/lit/ - Literature

>>3787951
[more]
>Not daring to define their doctrine of what is good, they use physical figures of speech without stint or shame, and, what is worst of all, seem to think these cheap analogies are exquisitely spiritual and superior to the old morality. Thus they think it intellectual to talk about things being "high." It is at least the reverse of intellectual; it is a mere phrase from a steeple or a weathercock. "Tommy was a good boy" is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of Plato or Aquinas. "Tommy lived the higher life" is a gross metaphor from a ten-foot rule.
As you can see, the meaning that Chesterton is expressing in OP's passage, in context, should never send you sputtering on about alpine climbers. And if you had read the portions before *that* where he specifically discusses good, bad, evil, etc. you would see that the Chesterton portions you are so busily insulting others about are not what you claim they are.
You see, Chesterton is pointing out that Nietzsche sometimes gives you no place to go, sometimes contradicts himself, sometimes does both, because he failed to state certain positions in anything but vague, ambiguous terms.
This is hardly unique to Chesterton and certainly not new!

>If you really wish to discuss this, go to the post a few posts back where I demonstrate point by point that Chesterton's demand that Nietzsche say whether what he preaches is "more evil than good and evil" or "more good than good and evil" MUST be based on an ignorance of Nietzsche's critique of the good-evil dichotomy in the Genealogy of Morals.
Simple - in Orthodoxy Chesterton explains why he disagrees with Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, not too long before he goes into the passages he quotes here. through a discussion of ethics.
The passage immediately *after* OP's quote goes on to say
[cont]

>>3787923
>Are you really so ignorant and stupid as to believe that the mere fact of someone's using someone's NAME repeatedly in his writings "demonstrates that he had a firm grasp" of that person's ideas?
You claim, above, to be very familiar with Chesterton's work and yet repeatedly claim that Chesterton only name-checked Nietzsche.
However, in his biography of Shaw Chesterton engaging in a rather involved discussion of Nietzsche's anti-commercialism, rejection of the submersion of the individual in the mass of humanity in the modern world, etc. showing that he was familiar with Nietzsche's actual works.
And if you were familiar with Orthodoxy you would know that the passage immediately before this one is
>We cannot, then, get the ideal itself from nature, and as we follow here the first and natural speculation, we will leave out (for the present) the idea of getting it from God. We must have our own vision. But the attempts of most moderns to express it are highly vague.

Some fall back simply on the clock: they talk as if mere passage through time brought some superiority; so that even a man of the first mental calibre carelessly uses the phrase that human morality is never up to date. How can anything be up to date?-- a date has no character. How can one say that Christmas celebrations are not suitable to the twenty-fifth of a month? What the writer meant, of course, was that the majority is behind his favourite minority--or in front of it. Other vague modern people take refuge in material metaphors; in fact, this is the chief mark of vague modern people.
[cont]

>>3787913
Nietzsche and Dawkins in one thread?
I'm out

>>3787902
*sigh*
And this is meant to convey...?

>>3787853
Not really that sorry I missed this thread, but...
Are you claiming Chesterton never read Nietzsche? I think you claimed to be well-read in Chesterton, so this must be in error.
Chesterton included Nietzsche in his collection Heretics which demonstrates he had a firm grasp of Nietszsche's writings and he does address him more than once in Orthodoxy, including the quote in OP's post, that further demonstrated a knowledge of Nietzsche's writings.
Chesterton also referenced Nietzsche in his book on St. Thomas Aquinas, showing where Nietzsche learned from and attempted to respond to Aquinas, and in his biography of Shaw.
Chesterton had certainly read Nietzsche's major works and was conversant enough with them to critique them. He even praised a fair amount of Nietzsche's works!

>>3787162
Yes, CAS is very similar.

>>3785020
....and a little argumentative.
Let it go

>>3784971
Actually, as far as I can tell, you started the name calling and insults.
And you frankly come across as an arrogantly ignorant fan

>>3784950
At perhaps being correct on a minor point? Sure
I don't think either of you two look very good, though

>>3784873
Actually, I was reading this thread and did a search and there are people who agree with anon, even about the appendix.
Try 'sardaukar torah'

>>3784870
>I've never seen so much bitching back-and-forth on /lit/ before.
Are you new?
:)
>I don't see the link between the Sardaukar with Jews
Well, i've argued that they are an analogy for Jews myself a few times, although this is the first I have heard of it being spelled out in the appendices. I will have to check on that.
But the parallels between Israel (having just been founded at the time the book was written) and Jews coming out of the concentration camps is something I have always thought possible ( Salusa Secundus is Israel, the Jews have just come out of prisons, the toughest become the Israeli military which seemed invincible at the time, etc.)
And I would argue that the Empire and the Houses have a lot more to do with the Cold War than the Roman Empire - although comparing them to Byzantium just before the rise of Islam (where Arab pagan religions were replaced with Islam by a prophet) is more likely, especially since the Fremen then go on a Jihad and conquer a lot of territory, akin to the Caliphate, etc.

>>3782345
Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays I spend 10-12 am writing, eat lunch for an hour, then edit from 1-2 pm. Saturdays I spend 8-10 blocking and plotting

>>3776813
I didn't say it was the *only* one

>>3776749
>>3776295
The Stars My Destination is, IMO, the most over-hyped piece of junk in science fiction.;

>>3776089
The Glass Hammer by KW Jeter (one of my favorites and an underrated gem, IMO)
When Gravity Fails by George Alec Effinger (a cyberpunk setting without the Japanese ruling the world)
Schismatrix by Sterling (Not as good as the rest, but with a sweeping scope)

>>3768063
Interesting proposition, the idea that it is impossible to win a debate on a particular topic.
Are you sure you understand how debates work? Are you the author of
>>3768038
and, if so, how do you reconcile the two statements?
Listen, are you going to actually follow the thread and talk about Hitchens, or are you going to keep trying to make it about you?

>>3768038
>Only children and idiots never lose debates.
That isn't in contention, is it?
What I *did* state was that Hitchens was humiliated by Craig and, thereafter, never debated anyone who might 'win' against him.
Why are you so upset? Was Hitchens an idol of yours?

>>3768022
>Craig is the worst type of religious
He's a terrorist?!
Or do you think a well-educated, well-spoken man who defends his religious beliefs is even worse than a terrorist?
>Craig is the worst type of religious
Which is why it was humiliating for Hitchens when Craig slapped him around in a debate.

>>3768017
I do not think Hitchens was a racist, but I do believe he was a bigot.
Hence the word choice.
And I believe I was fairly clear in my statements. Do you need me to summarize with bullet points?

>>3767983
Some people confuse 'skill with language' with 'skill at thinking'.

>>3763956
Be careful! There is a reason he debated people who were unprepared and not proficient debaters - it was the only way he could 'win' a debate. Look at his debate with, oh, William Craig - it was a humiliation for Hitchens and he was careful to avoid its like afterwards.

>>3763704
don;t forget the Dune/Rand/Bible newfags who soon morph into Dune/Rand/Bible trolls

>>3763647
Who ever claimed Hitchens was an intellectual? Indeed, he is proof that being a decent writer != being an intellectual.

>>3763597
He was that that man who is so common in the modern world: a combination of shallow thoughts and deep conviction. He mistook vocabulary for intellect, sarcasm for humor, humor for wisdom, and narrow-mindedness for insight. Proudly ignorant of the positions he opposed he learned that he could make a decent living shouting to the rather large audience that shared his ignorance and bigotry.
In the end he is doomed to the Hell he feared most - obscurity.