The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a... Options
Daemon
Posted: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:00:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/7/2009
Posts: 23,980
Neurons: 71,118
Location: Inside Farlex computers
Compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf.

Gilbert Chesterton (1874-1936)
sacsayhuaman
Posted: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 7:46:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 331
Location: Ireland
Opportunist?
I've known one former redactor,later president.
MTC
Posted: Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:54:53 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/18/2011
Posts: 2,780
Neurons: 8,606
Chesterton was railing against what he called the "political vagueness" and "political cowardice" of English politicians in the early Twentieth Century. Their failure to state their true aims made political compromise impossible, he contended:

"But this new cloudy political cowardice has rendered useless the old English compromise. People have begun to be terrified of an improvement merely because it is complete. They call it utopian and revolutionary that anyone should really have his own way, or anything be really done, and done with. Compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf. As an instance to sharpen the argument, I take the one case of our everlasting education bills. We have actually contrived to invent a new kind of hypocrite. The old hypocrite, Tartuffe or Pecksniff, was a man whose aims were really worldly and practical, while he pretended that they were religious. The new hypocrite is one whose aims are really religious, while he pretends that they are worldly and practical."

If you want to read the entirety of What's Wrong with the World, ch 1.3, here's the link:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/What%27s_Wrong_with_the_World/Chapter1.3

Not to be outdone, we in the U.S. have both the old and the new political hypocrite.


Jimbob
Posted: Thursday, February 23, 2012 4:01:26 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/26/2011
Posts: 162
Neurons: 486
Location: New Zealand
What's Wrong with the World : by G. K Chesterson (wrote this work in 1912)

THE NEW HYPOCRITE
But this new cloudy political cowardice has rendered useless the old English compromise. People have begun to be terrified of an improvement merely because it is complete. They call it utopian and revolutionary that anyone should really have his own way, or anything be really done, and done with. Compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesman it really seems to mean that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf.
As an instance to sharpen the argument, I take the one case of our everlasting education bills. We have actually contrived to invent a new kind of hypocrite, the old hypocrite, Tartuffe or Pecksniff, was a man whose aims were really worldly and practical, while he pretended that they were religious.--->#y


It is exactly the same with politics. Our political vagueness divides men, it does not fuse them. Men will walk along the edge of a chasm in clear weather, but they edge miles away from it in a fog. So a Tory can walk up to the very edge of Socialism, if he Know what is Socialism. ---> #x

The really burning enthusiast never interrupts; he listens to the enemy's arguments as eagerly as a spy would listen to the enemy's arguments. But if you attempt an actual argument with modern paper of opposite politics, you will find that no medium is admitted between violence and evasion. You will have no answer except slang or silence. --->#t

But when we come to ask what is the need of normal men, what is the desire of all nations, what is the ideal house, or road, or rule, or republic, or king, or priesthood, then we are confronted with a strange and irritating difficulty peculiar to the present time; and we must call a temporary halt and examine that obstacle. #z
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

0+0.5=0.5 & 1-0.5=0.5 What Cesterson is saying is there is half a loaf missing from the whole loaf, whereas half a loaf is an improvement on no loaf. (#y)Then he goes on to mention the hypocrite (which we do not like in these parts as I have stated before). Tartuffe or the Impostor and Seth Pecksniff, a greedy architect by way of a comparison follows. I get the vague idea that he may not have been happy with politics of the day. He had his own ideals regarding distributism although I could not find what political party whom he voted for. (#x) Funny it almost sounds like a political broadcast speech in places. (#t) Chesterson just about sums up a plot for a novel in a few short lines here. Perhaps also with major wars pending (WW1 1914) and I take it he wrote this work in 1912, wasn't to far of the mark so to speak. #z And at the end of the chapter he gives some fairly good advise. Sure there is a lot more than I have time to look at or even fully understand, just a note or two of some parts of interest.


Utopia : is an ideal community or society possessing a perfect socio-politico-legal system. The word was imported from Greek by Sir Thomas More for his 1516 book Utopia, describing a fictional island in the Atlantic Ocean. The term has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempt to create an ideal society, and fictional societies portrayed in literature. It has spawned other concepts, most prominently dystopia. For other uses, see Utopia (disambiguation).


Chesterton is often associated with his close friend, the poet and essayist Hilaire Belloc. George Bernard Shaw coined the name Chesterbelloc for their partnership, and this stuck. Though they were very different men, they shared many beliefs; Chesterton eventually joined Belloc in his natal Catholicism, and both voiced criticisms towards capitalism and socialism. They instead espoused a third way: distributism. They had especially shown interest in the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum Novarum and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno


Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.