What Did C.S. Lewis Mean by Men Without Chests?

C.S. Lewis in his The Abolition of Man spoke of "men without chests." But what did Lewis mean by that? Was he speaking about muscular men with barrel chests? Not at all. What he meant was something more profound, something that probably will surprise you.

[@safedba]

C.S. Lewis famously coined the term "men without chests" in his book "The Abolition of Man." He used this phrase to critique a certain kind of modern education that, in his view, neglected the development of character and moral virtues in individuals. In the book, Lewis argues that there are three parts to human nature: the head (reason), the chest (emotion or sentiment), and the belly (appetite or desire). The "chest" represents the seat of human emotions and moral sentiments, such as courage, compassion, honor, and a sense of duty. Lewis believed that a proper education should cultivate not only the intellect (the head) but also the emotions and moral instincts (the chest). However, he observed a trend in modern education that focused excessively on intellectual development while neglecting the cultivation of virtues and moral sensibilities. He argued that this approach led to a generation of "men without chests" - individuals who were intellectually adept but lacked moral fortitude and emotional depth. These individuals might be clever and knowledgeable but were morally stunted, lacking the capacity for genuine empathy, courage, and a sense of higher purpose. Lewis saw this as a dangerous development because, in his view, moral values and virtues are essential for a well-functioning society and for individuals to live meaningful and fulfilling lives. He warned against the consequences of severing the connection between reason and emotion, arguing that it could lead to moral relativism, the loss of objective values, and ultimately, the erosion of human dignity and civilization itself. In essence, by "men without chests," Lewis was critiquing a modern educational philosophy that prioritized intellectual development at the expense of moral and emotional growth, resulting in individuals who lacked the moral and emotional foundation necessary for leading virtuous lives and contributing positively to society.

[@samargles]

As I understood it it wasn’t just that the modern education ‘neglected the development of character and moral virtues’, but actively pushes to put moral judgements in a subjective category rather than an education within the moral law (to love love and hate hate)

[@AgentThursday]

Thank you for saving me the time.

[@gabetorresx]

Looks like someone understands what they're talking about 😏

[@_munkykok_]

Too long for a tweet, F.

[@brettking700]

Appreciated this summary and the examples you gave here man!

[@wagraham]

Thanks, Brett! I really appreciate your encouraging words!

[@bretgreeno]

How does this guy not have way more subscribers

[@_munkykok_]

Needs more rainbows and flags in the profile picture / video frame, that's how. #NotOvertlyGayEnough

[@markperry562]

Today we have people with chests (untrained emotions) but without heads (rationality). Philosophers begining with German Romatics and through Critical Theory and Postmodernism have lost their heads. What is needed is the full body of man.

[@robertburke9920]

So then, read the breakthrough novel “Where Do We Go Now, LORD? - Burke.” This book has a 2,500 year breakthrough on the Book of Job. A fun read, yet quite ameliorating. Enjoy!

[@gooiehoop20]

Thanks. that was a great explanation.

[@wagraham]

Glad it was helpful!

[@mobieus7]

Thank you for sharing. Always be aware of confirmation bias.

[@InsaneWorld2]

But where does Jack Sparrow fit into all of this? That’s the real question we should be asking.

[@wishIwuzskiing]

It is interesting that we have passed through the "scientism" age and entered into a time when science, more and more, is presenting evidence of the necessity of a creator. Stephen Meyer has several books that speak to this (The return of the God hyphothesis, Signature in the Cell) as well as John Lennox and others. So science is coming full circle to say that it can't JUST be about the numbers and facts. There is absolutely something much more behind all of this. We do need to revive our hearts and souls and spirits, to revive our "chests", to see the created world as it is, fully, completely.

[@jvo3777]

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -John 14:6

[@chriswaterman3823]

While character and morals MAY be taught , emotions are niether taught nor learned . Hatred is an emotion and even though one can instruct others as to WHAT or WHOM to direct their hatred , the hatred itself is either there or its NOT there , based upon the underlying physiological chemistry . Take for an example the reporting of a stock market crash to a swarm of mosquitoes. THEY GENUINELY DO NOT CARE AND POSSES NO NEED TO EXPRESS THOSE SENTIMENTS ( because they are not sentimental) . People often say " I dont care about this or that , but the fact that they posses some need to say this indicates a caring on some level and about something . Whereas, in the extreme case of an emotionless creature such as a mosquito , there's complete indifference , no passion AT ALL . No feelings and no potential to teach about feelings to them . People are somewhat varible in their emotions but that is not DIRECTLY up to them . We dont choose what we care about , or what we are indifferent to . This is not to say that its always unalterable , but the only control of ANYTHING comes through knowledge of its dynamics NOT wishful thinking . Ask a sociopathic serial killer how they sleep at night and they just might say ," sometimes on my left side , sometimes on my back ," in a total oblivion to your intended point . SO : You can dance if ya' want to ... oh wait , thats MEN WITHOUT HATS .

[@Lichcrafter]

He means that you need to do more push-ups. Hit the gym, bros.

[@John-xe2zn]

But do you even?

[@byronrogers4489]

Smh

[@timnray99]

mom always said a leopard never changes its' spots is good advice however the spots of the cheetah are never seen until it is too late. life is all about being aware. the opprobrium of humanity is often worn by those who wear the Red Badge of Courage to stand against the mobocracy, remember son many a great man wore a necktie and it is better to be left hanging than yet another lemming at the bottom of the cliff

[@matthewsheek8306]

Saint Jack of the Kilns!

[@LifeForAiur]

Lewis's position seems quite noble, yet I fear that this may lead to particular societal issues that we've already fallen into. While I agree that the examples you provided demonstrates the problem with the "utilitarian path" for a lack of a better term, it is a path in part counter cultural to ideological dogmatism that is very prevalent in the Unites States, and especially in higher education. One then wonders, what happens if our education is more moralistically driven? I fear that it might lead into a kind of dogmatism that shuns any thought counter to the status quo. I mean we already see it today. To bridge off your example mentioning Tate and the like, there are quite a fair amount of relevant and unsettling issues pervasive among men today. But the current ideological narrative is one that perpetuates a demonization of men- particularly white men. Any kind of productive conversation regarding such issues (such as suicide rates, education, and general loneliness) is met with resistance and condemnation, for such problems are treated as a zero sum game. I think what is most valuable is teach an axiomatic framework rather than an ideological one. Maybe this is what Lewis is meaning. A framework like: Human life is valuable. The liberties of an individual are to be respected. Furthermore, while I believe moral subjectivism is corrosive, the philosophical grounds for its rise yields another principle, one that is very fruitful. And that's the Is-Ought Problem. A lot of individuals, like Tate, will try to weaponize facts to make moral or ideological claims. I think we should counter these claims not by denying reality but by probing the justification for these claims. This is because facts are an insufficient justification for any particular moral claim. There must be an axiomatic link between the two. (The common rebuttal to social darwinism is a classic example of pointing out that the position encounters the is-ought problem, here called the naturalist fallacy). I don't think people do a good job of parsing facts from implications and conclusions people draw. We are so blinded by ideological dogmatism that we've lost the ability to think logically. And in fact this has lead to another kind of moral degradation, where bad faith actors weaponize facts to justify their own hypocrisies and vile beliefs.

[@Lichcrafter]

I'm not very familiar with axiomatic frameworks, but it seems like you need an ideological basis to derive axioms from. For example, certain Eastern traditions hold that life is illusory, so they might not hold life in the same regard as other traditions do. And sometimes we agree that individual liberties need to be curtailed, like throwing a criminal in jail. If you're advocating for education based on the natural law, that could work for a lot of cases, but I think you need something more substantial to build a society on.

[@LifeForAiur]

@@Lichcrafter Axioms, by definition cannot be derived. They are the fundamental assumptions any system, be it moral, mathematical, or scientific, is based upon. I agree that an education based on natural law is insufficient, however an ideologically driven education also has its faults (primarily the potential to create a very dogmatic culture- a problem I find pervasive today). My point about the is-ought problem is less concerned about whether it is a "problem" and more to do with the fact that people can learn to be less susceptible to facts being weaponized by bad faith actors. I think it is more important to teach society to be morally conscious but also how to navigate logical thinking. That way they can be more resilient to the dangers of dogmatism.

[@Lichcrafter]

@@LifeForAiur Yes, critical thinking is always good. I think ideologically-driven education is good so long as the ideology is a good one, but keeping open, respectful discussion and the possibility for disagreement is necessary to keep any ideology from dogmatism.

[@samargles]

But surely critical thinking depends on a grounding in a natural law education. Without which we can’t tell what a ‘good’ education or a ‘bad’ education is because it’s all subjective.

[@seankennedy4284]

Lewis here seems not to appreciate the practical consequences of abiding by the 10 commandments : through them, God trains the heart, and mind, of the obedient seeker. In other words, the royal path to "virtue" is already quite clear. What's Tate's moral deficiency, for instance? Covetousness.

[@gorillamacgyver7411]

Bottom g

[@fakadaapada]

maybe it means not a trans ?

[@BioStock08]

You misrepresent Andrew Tate. You are unfit to speak of men without chest because you have none as well.