Rating: 
Summary: An indispensable Lewis classic
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: On First Things
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Too close to home
Review: The Abolition of Man is curious. It begins from a mere germ of an idea, inferred from an unchallenged source, and then slowly balloons until it is a diatribe against eugenics, modern education, moral relativism, egoism, secularism, scientism, Nietzche, Darwin, and Jeremy Bentham.It's a rather audacious trajectory, and would be ludicrous if it weren't so... accurate. As the saying goes: "I'm not paranoid if they're really out to get me." Lewis makes some bold statements here, extrapolating from a relatively subtle implication in a textbook to a metaphysical humanist conspiracy. But Lewis understands Natural Law, and understand the penalties of disobedience. Consequently, the picture he paints of the evolutionary abolition of anything recognizably human in man is disturbing and all too believable. Anyone familiar with today's college campus, or today's journalist, will realize the total victory of relativism (unless, of course, he is a relativist). Conditional eugenics, so thoroughly disgraced by the Nazis and the New Deal, is replaced by Genetic eugenics, praised and lauded ala the human genome project. Anyone who sits back and wonders what we'll do "once we crack the code," ought to read The Abolition of Man for his answer... or "Dumbing Us Down" for confirmation.
Rating:
Summary: The dangers of moral relativism
Review: In this short book, CS Lewis takes public education for his subject, though the scope of the work goes well into the philosophical and ethical realms. The master Christian apologist is here arguing against what he sees to be the evils of moral relativism. His essay "Men Without Chests," reminiscent of TS Eliot, speaks of just what would happen if we were to lose all sense of good and bad, and chose instead to attempt to see everything in a purely `objective' way, without regard for what has been established as right and wrong. The rest of the book develops and plays upon this idea, and Lewis examines the possibilities of a civilization who abandons "The Tao" (the name Lewis gives to a widely accepted system of moral values) and tries instead to mold its citizens into whatever form its leaders should decide. Of course, this is exactly what Lewis warns again in his Science Fiction novel That Hideous Strength, and what is also seen in the book 1984. To me, the highlight of this book was the appendix. Superbly compiled, it is Lewis's definition of "The Tao," and features a number of moral values (such as one's obligation to society and duty to parents). The best part of this, though, is that Lewis quotes from an enormous range of sources, citing everything from Plato to Beowulf to the Bible to Egyptian writings to show that these are values which have been widely accepted throughout history. This is his basis for calling "The Tao" the ultimate system of moral values, and his justification through widespread acceptance is very good indeed.
I believe this is one of CS Lewis's best works, full of inspirational thoughts on morality and warnings against using Science to make man a part of `Nature' and losing all respect for man as a Divine Creation. His book God in the Dock goes along well with this one--many of the essays in that book coincide nicely with those in this one. Once again, CS Lewis has proven himself a master of putting things in a way everyone can understand.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting gathering of ideas, concepts, and theories.
Review: I'll admit that some of Lewis's comments left me in the dust, but I did appreciate how well grounded some of his arguments were. If there is not some common shared moral or ethical viewpoint in the mass of humanity, then all will be lost and undoing the teaching of the past is undoubtedly a BIG mistake. If we do dismantle the teaching of the past and build something knew, just what foundation will it be built upon if the moral or ethical foundation is as small and individualized as grains of sand? Certainly some will jump all over this essay published as book (actually it reads more like lecture notes than an actual book or essay), but I found little fault with it other than the parenthetical one mentioned above. Highly recommended.
|
