Modernists may claim that our times require new, up-to-date morals, but their claim can be traced back to the late 17^th century. The times of the Enlightenment were considered “modern” then, just as we consider the 21^st century to be modern now.

“But you cannot go on ‘explaining away’ forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away…To ‘see through’ all things is the same as not to see”.

So ends C.S. Lewis’ work The Abolition of Man, a little book of three dense but beautifully conveyed lectures. The ending is at once a lamentation and a warning. It is an appeal to reason, and ‘weeps’ over the desire of modern thought to ‘see through’ everything in order to get at its ‘basics’. Without reason, without objective truth, we are led to abolish everything that is man – we abolish ourselves. It is a form of philosophical suicide; it is an invitation to chaos.

Lewis employs a grammar book written for English boys and girls in the ‘upper forms of schools’ as the foundation for The Abolition of Man. His clear insight into the perspectives that the book wishes to convey are a reminder of the vital importance of a good education. Initially, the passages he chooses appear harmless. Upon deeper analysis, Lewis points out the dangerous, modernist thought conditioning they offer to students.

The authors of this grammar book (Lewis discreetly refers to it as the Green Book and to its authors as Gaius and Titius) mention the story of Coleridge overhearing the comments of two tourists as he gazes on a waterfall. One calls the waterfall ‘sublime’, and the other refers to it as ‘pretty’. Coleridge mentally approves of the first tourist’s comment and rejects the second’s. After mentioning the story, the authors of the Green Book assert that what the first tourist meant by his description of the waterfall as being “sublime” was that he had “sublime feelings”. This is the C.S. Lewis’ takeoff point – he immediately demonstrates how students will walk away after reading this book, believing that whatever men say refers merely to feelings, and is therefore unimportant. Students will have been presented with the false idea that all emotion is contrary to reason and should be treated with contempt. In the long run, this leads to the misinterpretation of history, and of mankind in general. It breeds cynicism, rather than encouraging healthy sentiments. It severs us from a large part of our humanity. We were not made to be emotionless, expressionless beings who evaluated something according to its worth in numbers or employed cold reason alone, but beings passionate for the good and the beautiful. The hearts that will inevitably grow from such lessons as presented in the Green Book will be hard, and yet the minds will not be hard enough. As Lewis later points out, “…a hardened heart is no infallible protection against a soft head.”

There is something far more important at stake here, however, rather than just the dismissal of our emotions. Whether the Green Book was meant to replace traditional values with “modern” ones is unsure; Lewis points out that its authors may have resorted to their particular approach because attempting philosophy is much easier than literary criticism. There can be no doubt, however, that the Green Book was influenced by popular thought which argues for a fresh set of values. The morality of Christianity is “outdated” they might say, and it’s high time we had something new. Are Judeo-Christian principles truly too old-fashioned for further use? Is it even possible to throw them away and create new ones?

In a sense, the aspirations of “modernism” are nothing new. The Enlightenment celebrated human reason over traditional values, and argued the precedence of science over religion. Modernists may claim that our times require new, up-to-date morals, but their claim can be traced back to the late 17^th century. The times of the Enlightenment were considered “modern” then, just as we consider the 21^st century to be modern now.

C.S. Lewis argues “no” in answer to both questions, but the one he considers most in The Abolition of Man is whether it is possible to dismiss traditional values. Traditional values are “traditional” because they make up humanity’s core. They don’t arise from Christ’s parables told on earth, or the laws created by emperors and monarchs, or even the Bible. They come from man’s conscience and natural law – things that rest in man’s soul. As Lewis demonstrates, the traditional values “…are there from time immemorial in the Tao (natural law). But they are nowhere else.” Modernists, whether their names belong to the Enlightenment or to the 20^th century, will find it is impossible to create a new set of values without relying on the same “traditional values” they are trying to reject. In order to even attempt this Herculaneum task, they must redefine language as we know it. Words like “good” and “evil” will have to replaced or redefined, because the fact that they exist yields to a common understanding of what is right and wrong, and this understanding belongs to “traditional values”. Modernists sever their own legs while trying to stand.

This is not to say that all that is modern is wrong. C.S. Lewis doesn’t say that in his little book. To say that our modern times are depraved is to say that all of time throughout recorded history is evil, or that man has been totally corrupt from his beginning. It is natural for man to ask questions, to experiment with art, music and writing, or to search for scientific explanations in the universe, because ultimately he is looking for the truth. Yet the traditional values must be held dear, not because they are “traditional”, but because they are what God instilled in our humanity. They serve as the compass that guides us in our search for the truth. They are what make us men. By replacing them, we cease to be men.

In far fewer, far less eloquent words, I have quickly summarized The Abolition of Man. No review of any book ought to replace the reading of the book itself, yet I hope this provides an introduction to the book’s contents. What C.S. Lewis wrote was an appeal to reason, for modernist thought attempts to bring reason itself to the guillotine. The Abolition of Man was also an important defense for traditional values. What we must do now is live these values – advocating reason when those who claim to be its champions have lost their heads. -Jason Cunningham