Said it better than I have so far been able to, in any event:
Bearing in mind that this was written in 1907, I am astounded by it’s current relevance. Thoughts? Vehement disagreement?
Agree 100% with it.
Why have an opinion? Does it serve any purpose at all?
If having an opinion serves some reasonable purpose, then one ought to have one. One purpose seems to be to save time; opinion as prejudice. I think one ought always be willing to recoonsider one’s own prejudice.
And since when does one’s opinion differ from one’s beliefs? And, if it weren’t for our belief in “something,” what would we do?
Admitting capacity of fallacy is an act of humility, and is much like saying:
“Thus far I have come to believe A, but as my understanding and knowledge are very limited and my life is short, A may be incorrect in some way or another.”
Even wanting to live is a matter of opinion.
Those exasporated with premature and incomplete opinion within others – castrate and demote the word “opinion” down to the word “judgment”, though the word “judgment” simply depicts a more firm opinion.
The problem is never the judgment, but how much knowledge and understanding is used in forming the opinion.
Hi Ucc.,
As far as I can see it, this is based on a wrong assumption. It may well be that people say that their opinion “may be wrongâ€, but this may lie with the information they have, thus they could say, “This is my opinion, but I may be misinformed.†It is wrong to say, “If I say that it may be wrong, I say that is not my opinion†since an opinion is a personal belief or judgement that is not founded on proof or certainty, so of course it could be wrong.
The equation of “every man’s philosophy†with “a cosmic philosophy†is typical for the narrow mindedness of the beginning of the 20th Century and is an example of the kind of “highmindedness†that led to the misjudgement of putatively civilised people regarding dangers like Hitler. Since Chesterton had a duty to be humorous, theological, aphoristic, moral and political all at the same time, he occasionally went beyond his depth. Otherwise he was brilliant.
Shalom
Ucc
I agree with Chesterton’s observation. The age of self esteem has made it essential to have opinions on concepts of the greatest depths like cosmic realities based on nothing but wishful thinking. Naturally they turn into debates and sometimes even killings as these opinions are fought over in defense of self esteem… It matters not if we say “I may be wrong.” If the other guy says you’re wrong it is a prime insult. Can people retain open minds to the deeper questions of existence inviting new revelations without falling into having a premature opinion and feeling the need to turn off and defend it to justify oneself? Who knows. All I know is that I don’t see it evidenced very often
Perhaps Chesterton had a point but the problem with the point is that it could be used to shut down debate. Chesterton sees the habit of saying “This is my opinion, but I may be wrong” as a problem, however I think it is a great strength in modern thinking. The problem is not having faith in one’s convictions, one’s cosmic philosophy, most people have faith in a conviction which is important to them. One can be public about what one thinks, but the problem is when we start trying to sell our convictions based on faith as fact we are often seen to be intolerant of the truth-claims of others.
Evangelical Christians often say to me that the Bible is the infallible word of God. This of course gives the impression that it is a matter of fact when of course it is a matter of faith. In order to be more honest it might be better to say- “I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and these are my reasons but I can’t prove it” rather than trying to hide behind notions of proof that are in the end faith-based.
If we are always aware that our religion is constructed from subjective truth-claims we can still have conviction in our beliefs and operate as a religious person, but it means we are always willing to learn and expand our view because we are always aware that whatever else our truth-claims are, they are as verifiable as the truth-claims of a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Mormon for instance. We are not “better” than others because we believe XYZ rather than ABC because both are subjective truth-claims based on faith. Perhaps Christian missionaries wouldn’t get many converts, but at least it seems closer to the truth of the matter.
Judaism began with the subjective experience of God taking to Abraham. That inner-voice could not have been verified by external means, nor put in a lab and studied but it is the beginning of the Jewish experience of God. Christianity began with visitatuons of the Risen Christ, but there is no way that Jesus’ rising from the dead can be conclusively proved, it is an act of faith. We need to keep this in mind whenever we talk to other people about our faith. To me these attitudes are the most open-minded ways to express faith. If we realise the limitations of what we believe we avoiding extremes and concentrate more on connecting with God then spending so much time trying to rationally justify everything.
I agree with Chesterton’s point, which seems to be about global relativism.
But one can certainly say “this is my opinion, but this opinion MAY be wrong”. It’s just epistemic modesty, which, given that we are not God, is a good thing.
True dat 
Outstanding… that should thump a hole in the relativists points of view! I doubt they would agree however.
Chesterton is awesome.