The world is now a much sadder place without the warming burn of a Hitchslap. :(

Don't know what to say, because Hitch would probably have said it better. The world got a little less rational today.

Naigewron

mercury

Perhaps saying "R.I.P." would be offensive to him and seem inappropriate

The thought crossed my mind (and a lot of his friends and fans on Twitter seem to share this idea), but I thought fuck it. It's not like he'll ever know 

"RIP" has long since become more of a statement to show greif anyway, and not so much an actual thing you say to the deceased person.

I've had the same thoughts and self-dialogue around the use of "RIP". I've decided that it is disingenuous for me to use it given my beliefs. So its not about offending Hitch, and I honestly don't disparage anyone using it. Just a personal choice for me.
 
Anyone on twitter come up with something more appropriate for the non-believers?

DTD

 Anyone on twitter come up with something more appropriate for the non-believers?

Well, the #GodIsNotGreat tag was trending for a while, but then Twitter removed it because christians started threatening with physical violence. I will refrain from commenting any further on that.

Damn...
 
 
Will miss him and his work. Been tearing through his books lately. "Arguably" is a supremely interesting collection of essays. Even subjects that I had no interest in become enthralling due to his wit and literary talents.
 
He knew it was coming, and went out like a champ. Never compromised his principles.

On Gawker, they're discussing the most appropriate drink with which to mark his passing.  Seems fitting enough.

I guess I don't understand, or I'm a dumbass.  I thought he was smart, and interesting in his way, but I thought he was a non-media Piers Morgan, i.e. more than willing to engage in a little controversy for controversy's sake.  While I haven't read his entire ouvre, I also don't always see the "infallible logic"; I see some logic, and certainly I can see how what he says makes sense to those that see things the same way, but that isn't the goal of debate.  That's no different, in its way, as Jerry Falwell.  But like everyone else, I won't comment any further on that. ;)
 
In any event, I mourn his passing. 

I applaud anyone who expresses a different point of view.  I don't put much stock in his work but I'm sad to hear he's no longer with us.  The world needs more free thinkers, not less.

Stadler


I guess I don't understand, or I'm a dumbass.  I thought he was smart, and interesting in his way, but I thought he was a non-media Piers Morgan, i.e. more than willing to engage in a little controversy for controversy's sake.  While I haven't read his entire ouvre, I also don't always see the "infallible logic"; I see some logic, and certainly I can see how what he says makes sense to those that see things the same way, but that isn't the goal of debate.  That's no different, in its way, as Jerry Falwell.  But like everyone else, I won't comment any further on that. ;)

In any event, I mourn his passing. 

 
Hitch always came to his own conclusions and jumped feet first into them, defending them against anyone and anything that threatened those ideas. It was what made him so great and so frustrating. There is no one in the world who agrees with him on everything, but you can always see where he came from. There are things I think he's wrong about, and at times it's been frustrating reading him go forward with those ideas, because of how passionately he went forward with them. I read his memoirs not long after they came out, and some things he mentions basically were like fingers on a chalkboard to me, but I still walked away from reading it with  more admiration for him. I do not think he ever went looking for controversy, he just knew it was going to follow him with some of the ideas he put forward, and decided that was no reason to not put forth his ideas. He did not shy away from anything.
 
His thinking was more fluid than just about any writer I've ever known. I do not think comparison to Piers Morgan is on point at all.
 
I will say one of his books was one that changed my life dramatically. Made it ok to think like I did, and solidified my thinking to myself. It was one of the few times I can remember reading a book and actually yelling out loud "YES!" I would nod and think "damn right Hitch..." Thankfully he left quite a bit of material for us to tear through. 
 
Also, he is the most fearsome debater I have ever seen. I've long looked up to his debating skills, and watched many many debates. Not one can I think of that he did not have a strong performance, or was even close to being outshined. His oratory skills were second to none. 
 

 
 

Rest in peace christopher....what a talent you were.

mercury

 Perhaps saying "R.I.P." would be offensive to him and seem inappropriate, so I'll just say this:

If you are offended by someone saying RIP then you have bigger issues to deal with.
 
RIP Mr. Hitchens.

portnoy311


Hitch always came to his own conclusions and jumped feet first into them, defending them against anyone and anything that threatened those ideas. It was what made him so great and so frustrating.

I suppose that the "came to his own conclusions" thing is rather unique in this day and age, and certainly is something to admire.  But I guess I have to dig in further, because I just have a real hard time (as a general proposition) in understanding why when HE digs in, it is talent and genuis and greatness, and when the opposing side digs in, it irrational nutbag groupspeak.  Anyone with enough practice and preparation can argue a point; the trick is to actually create change with that point (which is ironic coming from me, if you read the "Ticketmaster" thread. ;) ). 

...
 

Stadler

portnoy311


Hitch always came to his own conclusions and jumped feet first into them, defending them against anyone and anything that threatened those ideas. It was what made him so great and so frustrating.

I suppose that the "came to his own conclusions" thing is rather unique in this day and age, and certainly is something to admire.  But I guess I have to dig in further, because I just have a real hard time (as a general proposition) in understanding why when HE digs in, it is talent and genuis and greatness, and when the opposing side digs in, it irrational nutbag groupspeak.  Anyone with enough practice and preparation can argue a point; the trick is to actually create change with that point (which is ironic coming from me, if you read the "Ticketmaster" thread. ;) ). 

Because he digs deeper than 99% of the population. He also, as I said, is so polarizing on every subject that there is not a person in the world who agrees with him on everything. Or even a lot of major issues. So I don't get "the other side" comments.
 
He also has created change through his work. Quite a bit.

I know he wouldn't mind, so I will express myself the way I truly feel it:
 
THIS FUCKING SUCKS!!! :(
 
Good bye Hitch

portnoy311


Because he digs deeper than 99% of the population. He also, as I said, is so polarizing on every subject that there is not a person in the world who agrees with him on everything. Or even a lot of major issues. So I don't get "the other side" comments.

None of those things answer the question.  The first point is your opinion (and to say he "digs deeper" because of the conclusions he arrives at is a tautology); the second, well, what is more polarlizing in this current social climate than advocating organized religion?  I don't know.  I mean no disrespect to the man; clearly if everyone put that kind of effort into their own personal thought, I have no doubt the world would be a better place.  In other words, I admire him for the fact that he thought, not what he thought or how he thought.  If that makes sense. 

Stadler

portnoy311


Hitch always came to his own conclusions and jumped feet first into them, defending them against anyone and anything that threatened those ideas. It was what made him so great and so frustrating.

I suppose that the "came to his own conclusions" thing is rather unique in this day and age, and certainly is something to admire.  But I guess I have to dig in further, because I just have a real hard time (as a general proposition) in understanding why when HE digs in, it is talent and genuis and greatness, and when the opposing side digs in, it irrational nutbag groupspeak.  Anyone with enough practice and preparation can argue a point; the trick is to actually create change with that point (which is ironic coming from me, if you read the "Ticketmaster" thread. ;) ). 

Because its not about digging in, its about the actual content and approach. His assertion is that conclusions should be arrived at through a thoughtful, rational process, not prepackaged dogma and accompanying value sets and world views that require complete and absolute blind acceptance under the penalty of death (or lack of "everlasting life"). The bottom line is to THINK. Challenge long held beliefs and ask WHY they exist, WHAT they mean and HOW they came to be. Logical thought versus emotional reaction. That's how I see it.
 
And if you don't think Hitchens has created change with his work, its time to get more familiar with all things Hitchens. Seek out his detractors and his proponents; there are plenty of both and he churned out plenty of content for you to absorb. You'll then be able to draw your own conclusion, but it is my strong opinion that he has driven the dialogue further than anyone in centuries. And that, to me, is significant change.

Stadler

portnoy311


Because he digs deeper than 99% of the population. He also, as I said, is so polarizing on every subject that there is not a person in the world who agrees with him on everything. Or even a lot of major issues. So I don't get "the other side" comments.

None of those things answer the question.  The first point is your opinion (and to say he "digs deeper" because of the conclusions he arrives at is a tautology); the second, well, what is more polarlizing in this current social climate than advocating organized religion?  I don't know.  I mean no disrespect to the man; clearly if everyone put that kind of effort into their own personal thought, I have no doubt the world would be a better place.  In other words, I admire him for the fact that he thought, not what he thought or how he thought.  If that makes sense. 

 
I believe that Hitchens would have spurned anyone who followed him blindly, just as he did with others on many other topics. He lived for a debate; a chance to choose a position and defend it. He was often disrespectful and acerbic in his style - and this rubbed many people the wrong way - but it was the fact that the positions he took were so socially unaccepted, many who shared his opinion accepted this style because they had never heard someone say what they were thinking out loud and in public. So this leads to forgiveness of the style from those who agree and the opposite from those who do not. A polarizing figure if there ever was one.

Well said, DTD, but you've hit on the problem for me.  There's an implicit linking between the PROCESS and the OUTCOME that I can't get past.  I'll accept what you say that he was a great thinker because he started from the ground up and arrived at a set of conclusions... but that process is independent and totally unrelated to what those conclusions are.  And I guess I think some of the accolades are confusing the "how he got there" with the "where he got". 

in other words, the "assertion is that conclusions should be arrived at through a thoughtful, rational process, not prepackaged dogma and accompanying value sets" makes sense; but why does all the dialogue seem to ignore that it is possible to do all that - with integrity - and STILL arrive at a world view that might seem to those that haven't followed the same thought process as a "complete and absolute blind acceptance under the penalty of death (or lack of "everlasting life")."  I'm not talking about dogma; dogma doesn't allow the kind of thinking you are talking about, but that is the reverse process.  Dogma is a train on a track.  But I'm no less a free thinker if I am walking through the woods come across a set of train tracks and of my own free will follow those tracks until I decide I'm at a point I can diverge again.  And I believe the person that forces himself to avoid the tracks (which is itself a sort of dogmatic limitation on thinking) is no better than the train itself.  Does this make sense? 
 
And maybe I haven't experienced enough of his work, but I sometimes got the sense that he purposefully avoided the tracks.  I'm hearing you say that wasn't the case, and I take your word for it, and will try to get myself better educated on his thought process.

This is horrible news, although we all kind of saw it coming.
 
If you liked Christopher's work, I'd highly recommend for you to check out Sam Harris as well.
I've got some of his audiobooks and it is great, great stuff.
 
 
RIP Mr. Hitchens! 
 

Stadler


Well said, DTD, but you've hit on the problem for me.  There's an implicit linking between the PROCESS and the OUTCOME that I can't get past.  I'll accept what you say that he was a great thinker because he started from the ground up and arrived at a set of conclusions... but that process is independent and totally unrelated to what those conclusions are.  And I guess I think some of the accolades are confusing the "how he got there" with the "where he got". 

in other words, the "assertion is that conclusions should be arrived at through a thoughtful, rational process, not prepackaged dogma and accompanying value sets" makes sense; but why does all the dialogue seem to ignore that it is possible to do all that - with integrity - and STILL arrive at a world view that might seem to those that haven't followed the same thought process as a "complete and absolute blind acceptance under the penalty of death (or lack of "everlasting life")."  I'm not talking about dogma; dogma doesn't allow the kind of thinking you are talking about, but that is the reverse process.  Dogma is a train on a track.  But I'm no less a free thinker if I am walking through the woods come across a set of train tracks and of my own free will follow those tracks until I decide I'm at a point I can diverge again.  And I believe the person that forces himself to avoid the tracks (which is itself a sort of dogmatic limitation on thinking) is no better than the train itself.  Does this make sense? 

And maybe I haven't experienced enough of his work, but I sometimes got the sense that he purposefully avoided the tracks.  I'm hearing you say that wasn't the case, and I take your word for it, and will try to get myself better educated on his thought process.

 
This is all well and good, but I don't see what that has to do with Christopher Hitchens? He wasn't an atheist because he was trying to go against the norm - he was an atheist because through rational thought that is the conclusion he came to. He had more than a few reasons to come to this conclusion, and put them quite lucidly into his most famous book. He wasn't for the Iraq war because it was unpopular, he was for it because he thought it was necessary to remove Hussein and how he fit into the world. Etc, etc. Those are two of the most hot button topics to which I'm sure you're inferring. 
 
You've admitted you're not that familiar with his work. Familiarize yourself. Read his positions you disagree with. Read the ones you do. I'm sure there will be plenty of both. And you'll find the same voice, the same signature style throughout all.
 
 
(He also very publicly endorsed both eventual winners in the 2 most recent presidential election. He was obviously with public opinion (at the time) on both.) 
 
edit: I shouldn't have to say this - but please do not comment directly on the issues I mentioned. I mentioned them to actually give a name to what we were all talking about. But I will not give my opinion on which he was right on, which was wrong, etc. Please follow suit.

portnoy311

edit: I shouldn't have to say this - but please do not comment directly on the issues I mentioned. I mentioned them to actually give a name to what we were all talking about. But I will not give my opinion on which he was right on, which was wrong, etc. Please follow suit.

And I won't. I get that. 

What it has to do with Hitchens is that for every person like you that realizes that he made his own path to his conclusions, AND that someone else could walk that very same path and come to very DIFFERENT conclusions.  It is the irony of calling a guy like Hitchens a genius that this is about, not his positions (of the ones I know about, I find I reach the same conclusions about half the time).  Whether he has put himself there or not (and I think not consciously) you can't just say that everyone who follows [X person] is a mindless sheep that can't think for themselves, but miraculously, everyone that follows Hitchens is the paradigm of a free thinker.  I guarantee you that many of the people (not you and not, as far as I can tell, the others posting here) who consider Hitchens a genius and a trailblazer because he has the BALLS to stand up and say he's an atheist or for the war or whatever, are NO different than the people who follow Falwell and say he is be admired because he has the balls to stand up and say he loves Jesus Christ, or Obama and say he is to be admired because he has the balls to stand up to George Bush or whatever.  Using your examples, not making a political point. 
 
Maybe I'm saying he seems to have had a unique voice, and we need more of those, but to say he's a genius because he actually used his brain is setting a low standard in my opinion.

I guess I've never thought of him as a "genius" in the vein of Einstein, Hawking, etc. You make good points Stadler. The "balls factor" is a big part of why people like Hitchens, because its never been socially or politically acceptable (even still after Hitchens - not even close) to declare that you are an atheist. Like it or not, that viewpoint colors people. So the fact that he had the balls to vigorously defend that specific position to any and all comers in a very public way is a huge reason people like him. Beyond that issue, its hit and miss. His abrasive style doesn't always apply to different topics, just because of all the centuries of baggage around religion.
 
So "genius" is not a word I would use to describe Hitchens. He fought for thought, plain and simple.

So Hitch has some fans who follow him for the wrong reasons? Everyone does. Every thinker does. Every leader of anything does. It seems like you have more of an issue with some followers of the atheist movement rather than Hitch himself. 
 
I would describe Hitch as a genius. His literary prowess was second to none. As were his debating skills. 

portnoy311

I would describe Hitch as a genius. His literary prowess was second to none. As were his debating skills. 

spot on

DTD

Naigewron

mercury

Perhaps saying "R.I.P." would be offensive to him and seem inappropriate

The thought crossed my mind (and a lot of his friends and fans on Twitter seem to share this idea), but I thought fuck it. It's not like he'll ever know 

"RIP" has long since become more of a statement to show greif anyway, and not so much an actual thing you say to the deceased person.

I've had the same thoughts and self-dialogue around the use of "RIP". I've decided that it is disingenuous for me to use it given my beliefs. So its not about offending Hitch, and I honestly don't disparage anyone using it. Just a personal choice for me.

Anyone on twitter come up with something more appropriate for the non-believers?

I have forgotten to comment on this. I'm more in line with Dawkins' views on stuff like this (and saying "Merry Christmas", etc.), that they are so much a part of our culture apart from any kind of supernatural or religious reference. I will forever say RIP. I will forever say Merry Christmas. I will celebrate Christmas. But that is due to cultural traditions rather than the underlying religious causes. To completely do away with large parts of our vernacular and cultural traditions just to make a stubborn point to me seems ridiculous.
 
 
Also, as I mentioned earlier, I bought "Arguably" about 2 weeks ago. I read a different column every night (although I had read a fair share when they were originally printed, and this had nothing to do with his death, or trying to honor him, etc). For me, when I am reading these columns, he is still very much alive. He lives on through his massive amount of work he has left us. That is the one true everlasting life I am sure he would not disagree with.

portnoy311


So Hitch has some fans who follow him for the wrong reasons? Everyone does. Every thinker does. Every leader of anything does. It seems like you have more of an issue with some followers of the atheist movement rather than Hitch himself. 

I would describe Hitch as a genius. His literary prowess was second to none. As were his debating skills. 

First, it isn't the "atheist" movement specifically, just the example I used.  Second, of course you are 100% correct that every leader has people that follow them for the wrong reasons.  But some more than others, and I think there is a good argument that the more counter-cultural the message, the more people there for the wrong reasons. Anton Le Vay, for example; I can't see that guy being in the same position of power if his platform was welfare reform, as opposed to being the self-proclaimed leader of a renegade church. 
 
So my issue isn't with the followers so much; it is that we've always (myself included) have to be self-reflective and be honest with ourselves that we are doing the same hard work our "leader" is to arrive at the same point rather than saying "oh, that sounds good!  I think I'll hitch my wagon to that star!  And by the way, that guy's a genius for doing my thinking for me!"   In other words, be aware of the irony that you (not you specifically, but "you" the admirer of Hitchens) might not be any different than the admirer of Falwell at the end of the day.  It doesn't happen very much or at all, since it runs counter to human nature. 

Stadler

portnoy311


So Hitch has some fans who follow him for the wrong reasons? Everyone does. Every thinker does. Every leader of anything does. It seems like you have more of an issue with some followers of the atheist movement rather than Hitch himself. 

I would describe Hitch as a genius. His literary prowess was second to none. As were his debating skills. 

First, it isn't the "atheist" movement specifically, just the example I used.  Second, of course you are 100% correct that every leader has people that follow them for the wrong reasons.  But some more than others, and I think there is a good argument that the more counter-cultural the message, the more people there for the wrong reasons. Anton Le Vay, for example; I can't see that guy being in the same position of power if his platform was welfare reform, as opposed to being the self-proclaimed leader of a renegade church. 

So my issue isn't with the followers so much; it is that we've always (myself included) have to be self-reflective and be honest with ourselves that we are doing the same hard work our "leader" is to arrive at the same point rather than saying "oh, that sounds good!  I think I'll hitch my wagon to that star!  And by the way, that guy's a genius for doing my thinking for me!"   In other words, be aware of the irony that you (not you specifically, but "you" the admirer of Hitchens) might not be any different than the admirer of Falwell at the end of the day.  It doesn't happen very much or at all, since it runs counter to human nature. 

Obviously we must think for ourselves. But, you're basically discounting every philosopher who has ever lived. One cannot make decisions in a vacuum, there has to be facts and reason for any sort of rational decision to be made. Hitch and his writing provided arguments and facts and viewpoints that should be used as information towards a decision making process. 
 
The Falwell comparison is off. Hitchens welcomes disagreement, for people to challenge him. His best friend, Martin Amis, had many public squabbles with him, over various matters. They had different views on politics and religion. I doubt the same could be said for Falwell. He was very absolute and thought that through his religion he had the absolute truth. 
 
I know you were comparing followers of Hitch to followers of Falwell, but that  is an important note. I trust that Hitch's readers were aware that he was just one man, and that his ideas should be taken with a grain of salt. There is no absolute agreement necessary to enjoy his work. As noted, I am in total disagreement with him on quite a bit of politics, and that is not uncommon for readers of his. He loved a good debate with religious scholars, and used a series of debates as his book tour. Would Falwell do that? No, he would not allow the other side to take up half of all his public appearances. That is basically begging the audience to think for themselves. They were given both sides of the argument, by the leading scholars. 
 
In the end, Hitch was not, and did not pretend to be, a leader to be blindly followed, or one in which the public was to have total faith in. He was just outspoken, and well read. He put his ideas out there, and people were to do with them as they may.
 
I also don't see why you're choosing Hitch to make this point with? As I said, your point can be made about anyone who has put their opinions to paper. On any matter. Not sure why he is being singled out for such a broad commentary to be made about.

Hmmm. Discussion about atheistic views that are possibly in the realm of religious talk allowed on this forum?
Me thinks there is a different standard for those who don't believe and those who do.
 

skip63


Hmmm. Discussion about atheistic views that are possibly in the realm of religious talk allowed on this forum?
Me thinks there is a different standard for those who don't believe and those who do.

Christopher was an atheist and wrote about it. There's a difference between mentioning that fact, than talking about which is correct. Note that we have completely stayed away from the latter, and stayed in the "realm" of the former. 

I'll never understand why people need to post in threads with the sole purpose of getting said thread closed.

Just noting the double standard of discussion on this forum.
If a great theologian died we would not be reading about it here.
"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"

There is no double standard. Please stop posting in this thread. Thanks.

portnoy311


There is no double standard. Please stop posting in this thread. Thanks.

wannabeerokka

portnoy311


There is no double standard. Please stop posting in this thread. Thanks.

portnoy311


There is no double standard. Please stop posting in this thread. Thanks.

No fucking shit. The absolute fucking nerve of some people to play the victim on this topic is infuriating.