Chesterton’s Fence is a principle that reminds us to look before we leap. To understand before we act. It’s a cautionary reminder to understand why something is the way it is before meddling in change.
The principle comes from a parable by G.K. Chesterton.
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
In its most concise version, Chesterton’s Fence states the following:
“Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place.”
The lesson of Chesterton’s Fence is what already exists likely serves purposes that are not immediately obvious.
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Those who cannot imagine a way forward must counsel nostalgia of necessity.
Fences exist to keep something in or keep something out. We honor the past best by not being enslaved by it.
That is a very Burkean idea, and I am quite sympathetic to it.
In some ways, even Chesterton’s test is too liberal. This is because social structures and norms–much like the systems of living organism–may come to serve a function other than they originally had. So you might have some custom or convention that arose for some quaint and utterly out-of-date purpose and yet it has been retained and survived because it also had, as a side-effect, the service of some other purpose. Knowing where the custom came from and how it first arose isn’t enough to say that it is today pointless.
To take Chesterton’s example–a fence might have been erected to keep pastured animals in their grazing land and off the neighbor’s yard. A reformer might say, “This was put up to keep the animals in, but we haven’t had animals grazing here for one hundred years. It has obviously outlived its purpose.” And yet, fences between neighbors can obviously serve important functions beyond keeping animals in. The very fact that no one tore it down in the century since it last served its original purpose suggests it may have been recognized to have some ancillary value independent of keeping animals in place.
This is because social structures and norms–much like the systems of living organism–may come to serve a function other than they originally had.
Which is to say that generally evolution is much more common than revolution. There are examples of genuine caesuras but they are more often presaged by disasters rather than careful planning. But a viable tradition must have at least some detectable relevance to the current patron of that tradition whatever its origin. Otherwise the body is dominated by vestigial organs prone to disease and decay.
At what point has atheism ever been a leading force in the West?
Well, Marxism has been influential and is at least ideologically atheist. Many influential individuals have been atheists. On a popular level not a leading force at all.
All is well. A simple faith for the masses. A simple skepticism for the educated. Behind the scenes an Enlightened Elite, planting, harvesting, sometimes pruning.
But I’ve already said too much.
Never, Stephen, have you said too much.
Best not to encourage me excessively. Ha!
To attain access to mystic secrets and knowledge of the mysteries one must often accede to the burden of certain baleful pledges and fearsome oaths. I respect these consistent with the rules of fair usage which applies even in the realm of the acroamatic.
FMV, atheism is not the goal but its byproduct. Societies that provide for the basic survival needs of their citizens have no need to indoctrinate them into secularity. A good healthcare system and a good educational system is all that is required. With the reduction of pointless suffering much else falls away.
Is Marxism atheist? I am willing to concede some resulting paradigms, such of Soviet or Maoist communism were opposed to organized religion as well as superstition. However, these are only two outcomes.
I would suppose the entirety of the trade unions movements in Europe and even the US owed some ideology to Marx, and I do not think these movements were anti-theist nor anti-religious.
associating Marxism with anti-religious thoughts seem to be a specific and very successful demonization of organized labor by capital. Capital is winning the ad campaign by a wide margin, having consumed all major news network ideology since the 1990s. Now we either listen to extremist capital ideology or center right capital ideology.
The strongest America was the one with a strong middle class, imho. That was created by incredible amounts of government reallocation of money and high taxation on the wealthy.
that is my view anyway. not really educated on the subject at all.
Marxism was to prevent the landlord from owning the state.
What state do you live in? New Jersey?
Ok, suppose that hypothetically the landlord family of New Jersey owned the whole state and all the businesses. Like the Rothschild family owned all of New Jersey and everybody worked for the Rothschild family.
Such a thing is why the TECH Giants aren’t allowed to consolidate into one corporation. That corporation would then own all the necessary means of production that the banks and payrolls, communications equipment, ect. Businesses cannot do much of anything without modern computer technology because of the electronic currency and electronic banking systems.
Many people (most?) consider Karl Marx himself to have been an atheist, but some take a more nuanced view…
Atheism as a concept has such a negative cachet that people will perform almost any amount of verbal machination to avoid being labeled such. Nuance, indeed!
Marxism possesses a metaphysic and many have noted the similarities between Soviet Communism and religion. The Bolsheviks had sacred texts, prophets and prophecies, heresies, inquisitions, and eschatology. Lenin, in fact a steely-eyed fanatic rather than a visionary, was prone to settle any argument amongst the faithful by simply quoting Marx as if that settled the issue. The Bolshevik leadership resembled nothing so much as murderous theologians.
FMV, while the ideology of the Bolsheviks was atheistic, this says nothing about the views of the populace. The quick comeback of the Orthodox Church after the fall of the Soviet Union seems revealing enough.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)