books:

	The Abolition of Man C. S. Lewis HarperOne, 2001 - 128 pages average customer review:based on 83 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

for more information click here

Although its terseness makes it unsuitable for beginners, it would be possible to work up to it; either via Lewis's 'Mere Christianity', Book I, and Book III, parts 1-5 (a total of about 40 pages); and then the two essays from his book 'Christian Reflections', entitled 'On Ethics' and 'The Poison of Subjectivism' (total 25 pages). Or read Plato's 'Republic', Bks. 1-4, avoiding the old Jowett translation. (Kantians could limber up with 'Plato's Modern Enemies and the Theory of Natural Law', by John Wild.)

SYNOPSIS: Chapter 1: Men Without Chests
The first 7 pages are discursive and, read once, may be skipped thereafter (rather like Book 1 of Plato's 'Republic'). They famously and confusingly deal with the link between objective aesthetics and emotive reactions to 'Nature'. It is not for Philosophy 101 students, reactions ranging from: 'What--who cares?--it's only opinion', to 'How is this relevant?'. Read the 'Republic', Bks. 1-4 until mastered.

The dogs of war are unleashed in the next 6 pages, from the paragraph opening:

'Until quite modern times all teachers and even all men
believed the universe to be such that certain emotional reactions
on our part could be either congruous or incongruous to it...'

We then race through Coleridge and Shelley's 'just' and 'ordinate' reaction to beauty in Nature; Augustine's on 'virtue as ordo amoris, the ordinate condition of the affections'; Aristotle and Plato on education (beauty and ethics); Rta and satya in early Hinduism; Tao (pronounced "Dao") in the Analects; and the Law (of the Lord) of the Hebrews. [Compare ancient Egyptian Maat.]. This is the universal 'doctrine of objective value'. To not know it is to invite the separation of fact and value, as all sentiments (emotional habits) are made purely subjective and even non-rational. Plato's tripartite model of Man: the Rational element rules the Appetites via the Sentiments (Spirited Element): 'The head rules the belly through the chest...The Chest--Magnanimity-- Sentiment--these are the indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal.' To deny this model is to produce Men Without Chests.

Chapter 2: The Way
Even Subjectivists have objective values. The fact that they act at all, even to propagate their own point of view, proves that they hold some real values. Calling values 'progressive' is subterfuge: progressing to what, and why? Modern ideologies isolate an element of morality, exaggerate its importance, and suppress others. Eg, communist States supposedly feed everyone fairly-but crush individuality, freedom, truth, and creativity if it helps.

We cannot get a moral basis for human action from reasoning with facts alone--no deducing an 'ought' from an 'is'. This does not debunk moral reasoning: it merely proves that there must be Moral Axioms to start from, as there axioms in logic. Plato and the Stoics called this basic morality Natural Law, the other cultures by their synonyms. Lewis chooses the term the 'Tao' for brevity and neutrality. Scientific objections: morality is Instinct--but if two instincts clash how will you know which to obey? There is no Master instinct. The great civilizations all agree in this: so much for sociological relativism. Moral progress within the tradition of the Tao is possible: Paul the Pharisee, 'perfect as touching the Law', yet he saw its limits.

Chapter 3: The Abolition of Man
The 'Brave New World' scenario: if we cede final and total socio-psychological control to technocrat master-politicians even the few at the top will have to act according to some moral principles. But they also must be the ultimate Supermen, incapable of making mistakes, and guaranteeing happiness for the brainwashed ant-minions: '...the magician's bargain: to give up our soul, get power in return.' But to give up your soul is to lose yourself. And so losing free will in society results in the Abolition of Man.

Appendix: Illustrations of the Tao
Select quotations on the basic morality of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Israel, Greece, Rome, India, Anglo-Saxon, etc.

1. The Law of General Beneficence, negative and positive.
Do not murder. Love thy neighbour. (Hebrew)

2. The Law of Special Beneficence
If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith. (Christian)

3. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors
Your father is an image of the Lord of Creation, your mother an image of the Earth. For him who fails to honour them, every work of piety is in vain. (Hindu)

4. Duties to Children and Posterity
The Master said, Respect the young. (Chinese)

5. The Law of Justice: sexual; honesty; in court
Has he approached his neighbour's wife? [sinfully];
To wrong, to rob, to cause to be robbed;
Whoso takes no bribe [in the judiciary]...well pleasing is this... (Babylonian)

6. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity
The foundation of justice is good faith. (Roman)

7. The Law of Mercy
I have given bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked. (Egyptian)

8. The Law of Magnanimity (self-sacrifice)
To take no notice of a violent attack is to strengthen the heart of the enemy. Vigour is valiant, but cowardice is vile. (Pharaoh Senusert III, Egypt.)

for more information click here

An indispensable Lewis classic

First of all, let me follow luminous79 in noting that these are *lectures*, speeches by a master of Socratic reasoning.
Mr. Gross's review is so typical of the Left's criticisms. Lewis is condemned for being at once "low brow" and "egotistical." Obviously, Gross notes that Lewis is "less" "egotistical" than Bennett or Dobson, but why is it that anyone who espouses traditional moarlity is proclaimed "egotistical" by the Left?
What is more egotistical? To say that there is a transcendent, objective moral code to which we are all equally subject, or to say that one has the right, as an individual, to make up one's own moral standards?
Gross also seems to imply duplicity in Lewis's "purported" focus on public education. However, this is also very typical of Socratic thought. How many of Plato's dialogues begin with some discussion that seems to have little connection ot the main purpose, but follow along a similar pattern?
Lewis is primarily a literary scholar, and his study of literature was a major impetus in his conversion to Christianity. Therefore, many of Lewis's arguments begin on a kernel of either literary study or philosophy of education.
The classic form for a philosophical system, as with Bacon and DeCartes, is to begin with a study of knowledge itself, then move into metaphysics and theology, and lastly into ethics and aesthetics. My philosophy thesis at the University of South Carolina was on how Lewis turns that process on its head, beginning with aesthetics.
Lastly, I take issue with Gross's offhand, biased comments that "Men without CHests" is the "best" of the three essays, or that Lewis is "cranky" or "privileged."
First, either all three essays are equally good or none are. His statement is based entirely on his revulsion at the content of the second and third essays, when Lewis gets to the real heart of his argument.
Secondly, there is nothing "crnaky" about the book at all; it is quite rational and, if anything, quite jovial. Or is it that Gross finds anyone opposed to artificial contraception to be "cranky"? Perhaps Mr. Gross should refer to the studies which show that couples using natural family planning are far happier than those who use birth control?
Finally, "privilege" has nothing to do with morality. As the elitists in New York and Los Angeles are quite eager to point out, adherence to traditional values is quite often the province of the provinces, otherwise known as the "red states."
So, if you are actually open-minded about learning why people adhere to a theory of transcendent morality, please read this book. If you're a closed-minded liberal like Mr. Gross, it won't do you any good.

for more information click here

Lewis and the Unabomber

Those who read this book, might also want to read Alston Chase's Harvard and the Unabomber. There Chase traces Ted Kaczynski's hatred of technology to two factors, one of which was the education he received at Harvard between 1958 and 1962.

At that time, the sorts of ideas that Lewis blasts in The Abolition of Man were beginning to take over Ivy League campuses. In a effort to counter them, aging humanities professors managed to add 'Great Books' to the required courses. They also warned of the dangers if the technocrats (value-free science) took control of society. To counter them, the technocrats blasted books by "dead white men."

Ironically, while both Lewis and Kaczynski hated what the technocrats were doing when they regarded human ideas such as truth, goodness and beauty as meaningless, only Lewis offered constructive answers. Kaczynski could only hate the evil and, in the end, become as evil as what he hated.

Lewis was also influenced in this area by Arthur Balfour's Theism and Humanism, which argues that a healthy humanism benefits from a belief in God. As some have put it, if God is dead then all that matters in man must die--truth, beauty and goodness.

for more information click here

On First Things

This was just really enjoyable to read. Quick, certainly, but, oh, such excellent writing! And even clearer philosophy. I feel I must approach the Master with great humility, for his style and thoughts are so much clearer than my own. What right have I to critique him?

I'll do it anyway.

This would be an excellent introductory book to a class on religions. Lewis displays a convincing argument for the existence of morality, using resources from many different traditions, not just his own Christian one. He is to be commended however for also stating his own tradition, that we might know his biases. (The only flaw is a lack of Islamic sources, perhaps because Lewis tended to know less about that particular religion than others.) It is hard to walk away from the book still convinced that there are no ethics, or that an aethitical system is possible.

Those who have read other Lewis works will see echoes here, such as the essay On First Things from God in the Dock, That Hideous Strength, and the Magician's Nephew. Lewis uses his knowledge of literature to show us that morality is necessary if we are to speak realistically at all; that an amoral system of ethics is by nature moral; and that one absent of any morality at all is reduced simply to animal instincts. In this last unit, he preaches of the fear that science will reduce humanity into mere object, rather than into a glorious creation. In no way is this anti-scientific diatribe- but rather cautionary tale of the dangers of excess, if we continue in our current vein of thought.

A couple flaws bring the book down. Early on, he takes a swipe at pacifism by implying that there is something wrong with those who argue that men are more righteous if they value peace over war. Happily, this is only momentary. And secondly, he consistently uses the word "man". Lewis is a product of his times, yes, but he also strongly argued against inclusive language or women in the pulpit, and his language reflects this. And so the book's title. As well as the use of the term "redskin" when referring to ancient Native American beliefs at the end of the book.

Lewis is at his best when demolishing arguments, using the arguments of his opponents. He does this with tact and compassion, not even mentioning the opponents by name, and constantly complimenting on what they have said- but not being afraid to point out the great tragedy that would result if students of a particular "Little Green Book" were to take the authors seriously. If followed, we would lose something deep within us, the capacity to have passion, and enjoy life, out of which morality springs. For following the guidelines of the Little Green Book, we would no longer be able to say something was good in and of itself, but only that it felt good, as everything is now subjective.

But there is an alternative, the Tao, the Way, which we find in all cultures everywhere, and in all religious traditions. The morality, as Lewis has said many times before in many other places, is basically the same in all religious systems; there is only the smallest of differences between them. And this morality is the guiding principle, or can be, or should be, for us all. It is inherent in our . . . very nature.

for more information click here

reviews: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, page 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

products you might be interested in

recommendations

C. S. Lewis: A Comprehensive List-Publication Date
Resist the Brave New World
English classes for 2008
Some Wonderful Books
On the "New" Atheism

abolition

	All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery Disunion!: The Coming of the American Civil War, 1789-1859 ... Abolition Now!: Ten Years of Strategy and Struggle Against the Prison ... The Abolition of Man When the Prisoners Ran Walpole: A True Story in the Movement for ...

man

	Are You There, Vodka? It's Me, Chelsea The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists Real Sex for Real Women The White Tiger: A Novel (Man Booker Prize) Three Cups of Tea: One Man's Mission to Promote Peace . . . One ...