I think Chesterton's making a common mistake of composition here. He's conflating postmodern men with The Postmodern Man, inasmuch as he's looking at a movement/group of people that is extremely heterogenous and collectively espouses a wide range of views, and either sloppily or disingenuously imparting that viewpoint heterogeneity to each member of the group, thus painting each member (and, therefore, the group) as hypocritical/unable I adhere to a coherent worldview.
If he's doing what I think he's doing, he's reasoning like follows:
Skittles are every color of the rainbow.
Therefore, no Skittle is a single color.
Atheists get the same thing all the time (how can you atheists be so about human rights but also so vehemently anti feminist?). The answer: some atheists are human rights crusaders, some atheists are MRAs, and I'm sure a small number of atheists somehow identify as both. But to impute the qualities of two distinct subsets of a whole to the whole itself has been recognized as a fallacy for a long, long time.
If he's doing what I think he's doing, he's reasoning like follows:
Skittles are every color of the rainbow.
Therefore, no Skittle is a single color.
Atheists get the same thing all the time (how can you atheists be so about human rights but also so vehemently anti feminist?). The answer: some atheists are human rights crusaders, some atheists are MRAs, and I'm sure a small number of atheists somehow identify as both. But to impute the qualities of two distinct subsets of a whole to the whole itself has been recognized as a fallacy for a long, long time.
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
