It attempt to answers the question "why does evil exist". The answer it gives is "so that we all have the opportunity to be heroes and stand against it".
What are the best books by religious apologists that explore this theme of the world being a show, or a dream, or a play, or something like that, orchestrated by God?
>I sent you out to war. I sat in the darkness where there is not any created thing and to you I was only a voice commanding valor and an unnatural virtue. You heard the voice in the dark and you never heard it again. The sun in heaven denied it, the earth and the sky denied it, all human wisdom denied it. And when I met you in the daylight I denied it myself. But you were men. You did not forget your secret honor, though the whole cosmos turner an engine of torture to tear it out of you.
>Why does each thing on the earth war against each other thing? Why does each small thing in the world have to fight against the world itself? Why does a fly have to fight the whole universe? Why does a dandelion have to fight the whole universe? For the same reason that I had to be alone in the dreadful Council of the Days. So that each thing that obeys law may have the glory and isolation of the anarchist. So that each man fighting for order may be as brave and good a man as the dynamiter. So that the real lie of Satan may be flung back in the face of this blasphemer, so that by tears and torture we may earn the right to say to this man, ‘You lie!’ No agonies can be too great to buy the right to say to this accuser, ‘We also have suffered.’
That's right. All the millions of innocent civilians who died in WW2 have to suck it up because the Allies needed hitler to give them an opportunity to be heroes and stand against him.
This view is what one would describe as "cope". Also very dumb.
Chesterton is just a more pompous, verbose, but less fruity Catholic version of C. S. Lewis. He’s not deep or profound, but people who get lost in the shallows think he is, just like with C. S. Lewis.
Chesterton was the forerunner of both surrealist literature and magical realism which were arguably the defining genres of the 20th century. He predates Kafka and Camus work and even Borges recognized him as a seminal influence.
Chesterton is just a more pompous, verbose, but less fruity Catholic version of C. S. Lewis. He’s not deep or profound, but people who get lost in the shallows think he is, just like with C. S. Lewis.
takes every opportunity to shit on Chungus Chesterton. He’s very insecure about it too
In his autobiography, Chesterton says President Sunday represented "the god of pantheism"
I think the book is basically autobiographical in character, about "one of those emptied hells" and the absurd element is tied to GKC's experience with depression
At the time of publishing, Chesterton had basically come to believe in the Apostles creed (when discussing GKC, it is often forgotten that when writing Heretics, he was not properly Christian yet)
I didn't really get it. I thought Sunday was cool. Which I'm sure wasn't Gil's intention. Although, the bit where one-by-one the whole anarchist council finds out that they're all undercover detectives is very fun.
Chesterton described the novel as capturing some of the existential anxieties and angst he had in his youth. At that point in his life I want to say he was still somewhat agnostic, though clearly leaning towards Catholicism.
The novel reflects a degree of youthful uncertainty maybe frustration.
As others have said itt the novel could be seen as theodicy, an attempt to explain the apparent disorder and evil that exists in a world created by a benevolent God. Disorder secretly works according to the plans of a higher order. It's about the passage from a sense of total uncertainty that there is no real ground to anything and nothing is as it appears, to a realization that all the apparent disorder was only a play act for a higher order.
The novel has a whimsical tone, and a lot of the enjoyment comes more simply from all the ironic twists and turns of the plot. There does not need to be one singular "takeaway" or point when discussing novels and literature
This is a good explanation. It's hard to come away from a book with a singular conclusion; just try to contemplate the ideas and questions that the text evokes. See it as a catalyst for further exploration.
It attempt to answers the question "why does evil exist". The answer it gives is "so that we all have the opportunity to be heroes and stand against it".
until we burn ourselves out, then evil wins, then civilization collapses, a lot of people suffer and die, and we have to start over. god's plan sucks
But they aren't heroes, they get absorbed into Sunday and pass into the shadow realm or someshit
How does that make them not heroes?
Go back and read the last chapter. Thursday as a whole speech after the anarchist comes back where he spells out the major theme.
What are the best books by religious apologists that explore this theme of the world being a show, or a dream, or a play, or something like that, orchestrated by God?
Fpbp
>I sent you out to war. I sat in the darkness where there is not any created thing and to you I was only a voice commanding valor and an unnatural virtue. You heard the voice in the dark and you never heard it again. The sun in heaven denied it, the earth and the sky denied it, all human wisdom denied it. And when I met you in the daylight I denied it myself. But you were men. You did not forget your secret honor, though the whole cosmos turner an engine of torture to tear it out of you.
>Why does each thing on the earth war against each other thing? Why does each small thing in the world have to fight against the world itself? Why does a fly have to fight the whole universe? Why does a dandelion have to fight the whole universe? For the same reason that I had to be alone in the dreadful Council of the Days. So that each thing that obeys law may have the glory and isolation of the anarchist. So that each man fighting for order may be as brave and good a man as the dynamiter. So that the real lie of Satan may be flung back in the face of this blasphemer, so that by tears and torture we may earn the right to say to this man, ‘You lie!’ No agonies can be too great to buy the right to say to this accuser, ‘We also have suffered.’
That's right. All the millions of innocent civilians who died in WW2 have to suck it up because the Allies needed hitler to give them an opportunity to be heroes and stand against him.
This view is what one would describe as "cope". Also very dumb.
Nothing is outside of God's plan? Idk this book filtered me
Chesterton is just a more pompous, verbose, but less fruity Catholic version of C. S. Lewis. He’s not deep or profound, but people who get lost in the shallows think he is, just like with C. S. Lewis.
Nah. You just got filtered.
Chesterton was the forerunner of both surrealist literature and magical realism which were arguably the defining genres of the 20th century. He predates Kafka and Camus work and even Borges recognized him as a seminal influence.
This anon
takes every opportunity to shit on Chungus Chesterton. He’s very insecure about it too
Chesterton is incredibly quotable, Lewis has zero good lines
Every quote i see of him is dumber than the last.
>I don't get it
What a shame.
one takeaway i had from it was that principled rebellion severs communion with God more than petty/practical rebellion
kek this game is the reason why i read it
kino read, i remember reading it as i was traveling spain w family especially on the trains
you especially read it on trains?
In his autobiography, Chesterton says President Sunday represented "the god of pantheism"
I think the book is basically autobiographical in character, about "one of those emptied hells" and the absurd element is tied to GKC's experience with depression
At the time of publishing, Chesterton had basically come to believe in the Apostles creed (when discussing GKC, it is often forgotten that when writing Heretics, he was not properly Christian yet)
I didn't really get it. I thought Sunday was cool. Which I'm sure wasn't Gil's intention. Although, the bit where one-by-one the whole anarchist council finds out that they're all undercover detectives is very fun.
Chesterton described the novel as capturing some of the existential anxieties and angst he had in his youth. At that point in his life I want to say he was still somewhat agnostic, though clearly leaning towards Catholicism.
The novel reflects a degree of youthful uncertainty maybe frustration.
As others have said itt the novel could be seen as theodicy, an attempt to explain the apparent disorder and evil that exists in a world created by a benevolent God. Disorder secretly works according to the plans of a higher order. It's about the passage from a sense of total uncertainty that there is no real ground to anything and nothing is as it appears, to a realization that all the apparent disorder was only a play act for a higher order.
The novel has a whimsical tone, and a lot of the enjoyment comes more simply from all the ironic twists and turns of the plot. There does not need to be one singular "takeaway" or point when discussing novels and literature
This is a good explanation. It's hard to come away from a book with a singular conclusion; just try to contemplate the ideas and questions that the text evokes. See it as a catalyst for further exploration.