Orthodoxy

I have long been using apologetics and bits and pieces of arguments G.K. Chesterton uses on both adult and young adults of high school age. I want to say that the strongest argument, as Chesterton, and as now I, see it, is that the best way to come to Orthodoxy, or the Creed, is atheism, Darwinism and Materialism themselves. Before I say what it is, I will say what Orthodoxy is not. It is not a philosophical debate over atheism vs. belief in God. It is an experiential journey of G.K. Chesterton, who followed the path of atheism, which was very entrenched in the educational system of England in the late 1800's (as it is now). He judges the "fruits" of all these -isms, which are not involved in the way, the truth, and the light, and in many cases diametrically opposed to Truth. The materialist philosopher (Darwinists, relativists) arguments contradict themselves laying the way for the way, the truth and the light. Since the present age has all but forsaken philosophy, it also was unwittingly laid to waste common sense. Chesterton is the "Apostle of Common Sense" and Orthodoxy is his swan song. Do not become discouraged by the discussion of the maniac, lunatic and asylum which are the first items of the book. He compares some of the great thinkers, with their universally appealing laws, to the lunatics. How can this be that these individuals of higher learning, such as Nietzsche, can explain everything by such small arguments? Chesterton argues that indeed they do explain the universe, but the universe they explain is a very small universe. Even though the circle is infinite, the circle is a very small one! 3 pence in diameter he states. Insomuch the attack is not against dogmas of Catholicism and Christianity, but attacks against human thinking. The killing of thought itself, which is the only thought that should be censored. If there is any unwavering dogma, it is the dogma against miracles. No matter what is put forth in terms of the miracle, there is an predisposition against it. Nietzsche, and others like him, which Chesterton one by one fillets are "...wrong not by error of their arguments, by the manifest mistake of their whole lives." The Christian may have doubts, and he can take two conflicting items and the conflict as well and move on. The dogma of the materialist or Darwinist (or any of the isms) can have no exceptions. Chesterton makes not excuse for God's complexity, but just states that it is. In a way, Orthodoxy is much like "City of God" by St. Augustine in one aspect, it provides convincing arguments against gods that we have set up in front of the real God and the real Truth. Augustine (400 AD) explains why Christianity is not responsible for the fall of Rome (but like the phoenix, or a sinking ship with a cross, sinks, but comes back to life again, it becomes a submarine, and miraculously reemerges). If Christianity were a fad, that fad would have died with Rome. But as Chesterton points out, it is one of the only things that did survive the fall of Rome. Chesterton takes the atheists, of which he was one at one time, to task one at a time, as Augustine took the Roman gods to task one at a time. In the case of Nietzsche, he was insane at the end of his life. Chesterton comments that if he had not gone insane, his followers would have. After we get through the hard part of the beginning of the book, the maniac (the self reliant man being part of this), there is a whole different way of looking at our universe that Chesterton put forth for our contemplation. He shows how man is basically Mystical. And he lays down the stories of childhood as superior to the morbid philosophies. He helps us reclaim the sense of wonder. He keeps logic in its place, showing the many logical items and concepts conveyed. He ridicules the philosophies that begin on an unfounded base. And the rest of their philosophy that follows is not grounded. He looks at the philosophers who criticize Christ, and try to slice him up into a gentle, kind moralist, who speaks some truths. Under this view, he becomes like monster with his arm and leg sawed off. Chesterton points out that it is not a nervous breakdown that happens when Christ overturns tables in the Temple, but a truth-speaking thing, that aligns with his other actions. Chesterton says that Christ is a seamless garment, which cannot be parted out. His divinity, and miracles that go with it, are intertwined with his humanity. Audio books is a great way to introduce ourselves and others into these old (1905 copyright) concepts. Do not get bogged down by unfamiliar philosophers or poets, but take in what you can take in. And as in any classic book, you will be back for more.

"The steps a man takes, since the day of his birth till his death, draw in the time an inconceivable figure. The Divine Intelligence intuits immediately that figure, in the same way the men intuit a triangle (...)" these words are in a little footnote of an essay by Borges, many years ago. Chesterton, nor any human being, has not that infinite intelligence, but after reading Orthodoxy I think he goes well beyond the intelligence of most persons, I believe he can discover the difficult philosophies in history and perceive their pattern and essence as easily as a man can intuit a triangle or a circle. This is my review of what I felt. Is awe-inspiring. Orthodoxy is a kind of biography but of ideas, actually each page is like a natural paradise full of ideas and thoughts, I enjoyed reading it bit by bit until feel I was reading with understanding (my intelligence is not as vast as Chesterton's powerful creativity). This primal garden is so different than to the irreal excess of philosophers, reading them is like seeing vast forests made of only one tree, or feverish labyrinths of thought, marvelous and complex explanations, but devoid of reality and full of ego; or even worse many times philosophy ends being a philosopher commenting for and about other philosophers. Chesterton in that aspect is superior: he is not naive nor credulous. He read and he has life experience, heart and reasoning, he can talk about philosophies but he does from a place I feel real. I am not Catholic (although I admire the institution of the Catholic church), this book cannot convert me because I am from another continent and culture; but definitively I understand why Chesterton converted to Catholicism. I appreciate him even more for that, I think rather than inherit religions is better for the spirit if each person would awaken by own means to a religion or belief. The only another author that has made me feel the same as Chesterton with this book (I don't recall how many I have read) is Augustine of Hippo, another converse to the Catholic Church, he had that complete conversion too, not only of heart, or mind, but as a complete human being. The AmazonClassics Edition is, for this book, possibly the best around. There is the useful X-Ray for the many names mentioned, and for those that not there is the built-in option of Wikipedia. The formatting is professional and exemplary. The typography is clean and modern. All in all is very comfortable to read, but what makes it invaluable to me is that there is no introductions, studies, footnotes or any interference by sages or intellectuals, as I want to read a book and think by myself. In that aspect these editions are the best in Kindle. There is only a respectful short biography at the end. Choosing this edition you are reading a flawless edition that feels as fresh as the day it was published.

I recently read back-to-back MacIntyre's After Virtue and Chesterton's Orthodoxy. Although I've been meaning to read these both for over a decade, I decided to do it now and together as I had conceived a project to read them together with Julius Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World as three views of anti-modernism: MacIntyre as a reformed modernist, Evola as a radical reactionary, and Chesterton as a defender of the status quo of the old order. This project didn't quite work out as MacIntyre and Chesterton turned out not to be quite what I thought. Although it's true that MacIntyre made the trip from Marxism to classicism and Catholicism, After Virtue is less an attempt to disabuse us of Marxism than an attempt to re-ground a form of corporatism in a pre-modern mode that would not be subject to the devastating critiques presented by advocates of modern liberal capitalism. And although it's also true that Chesterton defends orthodox Roman Catholicism, he makes no attempt to defend the status quo per se and, in fact, embraces Catholicisim as a stable ground from which he can ask for the dissolution of the traditional social structure. As against these two, Evola is quite another type as he has no interest in ethics' relationship to the distribution of goods; his is an otherworldly and inegalitarian philosophy. In a most general way, MacIntyre argues that reason has been shown incapable of providing a basis for ethics since reasoning requires some starting point outside itself. For MacIntyre, this starting point is our mutual social life and experience of society. Interestingly, Chesterton goes part way toward some of the same analyses as MacIntyre. Both After Virtue and Orthodoxy start from the assumption of the failure of pure reason. For MacIntyre, this is due to a lack of ends, while for Chesterton it is due to a lack of mysticism (Chesterton's word for unexamined assumptions about reality). Reasoning without pre-conditions is shown to be (a) incomplete and incoherent and (b) unhealthy and counterproductive. Chesterton then goes on to examine a number of ethical systems that all fail in one way or another for a lack standards. He brings in the classical-Catholic view of virtues here and argues that some modes of ethics fail for lacking the proportionality of the virtues. Nietzsche fails for being unable to distinguish between willing the good of being a prince and that of a pauper. If these arguments seem unreasonable and based in socially constructed standards, it must be remembered that Chesterton has already dismissed pure reason without a ground of assumptions. Having dismissed modern rationalist theories, Chesterton goes on to explain the assumptions from which he reasons, that is, his own personal mysticism so to speak. Chesterton's mysticism is a conglomeration of principles such as the assumption of design in beauty, a bias in favor of optimism against pessism, and a desire for social reform. He is quite straightforward in admitting that he developed these assumptions in childhood and makes no attempt to defend them. He is, at least, an introspective thinker who has probably more honesty about himself than most thinkers. Chesterton's argument for Christian orthodoxy, then, is essentially that orthodoxy is the philosophy most at home in Chesterton's world of assumptions. This is not a good argument for why you should be orthodox, but it is a perfectly acceptable account for why Chesterton is, and this is all he claimed to be doing in his book. Is it a good or relevant book for us? I think Chesterton assumes that his assumptions are very similar to our own, although I'm not sure that's true in our time and place. Beyond this, although I have sketched a very broad outline of Chesterton's theme or point, his book is filled with a multidude of tiny arguments upon which his theme relies, and I'm not sure they are all good. For example, in discussing Carlyle, he confuses Christianity's attitude toward the state of the soul with a doctrinal assumption that he who least wants to rule ought to be chosen as the ruler. This may be a good guide for choosing a Pope, but it is simply an empirical question whether it is a good guide for choosing a king or a member of parliament. On this point, orthodoxy does not support his levelling political instinct. This is one example, but the book is filled with questionable assumptions and questionable conclusions. Chesterton even at times argues against himself, taking two opposite views at different places in order to score rhetorical points. Orthodoxy is not in any way an argument for orthodoxy in the way we have come to expect arguments. However, Chesterton is not an unreasonable or unpleasant person, and it's possible that one could find the totality of his worldview overwhelming even while rejecting its specifics. His writing is inconsistent and trends from being poetic and insightful to being boorish and repetitive. Whether or not you get much out it depends on what you bring to it, I think. This edition/printing of the book is cheap and looks okay on the outside, but the font and page layout make it difficult to read. I would choose another printing if I were to start over again.

I have read almost 4 books by G. K. Chesterton thus far; and Orthodoxy is a masterpiece. The best of what I have read from him yet. Witty, hilarious, intellectually astute--Chesterton is in fine form throughout. And though Orthodoxy is heady you will find that Chesterton's humor and skill with the pen makes it an almost addictive read. His paradoxical manner of framing big ideas, his undeniable ability to wield "common" sense as a weapon, his way of speaking to universal human experiences--together makes him one of the most enjoyable writers of his time. And he's not pulling any punches with the philosophers of his day either. In the introduction, Chesterton self-deprecatingly describes himself as a man who sent out from England to explore new lands, but gets blown off course in his travels and unknowingly arrives back in downtown London--where he then proceeds to claim this "new land" for England! Chesterton then charts his spiritual journey from agnosticism to Christianity and how he unknowingly discovered this "new doctrine" on his own--only to find out, much to his surprise, that it was nothing more than the old Christian doctrine which has been believed for thousands of years. Chesterton is a late comer to the party, and he doesn't mind admitting that fact throughout! Chesterton rails against intellectualism--against the scholastics and against the George Bernard Shaw types. The atheist scientist who says there is no transcendent meaning to this thing called life. Grown up skeptics and modernized "experts" who care little for the world. In short Chesterton realizes that the fairy tales that he knew as a child, that wonder he felt within the deepest part of him when he was young, the feeling that the grass was green because it was "supposed to be green"--were actually all true. The reason the tales of the lady and the dragon, or jack and the beanstalk resonated with him so much as a child because they spoke to a certain human truth--an internal testimony, that there is something more than just molecules and chance. There had to be something more. So Chesterton figures out an understanding of original sin, of creation, of a transcendent God, and of the archetypal tale because it was really true--the story of God coming into the world to bring man back to Himself. Chesterton is unabashedly romantic, and he rejoices to find that Christianity is as well. In the chapter that perhaps hit me the hardest (The Flag of the World), Chesterton confronts exactly what our posture as Christians needs to be towards the world. It cannot be escapism or pessimism; an unhealthy desire to withdraw from the darkness of the world: "For our Titanic purposes of faith and revolution, what we need is not the cold acceptance of the world as a compromise, but some way in which we can heartily hate and heartily love it. We do not want joy and anger to neutralize each other and produce a surly contentment; we want a fiercer delight and a fiercer discontent. We have to feel the universe at once as an ogre' castle, to be stormed, and yet as our own cottage, to which we can return at evening." Wow. That is romance in writing--and ointment to my own personal numbness. Another one: "The point is not that this world is too sad to love or too glad not to love; the point is that when you do love a thing, its gladness is a reason for loving it, and its sadness a reason for loving it more." "A man's friend leaves him as he is: his wife loves him and is always trying to turn him into somebody else." This is a great book, and I am already doing a second pass through it because there is so much in it that I missed. Chesterton is medicinal to the ills of a modern world--and Orthodoxy in particular has lost no degree of relevance in the century that has past since its composition.

I recently read "Orthodoxy" by G.K. Chesterton and I was thoroughly impressed by this book. It is a thought-provoking and deeply insightful work that explores the nature of truth, faith, and reason. One of the things I appreciate most about "Orthodoxy" is Chesterton's writing style. He is a masterful storyteller and his prose is engaging, humorous, and thought-provoking. He is able to take complex ideas and make them accessible and engaging for the reader. Another thing I appreciate about "Orthodoxy" is the depth and breadth of Chesterton's insights. He is able to explore a wide range of topics and themes, including the nature of truth, the role of faith and reason, the dangers of skepticism and nihilism, and the importance of beauty and wonder in the world. He is able to make connections between these ideas and offer unique and insightful perspectives on them. Overall, I would give "Orthodoxy" by G.K. Chesterton a 5 out of 5 star rating. It is a deeply thought-provoking and insightful book that I would highly recommend to anyone who is interested in exploring the nature of truth, faith, and reason.

Recognizing that Chesterson's Orthodoxy appeared in numerous lists of "books to read", and granting the premise that it is therefore a worthwhile book to obtain, I decided to get a copy and give it a try. Immediately, the question became - which version to purchase? I quickly found that on Amazon there are no less than 45 paperback editions available (some are almost certainly duplicates, but still), and 12 hardcover versions. There are even 6 different Kindle versions! Such is the quandary for books in the public domain; every print-on-demand operation can offer it up, and how do you know which ones are good quality and which are not? I have read enough Amazon reviews complaining of poor quality books, some that seem to be scanned and not proof-read and thus contain numerous spelling and other errors, others missing entire pages, that I was very very hesitant to try anything other than an edition from Penguin or Oxford Classics or other comparable reliable publishers. When I discovered this "Centennial Edition" (good marketing, that), and did some checking, I was satisfied that it was worth trying out. I have not been disappointed. I have the book in front of me as I type this review, and I can report that it is a very good quality book, well produced, and to me it is indistinguishable from a book printed by a "traditional" publisher. This is not a bare-bones, simple printing of the book. It is perfectly typeset, well designed and attractive, and with a very nice style to the production. It is in all respects completely satisfactory. If you are looking for an edition of Orthodoxy, that is a reasonably priced and high quality paperback, I can recommend without hesitation that you purchase this edition. (The publisher, Sam Torode Book Arts, is not shown by Amazon as the publisher; rather "CreateSpace" is listed, as they are the print-on-demand publisher utilized by Torode. There are several other books by Chesterton available on Amazon that are produced by this same designer/publisher. I have no association with that company, I can only say that I would expect that the quality of those books would be the equivalent to this printing, and they would be equally worthy of recommendation. See also The Man Who Was Thursday , The Innocence of Father Brown , The Ball and the Cross , Saint Francis of Assisi , Saint Thomas Aquinas , and Heretics ).

A Christian acquaintance recommended this book to me, though it took a while before I got to it. Reading this book was an interesting experience. On the one hand, it seems clear to me why Chesterton is popular. He has a good way with language and fine wit, launching humorous broadsides at many intellectual foes of Christianity. At the start of the book, he states that his last work, Heretics, was criticized for only attacking others' views rather than giving his own. This book was supposed to be that, hence its name. However, it seemed to be something of a misnomer. Again, most of the book is spent criticizing others' views. Only far in does Chesterton lay out his own view of things, which is again interspersed with criticism. His criticisms are far stronger, in my view, although I suspect there was a significant amount of caricaturing. Not being familiar with the authors he criticizes, I cannot say for sure, but its hard to imagine many people really holding some of the views he attacks. Many of the criticisms I found to be frankly juvenile. They were often reminiscent of the "I know you are, but what am I?" chant familiar to school children. At some points, I found it unclear what exactly he was saying, due to either the phrasing or references that are no longer familiar. Otherwise, it was a long string of howlers for me. Some of the statements I found absurd, or at best full of unwarranted conclusions. Other parts were also self-contradictory, such as his claim that to truly be democratic, one should let the dead vote (metaphorically, of course), i.e. have a say in things now by preserving traditional views. At the same time, however, he identified himself as a Liberal (though I do not know the exact difference between what this meant in 1905 England versus now) and in favor of reform when necessary. How this would jibe with what seems to be the most hide-bound conservatism imaginable in his metaphor I cannot see. Another example was when he accuses anti-Christian critics of self-contradiction, though admitting himself that Christianity has many varieties that are contradictory (such as Calvinism vs. his own Catholic faith, which he also criticizes), and that many contrasting things have been upheld by Christianity in its history. It should not be surprising, then, that the criticisms would also contrast. Other statements, such as those toward suicide, were strangely callous and contradiction once again, since he claims it is the same as destroying the universe from the view of the person doing it. However, this would only make sense metaphorically by a view he naturally disclaims, in which death is the end. Of course there were also a few criticisms I agreed with, as every period has its intellectual foolishness. Chesterton was clearly someone who deeply enjoyed life and took things in good humor, something that I find admirable. However, to me his work was neither convincing nor of much substance intellectually. Still, it was a breezy read, even if frustrating to anyone who disagrees with him.

This book is deserving of a much longer review than I am in the mood to give right now, but perhaps one day I will come back and edit it again when I am inclined to rave about it further, which it really is deserving of. (I have lent the book to a friend, and as such, I cannot quote it as much as I would like, although a few quotes have been blazed into my memory.) Simply put, this book is clever in its dealings with semi-paradoxical topics; and it is funny. Chesterton has a self-deprecating and simultaneously strutting-ish sort of wit. But, really, the ideas presented (though I cannot say I agree with all his arguments) are still presented with very good arguments, and Chesterton makes a ton of fantastic points about issues/beliefs he faced in his day, we face in our day, and humanity probably has and will face for the duration of its history. I believe this was a follow-up to Heretics (another good book by Chesterton), and I can't remember which I liked more, but Orthodoxy is less based on refuting silly viewpoints than it is on presenting well-thought-out ideas. I'll let him do the introduction to the book, since he practically spends the first few chapters talking about what he will talk about. My favorite chapter is probably "The Suicide of Thought"...Oh, how I really do wish my ramble could be backed with some examples! Now, I should make a few warnings for the over-excited reader. 1) The reading can be slow, because it is rather dense and packed, in a good way, with information. Take time to process the ideas, because it hopefully should stretch your conceptions of things a little bit. Any good thinking takes time, eh? 2) I suppose this was written for an audience primarily of his time, so he references some authors and contemporaries of his who are probably fairly famous in an educated person's mind; but I, being a simple layman, had to look up or guess at a number of their identities, views, etc., when they weren't implicitly or explicitly described. 3) Chesterton is opinionated: he has strong views. If you aren't looking to challenge what you believe or how you see things, don't read the book. In fact, don't read at all, at least not as an intellectual or truth-seeking pursuit. If you are reading this sentence, I recommend that you read the book. If you are not reading this sentence, I recommend that you don't. All that to say I enthusiastically endorse it but am quite at a loss as to where I should begin my endorsement; so this is where I will end it (for now).