The “Abolition of Man” is written in three main sections: “Men Without Chests,” “The Way,” and the titular “The Abolition of Man.” These three sections follow a general argument. In the first, Lewis outlines a new style of teaching English, particularly a style found in the teaching of literary criticism, which he unveils as a sort of unconscious smuggling of amateur philosophy (page 6). In the second section, he outlines in further detail what that philosophy is, pointing out that it can only maintain any coherence by the total “rejection of the concept of value” (page 25), and in the third, Lewis argues why this philosophy is wrong.
Lewis seems to have three concerns regarding this philosophy: It is being smuggled in, it is objectively wrong, and it, if taken to its logical extreme, would metaphorically make “a wholly transparent world,” a world no different from “an invisible world” (page 40). This last concept should perhaps be expanded upon.
In a sense, Lewis cannot criticize this new philosophy as it disregards the normal groundwork upon which one would normally mount a counterargument, disregards traditional values, disregards the Tao. This works both ways, or as Lewis puts it, “Outside the Tao there is no ground for criticizing either the Tao or anything else” (page 23).
So, Lewis makes a pragmatic argument, pragmatism seemingly the only form of judgment given any weight by this philosophy, showing the natural progression of the ideology of “the green book.” One major point made is a clarification of this philosophy’s goal, what Lewis calls the conquest of nature, but more specifically, that part of nature which is mankind, human nature. This Lewis warns against. To treat man as “raw material” (page 36) logically turns man into raw material. Put another way, to conceptualize mankind as nature turns mankind into nature. Or to put it a third way, if the goal is to obtain mastery over nature, but in the process you become nature, you become the one subjugated.
In the end, the title says it all, “The Abolition of Man.” What Lewis foresees is the deconstruction of what makes man. By delivering man from traditional values, from the concept of good and evil, man is not left in a void of pure freedom, instead there remains the dictate “I want” (page 33), remains the merely animal, remains but the commands of nature.
There is a sense in which I have seen this ideology as being all too prevalent within my educational experience, and yet another sense in which it is undermined by its own subjective nature. In its encouragement of double think, it can often be forgotten. Subjectivism isn’t very useful until one wishes to debunk, and like Lewis’ Bulverism, is something of a double-edged sword.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9boiLqIabFh94-pJbd8RH2f2YXQwmOGD
Tale Told 