makes it clear that certain axioms have primacy over others. This is because even meta-religious consequence of lunacy to the axiom of rationality that allows us to draw a causal relation. Thus, through these two characters Chesterton concludes that it is the maintenance of the theist axiom that produces meta-religious results of sustained mental sanity, as opposed to the suspension of axioms. Furthermore, the meta-religious power of this axiom is compounded because Chesterton understands himself as being able to interact with its object, god, and thus derive logical consequences from its presence in his life. Chesterton does not denounce the use of logic in the presence of the imaginary, such as when he likens his belief to the Greeks’ belief of Apollo being both a repreOrthodoxy, Chesterton begins to reason about his understanding of the object of his theist
that Chesterton’s understanding of god, the object of the theist axiom, has had in calling these logical consequences the products of an interaction between Chesterton and the object of his axiom because he understands the object of this axiom gives him access is not indifferent to Chesterton’s meta-religious needs; rather, it seems to intentionally provide what he has been seeking, such as his desire for equality under the law within Utopia. At the same time though, the axiom’s object rejects other meta-religious options, for example, the lack Chesterton’s theist axiom allows him access to a living object and that this object places requirements on Chesterton and his ideals, we can once again assert that it is through maintaining one’s axioms that reaping various meta-religious consequences becomes possible. Some aspects of Chesterton’s system require further examination. The option to change our axioms within the parameters that Chesterton has established. As we have seen, maintaining certain axioms, namely the theist or atheist axioms, produces correlated meta-religious results, such as health in opposition to madness. Due to the potential consequence of ill health, it is imperative to determine whether or not we can change our axioms within the Chestertonian -
51