In no particular order, I am working through
reading the 'CS Lewis Signature Classics'. This
is an 8 volume box set released in 2015. I
started last year with my review of 'A Grief
Observed'. To give perspective, 'The Abolition
of Man' was published in 1943, a near two decades
earlier than 'A Grief Observed' and during World
War II. This means as of 2018, I am reviewing
a book published 75 years ago.
The English language, and how we communicate
with it has changed so much in 75 years. Lewis’
sentence structure carries an intellectual
weight. At times it can be difficult to grasp.
There is a sense his writing comes across
more as an academic essay rather than a book.
I found myself needing a dictionary to understand
some of his writing. His extensive vocabulary
uses words such as:
At 128 pages, 'The Abolition of Man' contains
3 chapters. The remaining pages are for the
appendix and notes. In these chapters, Lewis
shares his concern of a specific textbook.
One that is being used in the elementary schools
of English Literature. Lewis does not reveal
the actual names of the two philosophers behind
this textbook. He does not even reveal the
name of the actual book. He refers these two
men as “Gaius and Titius” and their book
as “The Green Book”. Lewis has respect
for these professors, but has strong criticism
towards their teachings. One of their main
teachings from this green book is on statements
of value. This being that all statements of
value are merely statements about one's feelings.
They say nothing about the object. So if two
people look at a waterfall, and one states
"This is sublime", who is correct? One places
value on the object, the other on their feelings.
Well according to Gaius and Titius, the one
speaking about his feelings is correct. Not
the one speaking about the waterfall.
Lewis, annoyed by this illogical thinking
did not agree. That statement to in essence
mean, "I have sublime feelings" Lewis found
to be absurd. He was so frustrated by this
nonsense that he felt compelled to write this
book. He crafts three lectures against the
philosophy of subjectivism. As Lewis states,
He goes on to say that
He challenges
these subjective values by arguing a case
for 'objective' values. To put in blunt words,
Lewis sees subjectivism as poisonous.
What I find fascinating about Lewis, is how
ahead of time his writing and thinking was.
So much of his words published in 1943 still
hold true today. When I observe the reality
around me, he speaks on the danger of “Man’s
conquest over Nature”. He shares how this
is impossible. Man’s power over nature turns
out to be a power exercised by some men over
other men with Nature as its instrument. We
see these efforts today with the emergence
of artificial intelligence. All men that live
after AI become the patients of that power.
They become weaker, not stronger. Hence the
title, is what Lewis calls, “The Abolition of Man"
Lewis shows intellectual integrity and removes
his personal bias. He does not argue a case
for Theism or Christianity. He makes this clear 
in some of his quotes I found insightful such as:
It is worth noting that I don’t believe subjectivism
is completely poisonous. Which I don’t assume
that is what Lewis believes either. It has its 
place in society, but can be a poisonous
philosophy. A person can have their own subjective
feelings and preferences. But once morality
and value are involved such as good or evil,
those preferences become dangerous. The danger
being that it demolishes practical reason.
There has to be an objective standard of morality
and value, or else nothing is good or evil
in an absolute sense. Morality and value are
based on people's feelings. Without an objective
standard, nobody is right and nobody is wrong.
That type of philosophy is the poison Lewis
sees in subjectivism.
It is clear 'The Abolition of Man' is a challenging
book for many modern readers including myself.
In 1955, Lewis almost considers this book
as his favourite among all his others. The
irony is that his other books are actually
the ones people have read far more. Even to
the point that is was ignored by the public.
Well that is not the case anymore. If he was
alive today, he would see his book is far
from ignored. This book does not use objective
moral values and duties to argue the existence
of God. But some of the greatest apologists
of our time are using it as a strong argument
for the existence of God. It has become one
of the most airtight arguments that has never
been refuted. William Lane Craig, John Lennox,
Frank Turek, and Cliffe Knechtle are only
a handful of many that see the foundational
importance of this book. If you can follow
along with Lewis' logic, you will see the same.
