First off, let’s all agree that the world is presently screwed up. For proof, click here. We’re too busy, too angry, too focused on work, too ignorant towards each other, too selfish, too lazy, etc… (or is it just me?)
Archive for the ‘babies’ Category
How Babies Can Save the Human Race
July 17, 2009On Babies by G.K. Chesterton
December 16, 2008(from the essay “In Defence of Baby Worship” from THE DEFENDANT. 1903.)
The two facts which attract almost every normal person to children are, first, that they are very serious, and secondly, that they are in consequence very happy. . .
The most unfathomable schools and sages have never attained to the gravity which dwells in the eyes of a baby of three months old. It is the gravity of astonishment at the universe, and astonishment at the universe is not mysticism, but a transcendent common sense. The fascination of children lies in this: that with each of them all things are remade, and the universe is put again upon its trial. As we walk the streets and see below us those delightful bulbous heads, three times too big for the body, which mark these human mushrooms, we ought always to remember that within every one of these heads there is a new universe, as new as it was on the seventh day of creation. In each of those orbs there is a new system of stars, new grass, new cities, a new sea.
. . . If we could see the stars as a child sees them, we should need no other apocalypse. . . We may scale the heavens and find new stars innumerable, but there is still the new star we have not found – [the one] on which we were born. But the influence of children goes further than its first trifling effort of remaking heaven and earth. It forces us actually to remodel our conduct in accordance with this revloutionary theory of the marvellousness of all things. We do actually treat talking in children as marvellous, walking in children as marvellous, common intelligence in children as marvellous. . . [and] that attitude towards children is right. It is our attitude towards grown up people that is wrong. . .