Hello, and welcome to Mythic Mind, where we pursue wisdom on the path between primary secondary worlds.

I'm doctor Andrew Snyder, and I'm glad that you're here.

Hey, then, welcome back.

Today, we're going to be continuing with our fiction and philosophy of CS.

Lewis series, which comes from a study that I led in the summer of twenty twenty four.

We are continuing with the Abolition of Man today.

And for whatever reason, when I first put this video together last year, I had it in my mind that there were four essays in the Abolition of Man.

I don't know what's going on.

I just had a brain lapse or something.

There are only three essays.

And so just to clear up that confusion before you hear that.

All right, well, now let's go ahead and.

Get into it.

Hello, welcome back.

I'm going to break up the Abolition of Man over two weeks and say this week will be covering the first two essays in that book, which is Men Without Chests and The Way, and then next week we'll cover the other two essays.

Now, Lewis mentions in his preface to That Hideous Strength that the ideas of that story are very much laid out in the Abolition of Man, at least in large part some of the most significant themes.

And so this is a very strong opinion text, as I've already discussed, and so I think it's worth taking a look at now.

I know a lot of people have expressed difficulty with the Abolition of Man, having a hard time getting their minds around exactly what going on.

Now I have the benefit of coming to Lewis not just from a literary background, but principally coming to Lewis from a philosophical background, right, that's my academic training, that's the world that I work in.

And so maybe for that reason, this text has not been too much of a difficult struggle for me, and I'm hoping that I can bridge them that gap for you if it has been a struggle for you, and help you to see what's going on there in that text, and by extension, what's going on in that hideous strength, and of course what's going on in our world as well.

And so let's go and take a look at the Abolition of Man all right.

Now, of course I had to feature this cover.

It's one of the best book cover arts of all time.

Now yes, this is from an unlicensed version, but not unless it is a version that you can find that you can purchase.

It just makes me laugh.

But also I think it's just a good job of demonstrating the degradation of humanity into the beastly that we find through the philosophy that we're going to be talking about in this study.

Okay, So at the beginning of Men Without, Jess Lewis says in their second chapter, Gaius and Titus quote the well known story of Coleridge at the waterfall.

You remember that there were two tourists present, that one called it sublime and the other pretty, and that Coleridge mentally endorsed the first judgment and rejected the second with disgust.

Guyusantitis comment as follows.

When the man said this is sublime, he appeared to be making a remark about the waterfall.

Actually he was not making a remark about the waterfall, but remark about his own feelings.

What he was saying was really, I have feelings associated in my mind with the word sublime, or shortly, I have sublime feelings.

Here are a good many deep questions settled in a pretty summary fashion, but the authors are not yet finished.

They add, this confusion is continually present in language.

As we use it, we appear to be saying something very important about something, and actually we are only saying something about our own feels.

Now, this green book that we're told about written by Gaius and Titus, in reality is the Control of Language, written by Alec King and Martin Kettley.

And I was able to find that full text online.

How I don't have the interest or time and digging into that right now.

Eventually I'd like to come around to it to get a even better grasp as to exactly what it is that Lewis is dealing with here.

But in short, guys and Titus are providing this textbook on English language for students.

But as we're going to see here, they're not just providing an instruction on language.

In their instruction on language, they are ultimately providing a philosophy that's being subtly brought in Trojan Horse style.

And maybe Guyas and Titus don't even recognize exactly what it is that they are doing, But really what they're doing here is they are presenting the worldview of scientism, or oflytic philosophy of naturalism.

And this philosophy was very powerful, especially in Lewis's day, and we definitely see it in our own day as well.

This is the idea that the only real knowledge that we can have, perhaps even the only meaningful language we can have, deals with empirical realities, realities that we can scientifically investigate.

In fact, one of Lewis's contemporaries, in fact, even taught at the same college for a time with Lewis, and they even had a debate with each other.

Ajair falls into this school of thought.

He said that language is only meaningful if it can be empirically verified, and so this is called verificationism.

And whenever we talk about things that can't be empirically verified, such as statements of value, he says, at that point, we're not actually using real language.

We are essentially just emoting in the same way as if we were just kind of grunting with delight or with and so statements about the value of something only actually reveals something about your personal sentiments.

You're never actually talking about the world as it exists, because that comes outside the realm of empirical scientific knowledge.

Therefore it's not actually knowledge at all.

And we see how this philosophy infiltrated the humanities to the point where it's just being embedded in the way we're talking about the way that language works.

And so if somebody were to say it, the waterfall is sublime, our Gaius and Titus are going to say that, no, the waterfall is not sublime.

All you're saying is you have sublime feelings when you are experiencing or when you are looking at the waterfall.

But the word sublime cannot actually extend to the waterfall itself.

And this whole exchange very much reminded me of this scene right here.

Good morning, What do you mean?

Do you mean to wish me a good morning, or do you mean that it is a good morning, whether I want it or not?

Or perhaps you mean to say that you feel good on this particular morning, or are you simply stating that this is a morning to be good on all of them months?

I suppose.

Okay, So, through their instruction in English language, Guys and Titus are ultimately teaching school children that all statements of value are nothing more than emotion and don't actually carry meaning.

They're not really a legitimate use of using language to communicate about shared realities, which is really why we communicate, right, We speak words with a common reference point to somebody else.

That way we can both be referring to the same thing.

If you lose that common reference point of reality, then you really lose communication because you lose that medium between agents.

And so what people with this school of thought want to do is to say that.

And so people who are operating under this school of thought are going to say that the only shared reality we have comes down to empirical observation.

But any statement of value, that's just individualistic emoting.

It's not real.

We don't have a common Russians point regarding value.

There is no natural law, there are no ideals.

Everything is just concrete and material.

And so Lewis says, the schoolboy who reads this passage in the Green Book will believe two propositions.

Firstly, that all sentences containing a predicate of value are statements about the emotional state of the speaker, and secondly that all such statements are unimportant.

Their words are that we appear to be saying something very important, when in reality we are only saying something about our own feelings.

No schoolboy will be able to resist the suggestion brought to bear upon him by that word only.

I do not, mean, of course, that he will make any conscious inference from what he reads to a general philosophical theory that all values are have been trivial.

The very power of Gaius and Titus depends on the fact that they are dealing with a boy, a boy who thinks he is doing his English prep and has no notion that ethics, theology, and politics are all at stake.

It is not a theory they put into his mind, but an assumption which, ten years hence its origin forgotten and its presence unconscious, will condition him to take one side in a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all.

And so this is I think a great red flag for us regarding what is going on in education.

That we tend to think that these big worldview issues don't really rise up until youth become a little bit older and they're able to recognize consciously the stakes at play.

That's not true at all.

The most apparently mundane English grammar book can do great harm by shaping the way that students understand and language, and the way that they understand language is going to directly shape the way that they're relating to their world, because that's what language does.

It helps us to relate to the world.

And so we need to be aware of the philosophy that's embedded in these early grammar books, these early books on English language, and as well as just the humanities in general, because the humanities, consciously or unconsciously are putting forth an idea as to what it means to be human, how do we live in this space that we occupy?

And Guys and Titus are pushing students in a particular direction, namely in discounting all idea of value as nothing more than irrational emotion.

As Lewis says, I must for the moment content myself with pointing out that it is a philosophical and not a literary position, and filling their book with it.

They have been unjust to the parents or headmaster who buys it, and who has got the work of amateur philosophers where he expected the work of professional grammarians.

A man would be annoyed if his son returned for the dentist with his teeth untouched and his head crammed with the dentists obit.

Addicta on bimetallism or the Baconian theory, and so again we need to recognize the philosophy that's being pushed through apparently ordinary non philosophical mediums.

Now stepping away from just simply the educational impact of this philosophy and moving into a criticism of the philosophy itself, Lewis says, until quite modern times, all teachers and even all men believed the universe to be such that certain emotional reactions on our part could be either congress or incongress to it.

Believed, in fact, that objects did not merely receive, but could merit our approval or disapproval, our reverence or our contempt.

Lewis is making the point that just about all people, not even just in the Christian world.

Right, there's the reason why instead of using the language of natural law, he's going to use the language of the Tao, which he's going to mean basically the same thing as now natural law.

But he's trying to demonstrate the fact that what he's arguing for is not unique to a particular culture.

It's not just some Western ideal that we can dismantle, but this idea that there is such a thing as right and wrong, that there are some affections to certain things that we should have.

Well, this is an idea that we find across cultures, across time, across spaces.

In fact, he argues this pretty regularly.

It's such as in mere Christianity that we cannot help but to appeal to a moral law.

It doesn't matter how much someone might claim to be a relativist.

You can push that to certain limits where they're going to say that some things are right and some things are wrong.

Most people, if you put before them gross evils like rape or genocide, they're not going to say, well, these things are just wrong because I think they're kind of ichy, but you know, to each their own.

No, most people are going to say that these kinds of obvious heinous evils are just that they're evil, or even if they're afraid they're using that language, they'll say they're wrong, and they'll say that they should be stopped, that rapists should be punished because they violated some kind of moral law, even if in another context that same person might say there is no moral law, they don't really believe that.

Or the fact that so many people bring up tolerance as the chief virtue and they'll say that you can believe whatever you want to as long as you're not pushing your beliefs on other people.

But the problem is they're then appealing to a law that stands between us, that we shouldn't push our beliefs onto other people, And of course that means by extent, they are pushing their beliefs onto us.

And so despite the fact that they might be wrapped up in all kinds of inconsistencies, they can't help but to recognize that there is a moral law.

Even if we disagree as to the application of the moral law, and what things are justified and not justified within the moral law, we cannot help but to appeal to the fact that there is indeed a moral law that stands between us and judges us when one of us wrongs the other person.

Otherwise we couldnt meaningfully talk about another person.

And so what Guys and Titus are doing, they're not just criticizing a particular philosophy.

They're criticizing the very experience of what it means to be human, because to be human is to be in touch with the moral law, with the natural law, with the Tao.

As he goes on, Saint Augustine defines virtue as ordo amorus, the ordinate condition of the affections in which every object is accorded that kind of degree of love which is appropriate to it.

Aristotle says that the aim of education is to make the pupil like and dislike what he ought.

When the age of reflective thought comes, the pupil who has been thus trained in ordinate affections or just sentiments, will easily find the first principles and ethics.

But to the corrupt man, they will never be visible at all, and he can make no progress in that science.

Plato before him it said the same.

The little human animal will not at first have the right responses.

It must be trained to feel pleasure, liking discussed, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likable, disgusting and hateful.

And so the path to wisdom is not just thinking the right things, but its cultivating the right affection, so that way you love the things that are lovely, and you hate the things that are wicked, the things that are corrupting.

You hate evil, you hate sin, you hate vice.

I may have talked about this before, but you go back to the classical understanding of beauty, and you see these two competing forces of true beauty, which pulls the affections, or which pulls the mind and pulls the heart, pulls the soul up toward that which is true and good in life giving.

On the other side, you have seduction, which can have the appearance of beauty, but has a very different result, leading you toward what is false, what is deadly, and ultimately what is life consuming.

We see this portrayed in the difference between the muses and the sirens.

On the surface that are very similar, but they have very different results.

And so what we need to do is to cultivate the right affection so that way we love the true manifestations of beauty when they present themselves, and we have a hatred for the counterfeit.

But that goes beyond just reason, because, as Pascal says, the heart has its motivations that reason doesn't understand.

And I think that we all recognize that that's true.

And so the path through wisdom is about strengthening the hearts.

That way we actually love the right things and we hate the wrong things, and that is the path of wisdom.

Now, Lewis is going to point out that Geyson Titus practically speaking would agree with this, because they want for us to adopt a certain way of being, a certain way of using language, a certain way of approaching the world and approaching each other and approaching our own moral sentiments.

And so, in other words, they're putting forward a good that we ought to favor and that we ought to pursue.

They're putting forward something for us to love, and then in contrast, they're putting forward something for us to hate, which it would be their understanding, but misuse of language by treating value as something real and objective, and so they are undermining the very worldview that they are espousing.

This goes back to Protagoras when Socrates says, Protagoris, what do you do for a living?

Vertagoras says, I'm a teacher, and Socrates says, well, I find this very puzzling, because as soon as you tell your students what they believe is just as valid as what you believe, what more can you teach them?

As soon as you spout out the view of the relativism, as soon as you say that there is no absolute truth, well, you're then attempting to impose an absolute truth on other people is self defeating.

It breaks the law of non contradiction given to us by Aristotle, which is another way of saying that it is quite literally nonsense.

And so at the same time they're trying to say that language of value is irrational, they are cutting out the very reason for believing their own argument, which they believe to be valuable, and so it's nonsense.

It leads into a void.

And this gets to some of the major themes we've been seeing throughout the Ransom series, especially regarding this worldview of naturalism or scientism, where science is trying to play philosophy, and in so doing it's trying to deal with value, is trying to deal with ethics, which science has no way of engaging in.

There's no scientific experiment you can run that will tell you what you ought to value, and so whenever somebody tries to determine or to shape value through science, they're attempting to deal with something they don't have a category for understanding.

They don't have a category for dealing with, and so ultimately what they're doing is they are placing value in a void, in an abyss, because there's no place for value within this scientific worldview, and when you place value in the abyss.

What you get is an abyss, and so it is a march into nothingness, just as we saw from the Unman's discussion of Satan reaching into the void.

Because for Satan to reach forward through progress, as in progress away from the good established by God, it is literally a reach into nothingness.

And so that is what Satan found, that is what the Unman found, that is what the agents of the Nice are finding.

That's what Mark will find for much of the story.

It is a progress into the void, into emptiness, into things that the scientific worldview, or the attempt at a scientific worldview, can't deal with.

And so what that means is going to be led by forces that it does not understand.

And so, again just showing that he's not appealing to a particular culture, but really just to broad human experience, he says that the Chinese also speak of a great thing, the greatest thing, called the Tao.

It is the reality beyond all predicates, the abyss that was before the Creator himself.

It is nature.

It is the way, the road.

It is the way in which the universe goes on, the way in which things everlastingly emerge stilly and tranquility into space, and time.

This conception in all its forms Platonic, Aristilian, Stoic, Christian, and Oriental alike, I shall henceforth refer to, for brevity simply as the Tao, and so getting He's getting to not a particular philosophy, not a particular ideology, but simply universal human experience that all people have recognized through their reflection on what it means to be human, and so, operating under the Tao, operating reference to natural law, he says that to say that the cataract is sublime means saying that our emotion of humility is appropriate or ordinate to the reality, and thus to speak of something else besides the emotion, just as to say that a shoe fits is to speak not only the shoes, but a feat.

But this reference to something beyond the emotion is what Gaius and Titus exclude from every sentence containing a predicate of value.

And so, operating under this Tao model, we see that to say that the waterfall is sublime is to make a statement about the waterfall, namely that a right relationship to the waterfall will instill a sense of the sublime in us as we participate in the beauty that the waterfall expresses the beauty and the power that it expresses, and so there is a real value to beauty.

Beauty is real.

And here's the thing.

We all know that beauty is real.

Even those who say it's an artificial construct don't really believe that.

For example, I teach at public university, and most of those students take some form of relativism and say that there is no beauty, it's all social construct or individual opinion, blah blah blah.

But last semester I took them to the art museum and I had them figure out which pieces of art speak to them, what do they find particularly beautiful, and then which ones do they not find beautiful, what do they not find appealing, And almost all of them said that the most beautiful art where some kind of classical painting or even a Renaissance oil painting or something like that, something that had great depth, something that had great substance behind it, something that obviously spoke to a transcendent reality.

And then almost all of them recognize that the modern art, or really postmodern art, is a scam, that there's nothing there, that it's just vapid, it's vacuous and that's not something I had to convince them of.

The recognize it reflexively, because we all know substance when we see it, and we know empty propaganda when we see it as well, at least most of us, as long as we have our eyes at least partially open, and so we know that beauty is not entirely subjective.

If somebody watches a glorious sunrise and comes out saying it was boring, well, then that actually reveals that there's something wrong in them, just as Lewis says in the Abolition of Man that he doesn't particularly like being around kids, but he recognizes that that's a fault in him, that there's something wrong in him because he doesn't have the preference that he should for valuing children, for valuing being with children.

And so when Lewis says that the waterfall should instill within us a certain feeling when we are rightly related to the waterfall and everything that it contains, what he's saying is that there is this universal realm of values that we all inescapably are related to, and we know that we are related to it if we are willing to be at all self conscious of our experience in the world.

These are things that you can't avoid entirely.

And this is what we see in Romans one as well, where Paul says that as God's image bearers, living in God's creation that testifies to who he is, we all can't help but to know the truth, even though we naturally suppress it in or I guess I should say we unnaturally suppress it in unbelief, and in so doing, foolish hearts become darkened, and we're given over to foolish and futile thinking.

Because we are contradicting the most fundamental reality that we cannot ever fully escape.

And because we're not able to recognize value as a legitimate point of reference for our language, we can't even meaningfully talk about what we should be as humans.

We can't really talk about what human nature is.

We can't meaningfully talk about the idea of progress, because progress has this idea of moving from what is less valuable to what is more valuable, from what is worse to what is better.

But if we aren't able to talk meaningfully about values, the value isn't real beyond our emotional sentiment, then we have no realm to talk about progress.

We can't even talk about why we should use the right kind of language, why we should value the kind of language that guys and titles are giving to us.

So again, this is a philosophy that cuts itself off at the feet, and the of education itself doesn't really make sense with this philosophy, just like when Divine says that the nice is aiming to make a more efficient man, despite the fact that they reject ideals, and so the question remains what man's can be more efficient at doing what?

At being what?

And that's something that they simply can't answer, which again leads us into progress into the void, and thus Lewis goes on.

Hence, the educational problem is wholly different according as you stand within or without the Tao.

For those within, the task is to train in the pupil those responses which are in themselves appropriate, whether anyone is making them or not, and in making which the very nature of man consists.

Those without, if they are logical, must regard all sentiments as equally non rational, as mere miss between us and the real objects.

As a result, they must either decide to remove all sentiments as far as possible from the pupil's mind, or else to encourage some sentiments for reasons that have nothing to do with their intrinsic justice or ordinancy.

The latter course involves them in the questionable process of creating in others by suggestion or incantation a mirage which their own reason has successfully dissipated.

And so again they're trying to instill certain values in other people that don't have any more internal justification than the values that they claim to be debunking.

And so what they're doing in the name of reason is actually something very irrational.

They're simply uttering forth what they want to see manifested in the world, with no clear root in nature, no clear root in reason.

And so this is why he says that ultimately what they're doing is a questionable process of creating in others by suggestion or incantation, a mirage which their own reason has successfully dissipated.

And so this brings them into the realm of magic.

And we've already seen this in Screwtape.

Lewis talks about this more in the Abolition of Man.

This idea that this modern scientific philosophy and magic sorcery has the same root in a desire to dominate the world, not to nurture the world, not to cultivate the world, not to help the world be more itself, like we see in the Company of Saint Anne's for example, right, they help Jane become more of herself.

No, Instead, what we see is a desire to simply put forth words that dominate, words that manifest realities.

What we see is magic.

And I mean, this is what the nice does, and this is what is happening under the worldview of scientism, under naturalism, and this is what we should see.

Every time some famous scientists make some prescription for how we should live or how society should be directed on scientific grounds.

Whenever they start giving us shoulds in the name of science, they're doing something non scientific.

They're doing something unreasonable.

They are uttering an incantation.

Of course, from their worldview, there's nothing wrong with this, because there's no virtue that can stand against them in judgment.

There's no substance.

They have no solid ground to stand on.

They are floating and a void and will avoid doesn't cast judgment.

And that's because the void is the judgment.

And so the operation of the Green Book and its kind is to produce what may be called men without chess.

It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as intellectuals.

This gives them the chance to say that he who attacks them attacks intelligence.

It is not so.

They are not distinguished from other men by any unusual skill in finding truth, nor any virtual ardor to pursue her.

Indeed, it would be strange if they were.

A persevering devotion to truth and nice sense of intellectual honor cannot be long maintained without the aid of a sentiment which Gaius and Titus could debunk as easily as any other.

It is not excess a thought, but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out.

Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary.

It is the atrophy of the chestnuth that makes them seem so.

And all the time, such as the tragic comedy of our situation we continue to claimor for those very qualities we are rendering impossible.

You can hardly open periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more drive or dynamism, or self sacrifice or creativity.

Side note this week, you think of Screwtape when he says that that wormtong shouldn't make his patient think that materialism is true, or he shouldn't teach him any kind of doctrine, even the wrong doctrine.

What he needs to do is convince him that materialism is courageous or progressive.

Same thing going on here, in a sort of ghastly simplicity.

We remove the organ and demand the function.

We make men without chess and expect of them virtue and enterprise.

We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

And that is I think a powerful way to end this section.

It's a powerful rebuke to this community that pushes progress on us, that pushes justice, that pushes the importance of man and of community and whatever else well at the same time destroying any reason to pursue any of these things.

And so we get reason without the root, which is not reason at all.

We get ultimately a descent into hell while it is being dressed up in a pursuit of heaven on earth.

All right, Next we have the way, and at least as far as a high level presentation goes, we're dealing with some of the same themes here and so this is going to go fairly quickly.

Now, Lewis says that the practical result of education in the spirit of the Green Book must be the destruction of the society which accepts it.

And so he continues to point out the fact that this way of thinking uproots the very foundation of thinking that it requires.

And so they want to discount all values as being real well at the same time telling us how we should act, how we should live, or at the very least, how we should use language.

But whenever you're talking about should or should not, you are dealing with the domain of value.

And so to even put forth any kind of education pfoth anything as that which ought to be believed, Well, now you're appealing to a transcendent value, the same transcendent value that you are discounting.

And so it's self contradictory.

Everything that leads to a good citizen, everything that leads to a good society, gets discounted as essentially meaningless, being void of real content.

But that's no way to build a society, it's no way to build a community.

It's no way to even build an individual life as one person being a community of persons living across time, and so this is just a way of living.

That ALTI is a movement into the void.

And he continues to point out this self refuting tendency of this philosophy, as he says, however subjective they may be about some traditional values, guys and titis have shown by the very act of writing the Green Book that there must be some other values about which they are not subjective at all.

They write in order to produce certain states of mind in the rising generation, if not because they think those states of mind intrinsically just or good, get certainly because they think them to be the means to some state of society which they regard as desirable.

They could be forced by argument to answer the question necessary for what progressing towards what affecting what?

I remember, this is the question I raised when Divine says that he's trying to make a more efficient man, and the question is efficient for what?

Lewis continues.

In the last resort, they would have to admit that some state of affairs was, in their opinion good for its own sake, And this time they could not maintain that good simply describe their own emotion about it for the whole purpose of their book is so to condition the young reader that he will share their approval.

And this would be either a fools or a villain's undertaking unless they held their approval was in some way valid or correct.

And so you can't at the same time undermine value and then say that your philosophy is that which ought to be believed, because in so doing you are putting forth some kind of value, something that you believe people should believe.

And so this kind of radical subjectivity, this kind of radical relativism, it is dead upon arrival.

It is, as Chesterton says, an orthodoxy reason without root, which is how you get madness.

And so these people who are using the language of reason, right, they set themselves up as intellectuals, as rationalists.

Well, actually what they're doing is very unrational or irrational rather because they are destroying the very foundations of reason, because reason demands that we appeal to the reality of value, because to say that we should act, we should think in a certain way, we should believe a certain set of doctrines.

Well, whenever we make those kinds of claims, we're saying that some things are intrinsically more valuable than others, which means value is real, and in the end, where this philosophy leads is brutality to compulsion.

It's going to rely on the state.

And I mean when thinking about how the nice is this governmental agency that's trying to use the power of the state in order to enact its progressive philosophy on the populace, because that's the only thing it can do, because it doesn't have goodness on its side, it doesn't have virtue on its side.

All it has is power.

And so it's no wonder that Lewis is using this philosophy as the driving force of his dystopian speculations, demonstrating the natural outworking of the ideas that have a pretty mainstream platform in our world today, this idea that there is no real value, that the only things that really exist and can be meaningfully discussed are material empirical realities, and that everything metaphysical is off the table as a legitimate reference point for language.

And so this just falls apart altogether, because without metaphysics, all of our communication falls apart, as we seek to tell others what ought to be believed, right, otherwise, we wouldn't actually be using language unless we have that presupposition in play, and so as soon as you destroy metaphysics, you really destroy language altogether.

And more on this, Lewis says, in actual fact, Guias and Titus will be found to hold with complete uncritical dogmatism the whole system of values which happen to be in vogue among moderately educated young men of the professional classes during the period between the two wars.

Their skepticism about values is on the surface, it is for use on other people's values about the values current in their own set.

They are not nearly skeptical enough.

And so the guys in titus crowd are very likely going to say that those who hold to a traditional understanding of values as embedded in reality and understood through reason, which would be most people across time and space, as Lewis is already demonstrated, from ancient China to Greece to Rome and beyond.

You know, we've all recognized that there is something like human nature, that there are better and worse ways to live, and that the better that we live, the more free we are.

Well, Guys and Titus are going to look at that and say that, okay, this whole idea of the good is just sort of socially constructed, and it's really meaningless when you get down to the actual content of language.

But really what they're doing, as we've already seen, is they're simply protecting their particular set of values without criticism, without any kind of skepticism.

And then they are saying that they're trying to make man free by undermining all of the values, all of the idea of genuine progress that would actually allow men to be free.

Because if Guys and Titus are correct, and we can't meaningfully talk about value, then we can't even talk about the value of freedom.

And this is when you get to Screwtape, especially in Screwtape proposes to toast when you know he wants to encourage talk of democracy, but at the same time he wants to empty the word democracy of any kind of meaning.

He wants to empty it of any kind of reasonable understanding of freedom, any kind of reasonable understanding of equality.

And what he wants us to do is empty these of any kind of legitimate values and just make them sounding points, so that the progressive democratic philosophy just sounds courageous, it sounds emboldening, it's stunning and brave as we might say today, but what we never want to worry about are actual discussions about what is true and what is false.

All we want to know is what is courageous, what is progressive, what is moving us forward?

And we could certainly hear some of Weston in this, all right, moving on, A great many of those who debunk traditional, as they would say, sentimental values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process.

They claim to be cutting away the parasitic growth of emotion, religious sanction, and inherited taboos in order that real or basic values may emerge.

And again, same thing.

They are putting forth a certain set of values while trying to debunk value as such.

And so really, I mean the end, what they have here is a set of values that can't be analyzed, that can't be assessed, and that they're trying to propagate through compulsion while gaslighting everyone else into thinking that they're not doing something metaphysical.

And at this point I'm really repeating a lot of these same ideas, and so I'm going to end with I think is a pretty significant couple of passages here from the way in which Lewis is taking the mindset, taking the perspective of his opponents, and so with that in mind, he says, how can the modern mind be expected to embrace?

The conclusion we have reached This tow which it seems we must treat as an absolute, is simply a phenomenon like any other, the reflection upon the minds of our ancestors, of the agricultural rhythm in which they lived, or even their physiology.

We know already in principle how such things are produced.

Soon we shall know in detail.

Eventually we shall be able to produce them at will.

Of course, while we did not know how minds were made, we accepted this mental furniture as a datum, even as a master.

But many things in nature which were once our masters have become our servants.

Why not this?

Why must our conquest of nature stop short in stupid reverence before this final and toughest bit of nature, which has hitherto been called the conscience of man?

And we see a lot of this kind of thinking alive today as we move into increased integration of AI, cybernetics, neural and all that I mean.

Obviously, some good can come out of these efforts but we have to recognize the forces that are at play here.

What exactly is it that we are trying to do?

Are we trying to become more enchanted?

Are we trying to help man more fully reach his form?

Are we trying to bring out of nature that which was always there?

Or are we trying to take charge of nature?

Does progress simply equal what comes next?

And if that's the case, then we are setting ourselves up for a healthscape when we talk about what progress means without any kind of tay loss, without any kind of formal goal in mind.

And then, finally, this should really hit home as we consider what we've already seen from that hideous strength, as well as West End and this whole approach of scientism and progressivism and that sort of thing.

He says, you threaten us with some obscure disaster if we step outside it.

That is the Tao and the natural law.

But we have been threatened that way by obscurantists that every step in our advance, and each time the threat has proved false.

You say, we shall have no values at all if we step outside the tower, very well, we shall probably find that we can get on quite comfortably without them.

Let us regard all ideas of what we ought to do simply as an interesting psychological survival.

Let us step right out of all that and start doing what we like.

Let Us decide for ourselves what man is to be, and make him into that, not on any ground of imagined value, but because we want him to be such.

Having mastered our environment, let us now master ourselves and choose our own destiny.

And reading that should send shivers down your spine, because, as he is going to go on to say in this book, really what this comes down to is not the freedom of all men.

What it comes down to is a select few men who happen to have power, who are able to exert their ideas of what they want to be on the mass.

This is the movement toward fascism.

This is the movement toward tyranny of some kind or another.

As you have certain people on the top who are simply deciding what values they are going to compel on the world around them.

And ultimately this has to come down to compulsion, because by its own philosophy, it can't use reason to appeal to value as to how we should live, how we should act.

All we have is the people who have the power to decide for themselves what they want man to be and by extent, what they don't want man to be, and so they're going to use the forces at their disposal in order to in order to compel influence on those around them.

We see this in the nice I think we see this stream of thought in a lot of elements of our culture today when you look at some of the conversations taking place.

Because again, if you don't believe in value as something that you can meaningfully reference as a common ground between men, then all you have is brutalism.

All you have is survival of the fittest.

All you have is force.

And as we've already seen through Mark, it is this kind of courageous progressivism that can lead nice men to do very bad things.

And I guess with that warning, we'll go ahead and leave off, and the beginning of next week we will cover the next two essays in the Abolition of Man.

Until next time, godspeed.

All right, thank you for listening or watching you you're over on YouTube.

I really appreciate you coming along with me in this study.

If you want more for mythic mind, make sure you check out our other podcast Mythic Mind Games, where we discuss video games, our experienced philosophy, character of the games, that sort of thing from an explicitly Christian perspective.

And then that also we have Mythic Mind Movies and Shows where we do that sort of thing with movies and shows, and right now we're on a Star Wars series over there.

Or if you want all of Mythic Mind content and delivered into a single feed early and ad free, then head over to patreon dot com slash Mythic Mind.

Click that link in the show notes, become a patron at any level to get that special podcast feed, and of course higher levels of support will come with more benefits.

For example, get an annual Tier three membership and you'll also get access to all of my courses that begin within that yearly term.

And next month in October, we do have the Elder Scrolls and Philosophy coming up, so you can either go to the Patreon shop and enroll in just that one course or become an annual Tier three patron to get that.

The Cimarillion in the early twenty twenty six and the Psychology of Storing kry Guard sometime in the spring.

So if that interests you, Patreon, dot com slash Mythic Mind.

But before we go, I do would like to thank all my patrons and by name all Tier three patrons and higher.

That's Mark, William, Paul Clinton, Jamie, Aaron, Christopher Justin, Aaron Chaz Evy, Kyle Tyler, Chase, David, Amanda Justin, Roger, Jack Ross, Don, Adam Kit and Andrew.

I really appreciate all of you in going above and beyond to support what we're doing, as well as all the other patrons we have a little over seventy in total.

Welcome you to join this growing community.

The next thing coming out from Mythic Mind if you're listening on the public feed, will be over on Mythic Mind movies and shows as we get into the sequel trilogy of Star Wars for better or worse.

All right, Well that's it for now until next time.

God speed,