<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Orthodoxy_defense on George&#39;s Blog</title>
    <link>https://blog.georgefabish.com/tags/orthodoxy_defense/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Orthodoxy_defense on George&#39;s Blog</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://blog.georgefabish.com/tags/orthodoxy_defense/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Heretics</title>
      <link>https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/heretics/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:31:45 -0500</pubDate>
      <guid>https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/heretics/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Summary&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Heretics is a collection of essays by G.K. Chesterton written prior to World War 1. It is a defense of orthodoxy, not any particular orthodoxy but a defense of having explicit belief structures in the first place. This book is a polemic in the most fundamental sense. I use the word polemic carefully because, at least for me, the word carries a negative connotation. It brings with it ideas of narrow sightedness, or blindness. Chesterton would argue that the inverse is true. That any work that is not a polemic, has no vision to begin with, and therefore it is better to be narrow sighted than not to see at all. To put it succinctly and in Chesterton terms, the spirit of the modern age is one of negative definition, which at the end of the day is no definition. We can quickly point out where things go are wrong but have difficulty nailing down what things are &amp;ldquo;right&amp;rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
