Scan barcode
defenders_iris's review against another edition
challenging
medium-paced
3.0
At his best, C.S. Lewis is a master logician, expertly illustrating an argument with classical methods and imagery alike, walking readers and listeners through each step and enabling their own understanding of the world.
At his worst, C.S. Lewis is an obtuse misogynist who makes puzzling statements with circular reasoning and moves on without addressing any naturally arising question. Giving a sort of "old man yells at cloud" vibe, to put it into Gen Z parlance.
I found that most of The Abolition of Man was the latter, with the former shining through at the tail end of the final essay. Much of his argument of the reductiveness of modern thought as applied to the nature of humanity has been made in better and more compelling ways (though this could be simply because I'm coming fresh out of Gavin Ortlund's book). He began by essentially railing against air travel and contraception, but finished on a high note, noting that there is a certain loss in understanding the world if we only look at it through a purely scientific lens. Furthermore, this loss then translates into relational strife, as humans become less "human" and special - I think about the distillation of a person into data points to be graphed and sold, for example.
Still, definitely not his best work.
At his worst, C.S. Lewis is an obtuse misogynist who makes puzzling statements with circular reasoning and moves on without addressing any naturally arising question. Giving a sort of "old man yells at cloud" vibe, to put it into Gen Z parlance.
I found that most of The Abolition of Man was the latter, with the former shining through at the tail end of the final essay. Much of his argument of the reductiveness of modern thought as applied to the nature of humanity has been made in better and more compelling ways (though this could be simply because I'm coming fresh out of Gavin Ortlund's book). He began by essentially railing against air travel and contraception, but finished on a high note, noting that there is a certain loss in understanding the world if we only look at it through a purely scientific lens. Furthermore, this loss then translates into relational strife, as humans become less "human" and special - I think about the distillation of a person into data points to be graphed and sold, for example.
Still, definitely not his best work.
danielhume's review against another edition
3.0
Really don't understand all the five star reviews here. Lewis tries to give a convincing argument for universal values and kinda succeeds. However, universal doesn't equate to objective like he seems to think. Lewis either has neither heard of or willingly ignores the is/ought problem raised by philosopher David Hume. Sure universal values may exist. I would say that among societies that haven't completely collapsed in a short period of time that they do exist. No society for example would last long if murder wasn't considered a big deal. However this doesn't get one an objective ought. Why ought I not to murder? One might say because it reduces personal or societal well being. Well why I ought I care about those things? One might say to please God, but again why am I objectively obligated to please God? Any reason for doing a moral or immoral action is ultimately subjective whether an all powerful creator exists or not. This is something that both Sam Harris and C.S Lewis both fail to understand which is funny considering their wildly different worldviews.
alayna017's review against another edition
3.0
I’m going to have to read this book again, slower and with more deliberation. It felt complicated, but I’m willing to give it another shot. (It’s a very short book!)
midwifereading's review against another edition
3.0
Dude, I need a class for this one. Or at least to read it again. I feel like I grasped the main concept of the whole thing, but I know there is so much more there, because nothing is ever that simple with C.S. Lewis.