"Suppose that a great commotion arises in the streets about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, 'Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good--' At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark."
--G.K. Chesterton, Heretics, 1905

OK. Forgive me for interpreting this quotation as a suggested metaphor for the present war in Iraq (?)--the tip-off being the hodgepodge of reasons for tearing down the lamp-post.

Is the takeaway supposed to be that our pre-war situation--i.e., a world with a Saddam Hussein-ruled Iraq--is aptly symbolized by "Light"? If so, I must say that's a stretch. I hope I'm way off base here.

Most of the quotes are just "worth repeating" and not intended to have any relevance to any current event. The quote, so far as I can see, has nothing to do with Iraq--though I did think when typing it that, with so many readers always talking about Iraq, no doubt someone will interpret it that way. I agree with you that such an interpretation is a "stretch." Perhaps a lesson linking it to Iraq is that tearing something down is easy. What comes next is the hard part. Other than that, I don't see a linkage. But, others more perceptive than I, may.

Brilliant quotation.

I don't think it has anything to do with Iraq, except perhaps to the extent that the whole debate surrounding Iraq in this country is done in the dark -- without reference to God.

That was about Iraq? That was over my head...

Not hard to do, but still.

Chesterton introduces the metaphor by saying "I revert to the doctrinal methods of the thirteenth century, inspired by the general hope of getting something done." "Going back to fundamentals" is the method that inspires that hope. Not examining fundamentals ends in nothing good getting done.

He puts it this way earlier in the chapter: "We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run, anything else affects them." This is relevant to Iraq only in the sense that it is relevant to accomplishing anything good in today's cultural environment. Too many people on all sides of any issue, especially Iraq, refuse to look at or acknowledge what is the really important difference between men--their philosophy. They think that being "created equal" means we have no important differences.

Well,
This quote is about the falsity of modern man's claim to being rational and *practical-minded* as compared to pre-moderns supposedly lifelss abstract theorizing. Argument in modern life is really the power of the mob, says Chesterton, as opposed to argurere; that is, "making clear."

But if I were to tie this quote into a current event it would be the very un-reported march in Washington this week in defense of human life and honoring the 47+ million babies murdered since R v. W. Talk about living in darkness after some old lampost (dignity of life) has been torn down!

"At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down." Humorous.

"We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run, anything else affects them." Brilliant.

Ralph,

I also like that quote: "The question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run, anything else affects them." I think though that many conservatives pride themselves on being "practical-minded," "pragmatic," and "non-ideological." I have no problem with rejecting ideology the way conservatives in a Burkean mold understand it, but I do have an issue w/ claiming the first two modes as the proper intellectual approach. The constant refrain of being "practical-minded" too often means accepting the metaphysically fore-shortened "Reason" of the "enlightened" fellows in Chesterton's ana-logy.

I say there is a significant difference b/w modern man's pragmatic and "practical" mindset and "prudence" classically understood. The latter is too often collapsed into the former by conservatives when in fact the former is an adulteration. What do you think?

"I say there is a significant difference b/w modern man's pragmatic and 'practical' mindset and 'prudence' classically understood. The latter is too often collapsed into the former by conservatives when in fact the former is an adulteration."

I am in complete agreement. I loathe the 'conservative' view that theory as such is something sinister. I agree with Aristotle that prudence requires episteme.