In The Abolition of Man, Lewis writes, “For the wise men of old, the cardinal problem of human life was how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution was wisdom, self-discipline, and virtue. For the modern, the cardinal problem is how to conform reality to the wishes of man, and the solution is a technique.”
These few sentences from Lewis offer profound insight into the state of our cultural moment. According to Michael Legaspi, in his book, Wisdom in the Classical and Christian Tradition, there used to be a shared understanding of wisdom in the West. Wisdom, according to Legaspi, “is a program for human flourishing that is ordered to a holistic, authoritative account of reality in its metaphysical, cosmic, political, and ethical dimensions.” Wisdom was the telos for human flourishing in both the classical and biblical traditions; it was a cultural synthesis that aspired to a holistic understanding, uniting knowledge with goodness, piety with prosperity, virtue with happiness, the cosmos with the polis, and divine authority with human responsibility.
“As that which names this wholeness,” Legaspi says, “wisdom features prominently in both classical and biblical literature as an ultimate good.” Even though the Christian and classical worldviews disagreed about the nature of the metaphysical, they agreed there was an ultimate Good; that it should be sought, that it could be found, and that it was fundamental to the good life, both for individuals and communities.
The classical and Christian thinkers shared these basic convictions. However, the modern severed himself from the wisdom root in what Legaspi argues was the most dramatic and “catastrophic” consequence of the modern era. Catastrophic is right. Glenn Ellmers, in his book, The Narrow Passage: Plato, Foucault, and the Possibility of Political Philosophy, provides a nuanced analysis of how this catastrophe is manifested in modern political life.
Ellmers argues that political philosophy is now caught between two extremes: the “scientific-bureaucratic-rational state” that insists on rigid, technocratic solutions, and the “post-modern rejection of all objective standards.” Ellmers contends that these contradictions are not only incompatible but also destructive, as they each fail to provide a stable foundation for meaningful political discourse and community. On the one hand, we are supposed to “follow the science,” and on the other hand, accept that a person can alter one’s biology by assertion. These ideas are catastrophic not only because they are incoherent, but also because they are fundamentally destructive. As Lewis indicates by his title, the end of this thinking is not merely incoherence, but abolition.
This is yet another reason we need to recover the classical Christian tradition. As Lewis says, “A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.”
Society for Classical Learning
At Society for Classical Learning, we are committed to recovering and preserving the classical Christian tradition that C.S. Lewis so deeply valued. By connecting wisdom, virtue, and human flourishing, we strive to equip educators and leaders with the philosophical and ethical foundations necessary to shape a meaningful future. If you are passionate about this pursuit, consider becoming a member of Society for Classical Learning today and join a community dedicated to advancing truth, goodness, and beauty in education.
