Orthodoxy

en Limba Engleză Paperback – 31 oct 2008

Gilbert Keith Chesterton (29 May 1874 - 14 June 1936) was an influential English writer of the early 20th century. His prolific and diverse output included journalism, philosophy, poetry, biography, Christian apologetics, fantasy and detective fiction.

Citește tot Restrânge

Toate formatele și edițiile

	Preț	Express
Paperback (54)	26^.89 lei 3-4 săpt.
Dover Publications Inc. – 31 aug 2020	26^.89 lei 3-4 săpt.
–	41^.25 lei 3-5 săpt.
CREATESPACE –	42^.86 lei 3-5 săpt.
CREATESPACE –	46^.03 lei 3-5 săpt.
–	46^.25 lei 3-5 săpt.
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform –	47^.17 lei 3-5 săpt.
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform –	47^.51 lei 3-5 săpt.
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform –	48^.67 lei 3-5 săpt.
CREATESPACE –	48^.67 lei 3-5 săpt.
Moody Publishers – 31 mai 2009	55^.51 lei 3-5 săpt.	+10^.10 lei 7-13 zile
e-artnow – 14 apr 2019	56^.63 lei 3-5 săpt.
Simon & Brown – 25 mai 2012	56^.70 lei 3-5 săpt.
Dover Publications – 31 oct 2004	59^.17 lei 3-5 săpt.
–	60^.73 lei 3-5 săpt.
IMAGE – 30 iun 1991	61^.01 lei 3-5 săpt.
–	64^.98 lei 3-5 săpt.
CREATESPACE –	65^.69 lei 3-5 săpt.
–	68^.32 lei 3-5 săpt.
CREATESPACE –	69^.12 lei 3-5 săpt.
Regent College Publishing – 31 ian 2004	72^.70 lei 3-5 săpt.
St. Martin's Publishing Group – 5 iul 2022	77^.72 lei 3-5 săpt.
Ignatius Press – 30 iun 1995	79^.76 lei 3-5 săpt.
Bottom of the Hill Publishing – 30 iun 2011	90^.17 lei 3-5 săpt.
CREATESPACE –	100^.64 lei 3-5 săpt.
Chump Change – 16 aug 2020	43^.85 lei 6-8 săpt.
Digireads.com – 10 apr 2018	58^.85 lei 6-8 săpt.
Aziloth Books – 8 iun 2011	63^.74 lei 6-8 săpt.
Published by Parables – 11 apr 2020	65^.14 lei 6-8 săpt.
Benediction Classics – 10 sep 2012	65^.22 lei 6-8 săpt.
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform –	70^.16 lei 6-8 săpt.
Serenity Publishers, LLC – 31 oct 2008	70^.79 lei 6-8 săpt.
–	74^.54 lei 6-8 săpt.
Suzeteo Enterprises – 31 aug 2009	75^.50 lei 6-8 săpt.
NuVision Publications – 7 iul 2007	77^.77 lei 38-44 zile
–	78^.30 lei 6-8 săpt.
CREATESPACE –	78^.97 lei 6-8 săpt.
Echo Library – 31 mar 2006	81^.53 lei 38-44 zile
–	89^.73 lei 6-8 săpt.
Canon Press – 30 iun 2020	91^.65 lei 6-8 săpt.
Classy Publishing – 5 apr 2023	94^.26 lei 6-8 săpt.
SANAGE PUBLISHING HOUSE LLP – 3 apr 2023	96^.12 lei 6-8 săpt.
Bibliotech Press – 19 iun 2013	99^.69 lei 6-8 săpt.
1st World Publishing – 30 sep 2008	103^.17 lei 6-8 săpt.
Indoeuropeanpublishing.com – 6 apr 2010	106^.56 lei 6-8 săpt.
COSIMO CLASSICS – 31 aug 2007	107^.31 lei 6-8 săpt.
Book Jungle – 10 ian 2007	109^.33 lei 6-8 săpt.
Simon & Brown – 24 iul 2011	110^.40 lei 38-44 zile
Simon & Brown – 30 noi 2010	112^.40 lei 38-44 zile
Simon & Brown – 30 sep 2010	112^.40 lei 38-44 zile
Simon & Brown – 25 oct 2018	116^.75 lei 38-44 zile
Simon & Brown – 12 noi 2018	122^.21 lei 38-44 zile
Simon & Brown – 31 oct 2011	123^.46 lei 38-44 zile
Simon & Brown – 31 ian 2012	124^.10 lei 38-44 zile
Echo Library – 30 sep 2006	158^.94 lei 38-44 zile
Hardback (11)	108^.68 lei 6-8 săpt.	+69^.71 lei 7-13 zile
Word on Fire – noi 2017	158^.77 lei 3-5 săpt.	+69^.71 lei 7-13 zile
Outlook Verlag – 19 sep 2018	332^.28 lei 3-5 săpt.
Chump Change – 16 aug 2020	108^.68 lei 6-8 săpt.
1st World Publishing – 30 sep 2008	160^.62 lei 6-8 săpt.
–	165^.62 lei 38-44 zile
–	165^.62 lei 38-44 zile
–	166^.99 lei 38-44 zile
Simon & Brown – 25 oct 2018	169^.73 lei 38-44 zile
–	175^.37 lei 38-44 zile
–	178^.02 lei 38-44 zile
Simon & Brown – 12 noi 2018	184^.97 lei 38-44 zile

Preț: 70^.79 lei

Nou

Puncte Express: 106

:
13^.55€ • 14^.11$ • 11^.16£

Carte tipărită la comandă

Livrare economică 01-15 februarie 25

Adaugă în coș

Wish list
Gift list
Am citit!

Adaugă în listă

Preluare comenzi: 021 569.72.76

Specificații

ISBN-13: 9781604505856
ISBN-10: 1604505850
Pagini: 140
Dimensiuni: 155 x 231 x 9 mm
Greutate: 0.22 kg
Editura: Serenity Publishers, LLC
Locul publicării:United States

Descriere

Notă biografică

G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) was a prolific English writer, philosopher, lay theologian, and literary and art critic. He is best known in mystery circles as the creator of the fictional priest-detective Father Brown and for the metaphysical thriller The Man Who Was Thursday. Often referred to as "the prince of paradox," Chesterton frequently made his points by turning familiar sayings and proverbs inside out. Chesterton attended the Slade School of Art, a department of University College London, where he took classes in illustration and literature, though he did not complete a degree in either subject. In 1895, at the age of twenty-one, he began working for the London publisher George Redway. A year later he moved to another publisher, T. Fisher Unwin, where he undertook his first work in journalism, illustration, and literary criticism. In addition to writing fifty-three Father Brown stories, Chesterton authored articles and books of social criticism, philosophy, theology, economics, literary criticism, biography, and poetry.

Extras

Chapter II

THE MANIAC

Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true. Once I remember walking with a prosperous publisher, who made a remark which I had often heard before; it is, indeed, almost a motto of the modern world. Yet I had heard it once too often, and I saw suddenly that there was nothing in it. The publisher said of somebody, "That man will get on; he believes in himself." And I remember that as I lifted my head to listen, my eye caught an omnibus on which was written "Hanwell." I said to him, "Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in themselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in themselves more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar. I know where flames the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guide you to the thrones of the Supermen. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums." He said mildly that there were a good many men after all who believed in themselves and who were not in lunatic asylums. "Yes, there are," I retorted, "and you of all men ought to know them. That drunken poet from whom you would not take a dreary tragedy, he believed in himself. That elderly minister with an epic from whom you were hiding in a back room, he believed in himself. If you consulted your business experience instead of your ugly individualistic philosophy, you would know that believing in himself is one of the commonest signs of a rotter. Actors who can't act believe in themselves; and debtors who won't pay. It would be much truer to say that a man will certainly fail, because he believes in himself. Complete self-confidence is not merely a sin; complete self-confidence is a weakness. Believing utterly in one's self is a hysterical and superstitious belief like believing in Joanna Southcote: the man who has it has 'Hanwell' written on his face as plain as it is written on that omnibus." And to all this my friend the publisher made this very deep and effective reply, "Well, if a man is not to believe in himself, in what is he to believe?" After a long pause I replied, "I will go home and write a book in answer to that question." This is the book that I have written in answer to it.

But I think this book may well start where our argument started--in the neighbourhood of the mad-house. Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin--a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.

In this remarkable situation it is plainly not now possible (with any hope of a universal appeal) to start, as our fathers did, with the fact of sin. This very fact which was to them (and is to me) as plain as a pikestaff, is the very fact that has been specially diluted or denied. But though moderns deny the existence of sin, I do not think that they have yet denied the existence of a lunatic asylum. We all agree still that there is a collapse of the intellect as unmistakable as a falling house. Men deny hell, but not, as yet, Hanwell. For the purpose of our primary argument the one may very well stand where the other stood. I mean that as all thoughts and theories were once judged by whether they tended to make a man lose his soul, so for our present purpose all modern thoughts and theories may be judged by whether they tend to make a man lose his wits.

It is true that some speak lightly and loosely of insanity as in itself attractive. But a moment's thought will show that if disease is beautiful, it is generally some one else's disease. A blind man may be picturesque; but it requires two eyes to see the picture. And similarly even the wildest poetry of insanity can only be enjoyed by the sane. To the insane man his insanity is quite prosaic, because it is quite true. A man who thinks himself a chicken is to himself as ordinary as a chicken. A man who thinks he is a bit of glass is to himself as dull as a bit of glass. It is the homogeneity of his mind which makes him dull, and which makes him mad. It is only because we see the irony of his idea that we think him even amusing; it is only because he does not see the irony of his idea that he is put in Hanwell at all. In short, oddities only strike ordinary people. Oddities do not strike odd people. This is why ordinary people have a much more exciting time; while odd people are always complaining of the dulness of life. This is also why the new novels die so quickly, and why the old fairy tales endure for ever. The old fairy tale makes the hero a normal human boy; it is his adventures that are startling; they startle him because he is normal. But in the modern psychological novel the hero is abnormal; the centre is not central. Hence the fiercest adventures fail to affect him adequately, and the book is monotonous. You can make a story out of a hero among dragons; but not out of a dragon among dragons. The fairy tale discusses what a sane man will do in a mad world. The sober realistic novel of to-day discusses what an essential lunatic will do in a dull world.

Let us begin, then, with the mad-house; from this evil and fantastic inn let us set forth on our intellectual journey. Now, if we are to glance at the philosophy of sanity, the first thing to do in the matter is to blot out one big and common mistake. There is a notion adrift everywhere that imagination, especially mystical imagination, is dangerous to man's mental balance. Poets are commonly spoken of as psychologically unreliable; and generally there is a vague association between wreathing laurels in your hair and sticking straws in it. Facts and history utterly contradict this view. Most of the very great poets have been not only sane, but extremely business-like; and if Shakespeare ever really held horses, it was because he was much the safest man to hold them. 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. Artistic paternity is as wholesome as physical paternity. Moreover, it is worthy of remark that when a poet really was morbid it was commonly because he had some weak spot of rationality on his brain. Poe, for instance, really was morbid; not because he was poetical, but because he was specially analytical. Even chess was too poetical for him; he disliked chess because it was full of knights and castles, like a poem. He avowedly preferred the black discs of draughts, because they were more like the mere black dots on a diagram. Perhaps the strongest case of all is this: that only one great English poet went mad, Cowper. And he was definitely driven mad by logic, by the ugly and alien logic of predestination. Poetry was not the disease, but the medicine; poetry partly kept him in health. He could sometimes forget the red and thirsty hell to which his hideous necessitarianism dragged him among the wide waters and the white flat lilies of the Ouse. He was damned by John Calvin; he was almost saved by John Gilpin. Everywhere we see that men do not go mad by dreaming. Critics are much madder than poets. Homer is complete and calm enough; it is his critics who tear him into extravagant tatters. Shakespeare is quite himself; it is only some of his critics who have discovered that he was somebody else. And though St. John the Evangelist saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators. The general fact is simple. 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, like the physical exhaustion of Mr. Holbein. 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.

It is a small matter, but not irrelevant, that this striking mistake is commonly supported by a striking misquotation. We have all heard people cite the celebrated line of Dryden as "Great genius is to madness near allied." But Dryden did not say that great genius was to madness near allied. Dryden was a great genius himself, and knew better. It would have been hard to find a man more romantic than he, or more sensible. What Dryden said was this, "Great wits are oft to madness near allied"; and that is true. It is the pure promptitude of the intellect that is in peril of a breakdown. Also people might remember of what sort of man Dryden was talking. He was not talking of any unworldly visionary like Vaughan or George Herbert. He was talking of a cynical man of the world, a sceptic, a diplomatist, a great practical politician. Such men are indeed to madness near allied. Their incessant calculation of their own brains and other people's brains is a dangerous trade. It is always perilous to the mind to reckon up the mind. A flippant person has asked why we say, "As mad as a hatter." A more flippant person might answer that a hatter is mad because he has to measure the human head.

And if great reasoners are often maniacal, it is equally true that maniacs are commonly great reasoners. When I was engaged in a controversy with the Clarion on the matter of free will, that able writer Mr. R. B. Suthers said that free will was lunacy, because it meant causeless actions, and the actions of a lunatic would be causeless. I do not dwell here upon the disastrous lapse in determinist logic. Obviously if any actions, even a lunatic's, can be causeless, determinism is done for. If the chain of causation can be broken for a madman, it can be broken for a man. But my purpose is to point out something more practical. It was natural, perhaps, that a modern Marxian Socialist should not know anything about free will. But it was certainly remarkable that a modern Marxian Socialist should not know anything about lunatics. Mr. Suthers evidently did not know anything about lunatics. The last thing that can be said of a lunatic is that his actions are causeless. If any human acts may loosely be called causeless, they are the minor acts of a healthy man; whistling as he walks; slashing the grass with a stick; kicking his heels or rubbing his hands. It is the happy man who does the useless things; the sick man is not strong enough to be idle. It is exactly such careless and causeless actions that the madman could never understand; for the madman (like the determinist) generally sees too much cause in everything. The madman would read a conspiratorial significance into those empty activities. He would think that the lopping of the grass was an attack on private property. He would think that the kicking of the heels was a signal to an accomplice. If the madman could for an instant become careless, he would become sane. Every one who has had the misfortune to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze. If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

The madman's explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the 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 the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. 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.

Recenzii

"Whenever I feel my faith going dry again, I wander to a shelf and pick up a book by G.K. Chesterton."
--from the foreword by Philip Yancey, author of What's So Amazing About Grace? and The Jesus I Never Knew

"My favorite on the list [of top 100 spiritual classics of the twentieth century] is Chesterton's Orthodoxy. It offers wonderful arguments for embracing religious traditions, but it also has humor you don't typically find in religious writing."
--Philip Zaleski, author and journalist

Named by Publisher's Weekly as one of 10 "indispensable spiritual classics" of the past 1500 years.
--Publisher?s Weekly

"Chesterton's most enduring book.... Charming."
--World

Cuprins

Table of Contents
Introduction by Jon M. Sweeney
CHAPTER I.-Introduction in Defence of Everything Else
CHAPTER II.-The Maniac
CHAPTER III.-The Suicide of Thought
CHAPTER IV-The Ethics of Elfland
CHAPTER V.-The Flag of the World
CHAPTER VI.-The Paradoxes of Christianity
CHAPTER VII.-The Eternal Revolution
CHAPTER VIII.-The Romance of Orthodoxy
CHAPTER IX.-Authority and the Adventurer

Papetărie, jocuri, reviste