Bernard Shaw's Remarkable Religion: A Faith That Fits the Facts

A Creed for Living 13
For many the essence of Shaw’s greatness is just such complexity and
ambiguity, and they may be loathe to simplify or clarify his thought, as
that, they might feel, would reduce his stature. For Eric Bentley the essence
of the Shavian approach is “not Either/Or but Both/And” (Bernard
Shaw 58). Colin Wilson regards Shaw as a product of extreme romanticism
tempered by exceptional objectivity (xii–xiii). But complexity and
ambiguity, despite popular aesthetic theories, do not themselves make
greatness. They are too easily produced by sloppiness, confusion, and incoherence.
We are drawn to them when we sense that they are the manifestation
of a deeper and truer reality, a more profound harmony, a more
subtle and elegant order. The essential difference between Shaw’s enemies
and his friends lies in their perception of his ambiguities. Those who dislike
and reject Shaw (and there are many) see his complexity as contradiction
and willfulness; those who admire him sense the deeper order and
understanding.
Shaw’s philosophy is in fact simple, consistent, and—despite what has
been said here so far—capable of being made quite lucid. Its simplicity is
one of its greatest strengths: it avoids the questionable speculation that
makes so many philosophical systems so vulnerable. The Shavian worldview
sticks to essentials and rests on a very firm base. While he understood
that a consistent philosophy had to rest on a consistent metaphysics, his
philosophy is concerned first and last with the question of human purpose:
“How should we act in this world, both individually and collectively?”
He approaches that question with heartbreaking, horrifying, cold-blooded
honesty. But another part of the strength of this view of the world is that it
frankly acknowledges that it is in large part unprovable; it owns that it is a
“faith,” albeit a faith unlike most others. People find it hard to understand
because, first, stated simply and straightforwardly, it seems obvious and
uncontroversial—indeed, almost trivial. Second, some of the logical consequences
of this philosophy are so at odds with conventional thinking
that they strike many—if not most—people as eccentric, bizarre, or outrageous.
People cannot believe that such unobjectionable premises could lead
to such outrageous conclusions, so they fail or refuse to make the connection.
The final paradox of Shaw’s thinking is that he appears arbitrary and
capricious precisely because he is so meticulously consistent. Moreover,
and most important, he was right. Although he was unquestionably in
error about many specifics, the basic principles that guided him are still
powerful and difficult to refute.