Customer Reviews

Heretics (Hendrickson Christian Classics)

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

CONTENTS
Chapter 1. Introductory remarks on the importance of orthodoxy
The 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 spirit
Essential 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 small
Kipling 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 aesthetes
Essential 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 sensible part of his theory as it expresses the deepest meaning and emotion. 'Take away what is supernatural, and what remains is the unnatural.'

7. Omar and the sacred vine***EXCELLENT***
Correct attitude to wine and the good things of life. Not a mere mean between excess and teetotalism but a proper enjoyment of what is good. 'Drink because you are happy, but never because you are miserable...poetical drinking...is joyous and instinctive'. 'Happiness is a mystery like religion, and should never be rationalized...If we are to be truly gay, we must believe that there is some eternal gaiety in the nature of things.'

8. The mildness of the yellow press
Tabloids. No so much sensational as stunted, mendacious, and silly. [So no change there then.]

9. The moods of Mr. George Moore
Satirical. Pride, least attractive of all faults.

10. On sandals and simplicity
Gentle mockery of the vegetarian impulse.

11. Science and the savages***GOOD***
Materialism (philosophical). Sociology/anthropology inadequate methodology. Starts by excluding what they pretend to disprove existence of. Study of primitives less revealing than study of one's own soul. [cf. Pascal Boyer]

12. Paganism and Mr. Lowes Dickinson***EXCELLENT***
Dickinson represents ancient Greeks as 'an ideal of full and satisfied humanity', ie, he is a humanist/New Ager. Replaced by Christianity because rational but sad pagan virtues such as justice and temperance insufficient. Great Christian virtue is humility. Mystical and happy values of faith, hope, and charity are essential, even if seem irrational.

13. Celts and Celtophiles***GOOD***
Race: a non-concept [genetically ahead of his time!]. Nationhood: a definable spiritual concept. Irish a nation, not a race.

14. On certain modern writers and the institution of the family
Defence of the family against Nietzsche & co.

15. On smart novelists and the smart set
Analysis of 'penny dreadfuls' and 'halfpenny novelettes'.
16. On Mr. McCabe and a divine frivolity
Use of humor defended in serious debate (against po-faced atheist).

17. On the wit of Whistler***EXCELLENT***
Errors of relativism in art as in ethics: illustration of the mutable camel. The artist Whistler: 'He was one of those people who always live up to their emotional incomes, who are always taut and tingling with vanity'. Three type of satirist who are also great men (illustrated by Rabelais, Swift, and Pope. Whistler talked too much about his art to be a great artist.

18. The fallacy of the young nation
A nation may be chronologically young and spiritually old, or vice versa. Eg, Ancient Greece and America.

19. Slum novelists and the slums***EXCELLENT***
Patronizing novelists writing of the lower classes, eg Somerset Maugham. Undemocracy in Britain.

20. Concluding remarks on the importance of orthodoxy
'Man can be defined as the animal that makes dogmas.'
'If we want doctrines we go to great artists.'
'The more we are certain what good is, the more we shall see good in everything.'
'We have a general view of existence, whether we like it or not; it alters, or, to speak more accurately, it creates and involves everything we say and do, whether we like it or not.' True.

This book is a sort of prequal to Chesterton's most famous apologetic work, "Orthodoxy." "Heretics" is a collection of papers that Chesterton wrote to expose what he considered to be the unhealthy philosophies of his day. A critic later wrote of this work, "I will begin to worry about my philosophy...when Mr. Chesterton has given us his." Chesterton then wrote the book "Orthodoxy" in response to that comment.

With that said, it is well to note that "Heretics" and "Orthodoxy" should be read almost as a single work. From the viewpoint of Chesterton, "Heretics" is the critique of bad philosophy and "Orthodoxy" is the defense of good philosophy.

The trouble with "Heretics" is that it is such a local book. What I mean is that this book is a series of analytical criticisms of specific men during that specific time period (late 19th century to early 20th century) and it is easy to miss the points Chesterton makes if you are not familiar with the philosophies and views of the men he is critiquing. That isn't to say this book isn't one Chesterton's finest works. Yet, I would certainly reccomend "Heretics: The Annotated Edition" to anyone who is not very familiar with these particular early 20th century English writers which he is referring to in this book. The annotated edition makes it much easier to see what Chesterton is saying. For although people change over time, philosophies generally remain the same; and that is why Chesterton's criticisms of these philosophies are still relevant. And as stated earlier, this book, in a way, sets up the groundwork for "Orthodoxy," which is still considered a masterpiece; and almost certainly worth reading for anyone who does not understand or sympathize with the sentiment and romance of the Christian faith.

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 fantastic book by a great writer, highly recommend it for anyone interested in Apologetics, or just fun argument should definitely read it. While this review will hardly do justice to him, Chesterton is amazingly complex, and while sometimes incorrect, offensive, or fallacious, he is always intelligent, witty, and generally has an opinion very much worth listening to. Highly recommended.

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.

As he himself affirmed, Chesterton was criticized on numerous occasions for maintaining a seemingly irreverent or flippant tone and attitude while writing about subjects that inherently demand the utmost sincerity. To superficially read Heretics might be to understand the apparent validity of such criticism. On the surface it seems as if Chesterton could not have cared much less about the philosophies of the prominent individuals that he attacks as heretical throughout this work, let alone the vague conception of orthodoxy that he utilizes as a basis of comparison. However, these claims against Chesterton only appear valid until the reader ascertains that the author's wit, jocularity, and jovial nature are not to be confused with insincerity. The light touch that Chesterton applies to heavy though is not an indication of indifference, but rather a testament to the acuity of his mind and subtle genius. It might not, it seems, have been possible for Chesterton, or anyone, to have been more serious and sincere. Chesterton cared very much, and that is what sheds light on Heretics' almost impossibly simple truth.

In Heretics, Chesterton outlines the popular philosophies of his day which stood in opposition to not only logic but also that which the author maintained as truth. Amazingly, more than a century later, the same truth is still available and apparent to those who seek it while the same philosophies, although perhaps slightly altered, still stand in direct contradiction to what Chesterton understood to be unmistakable truth. What might be the greatest truth so easily recovered from the pages of Heretics, yet which remains so hidden from the view of the masses, is the incomplete substance, as opposed to the mere falsity, of many philosophies. Chesterton's work, however, was, as he admitted, left unfinished with regard to Heretics and later fulfilled with the publication of Orthodoxy. If Heretics presented a problem, Orthodoxy presented the solution. Both are timeless classics, and both should be read if an understanding of Christianity in relation to apparent philosophical and ideological truths is sought.

Just begain reading "Heretics." I wish I had found this book, and Chesterton, 30 years ago when I was 20 instead of now when I am 50.

Ideas and actions can take decades sometimes a century or more to "bloom."

During 1905, Chesterton identifies errors that have bloomed and guide/justify our day's thinking & action -- runious errors.

Can't wait to finish.

Should be required reading.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton was one of the most influential English writers of the 20th century. His prolific and diverse output included journalism, philosophy, poetry, biography, Christian apologetics, fantasy and detective fiction.

Chesterton is constantly at odds with today's world. This is why he is probably more worth reading than any of his contemporaries, like Oscar Wilde, and even GB Shaw and HG Wells, because today, today we live under their liberal values. His writings on the subject of democracy should be required reading for anyone with the right to vote: 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.

In Heretics, Chesterton has this to say of Wilde:

The same lesson [of the pessimistic pleasure-seeker] was taught by the very powerful and very desolate philosophy of Oscar Wilde. It is the carpe diem religion; but the carpe diem religion is not the religion of happy people, but of very unhappy people. Great joy does not gather the rosebuds while it may; its eyes are fixed on the immortal rose which Dante saw.

He writes of Shaw:

After belabouring a great many people for a great many years for being unprogressive, Mr. Shaw has discovered, with characteristic sense, that it is very doubtful whether any existing human being with two legs can be progressive at all. Having come to doubt whether humanity can be combined with progress, most people, easily pleased, would have elected to abandon progress and remain with humanity. Mr. Shaw, not being easily pleased, decides to throw over humanity with all its limitations and go in for progress for its own sake. If man, as we know him, is incapable of the philosophy of progress, Mr. Shaw asks, not for a new kind of philosophy, but for a new kind of man. It is rather as if a nurse had tried a rather bitter food for some years on a baby, and on discovering that it was not suitable, should not throw away the food and ask for a new food, but throw the baby out of window, and ask for a new baby.

You are about to read one of the most intelligent, well written books ever produced.


Orthodoxy: The Romance of Faith

Chesterton writes in a style uniquely his own. "Heretics" is not a book of the theology of heretics. It is rather a critique of the culture of secularism and modernity, a culture that has moved "beyond" the quaint discussions of religion and universal truths.

Chesterton smartly blasts this view that intelligent and enlightened people no longer condescend to consider dogma that would divide the society and determine a truth over against a lie. He points out the hypocrisy, arrogance, vacuous arguments, and inanity of secularism and what today we might call "progressivism."

The main thrust of this book is to highlight the universal truths of creation and humanity especially that have never been refuted only ignored. He accuses our culture of claiming liberty but prescribing stern rules of conversation; for example, we have freedom of expression but are not allowed to express religious truths in "proper" society. We can talk about minutae but not about eternal truths of maximum significance.

This book is about offending those who claim to be above offense. For orthodox Christians like Chesterton, humor is a spiritual virture and satire is its expression. He is a master at writing satire and eloquently offending his targets while probably making them smile. He writing seems to go astray often but always returns to achieve its objective.

Who are the heretics of Chesteron's book? We all are when we deceive ourselves and ignore the truths of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Chesterton gives us permission to laugh at ourselves and our culture while returning humbly to our Creator for whom we have been created for his pleasure.

"In former days, the heretic was proud of not being a heretic. It was the kingdoms of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics. He was orthodox.... All the tortures torn out of forgotten hells could not make him admit that he was heretical. But a few modern phrases have made him boast of it.... The word 'heresy' not only means no longer being wrong; it practically means being clear-headed and courageous." Chesterton begins here and goes on to discuss, in twenty separate, though connected, essays, the fallacies of various literary "heretics" of his own time (the first edition of this book came out in 1905). Some, such as George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells, definitely fit the strict church definition of a heretic. Others held views that were wrong in his opinion but that did not necessarily contradict the teachings of orthodox Christianity.

Chesterton usually compliments the strengths of the people or groups he discusses before criticizing their weaknesses, except in those cases which he believes hold almost no merit whatsoever. His writing is insightful, easily understandable, and--best of all-funny. On the writings of George Moore, an Irishman whom Chesterton thought was overly self-absorbed: "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. He would no doubt reply that in such a book as this he intended to reveal himself."

Some of his criticisms are arguable; for example, Chesterton, because of his strong admiration for Ireland, dismissed any theory about the importance of Ireland's Celtic origins altogether (apparently some Englishmen were excusing their poor treatment of Ireland by arguing that England was superior because it was Teutonic and not Celtic). He has something of a point, since the theory is often exaggerated, but because Ireland and other "Celtic" countries do share many common cultural characteristics, the Celtic theory cannot be completely dismissed. And C. S. Lewis believed part of Chesterton's critique of Rudyard Kipling to be somewhat unfair. Generally, however, Chesterton is very accurate. And he is unfailingly interesting. Who else could finish debunking "tolerance" by saying "Turnips are singularly broad-minded"?

Chesterton was a convert to Catholicism, but most Protestants will find very little to disagree with religiously in this book, which should be required reading for every modern politician. Chesterton, the traditionalist Liberal (then defined as a supporter of liberty) is neither neatly liberal, conservative, or libertarian by modern definition; liberals will find themselves squirming as he tears apart their weakened concept of democracy, and conservative militarists should squirm as he unveils the failures of British imperialism, which is not unlike their own ideology. Libertarians can do some wiggling of their own when Chesterton comments, "The modern man says, 'Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty'. This is, logically rendered, 'Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it'." Ouch. Though Chesterton penned "Heretics" over a hundred years ago, most of the ideologies it dismantles are still very prevalent, and it is as timely now as the day it was written.