Orthodoxy
By: G.K.
Chesterton
Chapter 2
Review: The Maniac
Chapter 3
Review: The Suicide of Thought
I.
Introduction in Defense of Everything
II.
The
Maniac
III.
The
Suicide of Thought
IV.
The Ethics of Elfland
V.
The Flag of the World
VI.
The Paradoxes of Christianity
VII.
The Eternal Revolution
VIII.
The Romance of Orthodoxy
IX.
Authority and the Adventurer
A taxonomy of some of
the views concerning the stature of reason canvassed by Chesterton in Chapters
2 and 3:
I. Religious authority:
(i) Truth is a standard independent of the human
mind that "measures" the mind and serves as its goal.
(ii) Reason is a generally reliable guide to
truth. (Moderate optimism with respect to reason.)
(iii) In regard to the really big questions,
reason on its own is severely limited and requires the light of faith and
authority in order to attain the truth. (Moderate pessimism with respect
to reason.)
(iv) This is the view held by St. Thomas, St.
Augustine, and the Catholic tradition especially.
II. The Maniac (Enlightenment Rationalism
or Modernism or so-called "Free Thought"):
(i) Truth is a standard independent of the human
mind that "measures" the mind and serves as its goal.
(ii) Reason is a
generally reliable guide to truth.
(iii) Reason on its own is in principle capable
of attaining wisdom. More specifically, reason can attain wisdom without
authority, and indeed needs to be freed from authority--especially religious
authority but also political, economic and social authority--in order to do so.
In general, ideal inquiry is affect-less with respect to its object.
Affections distort, but reason without affection can find fundamental
truths that all reasonable people will agree to. (Enthusiastic optimism
with respect to reason.)
(iv) This is the view at least suggested by Descartes
and Locke, among early modern philosophers, and by Mill later on. It is
characteristic of the so-called "free-thinkers" who either rejected
Christian revelation (e.g., materialists, evolutionary naturalists) or else
attempted to reinterpret Christian revelation in such a way as to eliminate its
supernaturalistic character (liberal theology).
III. The Suicide of Thought (Postmodernism, generated in the 19th and early 20th centuries by the perceived failure of Enlightenment Rationalism): All of the views included here exhibit a marked pessimism with respect to reason. In general, they see that reason cannot validate itself, and this leads them to reject appeals to reason as illegitimate:
A. Academic Skepticism: Reason turned
upon itself raises doubts about its own reliability and can be seen to be
wholly unreliable at least with respect to the big questions in metaphysics and
moral theory. A skeptic of this stripe might despair of finding wisdom
and instead romanticize the unfulfilled "search for wisdom."
Alternatively, this sort of skeptic might might accept Christian revelation
despite its being in conflict with fallen reason (fideism -- suggested by Philo
at the end of Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion). In
addition, this sort of skepticism can easily lead to the forms of intellectual
pessimism that follow.
B. Pragmatism: Reason is wholly
unreliable with respect to the big questions in metaphysics and moral
philosophy. However, the realization that this is so should not lead to despair
but should instead make us see that it is a waste of time (not to mention
dangerous) to try to answer the big questions in metaphysics and moral theory.
Therefore, we should resolve to concentrate only on those matters (e.g.,
satisfying needs, pursuing scientific knowledge, trying to reduce human
suffering) which reason is proportioned to. (Hume, Dewey, Rorty, Simonides (as
quoted by Aristotle in the Metaphysics).) A variant of this view
allows that people have the freedom to (arationally) adopt comprehensive
worldviews, but that these should be strictly private commitments and should
not enter into public discourse, where they tend to be divisive.)
C. Nietzscheanism: Reason is wholly
unreliable with respect to the big questions in metaphysics and moral theory.
Indeed, reason applied to the big questions is in general rationalization,
so that appeals to reason on these questions are simply excuses for the will
to power, i.e., for the will to dominate others. Given this, the strong (or
"free spirits") should assert themselves without apology, so
that they can become the best exemplars of the human spirit -- and such
individuals should be dominant and not held back by the weak and fearful, who
constitute the vast majority of human beings.
D. Quietism: Reason is wholly unreliable
with respect to the big questions in metaphysics and moral philosophy. Indeed,
reason applied to the big questions is in general rationalization, so
that appeals to reason on these questions are simply excuses for the will to
power, i.e., for the will to dominate others. Given this, we should resist
the will to power and try to make ourselves as much as possible impervious to
the temptation to dominate others or in general to exercise our power.
(Tolstoy, certain strands of Stoicism and Buddhism.)
My notes:
“The clean
well lit prison of one idea.”
Problem with
the modern world is that it has one idea that is man. For example, “a man must believe in
himself.” “Believing in oneself is the
commonist sign of a rotter” “Complete
self-confidence is not merely a sin, complete self-confidence is a weakness. This is the book to answer the question
“what is one to believe in?”
Question:
1.
What is the only part of Christian theology that
can be proved? Original sin
2.
What does
Chesterton mean when he says that some Christians who deny sin simply find it
easy to “deny the cat.”
Chesterton
understands that he cannot begin his argument using the concept of sin since so
many he is trying to convince will not accept this as an accepted concept or
reality so he must speak in their terms; healthy vs. unhealthy. So he uses the argument that it is healthy to
be a Christian because it is the greatest likelihood to lead to happiness. A normal Christian argument would focus on
sin but because modern man denies sin he will use the argument that their
errors in belief lead to madness.
Example of
an insane man. He is boring and
homogeneous because he may think he is a chicken and is as dull as a
chicken. It is the man who is sane who
is interesting because he sees the irony in his thinking he’s a chicken. He is healthier because he is able to see the
absurd. Why fairy tales endure. The boy
in the story is normal; his adventures are grand.
Imagination
does not breed insanity. Reason breeds
insanity. The danger lies in logic not
imagination. It is more common for a
sane man to engage in causeless acts (whistling, kicking his heels.) A mad man makes these actions
meaningful. He sees too much cause in
everything.
What are modern examples of ideas
Narrow universality- that science can
answer all of man’s questions because assume nothing exists but matter. This limits the self and can’t answer
anything other than physical. Reduces
things about
humans to
biology. (materialism)
Example of
this would be the modern idea of sexuality.
It is natural for males to seek out multiple partners so monogamy is not
natural therefore it is “bad.” If “good”
is defined as what is natural then monogamy is “bad” or at least unhealthy for
males and the species. Although this
sounds mad to us it is “rational” and therefore satisfying even though the
result for individuals and society is misery.
Cramped eternity –when one places the
“self” in center and explain reality by only one’s experience you get a small
world. If the delusional man who believes
he is god he is not much of a god.
Example of this would be determinism or materialism. It limits itself by what it cannot answer.
Here are some possible discussion questions to keep in mind as you complete
the reading.
Chapter 2
1.
What does it mean to "believe in
yourself?" This is a relatively meaningless statement
since people who do terrible things or people of no talent also “believe in
themselves.” Delusional people believe
in themselves. But, when reality is
determined to be “relative” one really has nothing else to believe in. quote, your reality is right for you.
2.
What do you have to believe in other than in yourself? This is why Chesterton begins the book. If the modern world is wrong, then he will
articulate that objective truth is necessary; one truth must be eternal as a
starting point for everything else to make sense.
3.
What is the only part of Christian theology
that can really be proved? Sin is apparent through empirical observation and it is
the one area of truth that the modern world works the most to deny.
4.
What are
some examples of denying the "existence of the cat? I
think what Chesterton is getting at is how man confronts the presence of evil
in the world, and how that fits in with the existence of God. There are two ways in which to solve the
conundrum. Firstly, you deny God exists, therefore concluding that there is no
moral basis on which to distinguish good from evil. Alternatively, if you
believe God exists, and that he is perfect in holiness and morality, you then
conclude that the relationship between God and man is not what it was meant to
be, and that it is man's fault that this is so. The latter is the Christian
position on the issue. The 'new
theologians' of Chesterton's time, and presumably the Emergents of today, are
therefore seen to be either missing the point altogether, or denying it because
they do not like the answers that the question raises.
5. Give some examples of modern ideas and beliefs that
represent "a narrow universality" and "a small and cramped
eternity." Narrow universality- that science can
answer all of man’s questions because assume nothing exists but matter. This limits the self and can’t answer
anything other than physical. Reduces
things about humans to biology. (materialism).
Example of this would be the modern idea of sexuality. It is natural for males to seek out multiple
partners so monogamy is not natural therefore it is “bad.” If “good” is defined as what is natural then
monogamy is “bad” or at least unhealthy for males and the species. Although this sounds mad to us it is
“rational” and therefore satisfying even though the result for individuals and
society is misery.
Example of cramped eternity - ?
Chapter 3
1.
What is the result of destroying the idea of
Divine authority? Eventually, all
authority is destroyed and then even the “authority” by which one argues
against divine authority is in question and that is when the society becomes
mad.
2.
What is free thought? To admire mere choice is to refuse to
decide. (this pro-choice is anti-choice)
3. How is every act an act of self-sacrifice? Because anything you choose anything, you
reject everything else. Every act of
will is an act of self-limitation
4.
What is necessary for sanity? To
believe there is such a thing as objective truth
5.
Why is complete skepticism impossible? The new rebel is a sceptic who will not allow
himself to believe in anything but that precludes him from being a credible
critic of anything. “all denunciation implies
a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutions doubts not only the
institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.”
6. How did Chesterton anticipate "The Jesus
Project" and the attempts to re-
write the Gospels using modern
historical theories and textual criticism?
C. Hitchens argues that the inconsistencies in the NT
Gospels proves that there might have been person of Jesus and that myths were
written about him. The inconsistencies
prove that they are myths and might have fooled a society of ignorant and
illiterate population but shouldn’t fool us.
(progressive arrogance- the assumption that we are more educated,
intelligent and sophisticated then previous populations in history). His argument is circular because the opposite
argument could have been made (and Chesterton would have carved Hitchens up and
served him on a platter) that the inconsistencies in eye witness testimony is
quite normal in human experience and both the thread of consistency
and the inconsistent details actually add veracity to the claim tha
