Through addressing two of his contemporaries by means of a reflection on `education with special reference to the teaching of English in the upper forms of schools', former chair of Renaissance English at the University of Cambridge, C.S. Lewis, moves on to undermine the dehumanizing presuppositions of the intellectuals of his day. By tackling what he nicknames The Green Book (henceforth, TGB, a work purporting to teach English `theory') Lewis questions and seeks to predict the effects of the debunking of sentiments in the name of a new rationality which castrates emotions a priori.
He proposes, instead, that traditional values common across time and cultures should be considered as the definitive reality. Although a Christian, Lewis does not argue 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 ultimate validity" (49). His aim is to expose the futility of not treating the Natural Law, the Tao, as the "greatest thing" (18). After refusing biological instincts as the final grounds for virtue, Lewis calls his audience to recover the `doctrine of objective value'. If deconstructed or not taken seriously, a truncate Tao will ultimately lead to the abolition of man: the abandoning of that which uniquely constitutes us as humans.
Lewis' work is a collection of three sufficiently interlaced lectures. `Men Without Chests' starts off with a critical exposure of the consequences of a rationality that downplays predicates of value; `The Way' picks upon such theme and, in light of the Tao, questions the philosophical foundations of those who regard values as mere sentiments; and `The Abolition of Man', finally, reveals how man in its rejection of value and its aim to conquer the nature ends up being drained of meaning and becoming a slave of the very thing he sets himself to defeat. The book ends with an Appendix of literature illustrating the Natural Law.
Chapter One asserts that predicates of value are meaningful in that they involve both emotions and the external object they refer to. Lewis suggests that TGB is an over-reaction against emotionalist propaganda, leading its authors into a sort of emotional solipsism. He labels the educators as `Conditioners' and critiques them for removing all sentiments from the chest, and instead insisting to convey virtues like justice and valour upon pupils on the basis of `rational or biological' grounds. Although less inhuman than the propaganda TGB reacts to, for Lewis this is not less disastrous. Stretching back to Aristotle, Augustine, Plato, the Jews, early Hinduism, and the Chinese Tao, Lewis displays a historical continuum seeking to demonstrate that things have inherent value irrespective of subjective perceptions. Thus he insists that the role of the educator is to train his apprentices to perceive such worth. Emotions, therefore, are reasonable when they are in tune with the Tao. Accordingly, in opposition to TGB's tendency to produce men without chests through affirming that all sentiments are non-rational mirages (e.g. dying for one's country is mere biological instinct), Lewis calls for heads that rule the belly thought the chest. By removing the organ which organizes emotions into `stable sentiments', one is left either with mere brains, or mere guts. It is the heart which makes us human.
Chapter Two expounds on the destructive consequences of such education as a means to outflank the philosophy undergirding TGB. Lewis debunks the debunkers by questioning their basis for affirming anything as `good'. He takes the example of a man who sacrifices himself for the survival of a community and asks the `Innovators' on what ground, if sentiments and values are stripped off, do they praise such act? Lewis demonstrates that outside the Tao there is no such ground: both alternatives (sacrificing, or refuting to) are neither rational nor irrational. Thus if not in `Reason', the Innovators might point to `Instinct' as the final criterion of what is `good'. Yet in obeying Instinct the Innovators reason circularly, and thus Lewis asks them "why such praise for those who have submitted to the inevitable?" (34). There is always a "value judgment passed upon the instinct and therefore not derivable from it" (37). `Why and on what basis should one Instinct be obeyed or subordinated to others?' Questions like these reveal an Innovators' ethic made after their own want: outside the axiomatic essence of the Tao such ethic lacks a rule of precedence. In effect, it is blind prejudice and convenience which undergird the Innovator's agenda.
However, after arguing that all ideologies have the Tao as their only source, Lewis admits that one might also reject the concept of value all together--and instead of the self-contradiction such as TGB's--decide for oneself what it means to be human and make man into that. Chapter Three develops the implications.
The Innovators view eugenics, education, and applied psychology as the roads to the final victory where, exercising its power to emancipate itself from tradition, "Human nature will . . . surrender to Man" (59). Yet Lewis ends by showing that in submitting to such mastering, the Conditioners (as he also calls them) are unaware of ultimately being governed by `Nature'--the very thing they set themselves to master. If men become autonomous to produce conscience and decide new values for themselves by seeing traditional ones as mere natural phenomena to be overcome, they will cease to be under the mystery of humanity which over-arches them. In stepping outside the Tao, men step into the void of being subject to the emotional strength of their own (irrational) instincts. Hence they go back to being mere `trousered apes': `eunuchs' lacking meaning who arbitrarily choose what is good based on their likes and preferences--and conditioning others to live likewise.
Hereafter, Lewis leads his readers into a crossroad: either humans are rational spirit obliged to obey the Tao; or they mere nature to be made into the image of the Conditioners' strongest impulses. Thus he argues that 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" (73). Additionally, he upholds science without giving it the power to wash off our humanness by suggesting a Natural Philosophy conscious that the `natural object' produced by analysis is not reality but a view. His proposes an epistemology where `the explained' is not `explained away': knowledge should be pursued, yet "at a lower cost than that of life" (79)--lest man is abolished.
Lewis demonstrated his thesis very imaginatively. In a book that seeks to discredit the incongruity of the debunkers, both through his sharp sense of irony and his sarcastic wit Lewis achieved his goal as he outflanked his enemies with the enemies' own weapons. Although the reader is left alone to make some connections between the three lectures (e.g. the relationship between Gaius & Titius, the Innovators, and the Conditioners) the outworking of the Tao motif is the common thread that binds them together.
Probably unknown to today's common folk, I found Lewis' referral to particular characters/literary works (e.g. Brer Rabit, Olaf Stapledon, Dr. Steiner) and especially his repeated use of idioms as the only two things that might throw the common reader off. However, he is able to expound what could be an abstract discussion in a lively manner, with the great strength of inviting the reader to acknowledge the unconscious nonsense he most likely finds herself part of.
Furthermore, today we witness a society that reflects Lewis' predictions. Written 67 years ago, its prophetic character makes its worth self-evident. Anyone interested in subverting the pervasively dehumanizing `totalitolerance' of our day should take this book seriously.
As a son of a Nietzschean atheist, I found Lewis' thesis very compelling in helping me deal with some objections my father has posed upon me regarding metaphysics and morality. His creative illustrations on the Tao (branches/tree, primary colors, etc.) and his appeal to different traditional moralities seem particularly relevant for my circumstances as I feel called to serve right-brained, pluralistic, Gen-Y individuals at a level of presuppositional apologetics.
Nevertheless, being right-brained myself, I felt Lewis erring on the argumentative side, and ignoring circumstantial contexts in which ethical decisions are made. I know atheists that give up universal morality and on a practical level are content to live under relativistic ethics. Thus I wonder how this book can effectively challenge a narcissistic our era of metaphysical skepticism.
Get more detail about The Abolition of Man.
No comments:
Post a Comment