In June 2024, Apple unveiled its latest technology: AI or “Apple Intelligence.”[i] The technology promises to revolutionize how Apple users operate by changing the tone of emails, completing tasks automatically without explicit instructions, and simulating conversations. Apple’s rollout is not a surprising development. Artificial intelligence has permeated our professional, entertainment, and educational spheres. And, based on Apple’s announcement, it is gaining momentum.     

Earlier in the year, Pope Francis discussed similar artificial intelligence technologies in his January 2024 World Communication Day Apostolic Exhortation entitled "Artificial Intelligence and the Wisdom of the Heart: Towards a Fully Human Communication." In this exhortation, he highlighted the importance of maintaining our humanity in today’s climate of rapid technological developments. Pope Francis explained that artificial intelligence—what he aptly calls “machine learning”—can erode sociality so that we forget “our status as creatures.”[ii] He explained that machine learning can work for or against the Catholic educational mission, but it depends on whether we embrace the loving spirit of “communication and communion.”[iii] It depends on the “wisdom of the heart.”[iv]

As Catholic educators, it is imperative to foster an environment that cultivates the “wisdom of the heart.” But this is tricky terrain, especially within classrooms that teach writing—which comprises not only English classes, but all writing intensive courses. To guide us through this new territory, we can turn to three important Christian texts: Dorothy Sayers' The Mind of the Maker, C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man, and Boethius' The Consolation of Philosophy. Whether we assign these texts in our classrooms or merely revisit them ourselves, their perspectives can enrich understandings of writing in the classical tradition and thusly temper any misdirected zeal toward generative AI. In short, Sayers, Lewis, and Boethius provide the arguments and language to inform various dimensions of our teaching: from crafting learning objectives and curricular design to establishing plagiarism policies and technology etiquette. In the spirit of practical in-class application, the article also offers creative classroom activities that nourish prudence toward AI and cultivate “wisdom of the heart” in respect to the three discussed texts.

Dorothy Sayers’ The Mind of the Maker: Beyond Problem-Solution Writing

As educators in the 2020s, we may be dismayed by some students’ utilitarian attitudes toward writing assignments. Students may seek to complete essays solely for grades or merely to get them done. Rather than embracing the intellectual journey, students may overly focus on the destination—that is, the written product—rather than the writing process. Unfortunately, generative AI exacerbates these attitudes. By plugging prompts into ChatGPT, Claude, or even Grammarly, users are instantly given products or “solutions” to prompts or problems. This use of AI technology simplifies complex writing processes. It neglects what St. Augustine celebrates as the symbiotic relationship between “advancing in knowledge” and “writing.”[v] Consequently, AI can impede authentic intellectual, spiritual, and technical growth. 

Dorothy Sayers' 1941 book The Mind of the Maker challenges this “problem/solution” approach to human creation. Sayers criticizes that writing and other creative endeavors should be considered problems to be solved. She argues that the act of creation—specifically, writing—involves much more than a mechanistic approach. As a writer of detective fiction herself, she compares problem-solution thinking to detective fiction. She explains that the broadband act of creation should transcend a “detective game” of finite problems, safe terms, and complete solubility. She clarifies, “The mind in the act of creation is thus not concerned to solve problems within the limits imposed by the terms in which they are set”; instead, creation should “fashion a synthesis which includes the whole dialectics of the situation in a manifestation of power. […] the creative artist, as such, deals, not with the working of the syllogism, but with that universal statement which forms its major premise.”[vi] After all, when pondering a great works of art such as Shakespeare’s Hamlet, we should help students recognize that “Hamlet is something more than the sum of its problems.”[vii] 

According to Sayers, the human creative act is a profound reflection of the divine creative process. She likens the creative mind to the triune nature of God. It consists of Idea, Energy, and Power. The Idea offers the conceptual whole; the Energy offers the process of bringing the idea into existence; and the Power offers the outward impact of the work. This trinitarian analogy illustrates that acts of writing—and by extension, all forms of creation—are inherently complex and deeply human activities. By encouraging students to see the creative process of writing in this triune manner, we can help them understand that writing transcends merely solving problems or completing tasks. It concerns expressing and exploring robust human thought and experience. 

Sayers additionally emphasizes that love fuels creation. An authentic creator creates out of love: love for characters, love for ideas, and love for readers. When used to create essays and creative works in a wholesale fashion, generative AI obscures the loving dimensions of writing. It cheapens the creative sacrifice. After all, according to Sayers, the loving act involves Energy that brings the Idea into existence onto the page—and “Love-in-Power” is “the only effective response” to “Love-in-Energy.”[viii] Genuine writers love their creation so much that it becomes alive (in an imaginative sense); and since writers love their neighbor, they willingly share their creation with them. Both the Love-in-Energy and Love-in-Power requires living creators, human-to-human connectivity, and loving sacrifices: all elements that generative AI can obscure. 

Classroom activity

Applying Sayer's concepts to writing pedagogy can deepen students' understanding of art of writing. In an in-class post-writing reflection to be composed after students finish an essay or creative writing draft, students can think about the following dimensions:

First, students can consider “Idea.” How did they conceive the core concept of their argument or creative piece? What sources of inspiration did they draw upon? How did it connect to reality, spiritual or otherwise?

Secondly, students can consider “Energy”: How did they transform their Idea into written form? What characterized their active writing, drafting, and revision processes?

Finally, students can consider “Power”: How did they accommodate their audience within their composition? What aspects of their argument or creative work will likely resonate with readers?

By pondering these dimensions, students can embrace the sophistication of the creative process—and hopefully, recognize the triune nature of their composition, which includes the love of their creation and love of neighbor.  

C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man: Writing with Heart

As Catholic educators, many of us are familiar with Lewis’ The Abolition of Man. After all, Lewis offers an important critique of modern education. But, with the advent of generative AI, Lewis’ text may be more relevant now than in the 1940s. In it, C.S. Lewis' three lectures offer critical examinations of the dire consequences of abandoning universal values in education. Lewis argues that the erosion of universal principles leads to a dehumanized society where subjective preferences and informational discourse overshadow metaphysical considerations. Generative AI heightens this danger. Rather than consulting values informed by what Lewis calls the “Tao” (God), AI tailors responses based on algorithms.

Recognizing difference between human and machine can remind us of the “wisdom of the heart.” After all, as Lewis tells us, it is the “middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal.”[ix] This middle element is the heart. Unbridled use of Generative AI normalizes a form of heartlessness or what Lewis famously calls “men without chests.”

Human beings, especially young adults, mirror the company they keep. If they spend their time with chatbots that are indeed active algorithms in digital vessels—versions of Cartesian binaries—young people can mistakenly attribute this oversimplified binary to the human person. Among the many problematic implications, such an attitude ignores the rich contemplative tradition. As Trappist contemplative Thomas Merton tells us: Christian contemplation offers more than deductive chains triggered by a mind in a body, instead contemplation engages a deeper “intuitive awakening in which our free and personal reality becomes fully alive to its own existential depths, which open out into the mystery of God.”[x] In short, generative AI can obstruct this intuitive awakening. Therefore, we should strive to keep its difference from the human person in the forefront of students’ minds. 

Lewis’ arguments against transhumanism are not new. After all, The Abolition of Man was transcribed about 80 years ago. And these same arguments resonate today. Therefore, The Abolition of Man evidences that today’s Catholics are not merely being reactionary or alarmist when they caution against generative AI. Christians have been wary about transhumanism for a long time. This historical dimension can help students understand the context of this debate and the strength of the reasoning. 

Classroom activity

The following activity may be risky, but powerful. Instructors can have students prompt the free versions of ChatGPT or Claude on their electronic devices to produce an argument on any topic—but they must prompt the AI to use quotations from at least three Catholic sources. 

Then, students must fact check the quotations—specifically, try to locate the quotations from actual texts. Upon fact checking AI’s quotations, students will discover that many of the quotations will be misattributed to the wrong sources—or they may not find the quotations at all. In fact, they may discover that many quotations (if not all quotations) will be completely fabricated by the AI. That’s right. The AI will create its own quotations in the style of the writer—say, of St. John Henry Newman or Pope Benedict XVI—then, bracket them in quotation marks, and falsely claim that St. John Henry Newman or Pope Benedict XVI wrote the quotations in specific essays, novels, or encyclicals. But, to reiterate, the quotes are not actually in the documents—or in any document. AI invented them.[xi]

This activity should emphasize the danger of generative AI. After all, AI’s false quotations are being falsely attributed to saints, popes, and Catholic thinkers. This is serious misinformation that is dangerous to society and the Church. And it demonstrates to students that generative AI is a heartless algorithm tool without genuine character. 

Boethius’ The Consolation of Philosophy: Exemplary Contemplative Writing

A text from late antiquity/early Middle Ages, Boethius’s The Consolation of Philosophy offers a positive reinforcement of contemplative human creation. Unlike Sayers who discusses the creative act and Lewis who warns us of dangers of transhumanism, Boethius provides a useful third perspective. His work acts as an exemplary work of philosophical literature. Written while Boethius was imprisoned and awaiting execution, the text offers a dialogue between Boethius (as a character) and Lady Philosophy. Lady Philosophy, a fierce but loving divine teacher, reminds him to about the transient nature of materialism, the enduring value of philosophical contemplation, and the truth found in God.

The Consolation of Philosophy is a celebrated canonical work in the Catholic Intellectual Tradition. In The Discarded Image, C.S. Lewis observes, "Until about two hundred years ago it would, I think, have been hard to find an educated man in any European country who did not love it."[xii] He goes on to say that Boethius expresses some Platonic conceptions “more luminously than Plato ever did himself.”[xiii] In short, The Consolation of Philosophy is uniquely illustrative and versatile. It intertwines rhetoric, poetics, philosophy, and theology in a synergistic manner—in a way that exemplifies the classical liberal arts tradition. It stands as an exemplar of what contemplative creativity can achieve: a feat that artificial intelligence cannot replicate. 

Differing from the defensive vantage of Lewis’ The Abolition of Man, The Consolation of Philosophy offers an optimistic counter to AI. It demonstrates that human genius that does not require artificial intelligence—or any technology outside a pen and paper—to compose. As such, the text equally delights (through poetry/story), moves (through rhetoric), and teaches (through philosophy). Boethius’ creation powerfully engages the senses, heart, and mind. While many works in the Catholic tradition, offer a similar synergy—such as St. Teresa’s Interior Castles, St. Thomas More’s Utopia, or even G.K. Chesterton’s The Man Who Was Thursday—Boethius gives us a profound model of classical liberal arts in action. Whether we teach academic writing, creative writing, the rhetorical arts, literature, philosophy, or theology, Boethius’ work showcases the beauty of the philosophical pursuit—and can find a home in any liberal arts classroom. The Consolation of Philosophy evidences, across all liberal arts disciplines, why we should not be so willing to give away the art of writing to AI so freely. 

Classroom activity

The following activity can take some time, but it is both instructive and fun. After students read The Consolation of Philosophy, instructors place students in groups of four or five and tell them to stow their electronic devices. In the spirit of mimesis, instructors assign groups to compose their own instructive “consolation dialogues” in the vein of Boethius’s The Consolation of Philosophy. Dialogues should involve at least two characters. Like The Consolation of Philosophy, one character should be a personified concept, like Lady Philosophy. These personified concepts—such as Joy, Courage, Prudence, or Temperance—can be supplied by the instructor and picked at random by the groups. In each dialogue, a personified concept should teach at least one other character about its value and virtue. Each dialogue should offer at least five lines of dialogue per character.

After giving time to each group to collaborate and compose their brief dialogues, each group then performs their dialogue in front of the class. Either all group members can be part of the performance—or just two members of each group. 

Overall, this activity allows students to peek into Boethius’ creative process. As such, students celebrate their own creative processes and craft a philosophical, audience-minded product. It helps students recognize the powerful collision between writing, creativity, dialogue, philosophy, and the performative arts: a fusion that does not need AI. 

Conclusion

As we continue to navigate challenges posed by artificial intelligence in education, it is essential to reaffirm the human aspects of learning and creativity. They can guide the curricular decisions we make and ensure that we are not swept up and compromised by new technological developments. The Mind of the Maker, The Abolition of Man, and The Consolation of Philosophy all provide rich perspectives that can help educators and students embrace the “wisdom of the heart” and resist the dehumanizing tendencies of AI. Steeped in the classical tradition and resonant with Catholic values, these works help ensure that our students do not confuse machine learning with human learning—and guide students’ development in an increasingly technological world. 

As both Sayers and Lewis suggest, genuine progress benefits us when it is tempered with humility. After all, learning is a type of progress, and educational progress is nourished by writing. Writing does not only concern the writer; it also concerns the loving act toward others. Along those same lines, "It is better to enlighten than merely to shine,” St. Thomas teaches us; “it better to give to others the fruits of one's contemplation than merely to contemplate" (II-II, q.188, a.6).[xiv] By helping students consult the “wisdom of the heart” when encountering (or choosing to avoid) generative AI, students can bear more fruit from their Catholic classical educations. They can remain genuinely focused on contemplating truth, so they can lovingly share such fruit through the gift of writing.