I mentioned that I would be interested in reading GKC's works. I figured I'd make an ongoing thread devoted to his writings.

Stahrwe wrote:Read THE EVERLASTING MAN, if you dare and you will be educated.

Some comments from another thread.

Introduction to TEM wrote:But when its fundamentals are doubted, as at present, we must try to
recover the candour and wonder of the child; the unspoilt realism and
objectivity of innocence.

Here he's talking of the way children readily accept dogma. His appeal is to their unspoilt realism and objectivity of innocence. We don't need to explore this appeal any further than the endless list of magical things children believe to be true. They are innocent and full of wonder, but possessing realism and objectivity? Not even close. Their innocence can in some cases lend them a simple and therefore more honest perspective, but that's entirely different from trusting them to evaluate a belief system.

GKC: "But by the very fact that it did renounce them it proved that it was not either Gnostic or Manichean."

Structured logically:
P: Christianity renounced the Gnostics
P: Any faction renounced by another could not possibly have been a part of the first.
C: The roots of Christianity could not have been Gnostic.

Premise #2 is flawed. This is the case even if you quibble over the predicate terminology. Call it a faction/religion/movement/etc. It stays the same under all these variants. This isn't hard to follow, and shouldn't require a formal structure for you to understand. The sentence I quoted from GKC does not allow itself to other interpretations as you imply, since it contains precision wording("the very fact" and "proves"). It's straightforward, and the logic is easily visible.

GKC TEM part 1 wrote:I should try to see even this earth from the outside, not by the hackneyed insistence of its relative position to the sun, but by some imaginative effort to conceive its remote position for the dehumanized spectator. Only I do not believe in being dehumanized in order to study humanity. I do not believe in dwelling upon the distances that are supposed to dwarf the world; I think there is even something a trifle vulgar about this idea of trying to rebuke spirit by size

In talking about imagining the Earth as an alien planet, GKC dismisses the idea. The suggested perspective shift is an excellent exercise in gaining objectivity. I wonder why GKC resists it? To gain objectivity isn't to be dehumanized. Rather, it's to understand humanity in context. In the intro he claims to have a fairer understanding than critics. This makes it obvious he does not.

Interbane wrote:

GKC TEM part 1 wrote:I should try to see even this earth from the outside, not by the hackneyed insistence of its relative position to the sun, but by some imaginative effort to conceive its remote position for the dehumanized spectator. Only I do not believe in being dehumanized in order to study humanity. I do not believe in dwelling upon the distances that are supposed to dwarf the world; I think there is even something a trifle vulgar about this idea of trying to rebuke spirit by size

In talking about imagining the Earth as an alien planet, GKC dismisses the idea. The suggested perspective shift is an excellent exercise in gaining objectivity. I wonder why GKC resists it? To gain objectivity isn't to be dehumanized. Rather, it's to understand humanity in context. In the intro he claims to have a fairer understanding than critics. This makes it obvious he does not.

Maybe the perspective is that from the outside looking in humanity appears even greater because of the uniqueness of our existence among what very much seems to be a universe devoid of life. Our humanity becomes even greater.

In that context I do think it seems vulgar to "dehumanize" our existence. Accomplishing that seems like quite the psychological task.



Anyways, you are trapped in your universal presuppositions and can not help yourself. For that reason, it is understandable.

ant wrote:Anyways, you are trapped in your universal presuppositions and can not help yourself. For that reason, it is understandable.

So suggesting that we try to gain understanding by viewing humanity through different perspectives is a presupposition? It's a method to combat presupposition. It's a method to stretch our minds and try to view things through different lenses.

This doesn't mean we hold to the perspective exclusively, which I could then see being dehumanizing. But as a cognitive exercise, it's powerful and enlightening and there's nothing dehumanizing about it. In fact, it helps us to better understand humanity, by giving us added perspective.

So suggesting that we try to gain understanding by viewing humanity through different perspectives is a presupposition?

No, I meant your presuppositions that predetermine what you think is an objective, untouched, detached perspective.

You're not really engaging in a perspective shift. You're confirming a personal perspective is what you're doing.
Your perspective is theory-loaded.

GKC can not be dehumanized from any perspective, near or far, because his universe is unequivocally laden with purpose.

Yours can easily be dehumanized because you presuppose purposelessness. The contents of the universe are "just there" without purpose or meaning from a "God's eye view"

(note: I am not siding with either of you here. although I'd likely buy GKC's book before I bought the one you're working on)


By the way. This line by GKC speaks directly to natural philosophers (scientists) of yesteryear and their belief that the study of nature and praise given to God for His works is one and the same thing. It was not necessary to separate God from Man when studying nature/humanity:
An atheistic lens would have been considered a vulgar obscenity.

Only I do not believe in being dehumanized in order to study humanity.

I'm not familiar with GKC. Although I've asked for some starter recommendations.
I suppose I am just commenting on the quote fragment you've pasted and dismissed.

ant wrote:Yours can easily be dehumanized because you presuppose purposelessness. The contents of the universe are "just there" without purpose or meaning from a "God's eye view"

My presupposition has always been that the universe has purpose. I've since abandoned this presupposition by studying epistemology. It is a conclusion that the universe has no inherent purpose, not a presupposition.

ant wrote:GKC can not be dehumanized from any perspective, near or far, because his universe is unequivocally laden with purpose.

Which reinforced the point. He's unable to overcome his presuppositions. He can't view humanity from the outside due to his presuppositions.

I will also point out that the word "dehumanizing" isn't the best fit. It infers something immoral. A perspective shift is not an immoral thing.

ant wrote:I suppose I am just commenting on the quote fragment you've pasted and dismissed.

The one you commented on wasn't dismissed. The others were dismissed, where he fails logic. See above.

Interbane wrote:

But as a cognitive exercise, it's powerful and enlightening and there's nothing dehumanizing about it.

Yes. It's an exercise he no doubt performed.
But what he's saying is that it does eviscerate his soul the way it does to some.
I don't think he's saying its a complete waste of time.


What does this type of cognitive exercise do for you?
Does it make you feel incredibly lucky because of the blind forces that caused you to accidently but logically exist?

It is a conclusion that the universe has no inherent purpose, not a presupposition

it's a conclusion that's based on metaphysical premises.

But let's not get into a debate about your fact'less conclusion that Nature is without purpose because you and a few celebrity scientists say it is.
puhlease.


EDIT:

I will also point out that the word "dehumanizing" isn't the best fit. It infers something immoral. A perspective shift is not an immoral thing.

HUH?

i'm uncertain if you can read that much into what he said.
I doubt he's saying a perspective shift is an immoral thing.
You're in the process of strawmanning this now.
Slow down, man.