My previous post is even more interesting given that the reason I stepped outside was to retrieve a certain book from my car to write this post. The book is Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton. My intention was to retrieve the book to refresh my memory as to why I have the tagline ‘Insane according to G.K. Chesterton.’ on the top of my blog. It’s interesting because I wonder if I share a similar style of insanity with my neighbor.
I still don’t remember exactly why I put that tag-line on my blog. But re-reading the first chapter of Orthodoxy has me thinking that either Chesterton is insane, or I am. That is the question of the week for me. Am I insane, or is it the world around me that is insane? The chapter in question is titled ‘The Maniac’.
I’m still in the process of pondering, but here are the sections that interest me
Most of the great poets have been not only sane, but extremely businesslike;… Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic; I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination.
Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea, and so make it finite. The result is mental exhaustion. To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything a strain. The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.
The madman is the one who has lost everything except his reason.
The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete … or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable. … If a man says that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours. … Or, if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ’s. Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we try to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large. In the same way an insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large.
Well, I could go on, but I just reached the crux of why it was so apropos that I ran into the old guy who was looking for pussy with a Richard Dawkins book in hand. I shall have to get to the question of my own sanity a bit later I suppose. Having read both Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, I am quite aware of the cold logic of atheism. I am also quite aware of the logic behind their assertion that religion is holding up the human race. I don’t find fault in their reasoning, just that it’s not so large.
I do find it somewhat amusing that Orthodoxy is to Christianity as ‘The End of Faith’ is to the anti-theists, atheists, etc. But, that’s neither here nor there. <– and what the hell does that saying mean exactly???
P.S. Emily … did you make it this far?
Great … I’ve resorted to posting inside jokes. Heheee. oh my!