For reason I cannot explain, something came over to me today and I read the entirety of The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis in roughly 100 minutes. This is surprising for two reasons. (1) When I read, it's slowly - especially as something as thoughtful as Lewis, and (2) it's not something I am in the habit of doing and certainly not as impulsively as it felt at the time.If you're interested in reading a summary or a review about it, you might want to start here. However in this post, I'm simply going to interject my own thoughts, ponderings, and opinions about it.
Theme #1: Feelings vs. Fact
The book's opening lecture begins with Lewis analyzing an English text for children, which may have implied that feelings about an object and something factual about the same object cannot be mutually exclusive.
Personally, I believe that we are given or have feelings about objects to help us investigate the truth. When gazing upon something so full of amazement, awe and glory, the feelings that swell up inside of us lead us to understand that God's Creation is beauty (as fact, and not opinion). Although there are many ways to discover truth, feelings should not be considered isolated, but rather one conduit of exploration and realization. With much more clarity and precision, Lewis continues on in the first section to establish an undeniable system truth, fact and value that can not be disputed, and that feelings and fact can simultaneously uncover this system. Of course, anyone familiar with C.S. Lewis knows that he is a Christian, and believes that God is the exclusive authority on Truth, but he doesn't expand upon that in this book. (Although I haven't read it in awhile, I believe he attempts this in Mere Christianity.)
Theme #2: Man vs. Nature
Two ideas that Lewis expanded on seemed interested to me.
(1) There are people who believe that mankind can eventually overcome their own weaknesses to attain perfection. As we continue to discover, learn and understand more about the world around us and humans as a whole, some people believe that we will be able to overcome our own humanity. But if "nature" has created humans to partake in our humanity, then don't we cease to be human altogether? Lewis goes on to explain that this transcendent man (or men) is (are) no longer bound to values, ethics, or morals. In becoming better than human, human pursuits and conditions such as good and evil no longer have contextual experiences to connect them to such ideas.
This is fascinating, but dreadful and ridiculous to think of any person or group of people could establish such a feat considering that people are selfish for personal power, control, and comfort. If you agree with that thought as well, I think the next logical question to ask is, "If humans will never reach perfection, then what is our purpose as people, and how to we fulfill our humanity?"
(2) Lewis also explains an interesting give and take that happens with each rising generation of people. As a previous generation of people die out, they relinquish their power, culture, and values to a younger generation. The transfer is precious and important, but also undeniably changed (and as it seems that younger generation always thinks it for the better). But if the time of man is finite, that also means that each rising generation has less influence on the future than the previous generation, simply because it has less time for their influence to spread.
I guess I see this as a bit of irony. As we boast and proclaim our generations' greatness by what we contribute to the pool of knowledge and technology, we are only shouting out to the shrinking few who have yet to come. No matter how far we progress as a species, the number left to hear about our false greatness is only lesser with each passing era. We think we are gaining power and influence over the march of time, but in truth, all the things we value as sinful humans is slowly fading away into obscurity, and then after that, to nothing.
Theme #3: Knowing vs. Not Knowing and the Position of Science
Lewis spends the final paragraphs of the book as an apology to science, and specifically mentions that science is not useless. In fact, he is a proponent and supporter of science. That position is mostly probably rooted in that God has given us an entire universe to discover, learn and marvel at His intricate Creation. And when we uncover the mysteries of it, we are, in essence, worshiping God, and giving Him praise. However, he does warn that the acquisition of knowledge does not empower us to become gods ourselves. Knowledge is great and worthwhile, but when science is overused, we throw ourselves in great peril.
Consider his own words:
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.
Rating: 4 out of 5
