Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
I would like to discuss this quote from GK Chesterton on the postmodern man and how non theists feel it applies, if it all, to them.
‘But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.' (G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1909)
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
For me, this does not apply at all. The quote is describing a rebel hypocrite, or a person who will take an anti position on any issue, just for the sake of rebelling (Question: What are you rebelling against? Reply: I don't know, what do you got?). Do you really think that's what is happening at AF? I've need to remember not to look at your threads/posts.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
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.
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.
He's also got either a tu quoque fallacy or a major equivocation in there. His leading argument seems to be:
1. The postmodern man denies/denounces everything.
2. To deny/denounce, you need morality.
3. The postmodern man denies/denounces morality.
4. Thus, the postmodern man is (insert negative descriptor here).
What he's doing is either saying:
1) if you deny morality, you aren't allowed to act as though morality exists; or
2) acknowledging that postmodern men deny absolute morality, but then twisting this to imply a rejection of subjective (that is, personal or societal morality); or
3) most likely both.
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.
(July 29, 2015 at 10:07 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: I would like to discuss this quote from GK Chesterton on the postmodern man and how non theists feel it applies, if it all, to them.
‘But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.' (G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1909)
I won't pretend to understand postmodernism, either this week or any other. But I think there is something worthwhile in this criticism. I don't think it applies to all skepticism, but it does apply to reflexive skepticism for its own sake. Skepticism doesn't warrant elevation from a tool to an ideal. Turning everything complex and messy about yourself over to any such ideal is a form a self abnegation and leads to alienation.
That isn't to say that loyalty to the faith of our fathers is any better. Truth be told, there is no easy way out of answering life's important questions which doesn't amount to at least the deformation of the self, if not its annihilation. Certainly all fundamentalist forms of religious faith are even worse than habitual skepticism because there is so much less room for self expression of any kind - unless you count speaking in tongues.
