C.S. Lewis called the book a “powerful picture of the loneliness and bewilderment which each of us encounters in his single-handed struggle with the universe.”
I don't feel that way though. To me the primary theme is obvious: an individual trying to make sense of a world descending into moral and philosophical chaos. The Christian/God elements are a bit confusing at times, but so is the Trinity.
You are wading into deep waters with this post about Chesterton’s take on anarchy. “Anarchy” is a term that is widely misunderstood and misused as a synonym for chaotic violence, compounded by the historical reality that many self-proclaimed “anarchists” were in fact, violent extremists. The actual meaning is “without rulers”, but rather than beat a dead horse, better to abandon the term altogether. I prefer the description “Voluntaryism”, for those who believe that all human interaction (including government) should be on a voluntary consensual basis. This is the positive framing of the Non Aggression Principle, which generalizes the most basic commandments of “Thou Shalt not Steal or Murder”. Forget about the ridiculous mythical Social Contract used as deceptive rationalization for Big Brother and Might Makes Right. Voluntaryism or the NAP is not a complete ethical system (and is not a substitute for religion), but can serve as the fundamental axiom of human interaction and the foundation of civilized society.
It’s a very strange novel. I enjoyed it but I’m not sure I understood it.
A lot of people I know feel similarly.
I don't feel that way though. To me the primary theme is obvious: an individual trying to make sense of a world descending into moral and philosophical chaos. The Christian/God elements are a bit confusing at times, but so is the Trinity.
You are wading into deep waters with this post about Chesterton’s take on anarchy. “Anarchy” is a term that is widely misunderstood and misused as a synonym for chaotic violence, compounded by the historical reality that many self-proclaimed “anarchists” were in fact, violent extremists. The actual meaning is “without rulers”, but rather than beat a dead horse, better to abandon the term altogether. I prefer the description “Voluntaryism”, for those who believe that all human interaction (including government) should be on a voluntary consensual basis. This is the positive framing of the Non Aggression Principle, which generalizes the most basic commandments of “Thou Shalt not Steal or Murder”. Forget about the ridiculous mythical Social Contract used as deceptive rationalization for Big Brother and Might Makes Right. Voluntaryism or the NAP is not a complete ethical system (and is not a substitute for religion), but can serve as the fundamental axiom of human interaction and the foundation of civilized society.