Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton (Summary+Review)
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 07. 2023
- #gkchesterton #apologetics #christianbookreview
In this video I summarize and review "Orthodoxy" by G. K. Chesterton.
You can buy the book here: amzn.to/3QgYKJs
By using the link above you support my channel as I get paid a small percentage of your purchase. For you the price doesn't change 😊
Support me on Patreon: / biblicalbookworm
Read the book online for free:
English: www.gutenberg.org/files/16769...
Listen to the book online for free:
English: • Orthodoxy, G. K. Chest...
Rating system:
10/10 breathtaking, must read
9/10 really good
8/10 good
7/10 good (maybe not for everyone)
6/10 and less: I try to read good books lol so that rating should not occur
You can contact me here: thebiblicalbookworm@gmail.com
Image source: amzn.to/3QgYKJs
As for the one section you mentioned near the end concerning the contrast between logical necessities, perhaps this will be helpful...(I don't know).
The mathematics and science writer Martin Gardner, in his anthology "Great Essays in Science", included about a third of that chapter from "Orthodoxy" under the title "The Logic of Elfland". In his preface to that selection, he wrote:
"Chesterton's topic is nothing less than the fundamental contrast between deductive logic, true of all possible worlds, and inductive logic, capable only of telling us how we may reasonably expect this world to behave. Let us hasten to add that Chesterton's analysis is in full agreement with the views of modern logicians. Perhaps his 'test of the imagination' is not strictly accurate--who can 'imagine' the four-dimensional constructions of relativity?-but in essence his position is unassailable. Logical and mathematical statements are true by definition. They are 'empty tautologies,' to use a current phrase, like the impressive maxim that there are always six eggs in half a dozen. Nature, on the other hand, is under no similar constraints. Fortunately, her 'weird repetitions,' as GK calls them, often conform to surprisingly low-order equations. But as Hume and others before Hume made clear, there is no logical reason why she should behave so politely."
I forgot to add: I greatly enjoyed your review, btw! :-)
Yes, that was helpful, thank you! The "imagination test" is definetely flawed and without that test Chesterton's statement seems more valid.
Thanks for the reference to Gardner's essay. He gives a nice description of the difference between facts and logic and ties it to deductive and inductive logic. This makes explicit what Chesterton is implicitly getting at.
@8:36 Chesterton is distinguishing between logical necessities and contingent facts. It is a valid point. So if A is older than B, then it is the case that B is younger than A. The relationship is *necessary* because of the nature of the older/younger relationship. But its not necessary that just because its a tree, it grows apples, because it can also grow pears. This association is contingent and depends on what kind of tree it is.
Thank you for the explenation! As far as I remember Chesterton didn't use apples and pears as an example but apples and smth that never grows on trees like eg. guitars. I'm not sure if it's possible to say that there is no logical necessity for a tree to grow products of nature. This becomes especially questionable if we ask ourselves the question if it's a logical necessity for an *apple* tree to grow apples. I mean an apple tree by definition is a tree that is ordered towards growing apples... 🤔
I get what point Chesterton was trying to make but I'm not sure how true that point is.
@@BiblicalBookworm
1. The apple/pear example was my own. It is nonetheless faithful to the distinction between contingent facts and logical necessities.
2. "I'm not sure if it's possible to say that there is no logical necessity for a tree to grow products of nature." This is not true because there are some apple trees that, for whatever reason, do not grow apples. Yet others do. Whether a particular apple tree grows apples or not can only be determined by examining the tree in question with your senses. This makes the fact contingent, meaning, it could be one way or another.
In contrast, there are other statements that are always true, like "2+2=4". It is never the case that this statement is false and you do not have to go out into nature to see whether it is true or not with your senses. Its veracity can be determined purely from the meaning of the terms "2" and "+" and "=" and "4". This makes such a statement logical in distinction to the previous one which is factual.
3. In this section Chesterton is trying to awaken in us the sense of contingency in the world so we can see the action of God in nature. If everything is as it is by logical necessity, then what role is there for God? He would have no freedom to create otherwise since everything would have to be the way it is by a power greater than God which would be logic. And this is absurd from the point of view of our Faith.
Chesterton is making an important argument here, and it is worth appreciating what he's getting at.
@@physics1518 Your view doesn't seem to be a properly Christian one. As if you need to find a space for God to be able to "play around" as it were, that's an absurd implication.
This book pairs beautifully with Mere Christianity. I’m glad I read this first and Lewis’ book second.
For some reason I liked Mere Christianity more 🤔
@@BiblicalBookworm i agree. It is less pretentious and more accessible.
I love this channel. So based. So trad. So straight forward.
Thank you! 🥺
Chesterton combines childlike joy, razor sharp wit, a beautiful command of English and a genius way with words and paradoxes. A veritable giant in Catholic letters alongside Manley Hopkins (Jesuit who is considered by many to have penned the most beautiful poetry in English) and Tolkien.
I've never heard of Manley Hopkins. I'll have to check him out
Love this book! So many inspiring and romantic perspectives in it
Romantic? I can't recall those but definetely inspiring 👌
@@BiblicalBookworm Or perhaps poetic is a better word; the way he describes "mundane" things in such a pretty way. For example, when he writes that his nanny predicted that it was gonna snow, when he was a child, he likened that to a prophecy coming true. ^^
Great video, I dont comment regularly but I greatly enjoy you're videos keep up the cool work
Thank you, I appreciate your comment!
Coming from a Buddhist background I found your review very interesting. It's true, a lot of pantheists and non religious people often say "Aren't the basic tenets of Buddhism and Christianity pretty much the same?" One could argue that it is, but once you really get into the nitty gritty details they couldn't be more different. Buddhism is generally non-theistic and straight out rejects the need for a Creator God.
Thank you for sharing!
Well done. Thank you for your excellent video. Vielen Dank and alles Gutes.
Danke! 🙃
Sounds very interesting, logic is very practical, I like the part about lovers in the dark, and the thief part. It's good to talk about these things.
Thanks for the review Elizabeth 😀
You're welcome!
One of the few times you have reviewed a book that I've actually read :D It's one of those books that I've wanted to re-read for a while, so maybe I should do that soon-ish.
Maybe that's your sign to reread it 🙃
@@BiblicalBookworm That's exactly what I thought ;)
The Christians Secret to a Happy Life by Hannah Whitall Smith, Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan. Both are easy reads and would highly recommend them. Also any works by James Allen, he is an underrated Christian writer. Paradise Lost by John Milton would be a good one for the channel someday too.
Thank you for the recommendations!
Do you know the book Silence, by Shusaku Endo?
No, thank you for the recommendation!
My friends son killed himself 3 years ago the boy was 12 years old, suicide destroys familys i saw this first hand , very sad
I'm so sorry to hear that!
Didn't understand your point about the Sisters being older vs. trees growing guitars. Chesterton is on firm logical ground here, your comment asserts an irrelevant fact, that we know more about sister than how nature grows fruit. Chesterton's referring to their age not their type. IMO only reason to give book 9 out of 10 is if you're not comfy with the writing style, that of paradox used to 'prove' reality. IMO 10 out of 10. Your mileage may vary, but a good video none the less. I give you 9 of 10 LOL : )
Could be that my observation/objection to his reasoning was wrong. I'm still not fully conviced that just because we can or can't imagine something it is or isn't a logical necessity.
I am glad that you liked the video!
"shower thoughts"?!!!! c'mon!!!!! This is my 10/10 book! lol.
Shower thoughts isn't meant to be negative! It's just a description of what the book is like as I explained in "The Everlasting Man" in a bit more detail.
Would you disagree with the description that the book feels like shower thoughts? 🙃
Thank Are you going to world youth day Elisabeth ??
I'm not going as I work full time during the summer
I didn't watch the video, but from the start on, it sounds as though you are saying J K instead of G K😅, maybe it's the accent. no issues
Now that's embarassing 🙈🙈🙈