--- In [email protected], merudanda <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Some original quotes by G. K. Chesterton: > > "A man who refuses to have his own philosophy will only > have the used-up scraps of somebody else's > philosophy; which the beasts do not > have to inherit; hence their happiness. Men have always > one of two things: either a complete and conscious > philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken > bits of some incomplete and shattered and often > discredited philosophy" ["The Revival of > Philosophy,Why?]
Thanks Merudanda. I enjoyed Chesterton's short essay: http://chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/revivalpPhilosophy.htm I wonder if the following is at all relevant to the recent Curtis::Judy religion debate? (I'm not sure because I'm not clear as to how far Curtis wants his views about myths, superstitions and fairy tales to be enshrined, "hard-wired" as it were into *modern society*): << Thus, when so brilliant a man as Mr. H. G. Wells-Delta- Blues says that such supernatural ideas have become impossible "for intelligent people", he is (for that instant) not talking like an intelligent person. In other words, he is not talking like a philosopher; because he is not even saying what he means. What he means is, not "impossible for intelligent men", but, "impossible for intelligent monists", or, "impossible for intelligent determinists". But it is not a negation of <intelligence> to hold any coherent and logical conception of so mysterious a world. It is not a negation of intelligence to think that all experience is a dream. It is not unintelligent to think it a delusion, as some Buddhists do; let alone to think it a product of creative will, as Christians do. >> And I really love this quote from Chesterton (but I doubt Curtis will!). Like all good mysterians Chesterton upholds the primacy of poetry over mechanics, of the "qualitative" over the "quantitive": << All the terms used in the science books, 'law,' 'necessity,' 'order,' 'tendency,' and so on, are really unintellectual .... The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, 'charm,' 'spell,' 'enchantment.' They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched. I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic. >> That should put the cat amongst the pigeons. (Or the bio- chemical hunting and sleeping machine amongst the robotic, aerodynamic, statue-shitters if you you prefer).
