This statement is, in fact, poorly thought out, but it does not merit an entire thirty pages of philosophy on the psyche of posterity. Lewis follows his quote of Gaius and Titius with a discussion on how, because of this small statement in a single English textbook, future generations are doomed to deluded thought. He states that now a schoolboy who reads this passage will forever, unknowingly, associate ones feelings about another object with that persons own feelings. In the future, if presented with a situation such as a man complimenting the appearance of another person, the schoolboy would be lead to believe that the man was referring to himself. The authors of the book, who probably did not intend to teach such false ideas, are now being treated as criminals in the mind of Lewis.
Another example comes up from the Green Book that brings up an additional mind-threatening situation. Gaius and Titius use an advertisement for a cruise ship as an example of a form of literature to avoid using. Lewis is correct in saying that there could have been a better example used, such as one from a respectable piece of literature, but he continues to believe that the psyche of the schoolboy is further ruined. The advertisement was followed by a comment by the two authors stating that the events stated in the ad will not actually happen if one is to go on this cruise. Lewis holds Gaius and Titius to the fact that the schoolboy will now believe that “all emotions aroused by local association are in themselves contrary to reason and contemptible.” Lewis then continues to say, “Gaius and Titius, while teaching him (the schoolboy) nothing about letters, have cut out of his soul.”
Lewis, however, during his hollow raves about ruining the schoolboy’s mind, never once mentioned the age group that this book is being taught to. He does state, in the beginning, that it is an elementary schoolbook, but, due to the vast amount of age groups spanned in elementary teachings, this still says nothing of the age of the schoolboy. The age of this schoolboy is very important to the validity of Lewis’s claims. Beyond a certain age, it is doubtful that very brief statement in an English book could possibly subconscious imprint an entirely new way of thinking that poses contrary to what the schoolboy already knows. After a certain age, a child is nearly done developing the mind and can therefore pick the information that it would like to keep as well as dispose of anything that is not essential to further living. Because this schoolboy has probably never heard statements such as the ones in the Green Book before and will probably never hear them again, his future mental state is safe. This schoolboy does not need a lowlife philosopher picking bones at a book that probably provided some very good information on top of its bad.
Lewis sums up his chapter, after presenting more and more hogwash, by stating, “The operation of the Green Book and its kind is to produce what may be called Men without chests.” At this point, the connotation put forth by the above statement suggests is contradictory from an earlier statement by Lewis himself. He said, “The authors themselves, I suspect, hardly know what they are doing to the boy.” According to that proposal, Lewis does not believe that Gaius and Titius are not aware of what mental strife they may have caused to a child, but the statement at the top of the page, along with the text that surrounds it, brings forth the notion that Gaius and Titius would have had to have purposely planned on destroying the mind of the schoolboy. That is not, however, what Gaius and Titius were truly aimed towards. They are simply innocent writers caught in a mistake that has been sucked dry of any possible reasoning. The audacity Lewis must have to make such a harsh generalization about English authors is completely mind-numbing in its own. If anything, his book is the one young people must look out for if they wish to keep their intellect (and sanity).
The second chapter in this god forsaken book deals in part with a theory which Lewis refers to as the Tao. The Tao is very simply summed up as Natural Law or, as the second chapter is titled, the way. The second chapter is a break from the constant, almost childish, complaints about elementary literature, even though Gaius and Titius are brought up a few times. In fact, the entire chapter can be summed up by a single word, altruism. Lewis believes that the driving force behind each and every living thing is instinct, specifically the instinctive urge to preserve ones species.
Lewis, at this point, exhibits one of the greatest displays of idiocy ever. Following a short discussion on preservation of the species, Lewis attempts to rationalize Man’s tendency to obey instinct by proposing the idea that there is a higher instinct directing us to do so. He then continues to put forward the idea that there are, inherently, and infinite number of instincts, each of a higher power controlling a lesser instinct. This entire proposal, although seemingly wrong, is fine for Lewis to analyze, but what he says next brings out the idiocy. After proposing the infinite instincts, Lewis says, “This is presumably impossible, but nothing else will serve.” He then continues to use this theory that he had just deduced as impossible, making every statement that he makes based on this point completely worthless. On top of this, one may wonder about Lewis himself after further analyzing instincts that he proposes.
Lewis, although never truly putting one over the other, is assuming that the instinct for preservation of species outweighs the preservation of one’s self. This is an interesting presumption of his due to the obvious behavior of people and even animals. It can be seen easily that if faced with a decision, a human being will almost always be looking out for the good of him or herself, not whether or not their decision will benefit the entire species. Animals, for example, do not care much for the preservation of the species (besides, of course, sexual appetite). During a storm, a lemur would not drown himself in order to make a bridge for the others to cross. Quite the contrary, it would simply look for a place where it could be safe itself. Some animals are even cannibals. Proposing that cannibalism is based off an instinct for species preservation would be absurd, therefore basing almost anything inherent of the behavior of an individual must be based entirely on preservation of self.
The third chapter of this book, entitled ‘The Abolition of Man’, is based off of concepts of ‘Man’s conquest of Nature.’ Lewis brings up the idea that man is on a constant quest to overcome the powers of nature. He puts forth three examples that humans use: the aeroplane, the wireless, and the contraceptive. All believed to be a beginning to man’s conquest over nature is, in fact not. To argue his point he states, “If I pay you to carry me, I am not therefore a strong man.”
To begin his controversial part of the argument he set forth, he relates everything now to the power of earlier generations over later ones.
“Each generation exercises power over its successors: and each, in so far as it modifies the environment bequeathed to it and rebels against tradition, resists and limits the power of its predecessors.”
He, however, then states that although the power gradually becomes greater, it will ultimately result in less power in a forward direction. He claims that as time progresses, the nearer it comes to when the species will be extinct. His argument for less power is that the subjects exhibiting the greater power will be in less numbers due to the approaching extinction. In the end, the human race is to ultimately fall victim to nature and lose its quest for ‘Conquest of Nature.’ Lewis is completely wrong with his reasoning. Although without a doubt nature will ultimately win, the reasons are not what he states. As time progresses, the number of subjects being influenced by earlier generations will increase. Instead of a gradual decrease in power, time would actually promote a much quicker increase in power. The later generations have no reason to be nearing extinction unless they have already lost to nature. Therefore, that could not possibly be used as a catalyst for the abolition of man.
Lewis needs a new job because philosophy is simply not what he was meant to do. He spends too much time picking at trivial things in life, allowing true conflicts to pass him by. Lewis attempts to bring out the importance of elementary text books on the human psyche of posterity and how Man will be its own demise due to its constant efforts to conquer nature, and he fails miserably. One can only be misled by the contradicting ideas of Clive Staples Lewis, not helped. A human being would be better off analyzing the world around them by his or herself. Thankfully Clive Staples Lewis is dead now. There will be no more of his meaningless philosophy.