Ligotti on Chesterton

Matthias M. · 08-09-2015

I'm currently reading TCATHR for the second time and have a question concerning pages 14/15. Ligotti writes:

"British author and Christian apologist G. K. Chesterton: 'You can only find truth with logic if you have already find truth without it.' What Chesterton means to say here is that logic is irrelevant to truth, because if you can find truth without logic then logic is superfluous to any truth-finding effort. [...] To be sure, though futile argumentation may have its attractions and may act as an amusing complement to the bitter joy of spewing gut-level vituperations, personal idolatries, and rampant pontifications. To absolve such an unruly application of the rational and the irrational [...], the present contrivance of horror has been anchored in the thesis of a philosopher who had disquieting thoughts about what it is like to be a member of the human race."

I am unsure what Ligotti wants to say with this paragraph and I am in need for help. My opinion in short:

Chesterton was part of the tribe who have mainly positive and equivocal things to say about the human race. Chesterton sees no use to argue for his view because he needs no logic for it. He sees the truth without logic as do so many who think that this life is worth living. No one even thinks about if it could be wrong to be alive. By quoting Bahnsen without going much in detail or without logical arguments, Ligotti makes the same thing as Chesterton but with the opposite view, the life-negating view.

Have I understood the irony between these lines?

Mr. D. · 08-09-2015

Unfortunately, this quote is a serious misreading of Chesterton but it illustrates a big difference in the thinking of Catholics (Chesterton was a specifically Catholic writer, not a general Christian writer. There is a big difference.) and atheists. There is no irony in Chesterton. He thought that a person had to believe in God before you could have logic. The reason being that without a creator life had no meaning. Everything was on the same level and everything was equally meaningless. For example, it didn't matter if, when you meet someone, whether you shook their hand or punched them in the nose. Each action was a meaningless gesture in a world merely run by blind chance. Logic was based on choices and the relative importance of actions and things, so logic was not possible in a universe without meaning. You have to admit that the universe guided by chance resembles Ligotti's universe. To put it simply Logic is a byproduct of faith.

Matthias M. · 08-10-2015

Thanks for your comment Mr. D.

Ligotti writes: "To absolve such an unruly application of the rational and the irrational [...], the present contrivance of horror has been anchored in the thesis of a philosopher who had disquieting thoughts about what it is like to be a member of the human race."

What does he want to say with this? What does he mean with the unruly application in his reading of Chesterton?

If logic is a product of faith, there cannot be entailed something logical in TCATHR? Is it futile to argue for the views in TCATHR?

qcrisp · 08-10-2015

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. D.

Unfortunately, this quote is a serious misreading of Chesterton but it illustrates a big difference in the thinking of Catholics (Chesterton was a specifically Catholic writer, not a general Christian writer. There is a big difference.) and atheists. There is no irony in Chesterton. He thought that a person had to believe in God before you could have logic. The reason being that without a creator life had no meaning. Everything was on the same level and everything was equally meaningless. For example, it didn't matter if, when you meet someone, whether you shook their hand or punched them in the nose. Each action was a meaningless gesture in a world merely run by blind chance. Logic was based on choices and the relative importance of actions and things, so logic was not possible in a universe without meaning. You have to admit that the universe guided by chance resembles Ligotti's universe. To put it simply Logic is a byproduct of faith.

This is, as it happens, basically the point being made in the video clip I posted here:

http://www.ligotti.net/showthread.php?t=9869

That's a representation of one chapter from the essay The Abolition of Man, by C.S. Lewis. In order to talk about 'the principle of the thing' and avoid evangelising (at least, I think that's the reason), Lewis looks at the equivalent to God in other cultures and ends up using "the Dao" as a catch-all term for all of them (which is interesting).

qcrisp · 08-10-2015

Quote Originally Posted by Matthias M.

Thanks for your comment Mr. D.

Ligotti writes: "To absolve such an unruly application of the rational and the irrational [...], the present contrivance of horror has been anchored in the thesis of a philosopher who had disquieting thoughts about what it is like to be a member of the human race."

What does he want to say with this? What does he mean with the unruly application in his reading of Chesterton?

If logic is a product of faith, there cannot be entailed something logical in TCATHR? Is it futile to argue for the views in TCATHR?

I've been prompted to re-read the passage in the book. I'm not sure, but what he seems to be saying is something like this: There's something ultimately arbitrary in which side of the debate you fall on, so debate is futile. However, debate can be as amusing as simple vituperation (etc.), and we might want to indulge in it as such. But, to try and impose some order on what might otherwise be a mish-mash of debate and vituperation, I have used a particular starting point for this essay, which is the work of a particular philosopher. I am assuming that he is talking about Zapffe here, though other philosophers are, of course, significant to the essay.

Mind you, "absolve" suggests something different to what I have just said.

Incidentally, I agree with Mr. D that Chesterton is not saying that logic is superfluous to truth. I think maybe one way of explaining it might be by utilising a quote from Einstein which runs:

Quote

The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible.

I think no one would bat an eyelid (if they didn't know otherwise) if the quote were misattributed to Chesterton - it has the same air of genial paradox. The comprehensible here, of course, is what is logical. But then we ask, Why is anything logical in the first place? This is the area of 'truth' that interests Chesterton and others like him.

Of course, I might, myself, have misrepresented Chesterton there, but that would be my understanding of the Chesterton quote.

gveranon · 08-10-2015

I suspect Chesterton's meaning was along the lines of the Thomist conception that reason will lead you to truth (God), but only if you already have faith or at least an openness to truth (God). Logic will lead to truth for those who have "faith seeking understanding," but otherwise logic won't lead to truth -- something like that. I don't think Chesterton was saying here that without God there would be no logic in the world (although he probably believed that, and it would be a related thing to say). But I don't know the context of the quote, and I could be wrong. In any case, I'm sure Chesterton didn't mean that logic is irrelevant to truth, but I share Ligotti's irritation with the way this (questionable) conception of logic is deployed in polemic by Chesterton and others.

Mr. D. · 08-11-2015

Writers who were dead before I was born don't irritate me in the least. I agree that one of Chesterton's failings was a tendency to smugness. He had a tendency not to listen to anyone else as well. What intrigues me about Chesterton is his durability. Think a bout it. In the whole world there are less than 3,000 members to TLO. This year, 100 years or so after his peak popularity, tens of thousands of people are still reading Chesterton. What does he have to say that still commands so much attention? He's not as good of a writer as Ligotti. As I said, I'm intrigued.

josh · 08-11-2015

On the issue of logic:

I think it's a mistake to view logic as something which exists prior to the universe, and to which the universe must conform. In terms of evolution, it makes sense that creatures would evolve in such a way that --- if they needed to --- they would have some grasp of their surroundings and the principles behind them (through pattern recognition). Human "logic", like language, appears to be an evolutionary trait which has mutated to the extent that it now serves aims outside of its initial usage. We developed language as a means of organizing and conveying behavior (as well as surrounding dangers) and eventually it mutated into horror stories read for pleasure, for example. Logic may operate on the same lines.

But that also could mean we're incapable of true logic, on some level. Or, while we may be capable of it, we don't emotionally react to it in the way it warrants us to. Logic is still the handmaiden of our instincts and, therefore, blind to the majority of its possible conclusions. So in that sense both Chesterton and Ligotti are beginning with something else other than pure logic, although they may seek to convey their ideas using logic, subsequently. In Chesterton's case it is his emotional attachment to his religious beliefs --- which, then, find their support in his "logic" --- whereas for Ligotti it is his disgust for existence.

I see the only road as being the one which houses the least amount of self-deception. If I were given time to grill Chesterton on his beliefs, I'm sure I could get him to admit things he'd rather not admit, or at least make him very angry by showing how self-deceptive his faith is. In Ligotti's case, I doubt it would be so easy.

There may be something to be said of the most accurate mental state to have for logic to proceed. A total lack of emotion and a lack of thirst for existence --- this, maybe, would see the most clearly, as it lacks any conflicting motivations which would lead to self-deception.