Heresy and Orthodoxy Now: The Zigzagging Paths of the Lawful

Text Matters - a Journal of Literature, Theory and Culture 9 (9):213-222 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this article I consider a certain characteristic of our times as a “secular age,” namely, a series of complications in our understanding of transgression. Transgression implies the presence of some rules and laws which can be violated. As long as the rules and laws are perceived as right, as a way of protecting the values which would otherwise perish, transgression appears to be a wrong thing to do, a misdeed, a criminal act. Needless to say, the very conceptual structure makes sense only provided that the distinctions between right and wrong, good and evil, lawful and lawless are not arbitrary, which, in turn, depends on the presence of the concept of truth. In the secular age, though, the concept of truth becomes not only difficult to handle, since it is incompatible with the modern frame of mind, but also assumes some derogatory connotations, up to the point when to insist on the distinction between (truly) right and (truly) wrong is in itself a wrong thing to do. That is the state of contemporary societies which G. K. Chesterton examines in his work Heretics. The effect of Chesterton’s reflections is a new map of right/wrong, good/evil, lawless/lawful permutations. After Chesterton, I comment on the character of a new heretic, one for whom transgression, understood as the attack on buried-for-long orthodoxy, is too easy a thing to do. To illustrate the mentioned changes of perspective, I refer to an exemplary criminal figure of the West, that is, the biblical serpent, and its criticism.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,069

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Is there a right to be wrong?David S. Oderberg - 2000 - Philosophy 75 (4):517-537.
Moral Worth and Moral Belief.James Grant - 2022 - Ethics 133 (2):216-230.
Responses to Symposium Papers.Virginia Held - 2010 - Public Affairs Quarterly 24 (3):247-256.
What would you do..Jennifer Moore-Mallinos - 2020 - Chicago, Illinois: Loyola Press. Edited by Andy Catling.
The Objectivity of Morality.R. G. Swinburne - 1976 - Philosophy 51 (195):5-20.
Can Eleanor Really Become a Better Person?Eric J. Silverman & Zachary Swanson - 2020-08-27 - In Kimberly S. Engels (ed.), The Good Place and Philosophy. Wiley. pp. 35–46.
A Legal Right to Do Legal Wrong.Ori J. Herstein - 2013 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (1):gqt022.
Moral Talking and Moral Living.Jonathan Harrison - 1963 - Philosophy 38 (146):315-328.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-11-09

Downloads
11 (#1,166,624)

6 months
7 (#491,170)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references