What do you think?
Rate this book
The Restitution of Man: C. S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism
A trained philosopher and intellectual historian as well as a writer of genius, C. S. Lewis was one of the most lucid, profound, and eloquent critics of the reductive scientific materialism that has helped make the twentieth century so destructive and con
120 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1983
1 person is currently reading
127 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
April 16, 2018
While neither Aeschliman, nor the philosophers he quotes, possess Lewis' happy ability to clothe complex philosophical notions in the lingo of common man, nonetheless his defense of Lewis' concern about scientism is well done. Aeschliman describes scientism as a misuse of science that asserts "what is not in principle observable is not in fact in existence."
This is an excellent book for exposing the inherent contradictions in philosophical materialism. Reducing man to an object of study is fatally contradictory, because, as Aeschliman points out, the realm of scientific theory is limited to objects lower than man. But when 'man the observer' of 'man the object' assumes that one is higher and the other lower, it is but a short distance from there to the idea that the proper end of science is the manipulation of some men by others for the sake of maximum utility. Man becomes a means to an end, rather than the end itself. Brute facts having triumphed over values (the former being seen as objective and real, the latter as merely subjective), there is no longer any wisdom (what Aeschliman terms sapientia) to govern the use of technology--it may be as readily employed in eugenics or nuclear war as it is in delivering water to an African village.
“Modern scientistic doctrine," Aeschliman says, "holds all fact to be objective and all value to be subjective. To call it a ‘doctrine’ is to draw attention to the fact that its characteristic assumption that only factual statements have validity is itself nonfactual, speculative, and dogmatic; it is, in fact, a diabolically ironic article of faith” [74].
Note well: the book is not anti-science; rather it is a call for science to once again be the handmaiden of wisdom: the recognition that there are ultimate values that define right and wrong, anchored in God Himself. Highly recommended.
This is an excellent book for exposing the inherent contradictions in philosophical materialism. Reducing man to an object of study is fatally contradictory, because, as Aeschliman points out, the realm of scientific theory is limited to objects lower than man. But when 'man the observer' of 'man the object' assumes that one is higher and the other lower, it is but a short distance from there to the idea that the proper end of science is the manipulation of some men by others for the sake of maximum utility. Man becomes a means to an end, rather than the end itself. Brute facts having triumphed over values (the former being seen as objective and real, the latter as merely subjective), there is no longer any wisdom (what Aeschliman terms sapientia) to govern the use of technology--it may be as readily employed in eugenics or nuclear war as it is in delivering water to an African village.
“Modern scientistic doctrine," Aeschliman says, "holds all fact to be objective and all value to be subjective. To call it a ‘doctrine’ is to draw attention to the fact that its characteristic assumption that only factual statements have validity is itself nonfactual, speculative, and dogmatic; it is, in fact, a diabolically ironic article of faith” [74].
Note well: the book is not anti-science; rather it is a call for science to once again be the handmaiden of wisdom: the recognition that there are ultimate values that define right and wrong, anchored in God Himself. Highly recommended.
September 24, 2017
One of my favorite quotes, "Lewis argues that we are obligated to transcend self-interest in order to know the truth and that the pursuit of our own pleasure ought to be restricted by and subordinated to the truth; he would say, with Lara in Dr. Zhivago, that "God put me on earth to call things by their right names."
This is even more true of the metaphysical realm than of the physical. "For the wise men of old," Lewis wrote "the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue." But for the pracitioners of applied science-for those who see through scientistic spectacles-"the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique."
I almost hate to take out one quote, for this book is far better read in its entirety. I am looking forward to reading it again and spending more time pondering its contents.
This is even more true of the metaphysical realm than of the physical. "For the wise men of old," Lewis wrote "the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue." But for the pracitioners of applied science-for those who see through scientistic spectacles-"the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique."
I almost hate to take out one quote, for this book is far better read in its entirety. I am looking forward to reading it again and spending more time pondering its contents.
December 31, 2011
A very well-written explanation of C.S. Lewis' battle against "scientism" and other modern ills, as he saw them. A good introduction to Lewis' ideas and books.
March 28, 2011
An overview of Lewis's "Abolition of Man" and "That Hideous Strength," the long history of the debate that they were part of, and the legacy of the books.
It is possible I missed something, since I read the thing in one sitting, but the whole thing seemed shallow. It reads like a bad college report: all quotation, and all thrown together as if a tornado passed through the philosophy department. There is no chain of thought or argument. I did read the whole thing (only 80 pages) in hopes that it would come together in the end.
it didn't.
You won't learn much from the book, except you can assemble from its scatter shot quotations and citations a list of much better books to read.
I think I hit the nail on the head when I described the book as a college report for a philosophy professor: it is not the sort of thing a person writes when he has something interesting to tell us or feels he can remind us of something we already know in an interesting way. It is the sort of thing a student mechanically assembles from the detritus of a hundred books in order to demonstrate to his professor that he can, well, mechanically assemble quotes from a hundred books.
It does not present the case against scientism, but rather catalogs bits and pieces of other people's cases against scientism. Rarely the important bits, and never enough of any one person's thought to actually convey it in a meaningful way. You will not get, even in summary form, what Lewis said in Abolition of Man. You will not get, even in summary form, what any other philosopher said when they influenced Lewis's Abolition of Man. You will not even get a solid sense of what Lewis attacked with Abolition of Man.
Skinner's behaviorism, scientism if anything could be and one of the prime ideas attacked by Lewis in "Abolition of Man," is not discussed at all beyond a quote that it is the "passing of man beyond freedom and dignity." It is a nifty little phrase, and I'm sure it was a good summary when it was used within a broader context of a better book. But used alone, without context or thought beyond a citation in the index, it is just about the most piss poor description of behaviorism I've ever seen. It is used over and over again in the book with precious ink, paper, and words that could have been devoted to saying something useful on the subject.
Nothing is discussed. Nothing is taught. Nothing is argued. Just quoted half-assed, mechanically strung together into manuscript form, and turned in for a grade. Somehow it got published along the way and made enough money off of Lewis' name to go through several reprints, one of which found its way into my local parish library. The back cover says it is "acclaimed." I hope that means it got an "A."
I did not want to read Mr. Aeschliman's research report for philosophy class with time that I could have spent reading a real book (such as Abolition of Man, or The Everlasting Man, or anything else in the bibliography.)
It is possible I missed something, since I read the thing in one sitting, but the whole thing seemed shallow. It reads like a bad college report: all quotation, and all thrown together as if a tornado passed through the philosophy department. There is no chain of thought or argument. I did read the whole thing (only 80 pages) in hopes that it would come together in the end.
it didn't.
You won't learn much from the book, except you can assemble from its scatter shot quotations and citations a list of much better books to read.
I think I hit the nail on the head when I described the book as a college report for a philosophy professor: it is not the sort of thing a person writes when he has something interesting to tell us or feels he can remind us of something we already know in an interesting way. It is the sort of thing a student mechanically assembles from the detritus of a hundred books in order to demonstrate to his professor that he can, well, mechanically assemble quotes from a hundred books.
It does not present the case against scientism, but rather catalogs bits and pieces of other people's cases against scientism. Rarely the important bits, and never enough of any one person's thought to actually convey it in a meaningful way. You will not get, even in summary form, what Lewis said in Abolition of Man. You will not get, even in summary form, what any other philosopher said when they influenced Lewis's Abolition of Man. You will not even get a solid sense of what Lewis attacked with Abolition of Man.
Skinner's behaviorism, scientism if anything could be and one of the prime ideas attacked by Lewis in "Abolition of Man," is not discussed at all beyond a quote that it is the "passing of man beyond freedom and dignity." It is a nifty little phrase, and I'm sure it was a good summary when it was used within a broader context of a better book. But used alone, without context or thought beyond a citation in the index, it is just about the most piss poor description of behaviorism I've ever seen. It is used over and over again in the book with precious ink, paper, and words that could have been devoted to saying something useful on the subject.
Nothing is discussed. Nothing is taught. Nothing is argued. Just quoted half-assed, mechanically strung together into manuscript form, and turned in for a grade. Somehow it got published along the way and made enough money off of Lewis' name to go through several reprints, one of which found its way into my local parish library. The back cover says it is "acclaimed." I hope that means it got an "A."
I did not want to read Mr. Aeschliman's research report for philosophy class with time that I could have spent reading a real book (such as Abolition of Man, or The Everlasting Man, or anything else in the bibliography.)
December 12, 2012
A clear, concise overview of the history of those who walk in the way of recta ratio ("Right Reason") and who are against the contradictory reductions of those who say only measurable facts are valuable (read that again).
For one, I need to read this book again and think about it more.
Two, it affirms my assessment of the greatness of Lewis, including his "The Abolition of Man".
Three, it gave me a lot of other books/essays that I want to read. For example, Samuel Johnson, Alexander Pope, etc.
Anyway, this is a short book, but it is weighty my friends.
For one, I need to read this book again and think about it more.
Two, it affirms my assessment of the greatness of Lewis, including his "The Abolition of Man".
Three, it gave me a lot of other books/essays that I want to read. For example, Samuel Johnson, Alexander Pope, etc.
Anyway, this is a short book, but it is weighty my friends.
March 1, 2020
The Restoration of Man was a very educational book. It stressed the need to remember the primacy of the human in the midst of scientific advancements and experiments.
The Glossary of Biographical Identifications was very valuable.
The Glossary of Biographical Identifications was very valuable.
February 23, 2009
Pretty okay.
February 8, 2012
This book condemns scientism in a delightfully complete way. Highly recommended, though rather thick reading.
February 11, 2016
80 pages of pure unadulterated truth about the false ideologies which currently plague the world. Almost as great as the book which inspired it, C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man.
May 13, 2015
Leitura essencial.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews