Quote of the Day: Evasion Without the Bad Sense to Disguise Itself
This is from HERETICS by GK Chesterton, published in 1905. Allow me to quote the whole paragraph, merely to astonish the modern reader that modernity, and the central ideas of modernity, are actually Late Victorian, and even at that date were dismissed with deserved joviality by Chesterton, a man saved from accusations of being modern only because he speaks of eternal things. And eternal things, it must be remembered, are always up to date, even while modern things are alway behind the times and passing away.
There is, indeed, one class of modern writers and thinkers who cannot altogether be overlooked in this question, though there is no space here for a lengthy account of them, which, indeed, to confess the truth, would consist chiefly of abuse.
I mean those who get over all these abysses and reconcile all these wars by talking about “aspects of truth,” by saying that the art of Kipling represents one aspect of the truth, and the art of William Watson another; the art of Mr. Bernard Shaw one aspect of the truth, and the art of Mr. Cunningham Grahame another; the art of Mr. H. G. Wells one aspect, and the art of Mr. Coventry Patmore (say) another.
I will only say here that this seems to me an evasion which has not even the bad sense to disguise itself ingeniously in words.
If we talk of a certain thing being an aspect of truth, it is evident that we claim to know what is truth; just as, if we talk of the hind leg of a dog, we claim to know what is a dog.
Unfortunately, the philosopher who talks about aspects of truth generally also asks, “What is truth?” Frequently even he denies the existence of truth, or says it is inconceivable by the human intelligence.
How, then, can he recognize its aspects? I should not like to be an artist who brought an architectural sketch to a builder, saying, “This is the south aspect of Sea-View Cottage. Sea-View Cottage, of course, does not exist.” I should not even like very much to have to explain, under such circumstances, that Sea-View Cottage might exist, but was unthinkable by the human mind.
Nor should I like any better to be the bungling and absurd metaphysician who professed to be able to see everywhere the aspects of a truth that is not there.
Of course, it is perfectly obvious that there are truths in Kipling, that there are truths in Shaw or Wells. But the degree to which we can perceive them depends strictly upon how far we have a definite conception inside us of what is truth. It is ludicrous to suppose that the more sceptical we are the more we see good in everything. It is clear that the more we are certain what good is, the more we shall see good in everything.
I plead, then, that we should agree or disagree with these men. I plead that we should agree with them at least in having an abstract belief. But I know that there are current in the modern world many vague objections to having an abstract belief, and I feel that we shall not get any further until we have dealt with some of them. The first objection is easily stated.
A common hesitation in our day touching the use of extreme convictions is a sort of notion that extreme convictions specially upon cosmic matters, have been responsible in the past for the thing which is called bigotry. But a very small amount of direct experience will dissipate this view. In real life the people who are most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all. […] Bigotry may be roughly defined as the anger of men who have no opinions. It is the resistance offered to definite ideas by that vague bulk of people whose ideas are indefinite to excess. Bigotry may be called the appalling frenzy of the indifferent.
My comment: The very modern idea proposed by Chesterton’s forgotten contemporaries was the idea that there is no truth, or that it is inconceivable to the human mind, what we would now call relativism or subjectivism.
The bigotry of those with no convictions I have seen on display in the most amusing form. For example, in public speeches I have heard gentlemen of the Left-of-Center persuasion not merely yelling at the audience, but bellowing, hoarse with screaming, to emphasize the point that no one knows right from wrong, true from false, and that all opinions are tentative.
I know of no way to be less convincing on the proposition that only strong convictions produce conflict, and that a lack of conviction in any matter produces both peace and open-mindedness, than to have this same message uttered in shrill shrieks and bovine bellows by a glassy-eyed with fanatic sweating like a pig, red-faced with wrath and zeal and utmost certainty, haranguing his cowering audience. And those in the front row must duck to avoid the foam flecks he spits in his paean to the moral superiority of indecisiveness as the latchkey to close the gates of Janus.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
