Heretics / Orthodoxy: Nelson's Royal Classics

G.K. Chesterton wrote HERETICS c. 1905. Yet this book is still timely in that popular gurus change opinions and social theories very quickly never realizing how dated the newest fad becomes. Chesterton had the rare ability in exposing many new fads as actually some varient of some ideas that were in vogue during Ancient History. Chesterton never engages in ad hominem arguments. He is careful to metion the merits of those with whom he disagrees. Chesteron focuses on the logical fallacies of his critics and never engages in bitterness or smear tactics. Readers should carefully read Chesterton's cirticisms of G.B. Shaw. Chesterton asserts the validity of Shaw's Socialism. Chesterton does not argue with Shaw's socialist views per se. He does critisize Shaw's tendenacy toward a mechanical view of society and politics. One should note that in spite of their repeated debates and crticisms of each others' work, Chesterton and Shaw remained life long friends. Chesterton has some interesting comments on political power. Chesteron was probably not a democrat, and his views beginning on page 168 are note worthy. Chesterton remarks condemns those who pick a Caesar. He remarks that people falsely look favorably on such an individual because he, the Strong Man or the Caesar, is not an ordinary man. In other words, men may domocratically opt for someone whom ordinary think is better. This is a form despotism or slavery where the ruler has the sanctions of the victim. Other rulers hold position by heredity right whereby men accept this notion only because of the social order rather than false praise or respect for someone who may be evil and take advantage of men's sychophantic blind obedience to self appointed knaves. Chesterton has good insight regarding the abuse of language and different rules for social classes. If some poor soul is arrested for stealing, he/she is accused of theft. If some who is wealthy is arrested for the same crime, the comment is that the wealthy person has an illness called kleptomania. To paraphrase Chesterton, the wealthy want to make laws ( or in their case excuses)while decent people want to obey the law and expect everyone to do the same. G.K. Chesterton writes well and uses reason as his guide. He did not get angry when his critics attacked him for his personal appearance. He was a large man. Chesterton could laugh at himself. However, he got angry when men attacted honesty and truth. Chesterton was a champion of himself or his work. He was a champion of reason, truth, and honesty. Whether one disagrees with him, Chesterton is well worth reading for his prose, knowledge, and logic.

George Bernard Shaw, the subject of one of the essays in this book, once wrote that morals were for the middle class. The lower class couldn't afford them and the upper class could afford to do without them. Modern day "thinkers" assail the Judeo-Christian ethic as irrelevant to any class and pride themselves on their thoroughly contemporary avant-garde world view. How ironic it is that this thoroughly modern iconoclasm has been around for at least 100 years. Chesterton weighs in on the "heretics" of his day who prided themselves in their heretical superiority to conservative orthodoxy. These heretics seem to have had a worldview not much out of step with modern avant-garde thought. Chesterton's critique of these ideas is lucid, lyrical, and logical. The passage of 100 years has obscured the context of much of what he says, but his conclusions are as timely today as they were yesterday.

A 1905 collection of twenty Victorian journalistic essays and articles still worth reading, and not merely on historical or nostalgic grounds? Some pieces are of mainly historical interest, but not most. Neither is it a 'religious title', in fact it is nearly irreligious in places. It merely takes issue with arty types like Mr. Kipling, G.B. Shaw, H.G. Wells, and Whistler. It is also vintage Chesterton, at his usual paradoxical, oblique, witty, funny, slapstick, sardonic, jolly, and generous best.It is a positive and happy book, but it was accused of Negativism in its day (Kafka said Chesterton was so full of joy that you might almost suppose 'he had found God'--perverse but honest.) Another exasperated opponent, said that if he was so clever and all-knowing he should write down his own personal positive beliefs. So he did. They are still read today, and many who enjoy 'Orthodoxy' (1908) will enjoy this, its progenitor too, which is impossible to summarize, so I have given a thumbnail of each chapter.CONTENTSChapter 1. Introductory remarks on the importance of orthodoxyThe examined life - meaninglessness of modern subjective attitudes of not owning your own point of view. Decline of respect for reason and rational argument - political correctness, or 'Good taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions'. To know a man's worldview is to know him. Pernicious effects of subjectivism in literature and the arts.2. On the negative spiritEssential need for positive belief - no society can prosper on negative laws alone. Progress in human rights of liberty, education, free speech, and tolerance are only guaranteed with 'a definite creed and a cast-iron code of morals'.3. On Mr. Rudyard Kipling and making the world smallKipling considerable poet but no true patriot, but proto-fascist. [GKC probably first to spot this.] Worships strength and discipline, empire-building, for their own sake. 'He admires England, but he does not love her'.4. Mr. Bernard Shaw***GOOD***[GKC being good friend of GBS.] GBS brilliant and witty, but hopeless subjectivist. GBS attacks all pretensions as 'every moral generalization oppressed the individual; the golden rule was there is no golden rule'. But then why should we allow Him to make the One Rule that rules them all? Perpetrates errors of sociologist/anthropologist, still with us today.5. Mr. H.G. Wells and the giants***GOOD***Wells' faith in Evolutionism (as opposed to evolution) shown to be false - 'the scientific fallacy...of not beginning with the human soul...but with some such thing as protoplasm'. The demonstrable fact of original sin in the universal existence of selfishness. Wells' Utopia assumes selfishness can be cured by ignoring it, not curing it. 'Heresy of immoral hero-worship' (ie, celebrity).6. Christmas and the aesthetesEssential nature of ritual. Attacks 'The religion of Comte, generally known as Positivism, or the worship of humanity'. Comte's attempt to institute a secular religion - ritual the only

Chesterton, as the last representitive of a certain type of Englishman, is constantly at odds with the mores and assumptions of this modern world. For this reason he is probably more worth reading than any of his contemporaries, even Shaw and Wells, because whereas we have largely inherited their ideas, in Chesterton you find that which would never have occurred to you. His writings on the subject of Democracy should be required reading: our society is almost completely ignorant on that subject, to its tremendous detriment. Nearly every essay in _Heretics_ is a revelation, and _Orthodoxy_ is practically a study in how subtle and surprising good sense can be.

There are good, and not so good, reviews of Orthodoxy already, none for Heretics. So I will deal with the latter, only. I have the John Lane edition, 1905.Heretics is somewhat neglected in Chesterton's oeuvre, possibly because it is an early work (1905), and many of the writers discussed are out of fashion now. Yet, I believe Heretics contains not only his best writing, but it already establishes the main themes of his life's work.Technically, it is a book of literary criticism, but from an unusual point of view, that of his subjects' philosophy. "I am not concerned with Shaw as one of the most brilliant and one of the most honest men alive; I am concerned with him as a heretic--that is to say, a man whose philosophy is solid, quite coherent, and quite wrong." (p. 22)Brilliant though he was, Shaw expected reality to conform to an inhuman ideal:"He has all the time been silently comparing humanity with something that was not human, with a monster from Mars, with the Wise Man of the Stoics, with the Economic Man of the Fabians, with Julius Caesar, with Siegfried, with Superman. Now, to have this inner and merciless standard may be a very good thing, or a very bad one, it may be excellent or unfortunate. but it is not seeing things as they are." (pp. 62-63)This is excellent writing, whether we entirely agree or not. It may be a little unfair to Shaw, but it is fair to life.Chesterton is often called an optimist. But he knew the other side, as anyone reading Alzina Stone Dale's life, The Outline of Sanity, can find out. Joy in living, good beer, conversation, balance, sanity, these were achievements, not just nature.I have never read, or even found, the books of Mr. George Moore who wrote an autobiography. Chesterton attacks his egoism, the interest in the world as related to his own temperament:"We should really be much more interested in Mr. Moore if he were not quite so interested in himself. We feel as if we were being shown through a gallery of really fine pictures, into each of which, by some useless and discordant convention, the artist had represented the same figure in the same attitude. 'The Grand Canal with a distant view of Mr. Moore," "Effect of Mr. Moore through a Scotch Mist,' 'Mr. Moore by Firelight,' 'Ruins of Mr. Moore by Moonlight,' and so on seems to be the endless series." (pp. 131-132)That has to be one of the funniest sentences ever written, and I could barely type it for laughing. A bit later on the page, Chesterton gives his vision of originality:"Thinking about himself will lead to trying to be the universe; trying to be the universe will lead to ceasing to be anything. If, on the other hand, a man is sensible enough to think only about the universe; he will think about it in his own way. He will keep virgin the secret of God; he will see the grass as no other man can see it, and look at a sun that no man has ever known." There is no space to mention all the wonderful writing in