[ann ashtray]

Terrible news. The average intelligence of the world just shrank a little bit.

[demonrail666]

Yeah, bad one. Didn't always agree with him but I enjoyed reading him more than a lot of people who I tend to agree with far more. If that makes sense.

[ann ashtray]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Yeah, bad one. Didn't always agree with him but I enjoyed reading him more than a lot of people who I tend to agree with far more. If that makes sense.

makes perfect sense. i've never followed his political stuff much, but his ideas on god/etc fascinated me. agree or disagree, if one is to listen to him and he fails to at least make ya think, you probably aren't really thinking. guy was insanely intelligent. not to mention punk rock (haha) as all hell. getting drunk then jumping into a serious debate? badass in my book.

[evollove]

^ What's perhaps so great about Hitchens is I feel the opposite about his work: God is Not Great is his weakest book, whereas stuff like Trials of Henry Kissinger continues to be relevant and fascinating.

[the ikara cult]

Sad, but expected. I already agreed with his feelings on God so his writing on religion was more of a bolster to me, except when it came to helping me realise that its still alright to insult a religion if its followers in your country are a minority. I used to think it was bad form to speak unkindly about Islam considering there arent as many muslims here, plus after 9/11 i was very wary of going along with the kind of scumbags who use events like that as a justification to go after people and not ideas. So yeah, he helped show me that all ideas are always fair game, and people are only fair game if their statements/actions are offensive enough.

His writing/speeches on politics and history made me think alot harder about where I stood and why, made me change my mind on a few things, and admit that on some others I couldnt really decide.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

Sad, but expected. I already agreed with his feelings on God so his writing on religion was more of a bolster to me, except when it came to helping me realise that its still alright to insult a religion if its followers in your country are a minority. I used to think it was bad form to speak unkindly about Islam considering there arent as many muslims here, plus after 9/11 i was very wary of going along with the kind of scumbags who use events like that as a justification to go after people and not ideas. So yeah, he helped show me that all ideas are always fair game, and people are only fair game if their statements/actions are offensive enough.

His writing/speeches on politics and history made me think alot harder about where I stood and why, made me change my mind on a few things, and admit that on some others I couldnt really decide.

I agree with almost all of this. It was his writing (along with Nick Cohen's and Bernard Henri-Levi's) on 9/11 and the war in Iraq that I found most interesting and which have definitely caused me to rethink certain things. I've not read much of his stuff on religion but what I have read struck me as being a far more insightful version of Dawkins' position.

[the ikara cult]

This is the most touching thing ive read from anyone on his death, proof that those of us who arent religious can still appreciate subtlety and sentiment. His last line especially brought a lump to this impassable throat.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I agree with almost all of this. It was his writing (along with Nick Cohen's and Bernard Henri-Levi's) on 9/11 and the war in Iraq that I found most interesting and which have definitely caused me to rethink certain things. I've not read much of his stuff on religion but what I have read struck me as being a far more insightful version of Dawkins' position.

ditto Nick Cohen. Hitchens always had the advantage of being sexier in print and in voice than almost anyone, but he had the goods to back it up too.

The important thing to remember when comparing Dawkins and Hitchens (et al) is that neither are career atheists, and this shows in how effective they are at arguing against certain things. Hitchens' career was all about history and literature, from which the influence of religion is inescapable, and so when taking down the moral and intellectual shortcomings of religion he was able to draw on his well of knowledge on these subjects in a way that Dawkins (and lets face it, few others) could. This is why the religious apologists respected him more, because he always knew more about how their religion had shaped culture and history than they did, and he knew how to point out the damage this had done.

Dawkins on the other hand, is a scientist, his expertise branched out from this for sure, but when taking on religion his primary objection was to always defend the achievements of science, something he and Harris are better able to do than Hitchens was.

Hitchens' final interview with Richard Dawkins

Man. When i see people swilling around in the mud admiring people like Ron Paul or John Pilger or Alexander Cockburn it makes me shake my head in disbelief.

[the ikara cult]

Its very hard finding you have common ground with people who you find unbearable, but Christopher Hitchens definitely taught me that.

[keep poppin pimples]

everything i know about him makes him seem like a huge asshat

look at this brilliant article http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/fe...hitchens200701

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by keep poppin pimples

everything i know about him makes him seem like a huge asshat

look at this brilliant article http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/fe...hitchens200701

We love shitting on your face, bitchboy

[keep poppin pimples]

i'm sure he has better work but if that's how he spends his time i don't see much reason he should have been around another twenty years.


i'm not denying that he's a higher intelligence or a god amongst men of course

[ann ashtray]

Originally Posted by keep poppin pimples

everything i know about him makes him seem like a huge asshat

look at this brilliant article http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/fe...hitchens200701

Read it.

He makes some interesting points, as always (Hitchens, not you).

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

ditto Nick Cohen. Hitchens always had the advantage of being sexier in print and in voice than almost anyone, but he had the goods to back it up too.

The important thing to remember when comparing Dawkins and Hitchens (et al) is that neither are career atheists, and this shows in how effective they are at arguing against certain things. Hitchens' career was all about history and literature, from which the influence of religion is inescapable, and so when taking down the moral and intellectual shortcomings of religion he was able to draw on his well of knowledge on these subjects in a way that Dawkins (and lets face it, few others) could. This is why the religious apologists respected him more, because he always knew more about how their religion had shaped culture and history than they did, and he knew how to point out the damage this had done.

Dawkins on the other hand, is a scientist, his expertise branched out from this for sure, but when taking on religion his primary objection was to always defend the achievements of science, something he and Harris are better able to do than Hitchens was.

Hitchens' final interview with Richard Dawkins

Man. When i see people swilling around in the mud admiring people like Ron Paul or John Pilger or Alexander Cockburn it makes me shake my head in disbelief.

Yeah, Hitchens had a definite swagger about him. I saw him more as an agent provocateur than a moral crusader but there was real substance, even in his most sensational articles, especially those outlining his support for the war in Iraq. I didn't always agree with him but he never made it easy simply to write him off.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by keep poppin pimples

i'm sure he has better work but if that's how he spends his time i don't see much reason he should have been around another twenty years.


i'm not denying that he's a higher intelligence or a god amongst men of course

We could have done with him for the next 20 years, given that most of the middle east is now rebelling against its autocratic dictators; he was the best moral crusader on that matter and its a tragedy that he wont be around to see how it turns out.

[ilduclo]

right on religion, mama terry, etc

dead wrong on iraq

dead period now

[demonrail666]

He was wrong about the war in Iraq but his real value (along with Cohen and Henri-Levi) was in questioning the Liberal-Left intelligentsia's all too easy opposition to it, and what the 'Left' might now mean as a consequence of the logic behind that opposition. Admittedly, Hitchens (along with Henri-Levi) could be a bit sensationalist in that critique but certainly a book like Cohen's 'What's Left?' asked some very poignant questions regarding the liberal ideology behind newspapers like the Guardian and broadcasters like the BBC. What's important is that none of them were attacking the Left in an effort to justify the actions and logic of the Right but were instead questioning (from their own Leftist standpoint) what they perceived as a liberal turn within a Left which they feel has betrayed a number of fundamental Leftist ideals in its knee jerk anti-Americanism as well as in its support (or more often refusal to criticise) any group (however reactionary or indeed ultra-Right wing) that also happens to share their anti-Americanism.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

He was wrong about the war in Iraq but his real value (along with Cohen and Henri-Levi) was in questioning the Liberal-Left intelligentsia's all too easy opposition to it, and what the 'Left' might now mean as a consequence of the logic behind that opposition. Admittedly, Hitchens (along with Henri-Levi) could be a bit sensationalist in that critique but certainly a book like Cohen's 'What's Left?' asked some very poignant questions regarding the liberal ideology behind newspapers like the Guardian and broadcasters like the BBC. What's important is that none of them were attacking the Left in an effort to justify the actions and logic of the Right but were instead questioning (from their own Leftist standpoint) what they perceived as a liberal turn within a Left which they feel has betrayed a number of fundamental Leftist ideals in its knee jerk anti-Americanism as well as in its support (or more often refusal to criticise) any group (however reactionary or indeed ultra-Right wing) that also happens to share their anti-Americanism.

Originally Posted by Hitcho

I should perhaps confess that on September 11 last, once I had experienced all the usual mammalian gamut of emotions, from rage to nausea, I also discovered that another sensation was contending for mastery. On examination, and to my own surprise and pleasure, it turned out be exhilaration. Here was the most frightful enemy–theocratic barbarism–in plain view….I realized that if the battle went on until the last day of my life, I would never get bored in prosecuting it to the utmost

I think the problem I have is that, while he's a good critic of the left, I don't think he's a good critic from the left. Personally, while he may have been a firm critic of kneejerk leftisms, I think he fell into as many mindwrongs as the cosy (Graun) left does.

I quote the above to illustrate a point relating to yours - a lot of the anti-capitalist left (quietly) celebrated 9/11 as a deflation of vulgar capitalism; Hitchen celebrates it as a forbear to the dissolution of literalist cod-religion. Both positions are inadequate, to my mind (and of course, the problem with sublime acts is always their impossibility).

But he's a journo, a writer, not a philosopher - when he wrote provocative things, they're to be taken in that context. I don't think he's an amazing thinker but I think he was a necessary writer. And even so - that article Keep Poppin Pimples posted above is pretty vile, invidious and cheap. Not every writer shits gold, obvs.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Glice

I think the problem I have is that, while he's a good critic of the left, I don't think he's a good critic from the left. Personally, while he may have been a firm critic of kneejerk leftisms, I think he fell into as many mindwrongs as the cosy (Graun) left does.

I quote the above to illustrate a point relating to yours - a lot of the anti-capitalist left (quietly) celebrated 9/11 as a deflation of vulgar capitalism; Hitchen celebrates it as a forbear to the dissolution of literalist cod-religion. Both positions are inadequate, to my mind (and of course, the problem with sublime acts is always their impossibility).

But he's a journo, a writer, not a philosopher - when he wrote provocative things, they're to be taken in that context. I don't think he's an amazing thinker but I think he was a necessary writer. And even so - that article Keep Poppin Pimples posted above is pretty vile, invidious and cheap. Not every writer shits gold, obvs.

The triumphalism you mention is a problem for me, too. I wouldn't say that Hitchens was particularly guilty of it, though. I'd say he was more describing the excitement of 9/11, which I think a lot of people experienced, regardless of their political persuasion. It's very different to the triumphalism I note in writers like Zizek following the economic crisis or, say, Naomi Klein in light of hurricane Katrina, both of whom seemed a bit too pleased with events they clearly saw as conspiring to prove them right all along. I don't think Hitchens was ever interested in why 9/11 took place but rather how a certain Left-Liberal establishment (of which he was vaguely a part) felt and acted as a consequence of it.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

He was wrong about the war in Iraq but his real value (along with Cohen and Henri-Levi) was in questioning the Liberal-Left intelligentsia's all too easy opposition to it, and what the 'Left' might now mean as a consequence of the logic behind that opposition. Admittedly, Hitchens (along with Henri-Levi) could be a bit sensationalist in that critique but certainly a book like Cohen's 'What's Left?' asked some very poignant questions regarding the liberal ideology behind newspapers like the Guardian and broadcasters like the BBC. What's important is that none of them were attacking the Left in an effort to justify the actions and logic of the Right but were instead questioning (from their own Leftist standpoint) what they perceived as a liberal turn within a Left which they feel has betrayed a number of fundamental Leftist ideals in its knee jerk anti-Americanism as well as in its support (or more often refusal to criticise) any group (however reactionary or indeed ultra-Right wing) that also happens to share their anti-Americanism.

Spot on. I value Whats Left? as the most definitive book addressing the political climate in which we've been operating for the last 10 years, but a good microcosm of what Cohen was talking about was Hitchens' debate with George Galloway. I used to kinda like Galloway even though i had a funny feeling he might not be all he seemed just because he is a very good debater and knows how to put himself over. As ever, read a little deeper and you discover some pretty disturbing things.

That debate with Hitchens is not the definitive takedown of the Galloway-types by any means, but if it leads you to listen to Iraqi dissidents from the Saddam era and what they say about how disheartening it is to see people theyre supposed to be counting on as allies not supporting them then i think it does its job.

Incidentally, with hindsight i think the most damning thing about Galloway hasnt been his salute to Saddam hussein's "courage, strength and indefatigability", more when he went to Syria as a guest of the Assad regime telling them they were the last true Arab leaders, which given the events of the last year should put him in the doghouse for good.