The Philosophical Policeman

[Fist and Faith]

If you were treating this fairly, though, as a story, you wouldn't put quote marks around 'the anarchist conspiracy', any more than you'd treat a statement by an SRD character as a mere allegation. You'd conditionally grant that on some level, in that world, there really was such a thing.

True enough. However, Chesterton and you do not think this story is about some fictional world. You think it is in the world we all live in. That's where this story is supposedly taking place. In which case it is right to begin by treating such things as hypothesis or theory. Then we can go about examining it. The automatic assumption is not that this "anarchist conspiracy" is real, and to treat it as such.

[rusmeister]

If you were treating this fairly, though, as a story, you wouldn't put quote marks around 'the anarchist conspiracy', any more than you'd treat a statement by an SRD character as a mere allegation. You'd conditionally grant that on some level, in that world, there really was such a thing.

True enough. However, Chesterton and you do not think this story is about some fictional world. You think it is in the world we all live in. That's where this story is supposedly taking place. In which case it is right to begin by treating such things as hypothesis or theory. Then we can go about examining it. The automatic assumption is not that this "anarchist conspiracy" is real, and to treat it as such.

Well Fist, this IS fiction. Chesterton prefaced it by calling it "a nightmare". Sure, real ideas are dealt with, but the medium is fiction. In fiction, you either suspend disbelief, or you don't.

It's almost as if some people saw this as some private idea of my own taken seriously by nobody else; as if you were completely unaware that this story alone has been reprinted for a century now, and has had millions of readers. I didn't write this myself. Orson Welles wrote and starred in a radio performance of this right before the infamous "War of the Worlds" show. It's been staged a number of times. An awful lot of people find this story worthwhile as a story, and GKC in general. Sir Alec Guiness has played Father Brown. and on and on. Sure, you haven't heard of it until now. But given its durability and broad - and intellectual - appeal, maybe you'd give it a whirl? If it's just because you don't like me (or more accurately my writing style) you're really cutting off your own nose to spite your face. You're the losers if all you seek to do is tear it down without understanding, and the thousands of distinguished people who have praised his works deny that this is some private idiotic fantasy of my own.

So if you still aren't interested, don't bother. I'm keeping off your threads, as you wish. I just want to offer stuff to people that ARE interested.

[Fist and Faith]

I didn't tear it down. I didn't ignore it. I'm just saying that you want this to be taken as Truth in our world. Don't pretend you do not. You believe absolutely that this is the case. It's not ideas that are assumed true in a fictional setting to you, and you want the rest of us to take it the same way you do.

But it doesn't automatically start that way. That's a conclusion that needs to be arrived at. Until then, it's a hypothesis, or a theory.

[Avatar]

Glad to see we're all having fun.

I just wanna remind everybody that management will brook no complaints from anybody choosing to participate in, or even read, Rus' threads.

If you can't deal with his particular mode of expression, don't.

Thank you and enjoy yourselves.

--A

[rusmeister]

I didn't tear it down. I didn't ignore it. I'm just saying that you want this to be taken as Truth in our world. Don't pretend you do not. You believe absolutely that this is the case. It's not ideas that are assumed true in a fictional setting to you, and you want the rest of us to take it the same way you do.

But it doesn't automatically start that way. That's a conclusion that needs to be arrived at. Until then, it's a hypothesis, or a theory.

I agree with that last.

But I'm not "pretending". If you can't accept ideas as truths in the real world, accept a good story with its own internal logic as fiction. Like I said, if you're not interested, you don't need to comment. I'm interested only in comment that is interested in the stories and/or ideas. I do not wish my threads to become battlegrounds of argument over truth with people who just want to do battle. They are for people who are honestly interested and haven't closed their minds. If you see something that does suddenly strike you as true or especially interesting, feel free to comment!

[rusmeister]

Here is a cool video for people who have already read the book (it won't make sense to those who haven't):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WHCwBukyH0


And for those who haven't, or want to give the story an abbreviated whirl, here's Orson Welles' broadcast radio (audio, 6 parts, total one hour):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyHoT1oa0j4

Take a trip back in time to 1938!

[Fist and Faith]

You don't mean, "They are for people who are honestly interested and haven't closed their minds." You mean, "They are for people who are honestly interested and who agree with me." I'm honestly interested, but I disagree with point after point. But you don't want to hear that, so I won't discuss the content of the story. I'm just saying that some who will discuss it the way Chesterton and you want it discussed - as though the setting is our actual world, with the addition of this organization to combat the things that are causing the collapse of society - will want you to establish that the dangers you think we face are real. That the situation is as described. Not all who disagree will refrain from commenting. And possibly some who do agree will stilll think it's necessary to establish these things before discussing them too seriously. Hence Orlion's quotes.

[Orlion]

I do like me some Orson Welles radio broadcasting! As far as my use of quotes.... it's kinda bizzare. There are definitely people within the story that believe there is an 'anarchist conspiracy' and some that actually are working for it. Sometimes (particularly with single quotations) I just emphasize what it is.... sometimes...

[rusmeister]

You don't mean, "They are for people who are honestly interested and haven't closed their minds." You mean, "They are for people who are honestly interested and who agree with me." I'm honestly interested, but I disagree with point after point. But you don't want to hear that, so I won't discuss the content of the story. I'm just saying that some who will discuss it the way Chesterton and you want it discussed - as though the setting is our actual world, with the addition of this organization to combat the things that are causing the collapse of society - will want you to establish that the dangers you think we face are real. That the situation is as described. Not all who disagree will refrain from commenting. And possibly some who do agree will stilll think it's necessary to establish these things before discussing them too seriously. Hence Orlion's quotes.

I just think the disagreement between us has become acrimonious, Fist, and I refuse to engage in it anymore (all the more so as I'm not a mod, do not have absolute power and could be banned if only I was not of the mind to really not stay where I am not welcome at all by anyone. It is people like Murrin, like Ussusumiel, and yes, even Ali, with her remarkable ability to bounce back and reconsider things, that make me feel, well, welcome (provided I don't irritate them too much - which is what I am aiming to avoid doing).

I'd refer you back to the intro to TEM - I feel you need to reach a place where you can do these Christian saints and sages as much justice as you do those of, say, far eastern religions. If someone can disagree without that acrimony then I can say, "OK - have you read the book?", and a person can finally disagree and I can say 'OK - so you disagree". This is just one small point out of a thousand that convinces me - that the truly great evils are accomplished by the intellectual, that intellectualism unguided by an absolute standard of morality is indeed likely to lead the human race to ruin. And I find people here quite intellectual - which is both complement and warning.

When we have understood about free will, we shall see how silly it is
to ask, as somebody once asked me: "Why did God make a creature of such
rotten stuff that it went wrong?" The better stuff a creature is made of-the
cleverer and stronger and freer it is-then the better it will be if it goes
right, but also the worse it will be if it goes wrong. A cow cannot be very
good or very bad; a dog can be both better and worse; a child better and
worse still; an ordinary man, still more so; a man of genius, still more so;
a superhuman spirit best-or worst-of all.

That's the principle I'm talking about.

If you're really interested, then I find it highly improbable that you never come across anything that you can actually agree with, and I'd be far more interested at this point on what you CAN agree with me on than on what you can disagree with me on.

[ussusimiel]

Okay, I've had a look at some material about Chesterton and I've listened to the Welles radio version of 'The Man who was Named Thursday' and although I don't fully understand it, I think I've got enough of an idea to have a go at recasting it. (u. begins Chesterton 101 ).

In Chesterton's view of the world there is a deep conflict between Tradition and Modernity. In that conflict there can be only one winner: Tradition. Once you recognise this all the conclusions and implications of Modernity become pointless. And, in fact, Chesterton would go a step further and say that the only point of all the Modern angst is to make clear the wisdom and salvific nature of Tradition.


One of the key factors in favour of Tradition is 'common sense'.

"The first effect of not believing in God, is that you lose your common sense."

In Chesterton's view all Traditional societies and people have believed in one god or another. To not believe in a god is not sensible in his view.

In contrast, the whole thrust of Modernity since the Enlightenment project began has been to end 'tutelage'.

Tutelage is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another.

And this I think is the nub of it. The main thrust of the Enlightenment project was to free the individual from the 'tutelage' of a person in authority. This is a direct assault on Tradition, as Tradition is what is handed down from one generation to next. In Tradition there is always authority because one person always has the knowledge that is to be handed on. And, in the big religions, above that person there stands the ultimate Authority whose wisdom is inscibed in sacred texts.

What happens in Modernity is that God gets displaced and Reason is valourised instead. So the Modern consensus position becomes centred around Reason and anything that doesn't agree with that is denoted as 'unreasonable' and so wrong.

I know it brief but is this a fair synopsis of the positions?

u.

[Edit: Hopefully in some future post I'll have a go at addressing the possibility of the existence of that Chestertonian contradiction: a sensible person who doesn't believe in God ]

[Vraith]

What happens in Modernity is that God gets displaced and Reason is valourised instead. So the Modern consensus position becomes centred around Reason and anything that doesn't agree with that is denoted as 'unreasonable' and so wrong.

I know it brief but is this a fair synopsis of the positions?

u.

Not quite far enough...to G.K. much of what the Modern calls reason is not reason at all...actually, it proceeds reasonably enough but from false first principles. Some peeps know this and do it anyway for their own purposes, some don't know enough to know the principles are wrong.

[ussusimiel]

Not quite far enough...to G.K. much of what the Modern calls reason is not reason at all...actually, it proceeds reasonably enough but from false first principles. Some peeps know this and do it anyway for their own purposes, some don't know enough to know the principles are wrong.

I kinda get what you mean. Any handy examples to illustrate?

u.

[Fist and Faith]

The thing is, rus, I do agree with that quote. Problem is, I think the intellectual causing the evil is Chesterton. I disagree with every first step he has. A point hammered home by nearly every sentence the policeman spoke. So against all good, and all common sense.

As for Christian saints, I don't know. I think some of what Jesus says in the Bible is among the greatest of human utterances. Even greater for the time he spoke them. But, obviously, I don't agree with all he said.

[Fist and Faith]

Am I likely to agree with the saints more than I do with Jesus. I doubt it. They all speak from a worldview that I disagree with for many reasons, some of which I oppose. But pick out a saint. Who should I read?

[Vraith]

Not quite far enough...to G.K. much of what the Modern calls reason is not reason at all...actually, it proceeds reasonably enough but from false first principles. Some peeps know this and do it anyway for their own purposes, some don't know enough to know the principles are wrong.

I kinda get what you mean. Any handy examples to illustrate?

u.

Oh My E-fing GOD! I'm quoting GKC! That's usually Rus's job. [and he probably has a better one, more directly on point.]
Anyway...lets be clear, I don't AGREE with this...it's him, not me.

There is a notion adrift everywhere that imagination, especially mystical imagination, is dangerous to a man’s mental balance. . . . Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic; I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination.

[rusmeister]

Am I likely to agree with the saints more than I do with Jesus. I doubt it. They all speak from a worldview that I disagree with for many reasons, some of which I oppose. But pick out a saint. Who should I read?

St John Chrysostom. Definitely. Or among modern speakers, Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh (Antoniy Surouzhsky - spelling may vary)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom

www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf109.toc.html

www.metropolit-anthony.orc.ru/eng/
www.metropolit-anthony.orc.ru/eng/eng_serm.htm

The basic principle is: I suck. These are great men, whose shoes I am not worthy to clean, and who I would point to to learn from. (So taking me as a reason to reject Orthodoxy sucks)

[rusmeister]

Not quite far enough...to G.K. much of what the Modern calls reason is not reason at all...actually, it proceeds reasonably enough but from false first principles. Some peeps know this and do it anyway for their own purposes, some don't know enough to know the principles are wrong.

I kinda get what you mean. Any handy examples to illustrate?

u.

Oh My E-fing GOD! I'm quoting GKC! That's usually Rus's job. [and he probably has a better one, more directly on point.]
Anyway...lets be clear, I don't AGREE with this...it's him, not me.

There is a notion adrift everywhere that imagination, especially mystical imagination, is dangerous to a man’s mental balance. . . . Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic; I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination.

It sucks, even appearing to agree with me, huh?

I do seriously respect reading, and thinking about these ideas, though. I feel like almost nobody does - as if intellect conferred an indisputable license to reject them without thought...

[rusmeister]

The thing is, rus, I do agree with that quote. Problem is, I think the intellectual causing the evil is Chesterton. I disagree with every first step he has. A point hammered home by nearly every sentence the policeman spoke. So against all good, and all common sense.

As for Christian saints, I don't know. I think some of what Jesus says in the Bible is among the greatest of human utterances. Even greater for the time he spoke them. But, obviously, I don't agree with all he said.

Ho capito. (I have understood)
MY opinion is that one bit of transformative understanding could change the whole perception.

That's not an argument, merely an opinion...

[Vraith]

It sucks, even appearing to agree with me, huh?

I do seriously respect reading, and thinking about these ideas, though. I feel like almost nobody does - as if intellect conferred an indisputable license to reject them without thought...

Heh...not exactly, I was kinda just laughing at the irony of it, while trying not to misrepresent either his argument, nor my own position.

For my part, I'm not one [i've surely said this before] who sees arrogance in your positions/posts. I see certainty, and what I think are mistakes...the only "guilty" verdict I would pronounce would be that you do alter the trajectory/purpose of threads...though I suspect I do too, so pot and kettle...though I also try to drag things back.
FWIW, I agree with [in you following post] "one bit of transformative understanding" changing everything. Agree without quibble.
I disagree utterly with whoever it was that said the acting was good...blech!
I disagree with G.K.'s first principles...and I disagree with what he says about people believing imagination is dangerous. [though that's off topic and complicated].
I think he's wrong, in parallel with, though not precisely the same as what Fist said, about who and what among the intellectuals is the real problem.

[Fist and Faith]

The basic principle is: I suck. These are great men, whose shoes I am not worthy to clean, and who I would point to to learn from. (So taking me as a reason to reject Orthodoxy sucks)

Well... Heh. Not exactly. It's true that the word "Orthodoxy" makes me think "You're wrong.", "You have unhealthy mental thinking.", "Chesterton Chesterton Chesterton!", and gives me a generally unpleasant feeling. But the fact is I don't "reject" it. I simply don't see reason to pursue it, and haven't since long before I met you.