Master of paradoxs

I had to read a portion of Heretic back in college, it was awesome.

>You heard the voice in the dark and you never heard it again.

The Man who was Thursday and The Ballad of the White Horse are his masterpieces. It's a shame that he fell in line with Catholic dogma and disowned Thursday later in life.

I never really got why this is a paradox: It assumes that you have to somehow be 'outside' of something to contain it. It's like asking if the universe contains itself.
Of course it does, you sod.

Yeah, my impression of Orthodoxy is sort of that he makes a lot of good points but he appeals to 'common sense' a lot more than seems sensible, if you get my meaning. He doesn't really pull punches with his disdain of some thinkers, and he uses a lot of flowery language. Writing's top-notch, but it really didn't convince me of anything I didn't already think.
I always viewed him like I do Roald Dahl: Like he was onto something but he never really caught up with it for sure. He's a really strong writer who makes a lot of good points and he has a lot of the eclectic tendencies of someone who lives life as if it were a storybook, but he's got a hint of the same sort of disconnect from reality Roald does (which is part of what made them both good writers). Maybe it's something to do with being British.
I just finished reading Thursday and I wanted to have him back to life so I could punch him in the face. It was exactly what I was expecting it to be, except that he made it look the other way around until the very end.

underrated desu

Tolkien vs Chesterton?

what a dumb ass
please stay away from everything that requires logic, for your own sake

They're on the same team my man

I don't care if I sound like a dumbass, it doesn't make any sense as a problem.
The question sounds like a guy looking for the location of the library reference by reading the reference itself: You already have the book, why are you asking?

>The set {2} does not contain itself.

Ok so a set is brackets { }

Or a set is object? 2

how does 2 not contain itself? it contains exactly itself

What does, 'containing itself' imply, what is an example of a set that contains itself?

of course S is a subset of S
the question is whether S is a member of S

the set of all sets would contain all sets, and is a set, and so would contain itself

see guys, thats the magic of G.K. Chesterton.

Right now I am at the part in Orthodoxy when he insults Marcus Aurelius and I can't seem to see any good arguments. The book is fill of petty insults and sophistry though.