Monday, April 15, 2013
Our Two Cults; The Cult of the Body, and the Cult of Smallness
I have, and have always had, a number of problems with the modern world, but as I studied those problems, I began to realize that they all stem from a single source; or rather, two sources that intertwine in many key areas; two cults that modern, secular society (and unfortunately, many people in religious circles) obey without question.
So, after spending a while thinking this over, I decided to try to put it into words. Putting it simply, the pagan cults that the modern world sets up are "the Cult of the Body," and "the Cult of Smallness." When I say "cult," I mean, of course, a group of people who follow a dogma which, while it may have some good ideas, is false when you get down to it. These cults express themselves in every aspect of our lives (which is how we know they're cults, rather than just predispositions or preferences,) so I will, in this post, be going over a few of the ways in which these cults effect us, starting with the least damaging, and moving on to the most.
-----
1. With Regard to the Human Body
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body views the human body as the absolute center of the universe. It worships the human body, and in particular, the health, appearance and physical wellbeing of the human body, often refusing to acknowledge that any other kind of wellbeing even exists.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness insists that human bodies should be as small as possible. Sometimes even to the extent of damaging the person's health, though usually in a way that most people don't notice. The reason the cult of smallness doesn't want people to notice any negative consequences that they're having on bodily health is simple; they don't want an open war with the cult of the body. As long as they manage to keep the unhealthy results of "over-smallness" out of the public eye, war is averted between these two cults.
-----
2. With Regard to Dress and Appearance
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body insists that however one dresses, it should not disguise the body. This means that nothing (or at least very little) should be left to the imagination, and that's why they refer to immodest dress as "proud of my body." The cult of the body views the exposure of the human body, under any circumstances whatsoever, as a sacrament, and protects this "sacrament" through the use of lawsuits against those who rightfully hate debauchery.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness agrees with the cult of the body that the body should be revealed, but for different reasons. It -despises- large outfits with long sleeves, skirts and pant-legs, and it -especially- despises dresses, since these are larger than the legs that they cover by more than an inch or two. The cult of smallness hates, in reality, any form of fashion that's large and noticeable, using the word "gaudy" to describe it, and trying to discourage people from wearing it by seeking to convince them that no one else does or wants to. This is why celebrities and television shows, in spite of their wealth, seem to focus so much on wearing shorter dresses and lower-cut tops, rather than actually using their money on fabric.
It should also be noted that this is not exclusive to the upper class. Poor people, a hundred years ago, generally wore long garments in layers, which simply isn't done as often; even by the middle class.
-----
3. With Regard to Art and Expression
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body wants all art and expression to be about the human body exclusively. They fund "art" that depicts excessive nudity, generally in poses, and they love pornography as though it were a sacred right. However, the moment that art depicts physical imperfections or weaknesses in a body, they will put it to scorn, because the body is sacred to them.
B. The Cult of Smallness
Yes, there is the insistence on depicting only small bodies, but more importantly, the cult of smallness encourages a very small artistic spirit, and cooperates with the cult of the body on this. It teaches people to mistake "I can draw whatever I wantity" for artistic spirit. Real artistic spirit, of course, is drawing dynamic and important things, which touch us spiritually and emotionally, and nothing in modern art is capable of this, because both cults have cooperated to exclude religion from art. The cult of smallness hates religion because it's not small, and the cult of the body hates it because it encourages worship of something other than the body. Yet, refusal to depict religion has drained all the life out of art. Just ask yourself this question; are you spiritually or emotionally touched by anything in modern or recent art, or is it just offensive for the sake of offending, or odd for the sake of being odd?
-----
4. With Regard to Knowledge and Understanding
A. The Cult of the Body
You might think that the cult of the body would encourage knowledge of the body, but in fact, it does not, since that knowledge might discourage one from worshiping it. Instead, the cult of the body spreads misinformation about the body, the importance of the body, and how it works, seeking to mislead people into joining their cult. After all, what possible harm could misinformation do to the body?
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness regards the possessing of information as something of a handicap in people. It tells them that it's harder to be happy if you know lots of things, and discourages learning through social pressures and the popularizing of the word "whatever." It also fills the world with mindless, shiny distractions, in a deliberate effort to keep people from learning, because the moment people fill their heads with knowledge, they begin to realize just how wrong-headed both of these cults are.
-----
5. With Regard to Hopes, Dreams and Aspirations
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body seeks to crush any hopes that imply there is something in life other than the body (such as God and eternal life.) It makes up excuses for why we can't dream of anything non-physical (and thus non-bodily,) and perhaps most damagingly, it tells people that it's arrogant to have any aspirations except for the health of their bodies and the bodies of others. You see, people have a lot of hopes, dreams and aspirations in their lives. Some want to make money. Some want to become carpenters. Some want to visit Rome, etc... However, none of these dreams or hopes are proper to the body -as such.- Therefore, the cult of the body seeks to discourage them.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness discourages all the same things that the cult of the body does in this area, but for a different reason. Namely, it discourages large hopes, big dreams and massive aspirations, -simply because they're large, big and massive.- The cult of smallness hates things that are large, and that includes dreams and hopes. So, like the cult of the body, it will tell people that they're arrogant and foolish to even consider such things.
-----
6. With Regard to Passions
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body seeks to reduce all passions to something that the body can do, or to natural urges that the body has. In other words, it seeks to explain all passions as a desire for some form of food, drink, sleep, sex, etc, because these are all natural urges that the body has, which do NOT imply the existence of the human mind or soul.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness insists that all passions be small. It does this through a false philosophy; relativism. The fact of the matter is; you -cannot- be a relativist, and also have strong passions. The moment your passions become strong enough to take some form of action, your relativism would say "no. Who am I to judge? Their way is just as valid as my way." Then, you'd stomp on your passions until they were nearly or completely extinguished. This method of diminishing the passions of mankind en masse has proven quite effective, and the cult of smallness uses it to this day.
-----
7. With Regard to Self-Image
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body obsesses over the "perfection" and "health" of the body, and because of this, will put to scorn anyone whose self-image doesn't depend on physical "health" or "perfection," particularly if that person seems to be allowing their body to slide into "unhealthiness" or "imperfection." If your self-image is not, in this sense, based on your body, the cult of the body is displeased.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness agrees with the cult of the body in that self-image should be mainly body-based, since that's the smallest kind of self-image that one could possibly have. However, in addition, it denounces every form of self-image that sees the self as special, or particularly good in some way as being arrogant and evil. This leads inevitably to the next problem.
-----
8. With Regard to Origins & Destiny
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body is only concerned with the origins and destiny of -the body,- and will put to scorn anyone who has any concern for the origins or destiny of anything else about man, since after all, the soul, the mind, the spirit; those things aren't the body, and we -must- worship the body if we belong to the cult of the body.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness actually goes further than the cult of the body in this. Not only does it reject the origins/destiny of any human dimension other than the body, it insists that those origins, and that destiny be as minimal and unimpressive as possible. For example, insisting that human beings are the sons of primates, and destined to be eaten by worms and go out of existence.
-----
9. With Regard to Human Value
A. The Cult of the Body
In the cult of the body, you simply -are- your body, so you have no value unless your body has value, and any value you -do- have is -solely- the value of your body. Because of this, the cult of the body strongly encourages lust and sex-mindedness, since these things focus the attention on the body, and on its value alone.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness is mainly concerned with diminishing the value of human beings as much as possible; to convince us that we're all animals, and we have no rights, or responsibilities, or values beyond those that an animal would have. They even try to claim that certain types of people (like the unborn,) have no value at all, and as long as that type of person doesn't resemble a perfect body, this doesn't generally get them into trouble with the cult of the body.
-----
10. With Regard to Loyalty and Honesty
A. The Cult of the Body
Loyalty and honesty have no basis in the body alone, except -very- indirectly, as a means to keep others from stabbing -you- in the back too, and thus -sort of- promoting your continued good health. Still, that kind of thinking and planning ahead requires something other than just a body, so the cult of the body tends to discourage, or at least downplay the importance of these things.
B. The Cult of Smallness
Loyalty and honesty make it possible for people to unite into large groups, over issues important to them. The cult of smallness sees the word "large" in that sentence and has a knee-jerk reaction against it as a result. In addition to this, they tend to react badly to anything that would threaten to extend the dimensions of the human person beyond their bare minimum, and that includes social obligations like being loyal or honest.
-----
11. With Regard to Self-Discipline
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body believes in self-discipline, but only selectively. One may, in their view, practice it for the purpose of promoting the health and appearance of one's body, but not for anything that builds character, since "character" implies something is there, other than the body.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness doesn't really believe in self-discipline, seeing it as a means of increasing human nature beyond its bare minimum, and therefore an unwelcome thing. However, they generally don't say that out loud, because they don't want to get into a complicated fight with the cult of the body.
-----
12. With Regard to Moral Character
A. The Cult of the Body
The cult of the body has a code of honor which it follows -very- rigidly. Anything which harms the body in any way, or prevents the body from being "perfect," is evil and must never be done. Anything which helps the body to live longer/more perfectly/in better health/more "pretty," is not only a good thing, but a -necessary- thing, which we're -obligated- to do. They then -call- this "morality." If you disagree, the cult of the body will oppose you.
Interestingly, there are areas in which the cult of the body has been forced to develop strange dogmas on this score, which the cult of smallness simply ignores. For example, when a homosexual person has sex with someone of the same gender, and contracts an STD because of it, they don't generally view this as immoral, even though it harms the body. I believe this is because it forces them to choose between two factors; the bodies of two people participating in a revealing, bodily act, which this cult adores, and the causing of harm to a human body, which they don't adore. In this kind of situation, it's often easier to just ignore the connection between these two things than to make a tough choice like this one (requiring non-bodily thinking,) so that's precisely what the cult of the body does for these allegedly tough issues.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness views all morals and ethics, and indeed, all sense of these things, as a means of increasing human nature beyond its bare minimum, and therefore, as unpleasant and unwelcome. This is the principle difference between these two cults, as neither is willing to accommodate the other. Yet, for some reason, even people belonging to -both- don't seem to realize this, or feel conflicted. They just flit schizophrenically from one view to the other, and back again.
-----
13. With Regard to Faith
A. The Cult of the Body
Not only does the cult of the body deny matters of faith, as they're outside of the body, and thus forbidden, it actually denies, in some instances, that we can have faith at all. Faith, after all, is not a function of bodies. However, they tend to get more worked up over this than they would otherwise, because of the fact that it's a bur in the saddle of the cult of smallness.
B. The Cult of Smallness
The cult of smallness -despises- faith, and in particular, religion, because these things add -tons- of dimensions to the human person, and are -intensely- complex. Theology, in particular, is more complex, in some ways, than -any- other field of study, because it pertains to, and requires knowledge of all the others. Because of this, the cult of smallness will oppose religion and faith, doing everything in their power to tear it down, weaken it, wear away at it; just stop it somehow every chance they get.
-----
Given that these two cults are doing their utmost to diminish and impoverish every aspect of human life, I think it behooves us to ask ourselves; are we part of these secularist regimes? Do we ever participate in these cults?
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Orthodoxy
By G. K. Chesterton
Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5
Enjoyability: 3.5 of 5
I've given most books by G.K. Chesterton high marks in the past, because I like his wit, and frankly, his orthodoxy. I was also impressed by his sharp understanding of the errors in the thinking of the time in which he lived, and his talent for humor and rhetoric, and especially his admiration of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who single-handedly saved me from a ten-year run of agnosticism.
Nevertheless, sometimes, his prose gets decidedly purple; more so than is good for it. I just don't complain about it because he uses the prose to outline some very clear and provable truth.
Orthodoxy, though considered by many to be Chesterton's magnum opus, is, in fact, one of my least favorite of his books, and the main reason is that he demonstrates so clearly that it is prejudices and preferences; not reason, on which his view of the world rests.
I'm sorry to have to say this, because we share so much in common, but in the early parts of the book, Chesterton begins saying that he is assuming that he's speaking to people who want the world to be dramatic and romantic, rather than a system. He starts talking about lessons that he learned from classic fairy tales, and about the joys in monotony that babies seem to experience, and none of this has anything to do with logic or reason. If I could ask Chesterton about these passages, I would put it in this way.
"Suppose that you met a person who had never heard any of the old fairy tales, never heard a poem or a song, and discovered joy, only in those rare instances in which he was victorious over something. How would you defend your world view to this person? What frame of reference would you use? What frame of reference would you -be able- to use?"
I fear things have gotten much worse since Chesterton's time, in that children no longer hear the instructive fairy tales, and no longer have much experience of the world outside their doors. Because of this, the process of "letting fresh air in," as Chesterton puts it; letting it into their thoughts is not so simple as reminding them of their childhood. Their childhood, very often, did not contain any recognition of the things that make life worth living.
However, as the book progresses, Chesterton extends this problem, making aesthetic claims as though they were truth claims.
In chapter 4, he claims that we should be grateful for snow being white, because it could have been black, and for roses being red because they could have been blue. The problem is, I don't see any reason to agree with him on this, simply because my aesthetics differ from his. Aesthetics are not objective statements, but expressions of how certain stimuli make one feel. If white snow and red roses make him happy, then good for him, but this is not a statement of fact, nor is it constant for everyone. I, for example, love red roses, but would -prefer- black snow to white. I just dislike the color white. It provokes unpleasant emotions in me. So what? That proves nothing, and for the most part, it effects none of the choices I make, simply because I choose not to let it.
In the same chapter, he seems to praise monotony, or at least, to claim that it's better, since small babies seem to enjoy it so much. Then, he criticizes naturalism for being monotonous. Clearly there's a problem with this. I'd say monotony is the least of naturalism's problems, of which there are many.
Chapter 4, paragraph 31; Chesterton claims that people choose which emotions to have. This is false. People choose which emotions to -express,- but the emotions which you have are completely beyond your control.
He then goes -far- off topic, defending "smallness" as being inherently more lovable and romantic than "bigness," and again, using only personal sentiments as his evidence. Needless to say, I was unconvinced, and even somewhat angered, as it seems, to me, totally irrelevant to the subject of the book, and unlikely to provoke the reaction that he wishes. The fact that I personally find smallness repulsive, and bigness enchanting is a side issue, though it is, in fact, one of my primary reasons for being willing to listen to the gospel message of dying to this life in pursuit of the next; the pearl of great price is not worth pursuing because of its smallness.
Chesterton uses the last few paragraphs of chapter 4 to try to outline why the need to practice economics is a fun and romantic need, by comparing it to Robinson Crusoe being marooned on an island with only a few items surviving the shipwreck. However, there are several reasons why this comparison fails.
1. Sure, economics can be part of an adventure, but only when there seems to be some chance of losing, or of winning. Crusoe had the chance to do either, and that's what makes his experiences an "adventure."
2. Simply because something -can- be fun, it doesn't follow that it -will- be. I doubt that Crusoe thought it was very much fun being shipwrecked, regardless of how much we may enjoy reading about his escapades from a safe, warm armchair, which brings me to the next reason.
3. There is a difference between fantasy and reality. We may have great fun watching a movie about a boxer who's badly injured in a fight, and has to work his way back to the top, but that doesn't mean that it would be fun to -be- badly injured, or that bad injuries are somehow good because of this.
4. Even if something -is- fun, it doesn't follow that it's in any way related to drama or romance, or even to risk. If you can appreciate having small tools at your disposal for large tasks, you can also appreciate having large tools for even larger tasks.
5. None of this is relevent. It's all subjective aesthetics, which we don't all share, and since that's the whole message in this case, if you don't already share his aesthetics, you won't get his message.
Chapter 5 opens with a cursory glance at the concepts of pessimism and optimism, which, unfortunately, he gets completely wrong. He remarks that he thinks optimists are people who think everything is good except pessimists, and pessimists are people who think everything is bad except themselves. Again; problems.
1. Many optimists (and pessimists) think that pessimists are good.
2. Many pessimists -loath- themselves.
3. Pessimism and optimism, even as abstractions, are not about whether you think things are good or bad. Rather, they're about how often you -dwell on- the things that you think are good, versus the ones you think are bad. A man may recognize that his neighbors never talk to him, except to scorn, that his government is run by a tyrant, than the businesses that surround him are all using their money for evil purposes, and that he himself is friendless, relationless, childless and destitute, and yet, still be an optimist, because he comforts himself by reminding himself of the things that -are not- horrible, even if those things are mere dreams.
4. Pessimism and optimism are not real people-types. They're abstractions invented by psychologists to try to keep track of trends in psychology. It would be a mistake to assume that any human being is a -pure- optimist or a -pure- pessimist.
5. Again, what does this have to do with philosophy? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Next comes the point where Chesterton begins to speak as though we have some obligation to be loyal to the universe, by our very nature. This sounds suspiciously like "My universe, right or wrong," which he seems to admit later, strangely. Then, in Chapter 5, Paragraph 6, he launches a broadside attack against pessimists, claiming them to be "candid friends." This is clearly not always true, since often, pessimists will be very candid about -not- being your friend, especially when you criticize them for being pessimists.
He becomes more and more derogatory towards pessimists as the chapter continues, calling them traitors to the universe and the like. It's just garbage by this point. None of this has anything to do with sanity or philosophy. He's just coming down on his least favorite type of personality. For example, he claims that pessimists don't love the things they chastise. I know for fact this is not true of all pessimists. Frankly, I expected better.
Next, Chesterton defines the difference between "good" and "bad" optimism; that bad optimism leads to laziness and complacence, while good optimism leads to eager action. It's an important point to make, and I'm glad he made it, but in a way, it also serves to further outline his mistakes regarding pessimism. After all, if optimism can motivate a person well or badly, why can't pessimism do the same? Why is it only optimism which has a "good" version, while all pessimists are lumped into the same pile?
However, midway through chapter 6 (paragraph 16,) Chesterton begins defending the faith again, and the book picks up! He includes several brilliant examples of accusations thrown at the church, and how they contradict one another, as well as a fantastic interpretation of the "lion will lay down with the lamb" passage in paragraph 27, which seems to imply that there's room for more than one type of personality in Christianity, in defiance of his previous remarks.
However, it doesn't last, and by the end of chapter 7, he's singing the praises of levity again, and trying to claim that the saints would back him up (I can think of at least a dozen of the great saints of the Church who were as serious-minded as IRS agents.) If he wants to claim that the faith has plenty of room for those who don't take themselves too seriously, I would say that claim is true, but the way he's talking, it almost sounds as though serious individuals have little or no place in the kingdom of God. I hope I don't need to explain why that's false.
Nevertheless, Chapter 8 opens up, and once again, we're back to strong critiques of anti-Christian arguments, then in Chapter 9, arguments for why doubt is unjustified in the case of belief in God. These chapters are -really good.-
I guess my conclusion with regard to the book is a sort of "halfway" conclusion. It gets points just for being orthodox, but I have to say that I think the book meandered somewhat between legitimate defenses of the faith, and irrelevant aesthetics, with which I very much disagree. Statements of aesthetics and outlook (positive vs. negative) are not matters of faith or morals, and don't really matter when it comes to believing in God, or being a Christian. As long as you take it in that context, I can't imagine this book's "low points" doing you any harm, and I do recommend the other half of it, because, as I said, the "high points" are -very- high.
Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5
Enjoyability: 3.5 of 5
I've given most books by G.K. Chesterton high marks in the past, because I like his wit, and frankly, his orthodoxy. I was also impressed by his sharp understanding of the errors in the thinking of the time in which he lived, and his talent for humor and rhetoric, and especially his admiration of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who single-handedly saved me from a ten-year run of agnosticism.
Nevertheless, sometimes, his prose gets decidedly purple; more so than is good for it. I just don't complain about it because he uses the prose to outline some very clear and provable truth.
Orthodoxy, though considered by many to be Chesterton's magnum opus, is, in fact, one of my least favorite of his books, and the main reason is that he demonstrates so clearly that it is prejudices and preferences; not reason, on which his view of the world rests.
I'm sorry to have to say this, because we share so much in common, but in the early parts of the book, Chesterton begins saying that he is assuming that he's speaking to people who want the world to be dramatic and romantic, rather than a system. He starts talking about lessons that he learned from classic fairy tales, and about the joys in monotony that babies seem to experience, and none of this has anything to do with logic or reason. If I could ask Chesterton about these passages, I would put it in this way.
"Suppose that you met a person who had never heard any of the old fairy tales, never heard a poem or a song, and discovered joy, only in those rare instances in which he was victorious over something. How would you defend your world view to this person? What frame of reference would you use? What frame of reference would you -be able- to use?"
I fear things have gotten much worse since Chesterton's time, in that children no longer hear the instructive fairy tales, and no longer have much experience of the world outside their doors. Because of this, the process of "letting fresh air in," as Chesterton puts it; letting it into their thoughts is not so simple as reminding them of their childhood. Their childhood, very often, did not contain any recognition of the things that make life worth living.
However, as the book progresses, Chesterton extends this problem, making aesthetic claims as though they were truth claims.
In chapter 4, he claims that we should be grateful for snow being white, because it could have been black, and for roses being red because they could have been blue. The problem is, I don't see any reason to agree with him on this, simply because my aesthetics differ from his. Aesthetics are not objective statements, but expressions of how certain stimuli make one feel. If white snow and red roses make him happy, then good for him, but this is not a statement of fact, nor is it constant for everyone. I, for example, love red roses, but would -prefer- black snow to white. I just dislike the color white. It provokes unpleasant emotions in me. So what? That proves nothing, and for the most part, it effects none of the choices I make, simply because I choose not to let it.
In the same chapter, he seems to praise monotony, or at least, to claim that it's better, since small babies seem to enjoy it so much. Then, he criticizes naturalism for being monotonous. Clearly there's a problem with this. I'd say monotony is the least of naturalism's problems, of which there are many.
Chapter 4, paragraph 31; Chesterton claims that people choose which emotions to have. This is false. People choose which emotions to -express,- but the emotions which you have are completely beyond your control.
He then goes -far- off topic, defending "smallness" as being inherently more lovable and romantic than "bigness," and again, using only personal sentiments as his evidence. Needless to say, I was unconvinced, and even somewhat angered, as it seems, to me, totally irrelevant to the subject of the book, and unlikely to provoke the reaction that he wishes. The fact that I personally find smallness repulsive, and bigness enchanting is a side issue, though it is, in fact, one of my primary reasons for being willing to listen to the gospel message of dying to this life in pursuit of the next; the pearl of great price is not worth pursuing because of its smallness.
Chesterton uses the last few paragraphs of chapter 4 to try to outline why the need to practice economics is a fun and romantic need, by comparing it to Robinson Crusoe being marooned on an island with only a few items surviving the shipwreck. However, there are several reasons why this comparison fails.
1. Sure, economics can be part of an adventure, but only when there seems to be some chance of losing, or of winning. Crusoe had the chance to do either, and that's what makes his experiences an "adventure."
2. Simply because something -can- be fun, it doesn't follow that it -will- be. I doubt that Crusoe thought it was very much fun being shipwrecked, regardless of how much we may enjoy reading about his escapades from a safe, warm armchair, which brings me to the next reason.
3. There is a difference between fantasy and reality. We may have great fun watching a movie about a boxer who's badly injured in a fight, and has to work his way back to the top, but that doesn't mean that it would be fun to -be- badly injured, or that bad injuries are somehow good because of this.
4. Even if something -is- fun, it doesn't follow that it's in any way related to drama or romance, or even to risk. If you can appreciate having small tools at your disposal for large tasks, you can also appreciate having large tools for even larger tasks.
5. None of this is relevent. It's all subjective aesthetics, which we don't all share, and since that's the whole message in this case, if you don't already share his aesthetics, you won't get his message.
Chapter 5 opens with a cursory glance at the concepts of pessimism and optimism, which, unfortunately, he gets completely wrong. He remarks that he thinks optimists are people who think everything is good except pessimists, and pessimists are people who think everything is bad except themselves. Again; problems.
1. Many optimists (and pessimists) think that pessimists are good.
2. Many pessimists -loath- themselves.
3. Pessimism and optimism, even as abstractions, are not about whether you think things are good or bad. Rather, they're about how often you -dwell on- the things that you think are good, versus the ones you think are bad. A man may recognize that his neighbors never talk to him, except to scorn, that his government is run by a tyrant, than the businesses that surround him are all using their money for evil purposes, and that he himself is friendless, relationless, childless and destitute, and yet, still be an optimist, because he comforts himself by reminding himself of the things that -are not- horrible, even if those things are mere dreams.
4. Pessimism and optimism are not real people-types. They're abstractions invented by psychologists to try to keep track of trends in psychology. It would be a mistake to assume that any human being is a -pure- optimist or a -pure- pessimist.
5. Again, what does this have to do with philosophy? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Next comes the point where Chesterton begins to speak as though we have some obligation to be loyal to the universe, by our very nature. This sounds suspiciously like "My universe, right or wrong," which he seems to admit later, strangely. Then, in Chapter 5, Paragraph 6, he launches a broadside attack against pessimists, claiming them to be "candid friends." This is clearly not always true, since often, pessimists will be very candid about -not- being your friend, especially when you criticize them for being pessimists.
He becomes more and more derogatory towards pessimists as the chapter continues, calling them traitors to the universe and the like. It's just garbage by this point. None of this has anything to do with sanity or philosophy. He's just coming down on his least favorite type of personality. For example, he claims that pessimists don't love the things they chastise. I know for fact this is not true of all pessimists. Frankly, I expected better.
Next, Chesterton defines the difference between "good" and "bad" optimism; that bad optimism leads to laziness and complacence, while good optimism leads to eager action. It's an important point to make, and I'm glad he made it, but in a way, it also serves to further outline his mistakes regarding pessimism. After all, if optimism can motivate a person well or badly, why can't pessimism do the same? Why is it only optimism which has a "good" version, while all pessimists are lumped into the same pile?
However, midway through chapter 6 (paragraph 16,) Chesterton begins defending the faith again, and the book picks up! He includes several brilliant examples of accusations thrown at the church, and how they contradict one another, as well as a fantastic interpretation of the "lion will lay down with the lamb" passage in paragraph 27, which seems to imply that there's room for more than one type of personality in Christianity, in defiance of his previous remarks.
However, it doesn't last, and by the end of chapter 7, he's singing the praises of levity again, and trying to claim that the saints would back him up (I can think of at least a dozen of the great saints of the Church who were as serious-minded as IRS agents.) If he wants to claim that the faith has plenty of room for those who don't take themselves too seriously, I would say that claim is true, but the way he's talking, it almost sounds as though serious individuals have little or no place in the kingdom of God. I hope I don't need to explain why that's false.
Nevertheless, Chapter 8 opens up, and once again, we're back to strong critiques of anti-Christian arguments, then in Chapter 9, arguments for why doubt is unjustified in the case of belief in God. These chapters are -really good.-
I guess my conclusion with regard to the book is a sort of "halfway" conclusion. It gets points just for being orthodox, but I have to say that I think the book meandered somewhat between legitimate defenses of the faith, and irrelevant aesthetics, with which I very much disagree. Statements of aesthetics and outlook (positive vs. negative) are not matters of faith or morals, and don't really matter when it comes to believing in God, or being a Christian. As long as you take it in that context, I can't imagine this book's "low points" doing you any harm, and I do recommend the other half of it, because, as I said, the "high points" are -very- high.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)