What's Wrong with the World ePUB ç with the PDF

What's Wrong with the World [PDF] ✪ What's Wrong with the World By G.K. Chesterton – Thomashillier.co.uk Whats Wrong with the World By GK Chesterton This definite ideal is a far urgent and practical matter in our existing English trouble than any immediate plans or proposals For the present chaos is due Whats Wrong with the World By GK Chesterton with the PDF ´ This definite ideal is a far urgent and practical matter in our existing English trouble than any immediate plans or proposals For the present chaos is due to a sort of general oblivion of all that men were originally aiming at No man demands what he desires; each man demands what he fancies he can What's Wrong PDF/EPUB ² get We are delighted to publish this classic book as part of our extensive Classic Library collection Many of the books in our collection have been out of print for decades and therefore have not been accessible to the general public The aim of our publishing program is to facilitate rapid access to this vast reservoir of literature and our view is that this Wrong with the Epub Ü is a significant literary work which deserves to be brought back into print after many decades The contents of the vast majority of titles in the Classic Library have been scanned from the original works To ensure a high uality product each title has been meticulously hand curated by our staff Our philosophy has been guided by a desire to provide the reader with a book that is as close as possible to ownership of the original work We hope that you will enjoy this wonderful classic work and that for you it becomes an enriching experience.


10 thoughts on “What's Wrong with the World

  1. Majenta Majenta says:

    to begin everything with the weather is a sort of pagan way of beginning everything with prayer Location 746 on my KindleThat character from FRASIER springs to mind when I see GK Chesterton Gil Leslie Chesterton snooty restaurant critic at Frasier's radio station If that's what attracts you to GK Chesterton try him out you might like him Thanks for reading


  2. Emilia P Emilia P says:

    Oh ChestertonYou are pretty freaking clever guy and I love how much you love the poor and think women are glorious generalists and men have sort of a rotten lot in life and that democracy can only take us so far and it is ok to drink and be dirty if that is what you want to do sometimes I would have come to some different conclusions about stuff like maybe everybody should be like ladies not that ladies shouldn't vote but basing your commentary on the idea that every person is uniue and worthwhile and society should work for the good of the person and the family and the Home rather than the other way around was wonderful Of course as he says at the end there's about what's wrong than how to fix it but it's good to hear someone who criticizes while remaining essentially optimistic about humankind I'll be reading then


  3. Darwin8u Darwin8u says:

    The mind that finds its way to wild places is the poet's; but the mind that never finds its way back is the lunatic's GK Chesterton What's Wrong with the WorldWritten 107 years ago Chesterton's 'What's Wrong with the World' is dated on several topics primarily regarding women But even if it wasn't dated that wouldn't change the essentials of why I am always simultaneously thrilled and frustrated by GK Chesterton I may not agree with what he says but I always adore how he says it In that way he is like another English writer Christopher Hitchens I would read Hitchens and practically yell and the book in parts but God how I loved the gift of Hitch's words Chesterton if born 75 years later may have had a sparing partner in Hitch They seem very similar in rhetorical boldnessChesterton genius was and probably still is found in his playful use of paradox He I believe is the master of rhetorical paradox He doesn't just want to argue the point He wants to twist the argument reframe the debate make a tangle of both sides and show the world a third way He approaches issues of politics class sex education and tries to show how often both sides of the argument are blind He looks at a chessboard where both black and white pieces are stuck in a perpetual check and instead of suggesting a draw he adds a couple pieces or suggests billiards What is surprising is not how often I disagree with Chesterton but how often I agree with a text that was written 107 years ago It is also surprising the math is easy here because he was born almost 100 years before me to discover he was 35 when he wrote this book It seems a bit curmudgeonly written for a 35 year old But that is also one of the charms of Chesterton Even as a youth his witty writings and his conservative attitudes seemed like those of a sarcastic slightly drunk old sage than a haughty young intellectual I may admire Charles Darwin but I'd probably want to drink with GK Chesterton


  4. Fr.Bill M Fr.Bill M says:

    This book provides near to irrefutable evidence that Chesterton was a prophet a seer of the future The truth however is pedestrian that Chesterton could immediately recognize the foibles follies and lies that eventually poison and kill a culture So in this work Chesterton repeatedly startles and shocks us for he reads as if he were commenting on the latest issue of the New York Times rather than the press of his day early 20th Century Sex education feminism his trenchant and damning critiue of early 21st Century culture in the West is all there a hundred years ago in this book Amaze yourself and read it


  5. Skylar Burris Skylar Burris says:

    GK Chesterton is such an amusing and clever writer that I do believe he could convince me of almost anything Why he nearly convinced me that women should never have bothered to obtain the right to vote I am such an obstinate person and so inclined to disagree with arguments even before I am certain that I disagree with them that I am completely in awe of the skill of any writer who can make me half agree with a position I do not in fact agree with I’d say I tremble before the brilliance of Chesterton but he’s far too jovial and entertaining for anyone to ever tremble before him I particularly enjoyed what he had to say about modern education and I was also entertained by his musings on the domestic sphere and the differences between men and women as rife with stereotypes as they may have been Alas stereotypes arise for a reason and despite what it is politically popular to say that reason is seldom ignorance but often experience Not long ago I read Dr Laura’s In Praise of Stay at home Moms because I wanted to feel good about my current calling in life I didn’t like the book because I wasn’t so much interested in watching working moms get torn down as I was interested in watching stay at home moms get built up Fortunately this one short selection from Chesterton did me good than that entire book “When people begin to talk about this domestic duty as not merely difficult but trivial and dreary I simply give up the uestion For I cannot with the utmost energy of imagination conceive what they mean When domesticity for instance is called drudgery all the difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work I admit the woman drudges in the homeBut if it means that the hard work is heavy because it is trifling colorless and of small import to the soul then as I say I give it up; I do not know what the words mean To be ueen Elizabeth within a definite area deciding sales banuets labors and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area providing toys boots sheet cakes and books; to be Aristotle within a certain area teaching morals manners theology and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone and narrow to be everything to someone No; a woman’s function is laborious but because it is gigantic not because it is minute I will pity Mrs Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness” I don’t even really know what this book is about It seems to be all over the map It’s about men women family marriage the home politics the right to vote Calvinism Mr Shaw specialism commerce Catholicism tradition the future the past modern education socialismoh I remember what it’s about “What’s Wrong with the World”The thing about Chesterton is that his insights seem surprisingly contemporary Although he wrote in the early 1900’s he might as well have been writing today His barbs are as poignant for our generation as they were for his


  6. booklady booklady says:

    What is wrong with the world As James V Schall points out in his introduction to Chesterton’s collection of essays the popular Christian writer never hesitated ‘to challenge something because it was popular or widely accepted Indeed he suspected that a refusal to consider something as uestionable because it was popular was itself a prejudice of the worst sort’ What’s Wrong with the World is a collection of essays which can be read independently or as building on and supporting each other There is a certain amount of repetition and overlap There is also a great deal of humor and many memorable uotes At some point in time I’d like to go back and rereadre listen to this book with highlighter andor pen in hand to make a list all the different things Chesterton identified as being wrong with the world A few examples would be 1 While we may agree about a social evil we do not agree about the corresponding corrective good; 2 We need theorists and less strictly ‘practical’ men; 3 Our prejudices are necessarily private and keep us from discussing social solutions in open and honest forums; 4 We are in fact afraid of our past and therefore unable to learn from it; 5 Revered social ideals from the past are endangered especially marriage the family and the home; 6 Modern industrialism dehumanizes; and 7 We have sacrificed the human being to the commercial ventureIn Part 3 when Chesterton begins his discussion about women I find myself a bit at sea Not that I entirely disagree with him—far from it Would that the world he envisions were possible When is the last time you—as a woman—considered your own ‘womanliness’ Can you even recall ever hearing the word used in ordinary conversation As a girl I remember older women talking about acting ‘like a lady’ or saying this or that was or wasn’t ‘ladylike’ but that was many years ago Today’s women have far different concerns beginning with their age health economic status physical appearance desirability to men marketable job skills personality and yes ‘reputation’ but none of these is the same thing Do we know what makes a woman ‘womanly’ Do we even care Considering the endangered state of marriage and the family can we even be called a society which values its wives and mothers Chesterton is talking about the womanly arts and the universality of feminine concerns v those of her male counterpart As such he claims these women don’t want to vote This may have been true for his time period I cannot say although I wish I knew about the situation of British women at the time of this book’s publication Speaking for myself as a 21st century American woman I don’t see anything unfeminine in women voting and I wasn’t persuaded by this book although I enjoyed it immensely All in all there is a great deal here worth reading at least several timesIncluded below is a selection from Chapter 27 The Modern Slave which I found especially interesting 'If there be something against nature in the idea of a horde of wild women governing there is something truly intolerable in the idea of a herd of tame women being governed And there are elements in human psychology that make this situation particularly poignant or ignominous The ugly exactitudes of business the bells and clocks the fixed hours and rigid departments were all meant for the male who as a rule can only do one thing and can only with the greatest difficulty be induced to do that If clerks do not try to shirk their work our whole great commercial system breaks down It is breaking down under the inroad of women who are adopting the unprecedented and impossible course of taking the system seriously and doing it well Their very efficiency is the definition of their slavery It is generally a very bad sign when one is trusted very much by one's employers And if the evasive clerks have a look of being blackguards the earnest ladies are often something very like blacklegs But the immediate point is that the modern working woman bears a double burden for she endures both the grinding officialism of the new office and the distracting scrupulosity of the old home Few men understand what conscientiousness is They understand duty which generally means one duty; but conscientiousness is the duty of the universalist It is limited by no work days or holidays; it is a lawless limitless devouring decorum If women are to be subjected to the dull rule of commerce we must find some way of emancipating them from the wild rule of conscience But I rather fancy you will find it easier to leave the conscience and knock off the commerce As it is the modern clerk or secretary exhausts herself to put one thing straight in the ledger and then goes home to put everything straight in the houseThis condition described by some as emancipated is at least the reverse of my ideal I would give woman not rights but privileges'I think nowadays the term is Supermom but she's not newI found this in among the uotes “Dear Sir Regarding your article 'What's Wrong with the World' I am Yours truly” ― GK Chesterton☺


  7. Brian Cooper Brian Cooper says:

    This collection of social and political essays is filled with the wit wisdom and whimsy that makes Chesterton such a joy to read But it is not all light hearted He is a powerful and often forceful writer In it he addresses the social ills brought about by the two primary political solutions of the West Capitalism Socialism His take on both per usual is to turn them on their heads Where both seek to present a “logical” form of government Chesterton looks deeply at what it is to be fully human By centering his essays around this perspective he presents Distributism as a means to center governance on the basic building block of society the family This revolts against Capitalistic anarchy and oppression through wage tenement housing and the need for a family to be enslaved to labor in order to survive; it also revolts against the notion of a state created family that dictates and overrules the boundaries of publicprivate life as proposed by Socialism In fact Chesterton presents these two extremes as not uite combative so much as two sides of a single coin But the real power in his argument is made clear in the final paragraph of his concluding essay“Now the whole parable and purpose of these last pages and indeed of all these pages is this to assert that we must instantly begin all over again and begin at the other end I begin with a little girl’s hair That I know is a good thing at any rate Whatever else is evil the pride of a good mother in the beauty of her daughter is good It is one of those adamantine tenderness es which are touchstones of every age and race If other things are against it other things must go down If landlords and laws and sciences are against it landlords and laws and sciences must go down With the red hair of one she urchin in the gutter I will set fire to all modern civilisation Because a girl should have long hair she should have clean hair; because she should have clean hair she should not have an unclean home; because she should not have an unclean home she should have a free and leisured mother; because she should have a free mother she should not have a usurious landlord; because there should not be a usurious landlord there should be a redistribution of property; because there should be a redistribution of property there should be a revolution That little urchin with the gold red hair whom I have just watched toddling past my house she shall not be looped and lamed and altered; her hair shall not be cut short like a convict’s No all kingdoms of the earth shall be hacked and mutilated to suit her The winds of the world shall be tempered to that lamb unshorn All crowns that cannot fit her head shall be broken; all raiment and building that does not harmonise with her glory shall waste away Her mother may bid her bind her hair for that is natural authority; but the Emperor of the Planet shall not bid her to cut it off She is the human and sacred image; all around her the social fabric shall sway and split and fall; the pillars of society shall be shaken and the roofs of ages come rushing down; and not one hair of her head shall be harmed”He calls for our perception of good society to re orient from efficiency and governance to a deep valuing of the human being In it he wishes to bestow both freedom and a sense of responsibility to one anotherNow there are certainly some essays that will read as outdated particularly when it comes to his view of women and men and not every entry is the strongest or most compelling but the overall effect and perspective shift from systems to people not systems for people’s benefit makes it well worth the read


  8. Francis S. Poesy Francis S. Poesy says:

    I listened to the Librivox version of this book driving to and from work over the course of a week or so While the content is everything the other high raters say it is the uality of the recordings were mixed with a couple chapters being almost unintelligible because of the accents of the reader I guess I can't complain too much since the price was right I'll probably eventually get the hardcopy and re read this but as a way to get some Chesterton under my belt during my commute it was an inexpensive and somewhat painless avenue


  9. Carol Apple Carol Apple says:

    This is actually my second reading of What's Wrong With the World If a book is worth reading once it's worth reading at least twice After two years or ten years you are a different person who has hopefully learned a thing or two so you necessarily see new things in the book on your second reading In reading What's Wrong I realized I pretty much still agree with GKC's version of the Catholic point of view But since my last reading I've learned some new things about Church history and I think maybe GKC's version of the Catholic point of view does exactly jibe with the point of view the Church has expressed through the last few centuries GKC thinks the Church accommodates the moral needs of human nature and is a good institution for broad spiritual guidance This is the ideal but it seems to me the Church has too often gotten wrapped up in protecting itself as an institution and has not always stood for the rights of the individual vs the state It has sometimes been an agent of the state and of state sponsored violence when it should have been a voice for non violence and love One of the things I have been studying in the past year or so is the Christian idea of not returning evil for evil – which usually means not returning violence for violence GKC disagrees with Leo Tolstoy's assertion that violence is always wrong at least if you profess to be a follower of Christ GKC seems to accept that violence is sometimes needed to protect what is good and part of being human is the desire to protect what is good There are huge problems with admitting the necessity of certain categories of violence but this is not the post to go into that Obviously the world agrees that violence is a necessity for the human race I think I agree that we humans do want to protect what is good but often we want to protect what we think is our own which as far as most of us are concerned is exactly the same as what is good GKC would agree but he thinks we need to get clear on what should and should not be our ownWhat is wrong with the world according the GKC is that everybody needs to have a very specific something of our own a house with a door and a small patch of earth perhaps three acres In early 20th century England a small segment of the population had taken over all the property and the vast majority of souls were left to scramble and scrape to get by on scanty mine or factory wages Instead of a house with a few acres they had to live in slums the workhouse or the streets In this series of 49 essays GKC talks about what led to this state of affairs and why it is so difficult to fixGKC is always funny and charming but in this book I actually perceive some anger coming through such as when he talks about a certain law that reuired girls of poor families to cut their hair short to control lice Why he asks do we not address the conditions that lead to little girls living in lice infested conditions rather then demanding that children adapt their hair to the conditions Parliament he says would not dare to demand such a demeaning thing of children of the richChesterton was a proponent of distributionism a social theory that was neither socialism or capitalism It said that everyone who wanted to should be able to own a private home and a little land It advocated distribution of land but not by force rather landowners should be encouraged to beueath their land to the poor upon their death Not sure if the idea ever took offGKC skewers socialism of the type that tells people they do not want what they want the type of socialism that tries to engineer society to benefit the state The exploitation of people for the benefit of industrial profit fairs no better These interests are represented in the book by two hypocrite politicians named Hudge and Gudge who as it turns out are really working together against the interests of poor Jones the ordinary man who simply wants to live a peaceful life in a home of his ownThis uote I think expresses the heart of the book's messageWhether we can give every English man a free home of his own or not at least we should desire it; and he desires it For the moment we speak of what he wants not what he expects to get He wants for instance a separate house; he does not want a semi detached house He may be forced in the commercial race to share one wall with another man Similarly he may be forced in a three legged race to share one leg with another man; but it is not so that he pictures himself in his dreams of elegance and liberty Again he does not desire a flat He can eat and sleep and praise God in a flat; He can eat and sleep and praise God in a railway train But a railway train is not a house because it is a house on wheels And a flat is not a house because it is a house on stilts An idea of earthy contact and foundation as well as an idea of separation and independence is a part of this instructive human pictureI take then this one institution as a test As every normal man desires a woman and children born of woman every normal man desires a house to put them into He does not merely want a roof above him and a chair beneath him; he wants an objective and visible kingdom; a fire at which he can cook what food he likes a door he can open to what friends he chooses This is the normal appetite of men; I do not say there are not exceptions What's Wrong With the World was first published in 1910 so I am sure some readers will have problems with Chesterton's discussions of women and the suffrage movement It seems absolutely stone age when you read of a time when women were still fighting for the right to vote But it's also interesting to enter into new insights about that time The State and its doings were not always considered all that important to the mass of the population Chesterton discusses the importance of the private home to men women and children and why its importance ought not to be superseded in importance by the demands of either the government or commercial industryNote I have long since made the decision not to be offended by points of view popular in the past that are widely considered insensitive now I just don't want anything such as anger to stand in the way of gleaning what wisdom the past has to offer Attitudes have changed dramatically in the past few decades mostly for the better Heck I wouldn't even want to be women in the 1960s especially after watching Mad Men but it was what it was and I want to be free to seek understanding of the world wherever and whenever it can be foundA uestion occurs to me Why do I feel compelled to read social theories from 1910 In  this book GKC actually provides an pretty good answer to that uestion the uestion of why we might want to look to the past for answers to current problems I may need to talk about that topic in the next post


  10. Lauren Noel Ottwell Lauren Noel Ottwell says:

    The wife is like the fire or to put things in their proper proportion the fire is like the wife Like the fire the woman is expected to cook not to excel in cooking but to cook; to cook better than her husband who is earning the coke by lecturing on botany or breaking stones Like the fire the woman is expected to tell tales to the children not original and artistic tales but tales—better tales than would probably be told by a first class cook Like the fire the woman is expected to illuminate and ventilate not by the most startling revelations or the wildest winds of thought but better than a man can do it after breaking stones or lecturing But she cannot be expected to endure anything like this universal duty if she is also to endure the direct cruelty of competitive or bureaucratic toil Woman must be a cook but not a competitive cook; a school mistress but not a competitive schoolmistress; a house decorator but not a competitive house decorator; a dressmaker but not a competitive dressmaker She should have not one trade but twenty hobbies; she unlike the man may develop all her second bests This is what has been really aimed at from the first in what is called the seclusion or even the oppression of women Women were not kept at home in order to keep them narrow; on the contrary they were kept at home in order to keep them broad The world outside the home was one mass of narrowness a maze of cramped paths a madhouse of monomaniacs It was only by partly limiting and protecting the woman that she was enabled to play at five or six professions and so come almost as near to God as the child when he plays at a hundred trades the world must keep one great amateur lest we all become artists and perish Somebody must renounce all specialist conuests that she may conuer all the conuerors That she may be a ueen of life she must not be a private soldier in it It seems really to be supposed that a Trimmer means a cowardly person who always goes over to the stronger side It really means a highly chivalrous person who always goes over to the weaker side; like one who trims a boat by sitting where there are few people seated Woman is a trimmer; and it is a generous dangerous and romantic trade When people begin to talk about this domestic duty as not merely difficult but trivial and dreary I simply give up the uestion For I cannot with the utmost energy of imagination conceive what they mean When domesticity for instance is called drudgery all the difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work I admit the woman drudges in the homeBut if it means that the hard work is heavy because it is trifling colorless and of small import to the soul then as I say I give it up; I do not know what the words mean To be ueen Elizabeth within a definite area deciding sales banuets labors and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area providing toys boots sheet cakes and books; to be Aristotle within a certain area teaching morals manners theology and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone and narrow to be everything to someone No; a woman’s function is laborious but because it is gigantic not because it is minute I will pity Mrs Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallnessModern education means handing down the customs of the minority and rooting out the customs of the majoritythe prime truth of woman the universal mother that if a thing is worth doing it is worth doing badly In resisting this horrible theory of the Soul of the Hive we of Christendom stand not for ourselves but for all humanity; for the essential and distinctive human idea that one good and happy man is an end in himself that a soul is worth saving Do you want to keep the family at all Then he must be prepared for the natural restraints distinctions and divisions of labor in the family He must brace himself up to bear the idea of the woman having a preference for the private house and a man for the public house He must manage to endure somehow the idea of a woman being womanly which does not mean soft and yielding but handy thrifty rather hard and very humorous He must confront without a uiver the notion of a child who shall be childish that is full of energy but without an idea of independence; fundamentally as eager for authority as for information and butter scotch If a man a woman and a child live together any in free and sovereign households these ancient relations will recur; and he must put up with it He can only avoid it by destroying the family driving both sexes into sexless hives and hordes and bringing up all children as the children of the state—like Oliver Twist


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *