I really like C.S. Lewis. I love his fiction and I've enjoyed most of what I've read of his non-fiction. Of course, I haven't read even close to all of it. C.S. Lewis' non-fiction is not the kind of stuff I can hurry through, and I tend to wait until I'm in the mood to use my head before I pick up one of his books (or anything else that has teeth). Of course, lots of times I just want to coast and not think about my current book. But I'm not sure that's actually good for me as often as I do it. I've been reading more substantial things lately and not only am I spending more time thinking about meaningful things, but I think I've also been more productive and more in touch with the spiritual things in my life. Hm.
The Abolition of Man is not a narrative with a beginning, middle and end, but it is a series of connected lectures. It is subtitled "Reflections on education with special reference to the teaching of English in the upper forms of schools". I thought about what our government requires our kids to be taught today in school and how Lewis' observations and arguments apply to us now.
Not all of Lewis' logical arguments made complete sense to me. (I'm not nearly as educated, nor so intelligent). I did, however, come out with several ideas of value. C.S. Lewis argues against the debunking of traditional values in the name of intellectualism and on the path to (imagined) human ascendance to the absolute conquest of nature. He logically argues that without traditional values we become creatures ruled by pleasure or by the pleasure of others (i.e. those who are in positions of power or influence over us). He also argues that when we eschew traditional values (he calls that canon the Tao) in the education of our children we make them "easier prey to the propagandist". Lewis assures us that "a hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head." (p. 14). I'm sure he had Hitler's disastrous (and successful) propaganda in mind when making this argument (but I can see our potential weakness to ANY propaganda--consider today's politically correct agenda and how vulnerable we all are to having our opinions taken over by the opinions continually put forward in the media and at school). I seem to see the effect of this kind of education in the morality of the rising generation. They don't seem to take any stands on moral issues independent of the current populous thought. What they learn in school becomes their reality. They don't seem to think for themselves--they ape current cultural values. What they can't see or touch they won't validate. (Etc etc) Are they "Men Without Chests", subject to the kneading of their educational masters? Hmmm.
Finally, Lewis argues that when we abandon the Tao and replace it with man-made "values" in the name of prevailing against nature, we set the stage for the abolition of our own species. He says:
"The rebellion of new ideologies against the Tao is a rebellion of the branches against the tree: if the rebels could succeed they would find that they had destroyed themselves. The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary color, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in."
Here's a less illustrative (but more substantial) statement of this same idea:
"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 forever 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."
Interesting stuff, with plenty of pithy quotables such as: "The schoolboy . . . will believe two propositions: firstly, that all sentences containing a predicate of value are statements about the emotional statement of the speaker, and secondly, that all such statements are unimportant."
Or this one: "It may even be said that it is by this middle element [magnanimity/sentiment] that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal."
I like this one; it seems particularly applicable to people today: "Their skepticism about values is on the surface: it is for use on other people's values; about the values current in their own set they are not nearly skeptical enough . . . A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional or (as they would say) 'sentimental' values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process."
And lots, lots more. I'll end with his final statement (which I like a lot): "To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see."
Sigh. I like this kind of thing. And, my apologies to anyone who has managed to keep reading to this point, but writing about this book has really helped me clarify my own thoughts about it; it's one of the reasons I love writing. So if you're still reading, thanks! And read the book yourself. Then sit down and write me a long email. I'm interested in what YOU hear in the book. Happy reading!
Sex: nope
Bad language: nope
No comments:
Post a Comment