What's wrong with Chesterton.

[Anonymous No.11996691]

I know a lot of people resent him for making "baseless" statements, but he himself admits almost every chapter of Heretics, Orthodoxy, and similar writings that he's just rambling about his own opinions and that he's not trying to posit some rigorous proof of his philosophy. The goal of his more explicitly Christian writings is to give a rough outline of the Christian worldview so that, if someone reads it and finds it compelling, he can go on to explore it further himself. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Anonymous No.11996787]

>>11996691
The thing about Chestertons writing is that he is not trying to create a rigorous system of philosophical deductions but what he wants to do is create a powerful poetic impression within somebody. He's not trying to put the world in the raiders head, but trying to put the readers head into the world.

[Anonymous No.11996802]

>>11996691
Opinions can be shit on. Baseless opinions can be even more shit on.

[Anonymous No.11996904]

>>11996691
Chesterton is more of a poet and a mystic than he is a rigorous theologian and philosopher.

Quite ironically, he has a lot in common with Nietzsche, despite his dislike of the man. Nietzsche and Chesterton are both more about impressions and sensations than they are about systems.

[Anonymous No.11996907]

>>11996802
>Opinions can be shit on
Right, but most of the shitting on Chesterton is done by people who claim that his opinions are "baseless." The thing is though that there's a difference between having a baseless opinion and not backing up your opinion because that's not the kind of dialogue you're having.
No one would call an anatomy textbook "baseless" for the reason that its authors simply asserting without rigorous proof that the human body is structured in such and such a way. It's the job of an anatomy textbook to summarize what others have already discovered. One can take or leave the summary as he wills.
Similarly, it's Chesterton's goal to provide a summary of the Christian mindset for others to take or leave. One can argue that he's wrong, but to say that his statements are "baseless" is missing the point. He isn't trying to supply any "base" nor is doing so necessary for his purposes.

[Anonymous No.11996918]

>>11996904
>Nietzsche and Chesterton are both more about impressions and sensations than they are about systems
I'd agree if by "systems" you mean "systems of arguments." I'd argue though that they both have internally coherent systems of impressions, sensations, and even doctrines.

[Anonymous No.11997038]

>>11996904
UNIT

[Anonymous No.11997569]

>>11996904
>>11997038
ABSOLUTE

[Anonymous No.11997594]

>>11997569
>chesterton-standing

Not for very long, I imagine.

[Anonymous No.11998369]

>>11996691
bad thinker and repulsive character. seeps into his writing

[Anonymous No.11998372]

>>11996691
Well, you see, most people say that there's too much X in Y, but I contend that there's not enough Y in X!

[Anonymous No.11998416]

colossal genius

[Anonymous No.11998425]

>>11996691
I just hate fat people and christfags. The two together are intolerable for me.

[Anonymous No.11999488]

>>11996904
>>11997038
>>11997569
>>11997594
>Chesterton was a large man, standing 6 feet 4 inches (1.93 m) and weighing around 20 stone 6 pounds (130 kg; 286 lb).
currently in awe

[Anonymous No.12000554]

>>11996691
The Man Who Was Thursday and The Napoleon of Notting Hill were both great reads. I wasn't aware that he wrote any philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12000570]

>>11996691
>>11996787
>>11996904
>>11996907
>>11999488
>>12000554
chaste and breadpilled

>>11997594
>>11998369
>>11998372
>>11998425
cringe and bluepilled

Chesterton was a great man and a good writer. Remember what Kafka said of him. "He is so happy! I could almost believe he had found God."

[Anonymous No.12000636]

Even if you disagree with the guy I'm not sure how you can't relish in what he writes.

>Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.

My dick was rock-hard through all of Orthodoxy.

[Anonymous No.12000674]

>>12000570
Chesterton was too fat to have found God. He’s probably in hell for gluttony

[Anonymous No.12000686]

>>12000570
I don’t care what other people think of someone, that’s not how I judge my peers or myself anon. You have that poor a sense of self and confidence in your own intelligence that you assume goodness or evil based on whether they conform with beliefs constructed by others or opinions of your tribe and friends? That’s gay, and weak.

[Anonymous No.12000710]

>>11996904
Weighty Impressions

[Anonymous No.12002176]

>>12000554
Napoleon of Notting Hill is one of my favorite books. Snapped me right out of my nihilism. Made me see the world I have lived in and how the people i know, the places ive lived and the things i enjoy are all worth living for and protecting. Chesterton is a very crafty writer for putting ideas in your head.

[Anonymous No.12002182]

>>11996904
Hefty Subject

[Anonymous No.12002556]

>>12000570
Actually Kafka said he is so GAY

[Anonymous No.12002920]

>>11997569

Here, let's do a typical Chesterton aphorism:

"The Unit is not Absolute unless one can recognize the Absolute in the Unit."

Wow, great. Good job, papist.

[Anonymous No.12002967]

I'm always a little bemused by how divisive Chesterton is. He seemed so innocuous when I was initially reading his stuff, I could never have imagined that he would so consistently get people so riled up.

[Anonymous No.12003410]

Napoleon of Notting Hill is great as a hillariously entertaining jaunt of a story and as something to poke the reader's brain.
I dont see how you could read that and not be swept along by the story only to, in the same way as the characters, find yourself in a world at the end entirely removed from the one you started in and wondering how things could ever have been as they'd started out.

Dont read him as you would an actual philosopher - it isnt his intention. Enjoy his stories for what they are and consider the not-so-subtle ideas behind them as suggestions for thought not rigorous ideology.

[Anonymous No.12003454]

>>11996787
Yeah, this sums it up. He's fine on his own terms. The problem is that he's recommended as apologetics or an introduction to Christianity, which he certainly isn't. C. S. Lewis said he was a major influence and that's apparent in the worst possible way. Lewis tried to present Chesterton-type poetics as rigorous arguments, such as his inadequate trilemma: either Jesus had the mental capacity of a boiled egg, was a devil from hell, or was God. Fine as a witticism but a poor argument.

[Anonymous No.12003572]

>>12002920
Mr Shaw would have you believe that all units are not absolute, as any man who does not drink beer would think. But as I am a man who drinks his beer in the setting light that illuminates all, i order my beer in pints which are absolute units. And as i always say, you are what you drink.

[Anonymous No.12005121]

>>11996691

Stereotypical Catholic - proud to be an idiot, proud to degrade Morals to housewife finger-wagging.