In this section of Abolition of Man, Lewis describes the abolition of man as a situation in which conditioners condition mankind into whatever they want. The two obvious questions to me are how is C.S. Lewis’ “abolition of Man” different from the Tao that he suggests humankind should be naturally attuned to, and if it is different has mankind already been abolished?
Lewis describes the pre-abolition teachers as bound to the Tao: “a norm to which the teachers themselves were subject and from which they claimed no liberty to depart”.
Wouldn’t these teachers themselves be “conditioned” to the idea of the Tao? And they would be conditioning the future generations in the same way. It goes back to Wilson’s ideas of transcendentalism and empiricism. If indeed the Tao is transcendent, then mankind would be wrong to condition future generations in ways that didn’t follow it. However, if the Tao has an empirical source, then those that follow it are conditioned and those that are teaching it are conditioners. The problem I see with the abolition of Man is that the idea clearly assumes the Tao has a transcendent source, and if this is true than is it even possible to condition against it? Wouldn’t the transcendent Tao be present in every human, and wouldn’t it supersede the empirical conditioning being forced on future generations?
The other day I was listening to music in my friend Jim’s dorm, and I saw a song on his iTunes list called ”Abolition of Man” by Thrice. I started playing it and told him I was reading a book by C.S. Lewis with the same name and my friend told me that Lewis was the lead singer of Thrice’s favorite author. Sure enough the lyrics definitely tie into the book. The lyrics that apply to my point here are at the end of the song and are as follows: “The abolition of man is within the reach of science but are we so far gone that we'll try it?” Therefore, clearly the band Thrice at least believes that the abolition of Man has not yet happened. I’m willing to agree with that. I’m not sure that it can happen. C.S. Lewis does not take into account that one constant of human nature has been an unwillingness to agree with each other. In order for Lewis’ conditioning to happen, I believe that the entirety of humanity would have to be devoted to this cause of creating the new, conditioned mankind. As long as anyone disagreed with the new ideologies then the abolition would be incomplete. And if the Tao is transcendental as Lewis believes, then I think it unlikely that humankind would ever be able to condition itself completely away from it.

In the third section of The Abolition of Man Lewis has taken on the very definition of mankind. However, he states that mankind has a certain definition, and if there is any deviation from that, one can no longer be considered a part of mankind. Though I agree with his assertion that man, in seeking more power over nature, has given up a part of his own nature as a side effect, Lewis doesn’t really give a clear portray of what definition they are straying form. Lewis seems to do a good job at what he thinks mankind should not be, but not very much discussing what exactly he thinks man is or what exactly he thinks it should be.
He does assert that man has a natural tendency to indoctrinate the generation after it, as well as to rebel against the generation before. Though he seems to think that each rebellion will lead to a completely new ideology, that is not what history seems to show us. Though each generation does seem to rebel against the generation before, it seems to merely go in a pattern. History has shown us that though a conservative generation will probably give birth to a progressive generation, history has also shown that a progressive generation can give birth to a more conservative one. The progressive 1890’s lead to the more traditional early 1920’s, the radical sixties lead to the conservative 1980’s. Lewis states that humanity looks to be on an endless progression. I would assert that it rather goes in a back and forth pattern.
He also further criticizes new practices in education by theorizing how future Conditioners might operate, and questions how benevolent these Conditioners might be. In doing this he is connecting the third section with his earlier criticism of education. He claims education is progressively dehumanizing children by removing what he claims is ultimately “human” from education and replacing it with pure science and natural reduction. Lewis goes through this entire book saying exactly what he thinks should not happen with education, with society. But to me, he did not adequately address what alternative he would propose, or if he would rather revert to old teaching methods. He does hint that he would prefer going back to older universal values, without really saying what those really are, or where he thinks they come from.

Part three of “Abolition of Man” has Lewis giving his thoughts on “man’s conquest of nature.” He feels that man, in his arrogance, believes he has defeated nature, when in reality some men have merely gained power over other men. “What we call Man’s power is, in reality, a power possessed by some men which they may, or may not, allow other men to profit by.” His arguments here feel a little oversimplified, but I’m willing to go along with his proposal. Technologies such as the h-bomb have definitely helped certain groups of men more than others.

He also claims that this power that man claim to have is not so great as it is made out to be. While one generation may have great power to make change, the generations that follow will have exponentially less power to change their environment because their path has already been set by the generations that preceded them. I can definitely assent to this, and the phrase “Global Warming” comes to mind. Our generation has made many efforts to alleviate this problem, but its effects are still practically inevitable.

There are two things that I would like to call your attention to in Lewis’s arguments here. The first is that (in my opinion) he uses a dirty trick to persuade his contemporaries to hop over to his side of the fence. While reading through this section, the word “eugenics” may not strike you as very odd. Lewis makes repeated reference to this when talking about the “Conditioners”. One must note, however, that this book was written at a time when the Holocaust was very fresh on readers’ minds. And what was the primary reason the Nazi party gave for committing the crimes against humanity so cruelly burned into American’s minds? The theory that the Jews and other minorities were inferior to citizens of pure German descent. This was grounded in eugenics. Because of the Nazi party’s actions, eugenics had a bad name for years to come. Imagine if a modern writer was making a persuasive argument and made a reference to Jihad. Could you deny that, subconsciously, you would naturally be repulsed by that word? Not to say that I find Lewis’s argument faulty here, just that I think that word was tactfully chosen due to its connotations.

The second thing is this sentence: “Their [the Conditioners] victory has consisted precisely in emerging from the state in which they were acted upon by those processes to the state in which they use them as tools.” I believe that may be the most confusing sentence I have ever read in my entire life. I was getting all into the book, agreeing with everything he said, and then I stumbled across this little statement. After rereading it five times, I got depressed and went to bed. The next day, after ANOTHER five times, I finally feel like I have a clue as to what he is saying. That is just bad writing. Two "in which"'s in a single sentence? That's a little much.

In this section of Abolition of Man there were two quotes that I found interesting and wanted to discuss.
“And as regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence; by contraception used as a means of selective breeding…”
This I would say is a little out there. I think that yes, the power to reproduce is in the hands of those able to do so, however, I don’t think that the use of contraceptives is for the purpose of exercising that power. As for denying the existence of some human because of the use of contraceptives is tricky, as is the idea of selective breeding. The idea in theory makes sense, however, when I think about selective, I think of carefully choosing something so that you get the best of the best. That is not possible in reproduction because we have no way of knowing how that certain person will turn out. All in all I think Lewis’ statement here is just taking it to the extreme. I think that in some time way beyond our world today this could be true. If there was a way to control the population so that only the best of the best were in existence that would be a scary world and I can’t say that I would want to live in such a world.

“We might suppose that it was possible to say ‘After all, most of us want more or less the same things—food and drink and sexual intercourse, amusement, art, science, and the longest possible life for individuals and the species. Let them simply say, This is what we happen to like, and go on to condition men in the way most likely to produce it.”
I think that essentially we live off of all of the same things, but to say that we want all of the same things is different. I want many things that say my brother would probably not really care for. It is how we all find common factors among the people we end up spending our time with. What I liked most about this quote is the end when it says “condition men in the way most likely to produce it.” I see this happening all the time. It is they way we were all raised. We are trained through our education, our morals, our past times, and our upbringing to be a significant part of the world we live in, and each of us is responsible for finding the things we want in life and pursuing them. The funny thing is, though, how many people we need to pursue that. Because we want the things we want, we are able to build this complex that will help others along so eventually anyone can get what he or she wants, depending on the resources they have (those resources being the only block in the road).

After finishing Abolition of Man, I realized that the way the three sections turned out reminds me of when I write songs. First off comes the first verse, a pure expression; not all that thought out and primarily just an avenue for a melody to arise. Then the chorus comes around, and since the melody has been well established, it is free to continue to build on the idea. The third and last part of the song has no need to write new melodies, and is totally focused on furthering the ideas and centralizing the themes of the first two sections. I compare AOM to this, because, looking back, it is clear to me that Lewis did some wandering before he found what he was aiming to write. Something fundamental happened between the "The Way" and "Abolition of Man" chapters. Perhaps it was a good night's sleep, or a stiff drink, but by the third chapter, Lewis suddenly gained direction. This is not to say that the first two chapters were not good in their own right. AOM as a whole is like a purring Mercedes. It cruises aimlessly for a while, beautiful and free until it finds a route it likes, at which time it jets off at full speed.

One of the most interesting assertions, and probably the barred core of the entire essay, is that when man subverts Nature such that he critically defeats her, he subverts himself such that he becomes her. This is an interesting argument, simply because it is such a novel idea. It does have some truth in it; for instance, as scientists pick out all of life's mysteries and describe them by one type of evolution or another, man begins to fathom everything as elemental. However, I tend to disagree with Lewis, in the spirit of the NASDAQ or DOW JONES commercial that talks about an "elemental world," that has a presiding interest in the "human element." Just because man views himself as an animal, and the world as some kind of caterpillar in a constant succession of different coccoons, it does not mean that he actually becomes a creature of pure instinct. Lewis himself stated earlier in "The Way" that the people trying to eliminate the Tao have their own value agenda. If even these people cannot be totally moral-free, then can anyone? Lewis seems to realize that this scenario of critical materialism is highly unlikely, and that it would destroy the definition of humanity, yet the entire aim of the essay seems to be to denounce this backwards utopia.

Lewis also speaks of the power of antiquity, claiming that people of the past have more power than us in that they will influence the world more before some sort of inevitable apocolypse. He values effects over potential, and, as a result, assumes that there is only one future, instead of the myriad of possibility spectra I like to imagine as I lay in bed pondering the nature of existence. If we take Lewis' words as fact, the question that springs to mind is, "If each passing second saps the power of humanity, why does Lewis even try to spark morality, spirituality, and unbacked human-ness in a hopeless world?" For an answer, it is helpful if we return to the analogy of a song. Regardless of how well the words congeal or how cleverly the lyrics do gymnastic on top of one another, it is the melody that sticks with the listener. There musn't always be a purpose to a work; sometimes it exists just to please the ears, make the hair stand up, stimulate the heart and excite certain uninhabited tundras within the brain. Perhaps Abolition of Man is meant as a showcase of the melody, not the lyrics.

In the third installment of Lewis’ Abolition of Man, the subject of Mankind’s power over nature comes into question. According to Lewis, our progress on understanding nature does not empower mankind as a whole. Actually, it only empowers the group of people that truly understands how to use and produce the resources required for this control. The true power obtained from our understanding of nature is the power of those who “have nature whacked” over those who don’t. For example, pilots can fly a plane and others cannot so therefore we are at their mercy when it comes to air travel. Lewis later deduces that as our conquest of nature continues, eventually mankind will arrive at the final piece of nature which he states is “human nature.” This is where I was thrown off because I am not sure what he meant by “human nature.” Does he mean the diversity of the human race is at risk? Or is he suggesting that free will is what will be eliminated? Or perhaps we will be lacking something else?

I can see where each has its own application. When you give a person control of others, they (conditioners) will impose their will over them (people). This would completely do away with the idea of individuality because all of the successive generations will be raised with only the Tao of the conditioner. On the other hand, with their influence over people and their “control” over nature, conditioners can exercise their own practice of eugenics over the masses, eventually limiting the diversity of mankind. Either way, I must agree with Lewis on the fact that this is a bad thing.

Clearly he is looking at an extreme case, but the greater our understanding becomes the closer humanity arrives at a civilization founded on the “Tao of the autonomous self.” People will eventually use the powers obtained through “conquering nature” to fulfill their own selfish needs, disregarding how it will affect others or avoid doing things for “the greater good.” As a result, the fall of man will arrive because our instinct to preserve the species will be replaced by a new instinct…pleasing the self.

It feels funny to admit, but I actually got into the third part of The Abolition of Man. The first two sections threw me off with Lewis’s whiny-like complaints about the Green Book. Alas, the third part reeled me in with the concept of Man’s conquest over nature.
The first cynical remark caught me off guard (I don’t know why, considering the author of the book). When the man who said “Man has Nature whacked” was revealed to be dying of tuberculosis, I wasn’t sure whether to laugh or be appalled at how tragically he added that in. However, it was enough to catch me into Lewis’s idea, so I can’t say he failed at what he was aiming for. As he ventures into the concept, he begins to unveil how man vs. nature is really man’s power over other men. Then he begins to break it up into the powers of majorities over minorities and the power of government over the people. But the power that really caught my attention was the power of this generation over later generations. “For though we have put wonderful machines in their hands we have pre-ordained how they are to use them.” (Lewis 57). This brings about so many complications, how can we really teach future generations how to use what we’ve created with our own imaginations to further their imaginations and create new things? Is it really possible? A quote from Lewis sparked something in my mind, “For the power of Man to make himself what he pleases means, as we have seen, the power of some men to make other men what they please.”(Lewis 59). It makes me wonder if we are no less than what other men have made us to be as they please. And how far can we take this? As far as our parents have made us how they please? Or even farther back to our great ancestors? And even as we condition new generations on how everything is done and what is acceptable, the nearer we get to “that date at which the species becomes extinct.”
At first it was difficult to see why Lewis criticized the Green Book so harshly, and it was difficult to see what point he was trying to get at; but I really enjoyed the explosion of ideas and theories he arrived to after dissecting his displeasure with the publishers intentions and work. Sorry Gaius and Titius, I feel you were broken to pieces for a good point.

In part three of the Abolition of Man, Lewis states, “Judgments of value are to be produced in the pupil as part of the conditioning. Whatever Tao there is will be the product, not the motive, of education.” Lewis is saying that the Tao will no longer be what is taught to the pupil, but what the pupil finds out for himself after being taught. Here Lewis is showing that the conquest of man over nature will lead to a moral-less teaching in school, where values are taught as law, instead of one having their own values and morals. I definitely agree with Lewis on this part of the downfall of man, with the absence of the teaching in the Tao, how are the students asked to learn values? With no example of value, there can be no comprehension of value.

Lewis then states, “The Conditioners, then, are to choose what kind of artificial Tao they will, for their own good reasons, produce in the Human race. They are the motivators, the creators of motives. But how are they going to be motivated themselves?” This allow for the question of the work ethics of the Conditioners. If the Conditioners are deciding how the pupils shall be motivated, will they follow the same rules for motivation themselves, or be less motivated, making the pupils into slaves almost. The whole idea of the Conquest of Man sounds a bit like a monarchy in theory. If Man must teach the younger generations, how to think, act, and feel, then aren’t the pupils slaves to the Conditioners ideas of peace? When man has figured out Nature and has then abolished the Natural Law, the newer generations will be subjected to learning what science deems “right” and “lawful”. It will be decided by governments what can and can not be taught, instead of teaching the Natural Law, which has been around for the duration of time.

Lewis then follows up the idea of teaching what Conditioners think is right with, “Let them simply say, This is what we happen to like, and go on to condition men in the way most likely to produce it.” This is what the “Abolition of Man” in Lewis’ view consists of, men teaching the new generation, what they personally think is right and just. They will be teaching what is not “naturally right” but what is right according to one or a few men in general. Lewis must be a genius.

In Lewis’ last chapter of the Abolition of Man, Lewis attempts to make the claim that the abolition of man will be the conquest of nature. Since man’s main goal these days is to be one step ahead of nature, Lewis contends that this will lead to the ultimate disintegration of human nature as we know it today. Humans seem to be involved in scientific researches and advances to move along the human race, but does this knowledge create problems for the human species. Lewis says that with this knowledge, a few men will be able to gain the power to lead the rest of society. But will this actually come to pass? I wonder if society will allow that kind of thing to happen. For one group of humans to essentially run the entire society seems absurd. I think part of human nature exists to protect ourselves from a complete over taking of society like Lewis is describing. Lewis seems to be talking about an evolution to some point in human thought on Nature. By saying that this line of thought will span over many generations with each generation being affected by the previous generation, Lewis is talking about a change in thought, not necessarily a complete abolition of something. Evolution is part of nature, a random process in which things change. In thinking about it, I don’t think we will ever be able to get to the point where we reduce Nature to applied science. I think Nature has a way of hiding her true colors and it will always be a mystery in the scientific realm. Humans will never know all there is to know to be able to lessen the existence of Nature, and therefore, since human nature is the last thing to go, we will never have the complication of being without it…at least not in our time. Will we be the downfall of our own species? I think so. Will we be the downfall of our own species because we became able to apply scientific thought to all realms of nature? I don’t think so.

In the third part of The Abolition of Man, Lewis asserts that the fall of human nature will come due to the eradication of human nature. Human nature dissolved because of man’s insistence on his “Conquest of Nature.” Although I can understand where Lewis is coming from when he claims that “each new power won by man is a power over man as well,” I disagree with one of his examples.

First of all, I fail to see how contraceptives can be used as means of “selective breeding” in which the Conditioners use to shape future generations. If all acts of sexual intercourse are based on the potential to give life, then can the same not be said about sexual urges? If such is the case, then how can the suppression of sexual urges be any different than the use of contraceptives? Both of them serve the same ends, the denial of a potential to create life. A bias in Lewis’s writing becomes obvious at this point, for he speaks of the use of contraceptives as against nature, when in fact, it would be more accurate to label it as a deviancy to his religious beliefs. One could argue that it is human nature (part of our animal instincts) to impregnate as many attractive women as possible. Science would say sex with multiple partners comes from man’s natural instincts. Therefore, in the realm of human nature, contraceptives are no different than the laws against polygamy or adultery. Such laws and mentalities also deny existence of potential human beings; “they are, without their concurring voice, made to be what one generation, for its own reasons, may choose to prefer.” Therefore, the power of some men over the existence of later generations has been going on with beliefs and laws in accordance with what Lewis calls “The Tao.” I’m sure Lewis’s thoughts on contraceptives and human nature are derived from his Catholic beliefs, which I am not aware of. However, in presenting this “nature” that he claims man conquers through science, he does not cite that such beliefs skew his definition of nature. So, with all that said, I believe Lewis’s definition of this “nature” that will eventually win over man if man continues to pursue its conquest of it, is ambiguous and ill-defined, bringing some easy criticisms to his argument.

C.S. Lewis in the third and final section of “The Abolition of Man” tackles the issue of nature and more specifically, ‘Man’s conquest of Nature.’ He writes that “in order to understand fully what Man’s power over Nature, and therefore the power of some men over other men, really means, we must picture the race extended in time.” Here Lewis is making a large claim. Power over Nature according to Lewis resides in the generations and proceeds further to say that a new generation is in control of the nature of the oldest generation that is near to, just not quite to extinction. He furthers his argument by saying that only the generation of species that resists the power of the youngest generation is the one that will dominate and hence become the real master to the conquest of Nature and the human’s species. I agree with Lewis in the sense that the most profitable generation is the one who desires to be bold and step out of the box. However, I do not believe that one generation holds power over another. To me, man’s need for this conquest of Nature and the definition of Nature changes over time. So, the youngest generations may have added power to where they understand the Nature of the present but the oldest generation has an added power over the youngest generation as well. Their power lies in their ability to understand the Nature of the past.

Lewis also says in this section “the power of Man to make himself what he pleases means, as we have seen, the power of some men to make other men what they please.” I do support Lewis’s claim that there are individuals out there who believe they hold the key to everyone’s happiness. For example, there are numerous self-help books out on the market that cover every facet of life from finances to self happiness. There are even TV shows such as Dr. Phil that continue this theme of self-help. And, while I’m sure these people’s methods do help some, they aren’t necessarily the key to everyone’s happiness. In my opinion, people who are in search of the power of their happiness have to find it themselves. These self-help methods can help lead them down a series of paths, but their happiness will not depend on how those experts feel they should be happy, but rather how the individual themselves feel they should be happy.