Today, after starting it almost 3 years ago, I finally finished G.K. Chesterton's
Orthodoxy.
First let me start by saying that if you consider yourself a thinking person at all, you owe it to yourself to read this book. You may (like me) not quite catch all the references to the people and lingo of early twentieth century Britain, but that should not in any way detract from Chesterton's surprisingly insightful discussion of belief and meaning in the world.
Perhaps my favorite aspect of his writing is that he spells every argument out so sensibly and simply that he makes so many of the intellectual prepositions of our modern era seem so obviously backwards and contrary to common sense. I would love very much for someone who does not consider himself a Christian to read this book and tell me his opinion of it. As for me, I perhaps can not describe what an immense happiness reading this book produced in me, as it said my own thinking is rational (which I have always considered it to be despite being told the contrary by many whose intellects I respect) with perhaps the smartest and best arguments I've ever heard (from either camp). Normalcy is not something I strive for, but every once in a while it's nice to hear that your whole conception of life is not so crazy after all.
Now for my own sake (since I essentially use this blog as a journal I can go back to) I'll spell out some of my favorite take-aways while it's still pretty fresh (the end of it anyway).
The ideal is not compromise (a dilution of things) but rather an equilibrium which occurs between fiercely opposing things (such as love and wrath) in their pure, intense forms. Christianity is built out of these paradoxes.
"We do not want joy and anger to neutralize each other and produce a surly contentment; we want a fiercer delight and a fiercer discontent. We have to feel the universe at once as an orge's castle, to be stormed, and yet as our own cottage, to which we can return at evening."
"Rational optimism leads to stagnation; irrational optimism leads to reform."
The man who is most likely to ruin the place he loves is exactly the man who loves it with a reason. The man who will improve the place is the man who loves it without a reason. If a man loves some feature of Pimlico (which seems unlikely), he may find himself defending that feature against Pimlico itself. But if he simply loves Pimlico itself, he may lay it waste and turn it into the New Jerusalem."
Having limits enables freedom. "Every act of will is an act of self limitation. To desire action is to desire limitation"(something dostoevsky would have agreed with) "When you choose something, you reject everything else" (sounds like economics now)... chiefly he is arguing that you are not enjoying freedom when you take away all limits because limits define and provide meaning.
"As long as the vision of heaven is always changing, the vision of earth will be exactly the same. No vision remains long enough to be realised, or even partly realised. The modern young man will never change his environment, for he will always change his mind. This therefore is our first requirement about the ideals toward which progress is directed, it must be fixed."
"The man of the nineteenth century did not disbelieve in the Resurrection because his liberal Christianity allowed him to doubt it. He disbelieved in it because his very strict materialism did not allow him to believe it." (this part of the book sounded a lot like Tim Kheller's book, The Reason for God, which I also recommend)
Okay perhaps I will add more later but now I am exhausted and must get to bed!