tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11415684.post1990646279242724429..comments2024-01-10T06:40:26.416-05:00Comments on Chesterton and Friends: Two sidesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11415684.post-57222938233666721262007-05-12T16:46:00.000-04:002007-05-12T16:46:00.000-04:00I had quite forgotten about that! Thanks for remi...I had quite forgotten about that! Thanks for reminding me.<BR/><BR/>I love how he describes Job as a "man of candid intellect."Nick Milnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677481833245634421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11415684.post-22464001656828602272007-05-12T12:00:00.000-04:002007-05-12T12:00:00.000-04:00Nick, I'm not sure where it is in Orthodoxy, but C...Nick, I'm not sure where it is in Orthodoxy, but Chesterton takes up that line of thought, very powerfully, I might add -- in his "Introduction to the Book of Job," which I was reading (again) this morning. He was saying that in a lesser story, when God appears in the end he might come up with very clever answers to the questions asked by Job and others throughout the poem. <BR/><BR/>But in what Chesterton called a "truly inspired touch," God instead appears and instead of answering, poses some questions himself. He basically takes the skepticism of Job and the others and turns it back on them, showing Himself to be a greater skeptic than the skeptics. Chesterton goes on to say that if you introduce a doubter to greater and greater doubts, he just might begin to doubt himself. <BR/><BR/>"The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man."chestertonianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182959509678265514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11415684.post-62884848863897345142007-05-11T20:08:00.000-04:002007-05-11T20:08:00.000-04:00True he is not a "true" Chestertonian but what Eri...True he is not a "true" Chestertonian but what Eric Hoffer once said seems to apply to the pro-abortion rhetoric, "We lie loudest when we lie to ourselves."Alan Capassohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05907570549456483727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11415684.post-33249974094559850052007-05-11T08:50:00.000-04:002007-05-11T08:50:00.000-04:00The opposite of this might be found in Chesterton'...The opposite of this might be found in Chesterton's own approach to these sorts of things. Though I don't have the passage on me at present (I believe it can be found in <I>Orthodoxy</I>), the general drift of it was that one of the better ways to "win" an argument (and by better he meant real and justifiable and fair) is to let one's opponent's arguments go further and further until their full absurdity becomes apparent through simple exposition. That is: act as if there really is only one side to the story - that of your opponent. The image he uses primarily is that of a skeptic, who we (that is, non-skeptics) should not enjoin to cease doubting, but rather to doubt more and more until finally all that is left of the man is doubt.Nick Milnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677481833245634421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11415684.post-80894845479607732592007-05-10T23:58:00.000-04:002007-05-10T23:58:00.000-04:00There are two sides to every story (at least). On...There are two sides to every story (at least). One deceit common in the death camp is to appeal to the most extreme side, like the story of the woman with the five kids. By appealing to carefully chosen particulars they seek to justify the whole mess. Such a trick is highly effective since it is subjective, by appealing to the emotions it saves people from having to think to hard. This is always a plus when you're trying to win the immoral side of an argument.DimBulbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14831601901629235143noreply@blogger.com