Kyle Worlitz's Reviews > The Abolition of Man
The Abolition of Man
by
by
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.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Abolition of Man.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
August 4, 2011
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-14 of 14 (14 new)
date
newest »
"In order to avoid misunderstanding, I may add that though I myself am a Theist, and indeed a Christian, I am not here attempting any indirect argument for Theism. I am simply arguing that if we are to have values at all we must accept the ultimate platitudes of Practical Reason as having absolute validity: that any attempt, having become sceptical about these, to reintroduce value lower down on somesupposedly more 'realistic' basis, is doomed. Whether this position implies a supernatural origin for the "Tao" is a question I am not here concerned" (pp. 49-50).
Also, when Lewis writes about the "Tao" what he means is: "It is 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" (p. 18).
Modern neuroscience puts to rest many of his claims. It’s just dated.
"Just for the record the first two people that bizarrely implied I didn’t understand the are obviously religious by their reading lists"
Are you surprised to find Christians defending a book written by a Christian? Is this supposed to be an uncovering of some conspiracy against you?
"Also, find me a Christian apologetics program that doesn’t involve reading this book."
No one so far, it seems to me, has attempted to deceive you in this regard. Pointing out that a philosophical argument by a Christian was in fact rooted in Christian beliefs doesn't in itself prove the argument to be false or even dishonest.
"What even is a person’s soul? That’s highly subjective in of itself."
You are literally demonstrating the exact type of thinking that Lewis was arguing is flawed and you don't appear to realize it.
"It’s reactionary philosophy that hasn’t stood up well over the years."
All you are describing here is the fact that the beliefs Lewis was arguing against became more prevalent. That isn't an argument for or against anything he said let alone for the idea that it is "reactionary".
1. Try to understand what author wished to do & do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.
2. Give enough direct quotation...
3. Confirm your description w/ quotation...
4. Go easy on plot sum...
5. ...Try to understand failure. Sure it's his & not yours?
He doesn't argue that at all. He argues that human nature will change if we take will for the basis of our actions as opposed to the natural law.
And the book isn't even religious. It is just philosophy written by a religious man.
And he talks of science as a tool that will be used by will or the natural law and he implies that pure will as a basis of our actions will not be something most would wish for.
Lacking comprehension skills.