The Philosophical Policeman

[Avatar]

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.

You know, I'm not usually a fan of Kant, but he had something there. Or rather, Ussusimiel's comment on the underlying concept was a good one.

Good post U.

--A

[rusmeister]

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.

I get that.
I'd say that those things you don't like (as you perceive them) are the things most "me" and the least "Orthodox Church". They are the things that "work for me", as you put it. That's why I fully encourage finding out stuff outside of an internet forum. It is here that we will get the least real experience of any of belief system. But if you don't want to, fine. My own opinion is that you're not in a place where you're ready for it, anyway. Unless something happens to shake us out of what we believe, we're really unlikely to change - no motivation - which is what you're saying.

[Fist and Faith]

Exactly. I didn't join the Watch eight years ago because I was looking for Orthodoxy, or any kind of religion or spirituality.

[aliantha]

Not trying to start an argument here -- but...seriously???

Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom.

In a heartbeat, I could make a list as long as your arm of poets and other creative types who have "gone mad".

It's howlers like this one that make it very hard for me to read GKC.

[Fist and Faith]

Good thing you're not trying to start an argument. Heh. I let that one go, too. Again, I'm not debating anything specific, since rus doesn't want that. But my opinion of Chesterton dropped even more from this video and thread.

[Orlion]

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.

I get that.
I'd say that those things you don't like (as you perceive them) are the things most "me" and the least "Orthodox Church". They are the things that "work for me", as you put it. That's why I fully encourage finding out stuff outside of an internet forum. It is here that we will get the least real experience of any of belief system. But if you don't want to, fine. My own opinion is that you're not in a place where you're ready for it, anyway. Unless something happens to shake us out of what we believe, we're really unlikely to change - no motivation - which is what you're saying.

Would you mind us calling it "The Gospel according to Rus?"

And no worries, I don't really associate Orthodoxy with you (even as I realize Orthodoxy has influenced you a lot... ha, a little pun there) often times in religion there's some 'wiggle room' on certain topics, which can lead to a difference of opinions even among a group of people professing the same faith.

[Fist and Faith]

rus is my only association with Orthodoxy. I've never met anyone who said they were one, and I've never known anything about it before rus came here.

[rusmeister]

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.

I get that.
I'd say that those things you don't like (as you perceive them) are the things most "me" and the least "Orthodox Church". They are the things that "work for me", as you put it. That's why I fully encourage finding out stuff outside of an internet forum. It is here that we will get the least real experience of any of belief system. But if you don't want to, fine. My own opinion is that you're not in a place where you're ready for it, anyway. Unless something happens to shake us out of what we believe, we're really unlikely to change - no motivation - which is what you're saying.

Would you mind us calling it "The Gospel according to Rus?"

And no worries, I don't really associate Orthodoxy with you (even as I realize Orthodoxy has influenced you a lot... ha, a little pun there) often times in religion there's some 'wiggle room' on certain topics, which can lead to a difference of opinions even among a group of people professing the same faith.

Actually, regarding Chesterton, I wouldn't really mind. The main difference between Chesterton and most modern thinkers is that he really does not even see his own reason as ultimate authority - his certainty, like mine, is derived from the fact that he submits his reason to something greater than him, that has the power to contradict him. People here call that "blind faith", and I question who actually is blind in the saying of that.
To people outside of that tradition of accepting an authority greater than the self, capable of correcting the self (see my subtitle), the self really IS the highest authority. And we DO retain the ability to reject a higher authority - only we see that to be foolish, because the Church is consistently right, and we are not.
So 'being right' is NOT 'the Gospel according to Rus'. I insist that SOMEBODY must be right, even if it is not me, and deny the idea that 'there is no right'.

A specific problem that definitely occurs within some confessions is that those confessions specifically teach that one MUST accept the authority of the confession to correct them, and to accept their teachings. This seems to be something that people thoroughly steeped in the idea of the individual as his own ultimate authority with the right to believe whatever he wants have difficulty grasping. So while yes, there are quite a number of things people within such confessions (Catholic and Orthodox, for example) might disagree on, they may not set themselves up as authority over those Churches to decide what they will accept from dogmatic teaching and what they won't. At least they cannot do so and be recognized as members in doing so. Open opposition leads to excommunication, which is basically an announcement that so-and-so has parted ways with the confession. So if I point that out, that's (again) NOT 'the Gospel of Rusmeister'; it is a factual condition of membership in those Churches. A person who self-identifies within those faiths and does that is in contradiction with his own Church, and his Church does not recognize that he or she is a member in good standing. (All one need do is to confess and repent their attitude to be in communion with the Church again, but we all want to be our own god, so that can be difficult.) Obviously, that's not true in Sola Scriptura faiths, where the individual is his own authority to decide what dogma is based on his own interpretations, so you can have dogmatic dispute ("successfully") within such faiths.

I see Chesterton as occasionally wrong - but primarily because he did not find the Orthodox Church (though he did the best he could, and joined the thing he could find that really was closest to it), and I also think he placed a little too much faith in political action, though not in the political party system, so some of his social formulas I don't accept. The grand thing about him is that he is truly optimistic - Natalia Trauberg called him "The teacher of hope")krotov.info/yakov/7_auto/eng/trauberg.html
and that he speaks to the heart of modern errors of thought, brought about by two great periods, both of which are misnamed - a 'reformation' which did not reform, but only deformed what it ostensibly sought to reform, and an 'enlightenment[' that actually failed to enlighten, but only brought greater darkness on thought. The second was made possible by the first, and it was all about casting off the 'shackles' of authority and elevation of the individual, which we have a practical cult of today. Anyway, GKC tears the masks off all of the ideas and the language used to cover up what they really mean and he does so with grace, humor and humility. If he is a barrier to faith, then forget him (for now). He was only pointing to something else - not himself - anyway.

[Orlion]

I get that.
I'd say that those things you don't like (as you perceive them) are the things most "me" and the least "Orthodox Church". They are the things that "work for me", as you put it. That's why I fully encourage finding out stuff outside of an internet forum. It is here that we will get the least real experience of any of belief system. But if you don't want to, fine. My own opinion is that you're not in a place where you're ready for it, anyway. Unless something happens to shake us out of what we believe, we're really unlikely to change - no motivation - which is what you're saying.

Would you mind us calling it "The Gospel according to Rus?"

And no worries, I don't really associate Orthodoxy with you (even as I realize Orthodoxy has influenced you a lot... ha, a little pun there) often times in religion there's some 'wiggle room' on certain topics, which can lead to a difference of opinions even among a group of people professing the same faith.

Actually, regarding Chesterton, I wouldn't really mind. The main difference between Chesterton and most modern thinkers is that he really does not even see his own reason as ultimate authority - his certainty, like mine, is derived from the fact that he submits his reason to something greater than him, that has the power to contradict him. People here call that "blind faith", and I question who actually is blind in the saying of that.

Just some quick (and respectful for once ) responses: to me, reason is what is able to contradict me.... I can and have changed opinions/viewpoints given superior reasoning. At the same time, I know you pointed out "own reason", which I can agree with. Sometimes, we hold pet ideologies that must be served by everything else. It's a sort of personal reasoning founded on, in some cases, selfish principles. This sort of reasoning is pretty blind as far as uncovering reality.
Submitting to a higher authority is fine so long as that authority does not run under similar selfish reasoning.
I think submitting to 'pure reasoning' is superior, as it will reveal reality more readily and forces one to not hold preconceptions when exploring said reality (well, not too many anyway). I, of course, feel this way because it has worked best for me at this point in time.

So 'being right' is NOT 'the Gospel according to Rus'. I insist that SOMEBODY must be right, even if it is not me, and deny the idea that 'there is no right'.

Fair enough. When I use the term "Gospel according to..." it's more like saying "this person explained the following thus." So I could be discussing some Orthodoxy with a friend and say "Rus explains X thusly" and it can give said friend a better understanding of X without saying that that is absolutely what Orthodoxy teaches. It's akin to saying that if you were wrong on a point, don't blame Orthodoxy for the error, blame Rus.

A specific problem that definitely occurs within some confessions is that those confessions specifically teach that one MUST accept the authority of the confession to correct them, and to accept their teachings. This seems to be something that people thoroughly steeped in the idea of the individual as his own ultimate authority with the right to believe whatever he wants have difficulty grasping. So while yes, there are quite a number of things people within such confessions (Catholic and Orthodox, for example) might disagree on, they may not set themselves up as authority over those Churches to decide what they will accept from dogmatic teaching and what they won't. At least they cannot do so and be recognized as members in doing so. Open opposition leads to excommunication, which is basically an announcement that so-and-so has parted ways with the confession.

Likewise, this could be seen in a secular viewpoint: some will accept the authority of psychologists over themselves. I'll also identify that insofar as such structural beliefs are represented accurately, they can be said to belong to Orthodoxy and not just Rus' perceptions of Orthodoxy.

Obviously, that's not true in Sola Scriptura faiths, where the individual is his own authority to decide what dogma is based on his own interpretations, so you can have dogmatic dispute ("successfully") within such faiths.

Ah, so THAT'S what you mean by Sola Scriptura faiths. Makes sense. I would say that disputes are still possible within Authority based faiths (like Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Mormonism, etc) but that there would be fewer disputes and that they mostly center on who/what has authority. So long as that's established, though... yeah, there usually isn't too much in contradictory viewpoints between various congregations.

I see Chesterton as occasionally wrong - but primarily because he did not find the Orthodox Church (though he did the best he could, and joined the thing he could find that really was closest to it), and I also think he placed a little too much faith in political action, though not in the political party system, so some of his social formulas I don't accept. The grand thing about him is that he is truly optimistic - Natalia Trauberg called him "The teacher of hope")krotov.info/yakov/7_auto/eng/trauberg.html
and that he speaks to the heart of modern errors of thought, brought about by two great periods, both of which are misnamed - a 'reformation' which did not reform, but only deformed what it ostensibly sought to reform, and an 'enlightenment[' that actually failed to enlighten, but only brought greater darkness on thought. The second was made possible by the first, and it was all about casting off the 'shackles' of authority and elevation of the individual, which we have a practical cult of today. Anyway, GKC tears the masks off all of the ideas and the language used to cover up what they really mean and he does so with grace, humor and humility. If he is a barrier to faith, then forget him (for now). He was only pointing to something else - not himself - anyway.

My main problem with Chesterton is that I don't see any brilliance in his language. He has always been trumpeted to me as this master of the written word, but I see him as a very cheap Wal-Mart brand of Mark Twain. He's a little bit of a better writer than Ayn Rand, IMO. As a result, it's hard for me to concentrate on him, unlike Lewis who I consider a great writer, I've just come to disagree with his reasoning.

[ussusimiel]

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

I read the piece at the link above. Once I set aside any reservations I had (e.g. I rarely read stuff written by 'holy' people) I enjoyed the piece and I began to see surprising connections with my own beliefs.

The Incarnation of the Word of God, the becoming man, meant for him that he entered into the realm of time and of death and of limitation and of all the consequences of human godlessness. This solidarity was not for a moment, it was definitive.

This is an interesting way to look at Jesus. The entry of God into history transforms it into something completely different.

'God has become man in order that we should become gods'. Before we become gods we must become men in the image of the One who became what we are.

Again, a suggestive idea. I can easily interpret this as meaning that we move towards our divine potentials only by becoming more familiar with out bodily being (which is a strongly held position of mine).

then the final vocation of men is, together with Christ because of our oneness with him, to become the only-begotten son of God, an extension in time and in space and in eternity of this incredible, unfathomable relatedness and relationship with the Father.

Very interesting. Definitely not something I was taught as a Catholic, when I was growing up.

What I found most interesting is that reading the piece dissolved a prejudice that I wasn't aware I was carrying. I had discounted believers because I automatically assumed that they had some psychological need that was being met by their belief. Reading this piece showed me that the personal experience of God is exactly that, an experience. It is beyond reason or psychology. This will help me to hear believers (of any sort) more clearly when they speak. So, thanks for that, rus.

u.

[rusmeister]

Coming off of vacation...
My thanks for a couple of really good posts. A lot of finding of common points by Orlion, and yes, experience is not mere psychological need. So thanks to both of you!

2 Orlion: On Chesterton, I think that your experience of him has to be rather limited. I can see agreeing or disagreeing. I can see reading a small number of passages and having them give an impression of, say, inferior prose. I do find it sometimes hard to concentrate; what I came to realize that the problem was in ME, in my being unable/unused to thinking on those levels and in those ways. But a Wal-Marty Mark Twain?? If you haven't read "The Ballad of the White Horse", "Orthodoxy", "The Everlasting Man", "Lepanto", or "Robert Browning", etc, then do not hasten to say that. It will only reveal to those who HAVE read him that you have not. I just finished reading "The New Jerusalem", probably the most difficult book (for me, anyway). And wow, does he take his trip to Jerusalem and turn essentially diary-type thoughts and turn them into ruminations on history, Islam, the Jews, the Crusades and more with a sweeping breadth of knowledge that has me running to the internet that he just takes for granted - unconsciously - in a work that is quite far from his more journalistic style. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, it is practically impossible for the intellectually honest reader to not be impressed by his casual encyclopedic knowledge of history and literature.

The comparison to Mark Twain IS flattering, though - to Mr Samuel Clemens (with all due respect for the latter's considerable gifts). That the latter got more press because he did not take special pains to defend faith is hardly Mr Chesterton's fault.

I would ask what we would say of the opinion of a person on Shakespeare (or Twain) who had only read one or two of his works. We would have to admit that such a person hardly has a fair basis on which to judge. And if that one work happens to be Titus Andronicus or Eve's Diary (which I downloaded and read last week, by the way) then we might suggest that that person has missed something of the genius of the Bard of Avon or the humorist of the Mississippi and that they might want to further their acquaintance - considerably - before going so far as to pass judgement.

[Fist and Faith]

The problem isn't disagreeing with Chesterton. Yes, I think he's wrong about almost every first-assumption/axiom I've read. But that's no problem. I disagree with a lot of people who I've enjoyed reading. Eknath Easwaran, Fools Crow, CS Lewis, and Neale Donald Walsch are good examples.

Chesterton's problems are different. A big one is that he's in love with his own voice. Never say in ten words what you can say in a thousand. And never get right to the point if you can circle it for a couple days first. You very clearly like that style of writing. But that doesn't mean it's a superior style. Doesn't even mean it's a good style. It's just a style that you prefer.

[rusmeister]

The problem isn't disagreeing with Chesterton. Yes, I think he's wrong about almost every first-assumption/axiom I've read. But that's no problem. I disagree with a lot of people who I've enjoyed reading. Eknath Easwaran, Fools Crow, CS Lewis, and Neale Donald Walsch are good examples.

Chesterton's problems are different. A big one is that he's in love with his own voice. Never say in ten words what you can say in a thousand. And never get right to the point if you can circle it for a couple days first. You very clearly like that style of writing. But that doesn't mean it's a superior style. Doesn't even mean it's a good style. It's just a style that you prefer.

I can only refer to my previous post and everything else I have ever said in response to such impressions, which make the huge mistake of assuming that anything can be expressed in one sentence in single syllable words, while simultaneously dealing with every possible objection. When you say, "He was in love with his own voice", you make my point for me about having a final opinion on a man that you actually know next-to-nothing about. His enormous humility, of which you are in the dark, is the refutation of your statement. Complete thinking must take into account the fact that people may bring many different, and often mistaken or incomplete contexts to their reading, and so try to communicate as completely as possible. I can say "Jesus Christ is the Son of God". That is the central fact of the whole universe, and yet, because you don't accept it, it is necessary to dig through miles of false assumptions that have been drilled into us to begin to show that it is indeed the most complete explanation of life, the universe and everything - and when it is understood, it is far more satisfactory than "42". The statement is short and to the point - but it is useless to you as long as you have dozens of serious objections that need to be dealt with extensively. The brief and succinct "points" are of no use here.

[Holsety]

I can say "Jesus Christ is the Son of God". That is the central fact of the whole universe, and yet, because you don't accept it, it is necessary to dig through miles of false assumptions that have been drilled into us to begin to show that it is indeed the most complete explanation of life, the universe and everything - and when it is understood, it is far more satisfactory than "42". The statement is short and to the point - but it is useless to you as long as you have dozens of serious objections that need to be dealt with extensively. The brief and succinct "points" are of no use here.

Rus, I believe that "42" may well mean, to some human beings, as much or more than "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" to some people. However, I would have to admit that, TO ME, there is a strong part of myself that sees "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" as one of the best answers, or central facts, of the universe that is. Why? Despite all the ways that people say, focus not on his death but how he lived, I would have to say it has a lot to do with how he died. For our sins. However, I don't have a full enough belief in god, specifically the judeochristian god, to actually accept that as THE single central fact. I still do believe in a higher power, however, beyond the universe, that wants good - and I do mean good as we would all define it - for all of us. I even believe that it is stronger than the evil forces, such as satan, which it cast down to hell.
(This is, to a certain extent, a belief of metaphors, meaning that I believe it could be compatibilized with beliefs which do not believe in god, satan etc., but to me it seems clear that some sort of higher force exists.)

[Fist and Faith]

I can only refer to my previous post and everything else I have ever said in response to such impressions, which make the huge mistake of assuming that anything can be expressed in one sentence in single syllable words, while simultaneously dealing with every possible objection. When you say, "He was in love with his own voice", you make my point for me about having a final opinion on a man that you actually know next-to-nothing about. His enormous humility, of which you are in the dark, is the refutation of your statement. Complete thinking must take into account the fact that people may bring many different, and often mistaken or incomplete contexts to their reading, and so try to communicate as completely as possible. I can say "Jesus Christ is the Son of God". That is the central fact of the whole universe, and yet, because you don't accept it, it is necessary to dig through miles of false assumptions that have been drilled into us to begin to show that it is indeed the most complete explanation of life, the universe and everything - and when it is understood, it is far more satisfactory than "42". The statement is short and to the point - but it is useless to you as long as you have dozens of serious objections that need to be dealt with extensively. The brief and succinct "points" are of no use here.

It is you who loves his writing. For whatever reason. And that's fine. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks; he does it for you. Excellent. I know the feeling. It's great!

But I do not believe Chesterton is the only person to have written about the kinds of things he wrote about. As I've said, I've thoroughly enjoyed the writings of others who have written about the same, and similar, things.

And I do not imagine he is required reading for those who want to become priests, or hold other positions, in the OC. I suspect the OC believes other people have written about what Chesterton wrote about sufficiently.

But you insist that Chesterton must be read. Nobody else can do the job he can. For almost five years you've been saying this. And people have been trying, and saying he is not for us the way he is for you. But you insist he must be read, and you will not have a conversation without him. It has gotten you absolutely nowhere. aliantha tried harder than anyone else has, but he doesn't work for her, either. But you insist he must be read, and you will not have a conversation without him. Everyone here, even those who agree with his basic assumptions, finds him unpalatable. But you insist he must be read, and you will not have a conversation without him. If you must convert everyone here - and it seems you must, since you feel that speaking of other beliefs is trampling on yours - then you will never succeed by insisting that all must read Chesterton. Is that not incredibly obvious?? You need to find others who wrote about the same things (again, I'm sure there are some) if you want us to read other people's writings on those things. It doesn't have to be "short and to the point". It just can't be written by Chesterton, whose style turns off everyone here.

As for "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" being the central fact of the whole universe, I don't believe it. It has nothing to do with objections. Yes, I have objections to your particular brand of Christianity. (And many others. Even if yours is the most correct, accurate, perfect, true one.) But I don't believe it simply because I don't see reason to believe it. Short and to the point, or long and drawn out, it really doesn't matter. I don't have the same ground-assumptions that you have. How long an explanation do you think will be needed to convince me that God - what you think is the first step in our Cause & Effect universe - can be uncaused, but the universe can't be the uncaused first step?

Also, my worldview is more satisfying to me than everything I've ever heard about any version of any religion.

[aliantha]

aliantha tried harder than anyone else has, but he doesn't work for her, either.

He certainly didn't lead me to Jesus Christ, if that's what this is all about.

I've explained all this before, more than once. But for the newbies:

I read nearly all of Dickens back in the day (*not* Dickens' day -- I'm not *that* old! ), so Chesterton's style doesn't throw me as much as it might other folks who stick to more modern writers.

No, my problem with Chesterton is when he goes off on tangents to try to respond to every possible objection to his points. I'm usually struck by some huge, gaping hole in one of these tangents -- a hole which then calls into question, for me, the rest of his argument.

And too, he's speaking to his in-crowd (i.e., people who are already Christians). So he makes jokes that people of other faiths would find, if not insulting, then at least ignorant.

Speaking specifically to his sending you to the encyclopedia, rus: Granted that Chesterton had more of a classical education than is generally provided in our modern schools. But also, he was a journalist who was immersed in the news of the day. Stuff that we consider history now was up-to-the-minute topical for him. He could expect that his readers had a working knowledge of all of this stuff, because for them it had just happened. I guarantee you that if somebody runs across the Tank in a hundred years, they too will be running to the encyclopedia to figure out what we were arguing about.

And all that said, I *do* find him wordy. I found myself wishing more than once that he'd just get to the point already.

Anyhow, as I say, I've said all of this before. I just like to clarify my stance when my name comes up on this topic, because not everybody here has been following along for the past five years.

And no, rus, I'm not going to find another copy of TEM and post specific examples, so that you can tell me how I misunderstood GKC. And I'm not interested in reading any more Christian apologetics, just as you aren't interested in reading any Neopagan apologetics (such that exist -- there's not much of it, partly because Neopagans don't recruit).

[ussusimiel]

Just reading a bit of Orthodoxy and I came across an interesting point that chimes with something that I have tried to articulate before. It goes something like this: as I have journeyed in my life I have become more and more aware of the narrowness of Science (and by extension, Reason).

When I began to study Philosophy in my first year of Humanities in college I almost walked out of the first lecture (I was 28 at the time) because I realised that none of the questions that I was interested in were going to be addressed. It seemed as if the first thing that had to be made clear was the kinds of questions that a philosopher wasn't allowed to ask. This seemed as strange and disappointing to me then as it does now.

I understand better now that Philosophy is in essence the study of Reason, but for me that seems like trying to do maths with words (and if I wanted to do maths why wouldn't I study Mathematics). Mostly, what I don't understand is why supposed truth-seekers (which is what I had mistakenly thought academic philosophers were) would rule out anything that might give some access to or intimation of the truth.

This is not an argument for any particular belief religious or otherwise, it is an attempt to show that ruling out something because it doesn't seem reasonable is, IMO, not the best way to seek the truth.

u.

[Fist and Faith]

I think it depends on the thing you're seeking. If you're trying to understand how huge footprints came to be in the stone of a river bottom, certain tools, ideas, and lines of reasoning are not going to be of any value. Just as, say, a Geiger Counter might not be of any value if you're trying to understand the purpose of your life.

[Vraith]

This is not an argument for any particular belief religious or otherwise, it is an attempt to show that ruling out something because it doesn't seem reasonable is, IMO, not the best way to seek the truth.

u.

But that's not what it is [philosophically speaking...heh] for, at least not its entirety [some specializations are]...although that vision of it is why someone as smart as Hawking can say basically [paraphrasing] "philosophy is dead, and a good thing cuz it's stupid." It does, of course, have to deal with what reason is, how it works, etc...but only because it is looking to fill the territory between the factual [which makes no value claims] and the valuable in the human experience [which in its purest forms, though rarely discussed/isolated, makes no fact claims].

[rusmeister]

I can only refer to my previous post and everything else I have ever said in response to such impressions, which make the huge mistake of assuming that anything can be expressed in one sentence in single syllable words, while simultaneously dealing with every possible objection. When you say, "He was in love with his own voice", you make my point for me about having a final opinion on a man that you actually know next-to-nothing about. His enormous humility, of which you are in the dark, is the refutation of your statement. Complete thinking must take into account the fact that people may bring many different, and often mistaken or incomplete contexts to their reading, and so try to communicate as completely as possible. I can say "Jesus Christ is the Son of God". That is the central fact of the whole universe, and yet, because you don't accept it, it is necessary to dig through miles of false assumptions that have been drilled into us to begin to show that it is indeed the most complete explanation of life, the universe and everything - and when it is understood, it is far more satisfactory than "42". The statement is short and to the point - but it is useless to you as long as you have dozens of serious objections that need to be dealt with extensively. The brief and succinct "points" are of no use here.

It is you who loves his writing. For whatever reason. And that's fine. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks; he does it for you. Excellent. I know the feeling. It's great!

But I do not believe Chesterton is the only person to have written about the kinds of things he wrote about. As I've said, I've thoroughly enjoyed the writings of others who have written about the same, and similar, things.

And I do not imagine he is required reading for those who want to become priests, or hold other positions, in the OC. I suspect the OC believes other people have written about what Chesterton wrote about sufficiently.

But you insist that Chesterton must be read. Nobody else can do the job he can. For almost five years you've been saying this. And people have been trying, and saying he is not for us the way he is for you. But you insist he must be read, and you will not have a conversation without him. It has gotten you absolutely nowhere. aliantha tried harder than anyone else has, but he doesn't work for her, either. But you insist he must be read, and you will not have a conversation without him. Everyone here, even those who agree with his basic assumptions, finds him unpalatable. But you insist he must be read, and you will not have a conversation without him. If you must convert everyone here - and it seems you must, since you feel that speaking of other beliefs is trampling on yours - then you will never succeed by insisting that all must read Chesterton. Is that not incredibly obvious?? You need to find others who wrote about the same things (again, I'm sure there are some) if you want us to read other people's writings on those things. It doesn't have to be "short and to the point". It just can't be written by Chesterton, whose style turns off everyone here.

As for "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" being the central fact of the whole universe, I don't believe it. It has nothing to do with objections. Yes, I have objections to your particular brand of Christianity. (And many others. Even if yours is the most correct, accurate, perfect, true one.) But I don't believe it simply because I don't see reason to believe it. Short and to the point, or long and drawn out, it really doesn't matter. I don't have the same ground-assumptions that you have. How long an explanation do you think will be needed to convince me that God - what you think is the first step in our Cause & Effect universe - can be uncaused, but the universe can't be the uncaused first step?

Also, my worldview is more satisfying to me than everything I've ever heard about any version of any religion.

I had written an extensive reply to this on my iPad when Safari 'refreshed' the page erasing my reply. Many of us have no doubt experienced that sort of refreshing joy...

What I said was that there is nothing to say in the end to someone for whom truth is merely taste, for whom the final philosophy is "Whatever floats your boat". It represents indifference, rather than concern or love. We do not "tolerate" what we love.

It reminds me of "When Harry Met Sally" when Harry was talking about his various "girlfriends" and walking out on them and he said something to the effect that the sex means nothing, and Sally raged back at him "It means EVERYTHING!!!". So it is with truth.

I have tried to make clear that the important thing is not the man Chesterton, but the ideas - which I now express and are (to a great extent) mine. So dismiss Chesterton and respond to the ideas - for I am saying them.

When the old Liberals removed the gags from all the heresies,
their idea was that religious and philosophical discoveries
might thus be made. Their view was that cosmic truth was so
important that every one ought to bear independent testimony.
The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it
cannot matter what any one says. The former freed inquiry as men
loose a noble hound; the latter frees inquiry as men fling back
into the sea a fish unfit for eating. Never has there been
so little discussion about the nature of men as now, when,
for the first time, any one can discuss it. The old restriction
meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion.
Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it.
Good taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions,
has succeeded in silencing us where all the rest have failed.

This is MY idea and I am saying it, yet when I say it, you say, "Why do you keep talking about Chesterton?" I am saying this. ME.
I can express the idea in different words but there seems to be no need. It is clear as is.

But to you it really is a fish unfit for eating. You, who asked, "Why must we fight?; why can't we just acknowledge the validity of each other's world view?" it doesn't matter. My truth for me is as good as your truth for you.

Only it's not. It means EVERYTHING. Your worldview as thoroughly negates my expression of it as mine does yours. They are mutually exclusive and incompatible. There can be no ecumenism that involves the slightest concession of dogmatic points.

Now as to Chesterton the writer, that is a different kettle of fish. That is what I was responding to Orlion about. I do not say that you MUST read Chesterton. I DO say that you cannot possibly have an informed opinion of the man that a large body of factual knowledge and scholarship contradicts. So you've read a book (Or at least Ali has). That does not translate into an authoritative voice that can say that he is "bad" (what an indefinite characterization!) or even a Wal-Mart version of Mark Twain. You don't know about the Marconi scandal, you don't know about the letters from Wells and Shaw, you have read less than 0.5% of his works - and so you simply cannot come off with such pronunciations. The most you can do is say, "I feel that book (or chapter) was...". THAT I can accept. But to think you have acquired a complete sense of the man and so can pigeon-hole him is serious self-deception.

www.youtube.com/user/TheaterOfTheWordIn ... DR4XoU3KTs
(you can fast-forward to 1:26 if you want)

www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/176028

Lines to a Don
By Hilaire Belloc

Remote and ineffectual Don
That dared attack my Chesterton,
With that poor weapon, half-impelled,
Unlearnt, unsteady, hardly held,
Unworthy for a tilt with men—
Your quavering and corroded pen;
Don poor at Bed and worse at Table,
Don pinched, Don starved, Don miserable;
Don stuttering, Don with roving eyes,
Don nervous, Don of crudities;
Don clerical, Don ordinary,
Don self-absorbed and solitary;
Don here-and-there, Don epileptic;
Don puffed and empty, Don dyspeptic;
Don middle-class, Don sycophantic,
Don dull, Don brutish, Don pedantic;
Don hypocritical, Don bad,
Don furtive, Don three-quarters mad;
Don (since a man must make an end),
Don that shall never be my friend.

* * *

Don different from those regal Dons!
With hearts of gold and lungs of bronze,
Who shout and bang and roar and bawl
The Absolute across the hall,
Or sail in amply billowing gown
Enormous through the Sacred Town,
Bearing from College to their homes
Deep cargoes of gigantic tomes;
Dons admirable! Dons of Might!
Uprising on my inward sight
Compact of ancient tales, and port
And sleep—and learning of a sort.
Dons English, worthy of the land;
Dons rooted; Dons that understand.
Good Dons perpetual that remain
A landmark, walling in the plain—
The horizon of my memories—
Like large and comfortable trees.

* * *

Don very much apart from these,
Thou scapegoat Don, thou Don devoted,
Don to thine own damnation quoted,
Perplexed to find thy trivial name
Reared in my verse to lasting shame.
Don dreadful, rasping Don and wearing,
Repulsive Don—Don past all bearing.
Don of the cold and doubtful breath,
Don despicable, Don of death;
Don nasty, skimpy, silent, level;
Don evil; Don that serves the devil.
Don ugly—that makes fifty lines.
There is a Canon which confines
A Rhymed Octosyllabic Curse
If written in Iambic Verse
To fifty lines. I never cut;
I far prefer to end it—but
Believe me I shall soon return.
My fires are banked, but still they burn
To write some more about the Don
That dared attack my Chesterton.

You don't have to like him. But to pretend that he is admired only by a few narrow religious fanatics, to pretend that he has no appeal to the broader intellect, is to ignore not only his considerable influence and the praise he has received for it, but the existence of active support in societies that dwarf similar praise and tribute to an author like SRD.
www.chesterton.org/wordpress/local-societies/
And that is only in the US. I am aware of dozens more around the world.
Just Google "Chesterton Society".

Donaldson, much as I enjoy him, simply does not command this level of interest. That there IS such a level of interest strongly suggests that there is something to be interested in, as I will cheerfully concede for SRD and the existence of this site. But I equally insist it to be true for GK Chesterton. The issue of what those authors deal with is another matter, though, and I will not concede them to be equal.

What we have in common is that we have found authors that give us a lot and are worth our time, that other people do not read because the prose seems difficult or because they are turned off by a rape scene at the beginning of the story or whatever, and we would ask them to look deeper and not judge so quickly.