine for ourselves what human nature is.
A very Huxleyan diagnosis of the future. We will finally be our own Gods, but as Lewis brilliantly points out, man's conquest of nature is ultimately nature's conquest of man.
Lewis ends the book and all of these ideas with these beautiful words and warns us not to be blind,
He opens the book observing a couple contemporary educational books. He draws out of these books some concerns that he takes to reflect a stream of thought that has infiltrated the educational system and from there the society at large, principally that of subjectivism. He then exposes the implications that this kind of subjectivism has on morals, and makes the argument for a moral system that is absolutely true, arguing in favor of an objective natural law. Making the case that human inclination and human nature is not the basis for morality, but as Plato, Aristotle and St. Augustine believed that morality must be taught by the education system, the family, and the society at large. Lewis gives an example of himself to prove this point saying that he is generally not fond of children, but understands that to be a flaw in himself due to his moral upbringing. Thus he holds to the view that morality is not subjective, but is in fact an objective system that is reflected in the worlds major religions and philosophies. This objective system of morals he refers to as the 'Tao', his own terminology for a traditional morality that synthesizes everything from Platonism to Hinduism and everything in-between. A universal and objective natural law for all humans.
This is how he sets up the book for the final chapter where he really starts digging into the book's title, The Abolition of Man, and he does it quite brilliantly by pointing out that if man continues on this Nietzschean path of conquering nature and bending it to his own will (as we are trying to do in the case of morality), he will eventually find himself losing his human nature and having that be made into whatever the leading minds of the day wish. In Lewis' own words,
“What we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.”
“Each generation exercises power over its successors: and each, in so far as it modifies the environment bequeathed to it and rebels against tradition, resists and limits the power of its predecessors. This modifies the picture which is sometimes painted of a progressive emancipation from tradition and a progressive control of natural processes resulting in a continual increase of human power. In reality, of course, if any one age really attains, by eugenics and scientific education, the power to make its descendants what it pleases, all men who live after it are the patients of that power. They are weaker, not stronger: for though we may have put wonderful machines in their hands we have pre-ordained how they are to use them.”
“We have been trying, like Lear, to have it both ways: to lay down our human prerogative and yet at the same time to retain it. It is impossible. Either we are rational spirit obliged for ever to obey the absolute values of the Tao, or else we are mere nature to be kneaded and cut into new shapes for the pleasures of masters who must, by hypothesis, have no motive but their own ‘natural’ impulses. Only the Tao provides a common human law of action which can over-arch rulers and ruled alike. A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.”
The progressive ideology uses science as a means to escape nature and to bend nature to it's will, and as technology continues to progress we continue to change our ideas of morality, the last battle will be when humanity finally overcomes humanity itself. When we release man from the jaws of natural consequences and determine for ourselves what human nature is.
“The final stage is come when Man by eugenics, by pre-natal conditioning, and by an education and propaganda based on a perfect applied psychology, has obtained full control over himself. Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to Man. The battle will then be won. We shall have ‘taken the thread of life out of the hand of Clotho’ and be henceforth free to make our species whatever we wish it to be. The battle will indeed be won. But who, precisely, will have won it?”
A very Huxleyan diagnosis of the future. We will finally be our own Gods, but as Lewis brilliantly points out, man's conquest of nature is ultimately nature's conquest of man.
“Man’s conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature’s conquest of Man. Every victory we seemed to win has led us, step by step, to this conclusion. All Nature’s apparent reverses have been but tactical withdrawals. We thought we were beating her back when she was luring us on. What looked to us like hands held up in surrender was really the opening of arms to enfold us for ever. If the fully planned and conditioned world (with its Tao a mere product of the planning) comes into existence, Nature will be troubled no more by the restive species that rose in revolt against her so many millions of years ago, will be vexed no longer by its chatter of truth and mercy and beauty and happiness. Ferum victorem cepit: and if the eugenics are efficient enough there will be no second revolt, but all snug beneath the Conditioners, and the Conditioners beneath her, till the moon falls or the sun grows cold.”
Lewis ends the book and all of these ideas with these beautiful words and warns us not to be blind,
“There are progressions in which the last step is sui generis - incommensurable with the others - and in which to go the whole way is to undo all the labour of your previous journey. To reduce the Tao to a mere natural product is a step of that kind. Up to that point, the kind of explanation which explains things away may give us something, though at a heavy cost. But you cannot go on ‘explaining away’ for ever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on ‘seeing through’ things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to ‘see through’ first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ‘see through’ all things is the same as not to see.”
August 30, 2019
After my second reading:
"Can education influence morality?" asks the back cover blurb. Of course, the musings of an Oxford don seventy years ago could not be relevant to the current state of education in America. Or, could it? For a reader already concerned about the downward spiral of the quality of our education, this book will pour fuel on the fire.
The trends Lewis warned of in the 1940s now permeate our schools--all of them. The result may be men with unimaginable power, but no moral compass by which to guide their actions.
Unlike many other Lewis books, this is not a Christian apology. In fact, he claims that all historic cultures worldwide stand in opposition to the modern, valueless approach.
Original review: This is perhaps the most challenging of Lewis's books of essays, but his thesis is clear: modern education is creating "men without chests", that is, they have brains and bowels (and other lower urges) but no heart.
"Can education influence morality?" asks the back cover blurb. Of course, the musings of an Oxford don seventy years ago could not be relevant to the current state of education in America. Or, could it? For a reader already concerned about the downward spiral of the quality of our education, this book will pour fuel on the fire.
The trends Lewis warned of in the 1940s now permeate our schools--all of them. The result may be men with unimaginable power, but no moral compass by which to guide their actions.
Unlike many other Lewis books, this is not a Christian apology. In fact, he claims that all historic cultures worldwide stand in opposition to the modern, valueless approach.
Original review: This is perhaps the most challenging of Lewis's books of essays, but his thesis is clear: modern education is creating "men without chests", that is, they have brains and bowels (and other lower urges) but no heart.
March 17, 2022
While I can't claim to have understood everything in this book, I understood enough to know that C.S. Lewis anticipated postmodernism in all its destructive power. The further you read, the more you will realize that we are living amid the abolition of man. We are now in a world that has wholeheartedly embraced debunking, denied the existence of universal values, fallen back on feelings and impulses, and thrown humanity into the pit of destruction. Isn't this pointed line from Lewis exactly what afflicts our world right now? "When all that says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains." I want, I want, I want. Lewis has nailed it. Throw universal values out, and all that's left is chasing one's misguided pleasures and following whatever impulse carries the most emotional weight at the time. Scripture would call this doing what is right in your own eyes (see the entire book of Judges) or being "slaves to various passions and pleasures" (Titus 3:3).
Along the road to describing the abolition of man, Lewis lands upon another key idea worthy of our consideration: the creation of "men without chests" (an idea based on the Platonic view of the tripartite soul). Men without chests is our ruin. The head must rule through the chest, lest the belly become king, which means we must train people (and ideally, train them when they are children) "to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likeable, disgusting and hateful." Ordo amoris. Love the right things in the right way.
(Read for the 2017 Tim Challies Christian Reading Challenge: A book written by an author with initials in their name)
Along the road to describing the abolition of man, Lewis lands upon another key idea worthy of our consideration: the creation of "men without chests" (an idea based on the Platonic view of the tripartite soul). Men without chests is our ruin. The head must rule through the chest, lest the belly become king, which means we must train people (and ideally, train them when they are children) "to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likeable, disgusting and hateful." Ordo amoris. Love the right things in the right way.
(Read for the 2017 Tim Challies Christian Reading Challenge: A book written by an author with initials in their name)
April 21, 2020
Hard to start, easy to finish.
Lewis apparently presumed his audience would be fellow academics, or at least persons educated in a common curriculum - an assumption which makes the opening pages difficult to follow. I was about 10 the first time I read this, with no background in "the well-known story of Coleridge at the waterfall" or "dulce et decorum est" (and no Internet to quickly look them up with). But over the first dozen or so pages Lewis finds his stride, and as the book's discussion moves from abstract subjectivity to "trained emotions" to morality and eugenics, that characteristic Lewisian clarity carries the reader forward.
Abolition of Man is a short book. I've read it four times now, and I'm looking forward to reading it again.
Lewis apparently presumed his audience would be fellow academics, or at least persons educated in a common curriculum - an assumption which makes the opening pages difficult to follow. I was about 10 the first time I read this, with no background in "the well-known story of Coleridge at the waterfall" or "dulce et decorum est" (and no Internet to quickly look them up with). But over the first dozen or so pages Lewis finds his stride, and as the book's discussion moves from abstract subjectivity to "trained emotions" to morality and eugenics, that characteristic Lewisian clarity carries the reader forward.
Abolition of Man is a short book. I've read it four times now, and I'm looking forward to reading it again.
March 4, 2014
The Abolition of Man is a short work but very powerful. As with everything by C. S. Lewis, we are in for reading/listening pleasure as well as education. He fills our minds with his own terms (Men Without Chests) examples taken from real life (The Green Book) and convincing arguments from literature (Faust). Can you just imagine being one of his lucky students?
Published in 1943, Abolition is more applicable today than when it was written but probably the least known of his major works. When I did a GR search of quotes, there was less for this book than for all the others. As a work written for all people, believers of whatever or no particular faith, it is a shame that this work is so largely ignored.
In Abolition, Lewis gives us a defense of objective value and natural law, and a warning of the consequences of doing away with or "debunking" those things. His concern is for what we are teaching our young people and yet he freely admits—tongue in cheek—to not being particularly fond of little children knowing the reaction this admission would arouse among some in his audience.
He warns us:
Read this back in 2001 but can't remember it. Peter Kreeft recommended it during his recent lecture on How to Win the Culture War: A Christian Battle Plan for a Society in Crisis.
Published in 1943, Abolition is more applicable today than when it was written but probably the least known of his major works. When I did a GR search of quotes, there was less for this book than for all the others. As a work written for all people, believers of whatever or no particular faith, it is a shame that this work is so largely ignored.
In Abolition, Lewis gives us a defense of objective value and natural law, and a warning of the consequences of doing away with or "debunking" those things. His concern is for what we are teaching our young people and yet he freely admits—tongue in cheek—to not being particularly fond of little children knowing the reaction this admission would arouse among some in his audience.
He warns us:
‘For the power of Man to make himself what he pleases means, as we have seen, the power of some men to make other men what they please. In all ages, no doubt, nurture and instruction have, in some sense, attempted to exercise this power. But the situation to which we must look forward will be novel in two respects. In the first place, the power will be enormously increased... the man-molders of the new age will be armed with the powers of an omnicompetent state and an irresistible scientific technique: we shall get at last a race of conditioners who really can cut out all posterity in what shape they please. The second difference is even more important. In the older systems both the kind of man the teachers wished to produce and their motives for producing him were prescribed by the Tao* — a norm to which the teachers themselves were subject and from which they claimed no liberty to depart. They did not cut men to some pattern they had chosen. They handed on what they had received: they initiated the young neophyte into the mystery of humanity which over-arched him and them alike. It was but old birds teaching young birds to fly. This will be changed. Values are now mere natural phenomena. Judgments of value are to be produced in the pupil as part of the conditioning. Whatever Tao there is will be the product, not the motive, of education. The conditioners have been emancipated from all that. It is one more part of nature which they have conquered.’ (Italics added)*Lewis says that there is a set of objective values that have been shared, with minor differences, by every culture "...the traditional moralities of East and West, the Christian, the Pagan, and the Jew...". This he calls the Tao.
Read this back in 2001 but can't remember it. Peter Kreeft recommended it during his recent lecture on How to Win the Culture War: A Christian Battle Plan for a Society in Crisis.
November 17, 2023
Es un texto corto pero algo complejo. El estilo de breve ensayo de Lewis puede ser críptico si no se desentraña bien el objeto. Lewis, en principio hace una crítica al modelo de educación de su tiempo (los años 40) en el que a través de un texto escolar de Lengua llamado El libro verde, devela las falencias del cierto conductismo con el que los autores de tal texto intentan adecuar el pensamiento del alumno. En tal método, se busca que las emociones no sean subjetivas, sino que partan de un valor absoluto del objeto (es decir, que sean parte inmanente a él y no producto de la experiencia sensible del sujeto). Allí subraya el ejemplo puesto por los autores del libro, de una historia del poeta Coleridge, en la que se encuentran dos turistas frente a unas cataratas y el primero exclama "sublimes", mientras que el segundo dice "bonitas". Coleridge mentalmente aprobó la primera impresión y despreció la segunda. Según los autores del libro escolar, normalmente confundimos lo que sentimos con lo que el objeto realmente es, es decir, que lo sublime vendría a ser un sentimiento de quién mira el objeto. Para Lewis, aunque los autores no lo hacen con el propósito claro, esto dejaría la idea de que las emociones deben evitarse ya que están por debajo de la razón. "Mi experiencia como profesor es la contraria. Por cada alumno que necesita ser protegido de un frágil exceso de sensibilidad, hay tres que necesitan ser despertados del letargo de la fria mediocridad", explica. Pero este intento de suprimir las emociones por considerarlas como un no-valor, es parte de una enorme contradicción, pues como señala Lewis, éstas serían parte de la doctrina del valor objetivo, es decir, la ley natural, el orden moral, lo que en la cultura clásica grecolatina sería lo bello, lo bueno y lo justo, la armonía en el Hinduismo, el Bien platónico, el Camino en la antigua China, la ley como lo Verdadero en el judaísmo... A todo ello el autor lo englobará como el Tao (que procede de la sabiduría de la China). Este sentido natural del bien, de lo natural, de lo moral, de lo correcto y de lo verdadero es inherente al ser humano según el autor, y no hay nada fuera de él. Considera que quienes quieren romper ese orden, aún lo hacen dentro de él. Y que toda empresa de salirse de aquello está condenada al fracaso. Por eso cree que para quien reconoce el Tao, el objetivo es el de inculcar en el alumno que aquellas respuestas son adecuadas y desarrollar la verdadera consistencia de la naturaleza humana. Pero también señala que ninguna justificación de virtud convierte al hombre en virtuoso. Para ello debe haber una concordancia entre razón, emoción/corazón e instinto. El corazón sería la intermediaria entre la razón y el instinto. Para el autor, lo que pretendería tal tipo de educación como el Libro verde, sería la de producir Hombres sin Corazón. Y así es como se llama el primer capítulo de este libro. "Hacemos hombres sin corazón y esperamos de ellos virtud e iniciativa".
En el segundo capítulo, El camino, habla sobre la existencia de los valores subjetivos, y de cómo los autores del Libro verde serían una muestra de una corriente que menoscaba los valores tradicionales pero sus valores propios son inmunes s tal descrédito. "Proclaman estar cortando con el desarrollo del sentimiento, de la aquiescencia religiosa y de los tabúes heredados con el fin de que los valores 'reales' o 'fundamentales' puedan salir a flote". Aquí hace una disquisición sobre si el sacrificarse por el bien común es un deber del sujeto. Esto en el tema de patriotismo o de la muerte por una causa justa, que pone Lewis de ejemplo. Los innovadores (representados por los autores del Libro verde) como los llama el autor, negarán este valor por ser tradicional y romántico, pero no real ni aplicable. Para ellos, el egoísmo es más racional que el altruismo. Pero Lewis incluye la razón práctica como solución. Es un "la sociedad debe ser protegida" y no un imperativo de sacrificio individual. Este principio del Tao tratará de ser eludido bajo la muletilla del instinto. Pero el instinto es parte de la Razón práctica: el preservar la especie, la razón por lo que los hombres trabajan para la posteridad. El sacrificar su propia vida por sus congéneres podría ser considerado un impulso irreflexivo. Pero, decir que obedezcamos a los instintos es complicado, porque estos son variopintos y están en conflicto entre sí (preservación de la especie vs. autoconservación). Por ello es que nos aferramos a palabras baldías, según el autor, como "instinto básico o primario". Pero para él esta discusión es estéril, puesto que no podría asegurar si existe tal instinto de preservar la especie o preocuparse por la posteridad, y si este es el más fuerte. No se podría atribuir al instinto o a un impulso irreflexivo el hacer algo por la posteridad, pues ello parte de una idea reflexiva. Los seres humanos pasamos del terreno del instinto (protección maternal y paternal) al de la elección y reflexión. Por lo tanto, la preocupación por el futuro y el mantenimiento de la especie, no provienen del instinto sino de la razón fundamental, y esta es la base del Tao. Por ello es que Lewis considera que los innovadores se contradicen en este punto al dar a la vez valor y menosprecio al instinto. Para el innovador el Tao representa los valores tradicionales que hay que abolir para instaurar los valores racionales o biológicos. He ahí la contradicción. Pero todos los valores que ataca o que usa de partida provienen del Tao. Al juntar las morales tradicionales de Oriente y Occidente, la cristiana, la pagana y la judía, el autor admite que hay muchas contradicciones entre ellas, pero que su operación de corrección parte desde adentro, es decir es orgánica (pues conoce y práctica sus fundamentos) y no es quirúrgica (desde afuera, como harían los innovadores). Aquí el autor hace una aclaración: no intenta argumentar a favor del teísmo ni del cristianismo (siendo teísta y cristiano), sino que aboga por la aceptación de los principios de la Razón Práctica, más allá de su origen sobrenatural. Es decir, tomar al Tao como "el reflejo en las mentes de nuestros antepasados del ritmo que la agricultura imponía en sus vidas o, incluso, de su fisiología". Ahora sabemos cómo se producen esos fenómenos, pero antes no lo sabíamos, y los aceptábamos incluso como amos. Pronto seremos capaces de reproducirlos a voluntad, con lo que, así como los objetos de la naturaleza pasaron de ser nuestros amos a ser nuestros esclavos, el mismo hombre al convertirse en objeto por el cientificismo podría convertirse en nuestro esclavo.
Y de esto último va el tercer capítulo, La abolición del hombre. Aquí parte de la contracepción: las generaciones venideras son objeto de un poder que ejercen sobre ellas los que aún viven. Una generación a la que se le impide vivir, sin elección. Esto plantea Lewis. "El poder del hombre sobre la naturaleza se devela como el poder ejercido por algunos hombres sobre otros con la Naturaleza como instrumento ". Pero, esta cuestión específica la deja ahí, pues a Lewis no le interesa indagar (aunque cree que debería hacerse) sobre ese tema y se va hacia la idea más general de "el poder de unos hombres sobre otros". Cada generación ejerce un poder sobre sus sucesores y cada generación limita y se rebela contra la tradición y el poder de sus predecesores. Aquí Lewis se pone algo distópico y profético: a través de la eugenesia y la ciencia el hombre podría realizar en sus descendientes lo que deseara, pero serían más débiles, "pues aunque hayamos puesto maquinaria útil en sus manos, habremos prefijado cómo se debe usar". Esto parecería predecir la situación actual con los avances tecnológicos en el tema comunicacional, digital, virtual e inteligencia artificial. Para Lewis, cada generación venidera tendrá menos poder sobre el futuro que la anterior pues estará determinada por la que le precedió. "La conquista de la Naturaleza, si se cumple el sueño de ciertos científicos planificadores, resultará ser el proyecto de algunos cientos de hombres sobre miles de millones de ellos(...)Todo poder conquistado por el hombre es también un poder ejercido sobre el hombre". Esta hipótesis que tiene una lógica sólida, sin embargo, puede ser debatida en cierta medida actualmente tomando en cuenta la velocidad del avance de la ciencia y sobre todo de la tecnología, que hacen que la propia generación actual deje atrás a la generación predecesora que no anticipó la velocidad de cambio que iba a tener esta generación de los últimos años, y que por lo tanto no estaría en tanta dependencia de lo que la generación anterior planificó para ella. Con todo, filosóficamente es un planteamiento interesante el de Lewis: la naturaleza humana como último eslabón de la Naturaleza que caerá ante el hombre. "Y en ese momento habrá ganado la batalla". Y ganar esa batalla es a la vez, perderla. Esa es la abolición del hombre. Claro que para Lewis esto se podría alcanzar mediante la eugenesia, la manipulación prenatal, la propaganda basada en la psicología aplicada, lo cual lograría un completo control del hombre sobre sí mismo. Pero obviamente no podía saber que también la inteligencia artificial se podría sumar a este combo... Para Lewis, el apartarse del Tao hace que el hombre pierda su fundamento, solo se rija por el apetito y deje de ser hombre para convertirse en artefacto (esto es un futuro hipotético planteado por Lewis). Al ser artefacto puede ser conquistado, por lo que la conquista final del hombre es la abolición del hombre. El exceso de cientificismo, el convertir al hombre en su propio objeto de estudio lo convierte en un objeto natural, en materia prima. Un proceso de deshumanización. Para Lewis la solución a esto es el Tao, seguir una ley humana de actuación común a todos. El Tao propone autocontrol individual, fuera de el Tao, el sujeto es una abstracción universal. Esto es el post-humanismo para Lewis.
En el segundo capítulo, El camino, habla sobre la existencia de los valores subjetivos, y de cómo los autores del Libro verde serían una muestra de una corriente que menoscaba los valores tradicionales pero sus valores propios son inmunes s tal descrédito. "Proclaman estar cortando con el desarrollo del sentimiento, de la aquiescencia religiosa y de los tabúes heredados con el fin de que los valores 'reales' o 'fundamentales' puedan salir a flote". Aquí hace una disquisición sobre si el sacrificarse por el bien común es un deber del sujeto. Esto en el tema de patriotismo o de la muerte por una causa justa, que pone Lewis de ejemplo. Los innovadores (representados por los autores del Libro verde) como los llama el autor, negarán este valor por ser tradicional y romántico, pero no real ni aplicable. Para ellos, el egoísmo es más racional que el altruismo. Pero Lewis incluye la razón práctica como solución. Es un "la sociedad debe ser protegida" y no un imperativo de sacrificio individual. Este principio del Tao tratará de ser eludido bajo la muletilla del instinto. Pero el instinto es parte de la Razón práctica: el preservar la especie, la razón por lo que los hombres trabajan para la posteridad. El sacrificar su propia vida por sus congéneres podría ser considerado un impulso irreflexivo. Pero, decir que obedezcamos a los instintos es complicado, porque estos son variopintos y están en conflicto entre sí (preservación de la especie vs. autoconservación). Por ello es que nos aferramos a palabras baldías, según el autor, como "instinto básico o primario". Pero para él esta discusión es estéril, puesto que no podría asegurar si existe tal instinto de preservar la especie o preocuparse por la posteridad, y si este es el más fuerte. No se podría atribuir al instinto o a un impulso irreflexivo el hacer algo por la posteridad, pues ello parte de una idea reflexiva. Los seres humanos pasamos del terreno del instinto (protección maternal y paternal) al de la elección y reflexión. Por lo tanto, la preocupación por el futuro y el mantenimiento de la especie, no provienen del instinto sino de la razón fundamental, y esta es la base del Tao. Por ello es que Lewis considera que los innovadores se contradicen en este punto al dar a la vez valor y menosprecio al instinto. Para el innovador el Tao representa los valores tradicionales que hay que abolir para instaurar los valores racionales o biológicos. He ahí la contradicción. Pero todos los valores que ataca o que usa de partida provienen del Tao. Al juntar las morales tradicionales de Oriente y Occidente, la cristiana, la pagana y la judía, el autor admite que hay muchas contradicciones entre ellas, pero que su operación de corrección parte desde adentro, es decir es orgánica (pues conoce y práctica sus fundamentos) y no es quirúrgica (desde afuera, como harían los innovadores). Aquí el autor hace una aclaración: no intenta argumentar a favor del teísmo ni del cristianismo (siendo teísta y cristiano), sino que aboga por la aceptación de los principios de la Razón Práctica, más allá de su origen sobrenatural. Es decir, tomar al Tao como "el reflejo en las mentes de nuestros antepasados del ritmo que la agricultura imponía en sus vidas o, incluso, de su fisiología". Ahora sabemos cómo se producen esos fenómenos, pero antes no lo sabíamos, y los aceptábamos incluso como amos. Pronto seremos capaces de reproducirlos a voluntad, con lo que, así como los objetos de la naturaleza pasaron de ser nuestros amos a ser nuestros esclavos, el mismo hombre al convertirse en objeto por el cientificismo podría convertirse en nuestro esclavo.
Y de esto último va el tercer capítulo, La abolición del hombre. Aquí parte de la contracepción: las generaciones venideras son objeto de un poder que ejercen sobre ellas los que aún viven. Una generación a la que se le impide vivir, sin elección. Esto plantea Lewis. "El poder del hombre sobre la naturaleza se devela como el poder ejercido por algunos hombres sobre otros con la Naturaleza como instrumento ". Pero, esta cuestión específica la deja ahí, pues a Lewis no le interesa indagar (aunque cree que debería hacerse) sobre ese tema y se va hacia la idea más general de "el poder de unos hombres sobre otros". Cada generación ejerce un poder sobre sus sucesores y cada generación limita y se rebela contra la tradición y el poder de sus predecesores. Aquí Lewis se pone algo distópico y profético: a través de la eugenesia y la ciencia el hombre podría realizar en sus descendientes lo que deseara, pero serían más débiles, "pues aunque hayamos puesto maquinaria útil en sus manos, habremos prefijado cómo se debe usar". Esto parecería predecir la situación actual con los avances tecnológicos en el tema comunicacional, digital, virtual e inteligencia artificial. Para Lewis, cada generación venidera tendrá menos poder sobre el futuro que la anterior pues estará determinada por la que le precedió. "La conquista de la Naturaleza, si se cumple el sueño de ciertos científicos planificadores, resultará ser el proyecto de algunos cientos de hombres sobre miles de millones de ellos(...)Todo poder conquistado por el hombre es también un poder ejercido sobre el hombre". Esta hipótesis que tiene una lógica sólida, sin embargo, puede ser debatida en cierta medida actualmente tomando en cuenta la velocidad del avance de la ciencia y sobre todo de la tecnología, que hacen que la propia generación actual deje atrás a la generación predecesora que no anticipó la velocidad de cambio que iba a tener esta generación de los últimos años, y que por lo tanto no estaría en tanta dependencia de lo que la generación anterior planificó para ella. Con todo, filosóficamente es un planteamiento interesante el de Lewis: la naturaleza humana como último eslabón de la Naturaleza que caerá ante el hombre. "Y en ese momento habrá ganado la batalla". Y ganar esa batalla es a la vez, perderla. Esa es la abolición del hombre. Claro que para Lewis esto se podría alcanzar mediante la eugenesia, la manipulación prenatal, la propaganda basada en la psicología aplicada, lo cual lograría un completo control del hombre sobre sí mismo. Pero obviamente no podía saber que también la inteligencia artificial se podría sumar a este combo... Para Lewis, el apartarse del Tao hace que el hombre pierda su fundamento, solo se rija por el apetito y deje de ser hombre para convertirse en artefacto (esto es un futuro hipotético planteado por Lewis). Al ser artefacto puede ser conquistado, por lo que la conquista final del hombre es la abolición del hombre. El exceso de cientificismo, el convertir al hombre en su propio objeto de estudio lo convierte en un objeto natural, en materia prima. Un proceso de deshumanización. Para Lewis la solución a esto es el Tao, seguir una ley humana de actuación común a todos. El Tao propone autocontrol individual, fuera de el Tao, el sujeto es una abstracción universal. Esto es el post-humanismo para Lewis.
May 2, 2022
2022: Added a star this reading. I still find it quite challenging.
2020: I didn't factor how difficult I would find C.S. Lewis to sometimes be.
I first listened to this book as I walked. Bad idea. It ricocheted off my brain. I read the words. I listened and read together. Finally, I watched the book/listened to audio with CSLewisDoodle on You Tube. It truly improved with each excursion, and by improving I mean my understanding inched forward.
One thing about C.S. Lewis: his ideas are as relevant now as they were in 1944.
In short, I want to give this five stars; alas, in order to love it, I feel I should get it.
I certainly want to take another go at this in the future.
2020: I didn't factor how difficult I would find C.S. Lewis to sometimes be.
I first listened to this book as I walked. Bad idea. It ricocheted off my brain. I read the words. I listened and read together. Finally, I watched the book/listened to audio with CSLewisDoodle on You Tube. It truly improved with each excursion, and by improving I mean my understanding inched forward.
One thing about C.S. Lewis: his ideas are as relevant now as they were in 1944.
In short, I want to give this five stars; alas, in order to love it, I feel I should get it.
I certainly want to take another go at this in the future.
August 22, 2019
Lewis tries to argue that human nature will change for the worse the more rationalist we become. I believe that on closer examination, what worries him isn't that human nature might change in the future. It's that human nature may not have been what he wanted it to be in his present. Lewis is an intelligent man, but he makes the same mistake that so many people make; he tries to fit science and theory to a preconceived truth. He doesn't have a question, and then try to answer it. He doesn't have a premise, and then try to disprove it. One can only conclude that Lewis doesn't understand science, or that this is a cleverly hidden piece of religious propaganda.
May 14, 2021
Lewis makes many excellent points in this book, the most notable being that absolute truth is not merely a social construct that can be dismissed on a whim. To deny absolute truth is to deny the very framework of existence.
At the same time, though, I was very confused while I was reading and had to backtrack and reread several times to grasp Lewis’s point. I found the writing and presentation of arguments to be fairly convoluted. This definitely merits a reread in the future.
At the same time, though, I was very confused while I was reading and had to backtrack and reread several times to grasp Lewis’s point. I found the writing and presentation of arguments to be fairly convoluted. This definitely merits a reread in the future.
December 2, 2021
I have read this before and appreciated it. Reading it as a mom, the wife of a high school administrator, a homeschool parent and a perpetual student of Lewis, it was utterly profound for me this time. I think that this has become my very favorite of Lewis's philosophical reflections or social commentaries. The third reflection about science was particularly compelling.
January 14, 2024
Somehow he manages (several decades in the past) to touch on the heart of our post-modern hollowing out of persons, of education, of ethics, of society.
This book indirectly supports the need for the virtue inherit in classical education, or at least something comparable that nourishes the whole person - and not the intellect devoid of virtue that we see the rotten fruit of.
I also see threads connected to the rigorously humane ethics required in our hell-bent drive toward "power over nature" (other people) in technological innovation and medical practice (currently with AI in all forms, artificial girlfriends, rampant pornography, discarding the most fragile of humans at the beginning and end of life, MAID, frozen IVF embryos, genetic selection, surrogacy, transgender surgery, not to mention the worst parts of the sexual revolution sparked by contraceptive technology, whatever your view of that.)
I find it *fascinating* that his Space Trilogy novels are the Abolition of Man in fictional form.
——————
“In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”
“No justification of virtue will enable a man to be virtuous. Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism. I had sooner play cards against a man who was quite skeptical about ethics, but bred to believe that ‘a gentleman does not cheat’, than against an irreproachable moral philosopher who had been brought up among sharpers.”
This book indirectly supports the need for the virtue inherit in classical education, or at least something comparable that nourishes the whole person - and not the intellect devoid of virtue that we see the rotten fruit of.
I also see threads connected to the rigorously humane ethics required in our hell-bent drive toward "power over nature" (other people) in technological innovation and medical practice (currently with AI in all forms, artificial girlfriends, rampant pornography, discarding the most fragile of humans at the beginning and end of life, MAID, frozen IVF embryos, genetic selection, surrogacy, transgender surgery, not to mention the worst parts of the sexual revolution sparked by contraceptive technology, whatever your view of that.)
I find it *fascinating* that his Space Trilogy novels are the Abolition of Man in fictional form.
——————
“In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”
“No justification of virtue will enable a man to be virtuous. Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism. I had sooner play cards against a man who was quite skeptical about ethics, but bred to believe that ‘a gentleman does not cheat’, than against an irreproachable moral philosopher who had been brought up among sharpers.”
May 26, 2023
Lewis is a genius. He attacks head on the idea that humans can either be all reason or all emotion. He makes a strong case that the head and the appetite both are inadequate for making good choices in life. Those faculties must be used and connected to each other by something that creates value and makes life beautiful.
It has been called one of the most important books of this era and implied that this book might be needed to save civilization. While it is a brilliant defense of the Tao or truth/beauty as existent and findable things, I’m afraid that most people would find the denseness to be beyond their attention spans. It is not long and the core is quite neatly centered around the core concept of foundational truths, but—maybe mercifully so—most people will never even ask these questions that he answers. I will read this again.
It has been called one of the most important books of this era and implied that this book might be needed to save civilization. While it is a brilliant defense of the Tao or truth/beauty as existent and findable things, I’m afraid that most people would find the denseness to be beyond their attention spans. It is not long and the core is quite neatly centered around the core concept of foundational truths, but—maybe mercifully so—most people will never even ask these questions that he answers. I will read this again.
November 1, 2022
An excellent essay on the dangers of the word 'only,’ how neglecting the ‘ought’ for the sake of the ‘is’ distorts the ‘is’ and gives us men without chests.
November 16, 2020
Wow, this was deep! I feel like I grasped what Lewis was saying with my heart, but my head is still whirling! 😂 This is something I'll probably need to read at least a couple of times before I could write a proper review.
April 26, 2023
This is one of those books that get better every time I read it.
I think I'm just now realizing how foundational it has been to my thinking.
I think I'm just now realizing how foundational it has been to my thinking.
February 8, 2021
This, my friend, is a book that you should memorize to your bones. Read the quotes on the Goodreads directory if you don't have time to read it. I'm giving you one for starters.
“We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”
“We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”
December 12, 2024
― “For every one pupil who needs to be guarded against a weak excess of sensibility there are three who need to be awakened from the slumber of cold vulgarity. The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts. The right defence against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments. By starving the sensibility of our pupils, we only make them easier prey to the propagandist when he comes. For famished nature will be avenged and a hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
C.S. Lewis was a British writer, scholar, and lay theologian. He held academic positions in English literature at both Oxford and Cambridge. Lewis is one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably one of the most influential writers of his day. He is best known for writing The Chronicles of Narnia, he wrote more than thirty other works of fiction and non-fiction. A bold defender of the Christian faith, Lewis was outspoken about the essentials of the Christian faith (e.g. the deity of Christ, the truth of the Gospels) which he famously called “Mere Christianity.” In his book by that title, Lewis defends Christianity and addresses the objections to it.
While C.S. Lewis was a staunch defender of the Christian faith, The Abolition of Man is not explicitly Christian. The book, originally a series of three lectures he gave in 1943, addresses the issue of moral relativism. It was inspired by a textbook on English that Lewis was sent for review. While reading the textbook, Lewis came across something he found disturbing. The authors were not only teaching critical reading and writing, they were also imparting a subtle but deadly philosophy: that there are no objective values.
Moral relativism remains a serious problem in our culture that is only getting worse. It argues that there are no universal or absolute set of moral principles and that moral values are relative to cultural norms. Today, you will find many who believe that truth is whatever is true for you. That leads to claims such as “That may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.”
Sadly, moral relativism has even crept into the church, in part because it has subtly become part of our culture. Twenty-five years ago, I attended a church that went through Josh McDowell’s book Truth Matters. McDowell was sufficiently concerned about what he saw in our culture that he sought to convey to Christians the foundational truths about God, his Word, sin, and Christ that form the bedrock of the Christian faith. His book (and workbooks) provided compelling evidence to support these truths and demonstrated how each of these truths provides relevant answers to real-world problems.
This is clearly a book I need to read again (probably several times). It is a short book (just 113 pages) that I was able to read in approximately two hours. I found the thoughts Lewis conveyed are not necessarily easy to digest. I suspect that additional readings will help me to have a better grasp of his points. That seems to be the message conveyed by other readers.
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
C.S. Lewis was a British writer, scholar, and lay theologian. He held academic positions in English literature at both Oxford and Cambridge. Lewis is one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably one of the most influential writers of his day. He is best known for writing The Chronicles of Narnia, he wrote more than thirty other works of fiction and non-fiction. A bold defender of the Christian faith, Lewis was outspoken about the essentials of the Christian faith (e.g. the deity of Christ, the truth of the Gospels) which he famously called “Mere Christianity.” In his book by that title, Lewis defends Christianity and addresses the objections to it.
While C.S. Lewis was a staunch defender of the Christian faith, The Abolition of Man is not explicitly Christian. The book, originally a series of three lectures he gave in 1943, addresses the issue of moral relativism. It was inspired by a textbook on English that Lewis was sent for review. While reading the textbook, Lewis came across something he found disturbing. The authors were not only teaching critical reading and writing, they were also imparting a subtle but deadly philosophy: that there are no objective values.
Moral relativism remains a serious problem in our culture that is only getting worse. It argues that there are no universal or absolute set of moral principles and that moral values are relative to cultural norms. Today, you will find many who believe that truth is whatever is true for you. That leads to claims such as “That may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.”
Sadly, moral relativism has even crept into the church, in part because it has subtly become part of our culture. Twenty-five years ago, I attended a church that went through Josh McDowell’s book Truth Matters. McDowell was sufficiently concerned about what he saw in our culture that he sought to convey to Christians the foundational truths about God, his Word, sin, and Christ that form the bedrock of the Christian faith. His book (and workbooks) provided compelling evidence to support these truths and demonstrated how each of these truths provides relevant answers to real-world problems.
This is clearly a book I need to read again (probably several times). It is a short book (just 113 pages) that I was able to read in approximately two hours. I found the thoughts Lewis conveyed are not necessarily easy to digest. I suspect that additional readings will help me to have a better grasp of his points. That seems to be the message conveyed by other readers.
January 14, 2023
8/10.
What is abolishing man? What is causing not only the masses, but even the cultural "leaders" themselves, to become utterly lost in a morass of words and irresponsibility? Where have standards gone? Where has the Good gone? And does anyone know what the word "duty" means anymore?
The above cultural assaults have been attacking objectivity, specifically the objectivity of language and morality. First, it is claimed that my words have no connection to the objective world, especially in relation to moral matters. If I call something "good" or "honorable", that is only my subjective opinion. When this belief is generalized to society, there can be no possible cohesiveness. All pursue their own ends, and no one can tell anyone what they should do. Therefore, with a lack of the "ought" in life, everyone proceeds to not pursue goals based on thought and duty, but instead due to instinct. Thus their emotional desires overwhelm them, and then drive them to the basest pleasures: porn, junk food, soda, weed, and booze.
When language is subjectivized, all of our cultural heritage goes in the muck. Plato thought this, Aristotle that, and Kant the other. But who cares, as those thoughts were just their opinions. Do you see why the vast majority of Generation Z lacks drive and motivation today? If objective truth is denied, all meaning in life is denied. There is no Good to pursue, nor Evil to avoid. There is just a massive blank slate world, and I can do anything in such a world. But how do I choose what to do? I cannot choose, because there is no means of choice, as there is no Good and Evil. There is only what I want. And if I like cookies, Coke, cocaine, and the L.A. Chargers, then those become my "values".
When all values are subjectivized, the only values become comfort and economic progress. These are said to be "good" in and of themselves. They are said to make people "happy", despite the fact that 1/3 of our populace is swallowing pharmaceutical pills day after day because they are not "happy". So economic progress is pursued and the attempt is made to conquer Nature — to conquer hunger, death, and poverty. These are said to be solvable.
This is the professed end of our cultural "leaders". What is the end state of their goal? It is the complete knowledge of not only how to manipulate all things, but to also manipulate all humans as well. For they tell us that a human is within the natural order, just as much as a centipede is. Once humans can be modified at will through genetic engineering, neuronal control, and environmental conditioning, the question becomes: how should we modify them?
The answer is usually said to be that we shall "maximize their happiness". But this cannot be justified with their own morality. For if all is subjective but comfort and material pleasure, then there is no Good nor Evil. Therefore there are no values to lead such human modifiers. Furthermore, because these people have zero spiritual values, their values can only come from a natural human Being (our constitution) itself. But if the constitution of humans is infinitely modifiable by their own technologies, then no values can be derived from a human nature, as they will have destroyed it. Therefore, the techno-utopians have no other values but the whims of their emotions. We are the plaything of the lowliest desires.
To conclude, the subjectivization of morality leads to nihilism in thought and action. It destroys the willpower of all thinking beings. The only answer is to accept the fact that there is an objective Good to be pursued, given the nature of man. When one nears the Good, one rejoices in the exercise of the virtues. From this exercise, happiness is derived. Therefore, one must not chase happiness, but instead virtue. The only other path is listless and depressive nihilism.
What is abolishing man? What is causing not only the masses, but even the cultural "leaders" themselves, to become utterly lost in a morass of words and irresponsibility? Where have standards gone? Where has the Good gone? And does anyone know what the word "duty" means anymore?
The above cultural assaults have been attacking objectivity, specifically the objectivity of language and morality. First, it is claimed that my words have no connection to the objective world, especially in relation to moral matters. If I call something "good" or "honorable", that is only my subjective opinion. When this belief is generalized to society, there can be no possible cohesiveness. All pursue their own ends, and no one can tell anyone what they should do. Therefore, with a lack of the "ought" in life, everyone proceeds to not pursue goals based on thought and duty, but instead due to instinct. Thus their emotional desires overwhelm them, and then drive them to the basest pleasures: porn, junk food, soda, weed, and booze.
When language is subjectivized, all of our cultural heritage goes in the muck. Plato thought this, Aristotle that, and Kant the other. But who cares, as those thoughts were just their opinions. Do you see why the vast majority of Generation Z lacks drive and motivation today? If objective truth is denied, all meaning in life is denied. There is no Good to pursue, nor Evil to avoid. There is just a massive blank slate world, and I can do anything in such a world. But how do I choose what to do? I cannot choose, because there is no means of choice, as there is no Good and Evil. There is only what I want. And if I like cookies, Coke, cocaine, and the L.A. Chargers, then those become my "values".
When all values are subjectivized, the only values become comfort and economic progress. These are said to be "good" in and of themselves. They are said to make people "happy", despite the fact that 1/3 of our populace is swallowing pharmaceutical pills day after day because they are not "happy". So economic progress is pursued and the attempt is made to conquer Nature — to conquer hunger, death, and poverty. These are said to be solvable.
This is the professed end of our cultural "leaders". What is the end state of their goal? It is the complete knowledge of not only how to manipulate all things, but to also manipulate all humans as well. For they tell us that a human is within the natural order, just as much as a centipede is. Once humans can be modified at will through genetic engineering, neuronal control, and environmental conditioning, the question becomes: how should we modify them?
The answer is usually said to be that we shall "maximize their happiness". But this cannot be justified with their own morality. For if all is subjective but comfort and material pleasure, then there is no Good nor Evil. Therefore there are no values to lead such human modifiers. Furthermore, because these people have zero spiritual values, their values can only come from a natural human Being (our constitution) itself. But if the constitution of humans is infinitely modifiable by their own technologies, then no values can be derived from a human nature, as they will have destroyed it. Therefore, the techno-utopians have no other values but the whims of their emotions. We are the plaything of the lowliest desires.
To conclude, the subjectivization of morality leads to nihilism in thought and action. It destroys the willpower of all thinking beings. The only answer is to accept the fact that there is an objective Good to be pursued, given the nature of man. When one nears the Good, one rejoices in the exercise of the virtues. From this exercise, happiness is derived. Therefore, one must not chase happiness, but instead virtue. The only other path is listless and depressive nihilism.
January 24, 2024
Second time reading, but it felt like my first. I don't think it's dramatic to say The Abolition of Man is more relevant today than it was back when Lewis wrote it.
From his crushing critique of (then) modern education, to his robust arguments for objective value and the inevitable deterioration of mankind by a post-modern morally subjective worldview.
From his crushing critique of (then) modern education, to his robust arguments for objective value and the inevitable deterioration of mankind by a post-modern morally subjective worldview.
April 24, 2010
In the Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis confronts the modern attempt to overthrow the “doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.” As such, it is a book that should be of interest to any adherent of any traditional religion.
Though Lewis is a Christian, he does not take a specifically Christian approach in this book; instead, he uses logical and moral reasoning to attack moral relativism, appealing to an “objective value” he calls, for convenience, the Tao, though others may call it “Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes.” He debunks two different but equally popular modern ideas: (1) that it is possible to formulate any real values outside the Tao and (2) that we do not need any value system whatsoever.
The Tao, argues Lewis, “is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgment of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or…ideologies…all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they posses.”
Lewis goes onto warn of the consequences that will follow if the Tao is denied. ”The Conditioners, then, are to choose what kind of artificial Tao they will, for their own good reasons, produce in the Human race. They are the motivators, the creators of motives. But how are they going to be motivated themselves?” Either there are absolute values, “or else we are mere nature to be kneaded and cut into new shapes for the pleasures of masters who must, by hypothesis, have no motive but their own ‘natural’ impulses. Only the Tao provides a common human law of action which can over-arch rulers and ruled alike. A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny.”
The Abolition of Man is also a book about modern education, about the ways in which educators implant assumptions of moral relativism and anti-sentimentality into the minds of pupils, thus removing the “organ” of emotion that prompts virtuous behavior. "No justification of virtue,” writes Lewis, “will enable a man to be virtuous. Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism.”
It’s not always an easy book to follow, but it is rewarding if one is patient. The appendix, where he quotes a variety of sources from different religions and cultures to catalogue certain common values, is interesting.
Though Lewis is a Christian, he does not take a specifically Christian approach in this book; instead, he uses logical and moral reasoning to attack moral relativism, appealing to an “objective value” he calls, for convenience, the Tao, though others may call it “Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes.” He debunks two different but equally popular modern ideas: (1) that it is possible to formulate any real values outside the Tao and (2) that we do not need any value system whatsoever.
The Tao, argues Lewis, “is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgment of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or…ideologies…all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they posses.”
Lewis goes onto warn of the consequences that will follow if the Tao is denied. ”The Conditioners, then, are to choose what kind of artificial Tao they will, for their own good reasons, produce in the Human race. They are the motivators, the creators of motives. But how are they going to be motivated themselves?” Either there are absolute values, “or else we are mere nature to be kneaded and cut into new shapes for the pleasures of masters who must, by hypothesis, have no motive but their own ‘natural’ impulses. Only the Tao provides a common human law of action which can over-arch rulers and ruled alike. A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny.”
The Abolition of Man is also a book about modern education, about the ways in which educators implant assumptions of moral relativism and anti-sentimentality into the minds of pupils, thus removing the “organ” of emotion that prompts virtuous behavior. "No justification of virtue,” writes Lewis, “will enable a man to be virtuous. Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism.”
It’s not always an easy book to follow, but it is rewarding if one is patient. The appendix, where he quotes a variety of sources from different religions and cultures to catalogue certain common values, is interesting.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 3,053 reviews