Christopher Hitchens
Posted by: Consciousmess on 21 December 2011
I find it astounding that no-one has posted anything about the late and great Christopher Hitchens who died last Thursday from complications due to oesophageal cancer. I am sure many here have heard and read of this great man, although I accept that some of you disagreed with what Christopher said.
He was an intellectual inspiration to me and I don't think I will come across a better rhetorician in my life. An outstanding man whose departure makes me sad.
Regards,
Jon
Agree with you 100%, I started a thread on another forum that I frequent, but it generated surprisingly few replies. Methinks if he had been good at kicking a football there would have been more interest in his death....
class="quotedText">
Agree with you 100%, I started a thread on another forum that I frequent, but it generated surprisingly few replies. Methinks if he had been good at kicking a football there would have been more interest in his death....
Not the Leica User Forum perchance? That's where I remember seeing one now. G
A vicious war mongering bigot in my view.
But it degenerated into a "did he kill himself through drinking (and smoking)" thread? Which they often do.
As a polemicist it was very easy to disagree with much of what Hitchens wrote and said. But only very rarely did you fail to see his point.
His own chronicling of the diagnosis and development of his cancer in Vanity Fair was some of the most moving, and least self-centred writing I have ever read.
Rest in peace would be wrong, because whatever the truth of it, and I suspect he was right about this, he certainly didn't believe he'd be resting, or anything else, by now. Suffice it to say that his writing will live on for a long time and he wil be remembered for that. I think that would have pleased him.
Rodwsmith
A thoughtful comment. Hitchens was certainly worthy of that. He was honest, self aware, and brilliant in a manner not often seen.................even if you didn't agree with him. He didn't make you comfortable but he could make you think.
class="quotedText">
Agree with you 100%, I started a thread on another forum that I frequent, but it generated surprisingly few replies. Methinks if he had been good at kicking a football there would have been more interest in his death....
Not the Leica User Forum perchance? That's where I remember seeing one now. G
No, 'twas on a watch forum, sadly my Leica experience has only been the use the use of a 1950s rangefinder lens on my micro 4/3 Olympus.
class="quotedText">
Agree with you 100%, I started a thread on another forum that I frequent, but it generated surprisingly few replies. Methinks if he had been good at kicking a football there would have been more interest in his death....
Not the Leica User Forum perchance? That's where I remember seeing one now. G
No, 'twas on a watch forum, sadly my Leica experience has only been the use the use of a 1950s rangefinder lens on my micro 4/3 Olympus.
AAAArggh....we are all the same....not the IWC forum. Please no! 
G
No TZ UK, I'm more an Anonimo/Longines man when it comes to watches....
I've crossed paths with some very learned and clever people in the past, most of whom combined their learning and intellect with a sweet-natured humility - something which didn't obviously come across in the little I've seen of Hitchens. Personally I'm not interested enough to find out more.
Hitch was a great writer and polemicist who often called truth to power. He was also often very funny.
It's a pity that his colossal error of siding with Bush/Blair and the neocons over Iraq - and his stubborn refusal to acknowkledge that he may have made a mistake - may mar his legacy. Only time will tell.
I love this clip from "Question Time" a few years ago when he called the spineless Shirley Wlliams to account over the Rushdie affair. Remember him that way.
His brother Peter - with whom he famously had a rather difficult relationship - wrote this very moving tribute in the Mail last week. It's worth reading.
BBC iPlayer have been running the excellent Newsnight interview with Jeremy Paxman who is uncharacteristically laid back and polite to Mr Hitchens. A genuinely 'Pax Man' for a change.
John.
Yes, his death is a great loss to us all, in my opinion. I did not agree with his support of the invasion of Iraq, but I think he was a great thinker and writer. Shortly after his death, the editor of Vanity Fair quoted another friend as saying,'the world is a less brave and honest place', with Hitchens' death. Absolutely true.
Here is a thought regarding one of the Hitch's most passionate opinions - anti-theism. If it were possible for the 'afterlife' to contact the living in a scientifically verifiable way, do you not think Christopher Hitchens would do that? This isn't so much because he rejected organised religion, but more so because he took utmost pride in being rational and questioning - the premise behind all his debates on the afterlife and the reason why the universe exists. Evidence is crucial otherwise any a priori arguments can be dismissed because they are a priori.
"Any assertion given without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
One of Christopher's many quotes.
Does anyone agree with me? And doesn't the lack of Christopher Hitchens doing this suggest something?
I am curious as to your points!
Jon
Hitch was not the Great Concestor of atheism - quite a few atheists predeceased him.
Not a one has contacted the living in a scientifically-verifiable way.
That certainly suggests something!
Fraser
Hitch was not the Great Concestor of atheism - quite a few atheists predeceased him.
Not a one has contacted the living in a scientifically-verifiable way.
That certainly suggests something!
Fraser
I make contact with the living almost every day. Certainly proof of the living God in my view.
What I dislike about Hitch is his inconsistency. Generally I respect and sometimes actually like those with diametrically opposed views to mine, provided that they demonstrate integrity.
I have never seen integrity in "Hitch."
ATB from George
Your standards of proof are very low indeed. So it always is with those who find 'evidence' for the existence of any god.
I do not know what example you have of inconsistency in Hitchens, but that is no matter. His anti-thesim position was solidly consistent and his arguments compelling.
His integrity, and bravery, were, to me outstanding and he was widely respected for both. I can think of no argument in favour of a god that has any integrity or substance. One may wish that there is in fact a god, but there is no substance in claiming that one exists.
I agree that he was consistent within a given topic, but not between topics.
His consistent approval of immoral warfare does not sit well with his consistent anti-theistic position. Theisism is source of good for the absolute majority, and theism is is only corrupted by those who fail to see that peace is the vital ingrediant - be they a Christian [as I am]. Judish, Muslim, Sihk. Toe-ist, or whom-so-ever... Religion is a guide that cannot be ignored for its good, Though the Evil aspect in the human-kind will adopt religeous trappings for Evil intent. But these people ar not well versed in their Scripture.
That is human nature in a minority part.
We have the choice, after all, and no doubt "Hitch"relished the chance to suport Evil Warfare without the guidance of a solid Holy Scritpure to guide him.He is a precise example of what ails modern mankind.
ATB from George
I was also very disappointed with his support of the Iraq invasion, but the lie of WMD's was created and spread by Bush & Blair (among others) who used religion as part of their justification; being religious is no motivation to peace, as we see daily around the world.
The idea of religion as a force for good is not supportable. Look at the killing between christians in Ireland, or between different groups of muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan, or the actions of very conservative jews in Israel.
Look at the use of religion as justification for the marriage and rape of children in fundamentalist mormon colonies, or the abuse of homosexuals by christians. Picture the children of abuse by catholic priests, and then, the protection of these criminals by the pope and the catholic church. That specific barbarism could not occur without the motivation of protecting the faith.
No! Those who choose to pin their feeble, and evil [hateful and war mongering] aims to the rock solid [peaceful] mast or religion's rectitude with regard to peace and faith in it, are the ones who have to answer. even if one cannot hold a Faith with your god, then certainly with the future of mankind you will be judged, just as Hitler and Stalin are ....
ATB from George
I was also very disappointed with his support of the Iraq invasion, but the lie of WMD's was created and spread by Bush & Blair (among others) who used religion as part of their justification; being religious is no motivation to peace, as we see daily around the world.
The idea of religion as a force for good is not supportable. Look at the killing between christians in Ireland, or between different groups of muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan, or the actions of very conservative jews in Israel.
Look at the use of religion as justification for the marriage and rape of children in fundamentalist mormon colonies, or the abuse of homosexuals by christians. Picture the children of abuse by catholic priests, and then, the protection of these criminals by the pope and the catholic church. That specific barbarism could not occur without the motivation of protecting the faith.
It will be the death of us all this organised hatred dressed up as something good.
Jono
George,
I'm not quite following your point, but I think I see where you are going. Certainly I'm not worried about being judged by any supernatural being. But here is a place where I wish that the Hitlers and Stalins could be held to some suffering. Of course, Hitler was catholic, so he, at least, could buy salvation.
And so I remain saddened by Christopher's death. I think we have lost someone who was intensely honest and who valued integrity highly. And I feel that way in spite of my emphatic disagreement with his position on the Iraq war, as well of his endorsement of John McCain in the last US election.
BTW were you really up at 02:30 browsing this forum? That is real dedication. I wonder what you were listening to?
And so I remain saddened by Christopher's death. I think we have lost someone who was intensely honest and who valued integrity highly.
____
Well put.
Jon
Jon,
Thank you for saying so. Very kind.
I remember an interesting point CH made during an interview on the CBC radio program 'Q' about two years ago. When questioned about the fact that he was well regarded by many on the christian right, he replied that it was because he demanded that his debates were with well-respected religious and political persons, and that his speaking engagements be in conservative areas. He did not just rant on to persons who were already in agreement with him. He did not give talks only in friendly territory.
I thought this was an interesting point, and something I had not thought of before. Putting yourself in
'hostile territory' and making yourself and your ideas available for criticism and attack is another example of intellectual bravery.
Now go put a shirt on. This ain't no beach party.
Cheerio.
George,
I'm not quite following your point, but I think I see where you are going. Certainly I'm not worried about being judged by any supernatural being. But here is a place where I wish that the Hitlers and Stalins could be held to some suffering. Of course, Hitler was catholic, so he, at least, could buy salvation.
And so I remain saddened by Christopher's death. I think we have lost someone who was intensely honest and who valued integrity highly. And I feel that way in spite of my emphatic disagreement with his position on the Iraq war, as well of his endorsement of John McCain in the last US election.
BTW were you really up at 02:30 browsing this forum? That is real dedication. I wonder what you were listening to?
Dear Dmon,
I certainly had not intended to post further on the subject, but regardless of any public figure's political choices, I tend to regard Warfare as being one of those prime aspects on which to form an opinion. I can think of only one War of great significance that was morally justified, rather a question of politics or empire building.
Otherwise, I tend to regard War-mongers and their camp-followers as the absolute dregs, who by this one decision totally eradicate any credibility in any other utterance, whether one might agree with that utterance or not.
Once someone starts banging on supporting warfare when its results are so unpredictable and always dirtier than anticipated [by it supporters], then I completely discount that person advocating it, unless a real case can be made such as the anti-Nazi case in WW II. Otherwise it's mad or opportunist. Take your pick really. For example the Falklands War was firstly Foreign Office incompetence followed by a total waste of human life. Better to have sent the Canberra down there and repatriated the Ex-pat Brits down there, IMO ...
Think how many people of fame and fortune that makes me dislike. The only War-monger I still can still take seriously [if not actually like, in spite of respect] is WS Churchill. And in his earlier political career he was certainly capable of oportunism.
ATB from George