[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 73 KB, 570x321, G.K.-Chesterton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11771169 No.11771169 [Reply] [Original]

>tfw you finally "get" Chesterton

It's ridiculous that people call him a philosopher. That's not what his aim is.

>> No.11771175

>>11771169
He's more of a public moralist and man of taste in the mold of Samuel Johnson.

>> No.11771180

>>11771175
Yeah, but it's more than that. The people who call him a "mystic" are closer to the truth.

>> No.11771185

>>11771169
>It's ridiculous that people call him a philosopher.
kek no one does this
it's hilarious that while atheists have guys like Sartre, Rorty, Quine, Wittgenstein, and Russell, the best that catholics and reactionaries can drag up for 20th century thinkers is this guy
literally no one in academia even knows his name

>> No.11771215

>listening to anyone that fat

>> No.11771217
File: 134 KB, 810x685, alasdair_maclntyre.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11771217

>>11771185
*blocks your path*

>> No.11771222

>>11771185
>russell

>> No.11771231

>>11771185
Wasn't Wittgenstein catholic?

>> No.11771243

>>11771185
>Wittgenstein
>Atheist

>> No.11771400

>>11771185
Borges was a huge Chesterton fan.

>> No.11771451

Someone explain The Man who was Thursday to me. I've read Chesterton's explanation of it, and I still don't get it

>> No.11771463

>>11771169
Yeah, he's not so much a philosopher as he is a paradoxicist.

>> No.11772982
File: 19 KB, 564x558, 19510610_1587167991302893_8466205968000577110_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11772982

>>11771451
>dude most activists are just talk lmao
>dude anarchists reproduce hierarchical structures when they organize lmao
>dude i predicted the fact that the majority of communist party membership in the us would turn out to be fbi and cia plants lmao
>dude what if it all didn't even real, we're all only in the mind of god, all is a dream, all is contingent, we need myths like creation and salvation to ground our beliefs but at the same time our daily lived experience threatens these myths, the human experience is a mess of contradictions that we can only face down by clinging to tradition lmao

>> No.11773044

>>11772982
nice summary

>> No.11773066

>>11771185
>russell
>s*rtre
>even remotely implying that they are "good"
There are many other great Catholic philosophers of 20th century, like Hilaire Belloc, Max Müller, John Henry Newman, even the Pope Leo XIII to certain degree with his distributivist encyclical. The only reason why those atheist hacks got popular, is the fact of a huge leftist, liberal lobby on colleges and in the "public eye"

>> No.11773498
File: 561 KB, 1563x2130, Chesterton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11773498

>>11771180
This.

What people need to understand is that Chesterton is trying to invoke a religious experience in his readers. His writing's primary goal is to establish in his readers a connection with the otherworldly, a sensation of the presence of the Divine.

That's why Chesterton focuses so much on paradoxes. By forcing the reader to confront something that doesn't initially look like it can be true, but that actually turns out to be true after all, Chesterton is trying to awe and astonish his readers in the same way we might be awed and astonished if God himself appeared in their midst. He is trying to lead his readers to have a mystical, an otherworldly encounter with a Truth that surpasses the normal bounds of human understanding.

It doesn't work on everybody, of course. But it can be highly effective.

>> No.11773661

Chesterton was a wrong, fat, unfunny adherent of a false religion. His writings are sentimentalist garbage of the lowest order. The fucker looked like he looked, and wore a cape. As such, he was a fedora among Catholics.

Take his aphorisms. He does the same unwitty, unfunny thing, over and over again:

"It seems to me that the trouble with x and y, is that there is not enough y in x. Oh dear me I'm so fat and clever, darling fetch my muumuu I must run an errand now~"

Absolutely interminable.

>> No.11773702

>>11773661
On the other hand, he didn't repeat stale pasta on an indian kabbala forum, so he's got you beat there.

>> No.11773721

>>11771243
Jews have no true passion for the world and things which are created in it, only for revering God as the creator and Almighty of the universe. They might as well all be atheists.

>> No.11773877

>>11771169
He's a rhetorician or a poet. He doesn't formulate arguments and explicitly says so. His aim was to get across an impression. To that end he succeeds, but Christians who hold him up as an apologist literally don't understand him.