Orthodoxy As Heterodoxy

I finished G.K. Chestertons' Orthodoxy.  Enjoyed it.  I like the rambling kind of thoughtful non-fiction.  Several quotes I marked (on my Kindle):

It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob. 

Seriousness is not a virtue.  It would be a heresy, but a much more sensible heresy, to say that seriousness is a vice.

The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe.  But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle (In other words, the Christian has a broader spectrum of thought available to him than does the materialist/determinist/atheist).

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors.  It is the democracy of the dead.  Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.

One idea Chesterton wrestled with in the book was the idea that a state of anarchy would lead to great restrictions on individuals.  He meant the anarchy that many of his "modern Utopian friends" believed would grow out of their perfect society:  Freedom from all ties and obligations; freedom from the "liberty to bind" oneself to obligations and expectations; freedom from failure or success.  A life without meaning.

I myself have argued with various friends that individuality and eccentricity -- the true kinds, not the comfortable sorts found off-the-shelf -- flourish best in structured, conservative environments.  I'm not talking about dictatorships and other harsh regimes.  I mean societies with rule of law and a history of tolerance and fairness.  The warp and weave of these traditional cultures allow individuals to play off them, to use them, and to retreat to them in times of need.  Why waste energy reinventing the wheels of society? 

Chesterton thought traditional Christian societies more expansive and tolerant of humanity than any society based on humanistic principles could be.  He wrote that tradition was an outgrowth of democracy with each generation having a say and adding and keeping what seems best.  He was not saying societies shouldn't be improved.  He was arguing against Utopias and against the arguments of many intellectuals that societies based on miracles ought to be destroyed and rebuilt on new scientific theories, theories he considered narrow and ultimately self destructive.

At its heart, the book is an argument for Christianity in an age of encroaching Atheism.  He feared what would replace Christian ethics.  He wrote the book in 1908, and he died in 1936.  I wonder what he would have thought of the world after WWII.

Comments

[DH]

Sweety, you should get a PhD in Philosophy. You write this stuff so well. Seriously.

[MTheads]

What a sweet husband! Maybe you should go into writing compliments for other people. You know just what to say.

MTh

[Nike Free Run 2 Danmark]

hodet sko å bygge, uansett hvor samlokalisering er svært godt egnet for Oh!