R.I.P Christopher Hitchens

[Klatrymadon]

Not to speak for Kid Aphex, but Hitchens' fierce support for the invasion of Iraq is most critics' biggest beef with him. When people talk about "pro-war liberals" who support western imperialist adventures (and embrace anti-Muslim sentiment out of some spurious concerns about threats to "western values", etc), this is who they mean. I've no interest in tearing into or defaming a dead guy, but it's pretty telling that all of the glowing obsequies in the mainstream media neglect to mention his move to the right. They loved him for it; he had become a polemicist for the ruling class rather than a foil to them, and used his former left-wing credentials to sell deeply reactionary ideas to a nominally liberal audience.

Gawd bless 'im for going after Henry Kissinger, though.

[Randorama]

They loved him for it; he had become a polemicist for the ruling class rather than a foil to them, and used his former left-wing credentials to sell deeply reactionary ideas to a nominally liberal audience.

Which these deeply reactionary ideas would be, in your opinion?

I think that Hitchens has never been a leftist, content-wise, just a reactionary in method (a "contrarian"). Religion-bashing has traditionally been a staple of the proper Left: Communists had the habit of killing religious people, back in the CCCP. Muslims too, so his stance on Islam can't be surprising.

In that, Hitchens indeed sounded like a Leftist, and spent a lot of time bashing the feeble-minded "conservatives" shown in the various videos. Basic rules say: Left is con religion, Right is pro religion, so Hitchens ticked that box, and proposed "Ideas".

For the rest, I can't recall him defending "Left" positions, though. His love for "exporting democracy" is not new, nor a move to appease the neo-con. From what I have read of his, from '81 onwards, he has always been a pundit for the "democracy exporters" and other Mandarins.

A bit of history is useful, here.

He supported the Falklands war, on the ground that Lady Tatcher, in his head a pinnacle of Democracy, was waging war against the Argentina's colonels, an old-school Latino dictatorship. I mean, in '82 he defended Lady Tatcher and her cabinet of puppets (let me stress this: He defended Lady Tatcher), and people are still surprised about his stance on the Iraq invasion?

This is a bit too naive. A little knowledge goes a long way.

[Klatrymadon]

This is a bit too naive.

Hardly - I know quite well he supported the Falklands war, ta. His reactionary rantings about Muslims predate 9/11 by a decade, too. He had been a writer and activist of the IS in the 60s, though, which is all I meant by "left credentials". I was talking about criticism of his support for the Iraq war, not surprise at it.

As for his merely being a contrarian, I'd agree, but only up to a point, because that's precisely what he stopped being. Using one's literary talents in the service of state violence goes entirely against the role of the liberal 'contrarian' intellectual in a society.

[Randorama]

Hardly - I know quite well he supported the Falklands war, ta. His reactionary rantings about Muslims predate 9/11 by a decade, too.

You mean "reactionary" in content? I think that his position on Islam is not any different than his position on any other Religion. If so, as I also mention in my early post, he was much an old stock old school Communist.

I am not Communist myself, but say, Karl Marx wasn't exactly a fan of the phenomenon, so I guess that religion-bashing should be a Leftist (old skool) thing to do, content-wise. I know that some stuff passing as "Left" these days is all about "respect" for religion, but I doubt that Hitchens was of this preachment (thank go...goodness!).

On method, I'd say that it does not suffice, and is a little bit more than a form of reaction. But see below, please.

He had been a writer and activist of the IS in the 60s, though, which is all I meant by "left credentials".

Well, he was a trozkist. I think that someone wrote a book in which he tracked all the '60s trozkist intellectuals who ended up siding with Right parties, as decades passed. Berlusconi and Sarkozy had a few in their own governments. I think that there is a precise explanation about this, but I can't recall it.

I was talking about criticism of his support for the Iraq war, not surprise at it. As for his merely being a contrarian, I agree. At his best, though, his aspirations as such were a fair bit nobler.

I didn't mean to criticize your post, I used it to broaden the discussion, apologies (the surprise comment).

Hitchens could actually summon elegant discussions in support of a humanist, Enlightenement-oriented perspective on human morals, rationality and dignity. The problem was that his vitriolic hitchslaps were simply too powerful and plateal, that they overshadowed his more positive proposals.

He wasn't too wise about it, too, as he was well aware that he was mostly paid for spitting acid at the opposition, and seldom bothered to balance the two aspects. The crowds (say, me) were guilty in liking it that way.

[kid aphex]

The guy was a rational thinker and used logic compiled with common sense, it's not such a wonder why half this board avoids this topic.

He was also an asshole ...

Only if you take offence to the logic of his arguments. There's no point calling him an asshole when you can just state your case.

Actually, you're 100% incorrect.
Let me make it clear: I find it impossible to care about the causes he was championing, so my dislike for him is in no way related that aspect of his person.
My perception of him an "asshole" has nothing to do with the "logic" of his arguments, and everything to do with the way in which he chose to express himself.
In my worldview, a perceived soundness in logic doesn't justify behavior that's obviously recognizable as 'negative', that's all.

[Skykid]

This is a bit too naive.

Hardly - I know quite well he supported the Falklands war, ta. His reactionary rantings about Muslims predate 9/11 by a decade, too. He had been a writer and activist of the IS in the 60s, though, which is all I meant by "left credentials". I was talking about criticism of his support for the Iraq war, not surprise at it.

I've done the hard work and skipped to the exact bit you're looking for. I think Hitchen's supposed 'switch to the right' is taken usually at face value based on very particular comments and lines of debate, but he often provides insight into his stance and reasoning that iron out discrepancies. As he puts it, such views are formed of 'cliche'.

Anyway, I'll let the man explain for himself:

http://youtu.be/Y-s9AyNQyCw?t=17m27s

My perception of him an "asshole" has nothing to do with the "logic" of his arguments, and everything to do with the way in which he chose to express himself.
In my worldview, a perceived soundness in logic doesn't justify behavior that's obviously recognizable as 'negative', that's all.

That's a thread winningly embarrassing statement, especially considering Hitchen's was never outwardly negative toward anyone in the compositions of his arguments, just combative and brilliantly articulate. It sounds as though you have a narrow view of the man, but there's plenty of material available that will give you a more balanced perspective.

[kid aphex]

That's a thread winningly embarrassing statement,

That's a statement that reminds me of the kinds of mental frameworks I'm dealing with when talking to the average forum user

especially considering Hitchen's was never outwardly negative toward anyone in the compositions of his arguments, just combative and brilliantly articulate.

The combative style of arguing was just a symptom of an easily recognizable anger and negativity at the center of his person.
It boggles me that this aspect of him is not only unrecognized, but justified by people who support the direction of his arguments
But I understand that the energy he projected (and continues to project...thanks, archival aspects of technology) is hardly unique, and that most of his fans suffer from similar issues and in turn, appreciate his methods
I'm not one of them

It sounds as though you have a narrow view of the man, but there's plenty of material available that will give you a more balanced perspective.

Maybe I do have a narrow view of the man, but like I said, neither his person nor the things he argued for are of the slightest interest to me.
Life's short, and of the infinite aspects of life I could choose to devote myself to, this guy barely justifies the time I've spent explaining his irrelevance

[Randorama]

The combative style of arguing was just a symptom of an easily recognizable anger and negativity at the center of his person. It boggles me that this aspect of him is not only unrecognized, but justified by people who support the direction of his arguments

He proclaimed himself a contrarian, which is a PC word for being a reactionary. I am pretty sure that anyone with a bit of wisdom knows that reactionaries are bona fide negative people. Actually, somewhere in one of his books (Hitch-22, I believe), he indirectly admits of being full of vitriol.

And then this:

In my worldview, a perceived soundness in logic doesn't justify behavior that's obviously recognizable as 'negative', that's all.

I think that vitriol sells, whether one's arguments are sound or not. I mean, Dawkins wouldn't have sold many books, without his constant acidity against anyone who disagrees with him.

Depending on one's sensibility, it is entertaining or not. I liked his style for his vitriol and hystrionics, not for his content, which sometimes was really thin. But I *do* like other authors which are quite distant from my ideas, on the grounds that they have verve or vitriol to present their ideas.

I like people who bitch a lot, with style, even if I usually disagree most of what they say (say, Jerry Fodor, Richard Dawkins, P.J. O'Rourke). Also, he used this ampollose, Oxbridge prose which really makes me giggle: "I defend the proposition that" being my favourite.

On the soundness of his reasoning. At times Hitchens handwaved with class, especially when he had to say something positive. I should have linked one talk, in one earlier post, in which he simply says: "Oh, our morals are innate" (So what, Christopher?). I don't think that he ever studied that much logic.

So, I think that whether his arguments were really sound or not, he was amusing in his way of doing things. But I prefer Stephen Fry, on these matters.

[Skykid]

That's a thread winningly embarrassing statement,

That's a statement that reminds me of the kinds of mental frameworks I'm dealing with when talking to the average forum user.

"Mental frameworks"...?

Let's just leave it there.

[Moniker]

I should have linked one talk, in one earlier post, in which he simply says: "Oh, our morals are innate" (So what, Christopher?). I don't think that he ever studied that much logic.

Yeah his repeated use of the word "evil" struck me as odd for an atheist, and moreover a self-described moral relativist. Belief in the existence of absolute moral qualities like good & evil smacks of the monotheistic worldview. Likewise, innate morality doesn't make much sense to me in a purely materialistic universe.

[Skykid]

I should have linked one talk, in one earlier post, in which he simply says: "Oh, our morals are innate" (So what, Christopher?). I don't think that he ever studied that much logic.

Yeah his repeated use of the word "evil" struck me as odd for an atheist, and moreover a self-described moral relativist. Belief in the existence of absolute moral qualities like good & evil smacks of the monotheistic worldview. Likewise, innate morality doesn't make much sense to me in a purely materialistic universe.

Hitchens was a humanist and moralist. I'm pretty sure the concepts of good and evil can exist without religion, and did so prior to its invention.

[Randorama]

Yeah his repeated use of the word "evil" struck me as odd for an atheist, and moreover a self-described moral relativist. Belief in the existence of absolute moral qualities like good & evil smacks of the monotheistic worldview.

Indeed. In this he really betrayed his old radical Left roots, since the phrasing of "good" and "evil" secular values are a standard staple of certain strands of Communism. He started as a Trozkist at Cambridge in the '70s, which was a radical chic thing to do. That's not one position of the more standard, "mainstream" european left (or perhaps radical US liberals? Not sure on this).

Likewise, innate morality doesn't make much sense to me in a purely materialistic universe.

On this, he could have sounded like a nativist, much like Noam Chomsky. I think that in God is not great or some other book of his, he discusses this topic. His position is a bit ambiguous, on this topic.

He does mention that recent scientific findings support a view that certain moral values are ingrained in our species, as usually argued in evolutionary psychology. In this, he sides with the likes of Dennett, Pinker, Dawkins, and other religion-bashers. Ironically, Dennett and Dawkins have been for a long while pure materialist, relativists, etc., before recently invoking "innate" morals.

I think that Hitchens sounded like a cheer-leader of science, on these matters. Sure, he always commented that he was for critical thinking, but he seldom explained why he considered certain positions as bullet-proof enough to form a "scientific standard of solid morals". I say this because I don't buy evolutionary psychology as a proper science, so I have my lame pundit goals to push (!!!).

But then again, the Hitch gave us pearls such as:

"The Postmodernists' tyranny wears people down by boredom and semi-literate prose."

or

"it is interesting to find that people of faith now seek defensively to say that they are no worse than fascists or Nazis or Stalinists"

"The one thing that the racist can never manage is anything like discrimination: he is indiscriminate by definition."

or this gem in which he shoots on everyone:

"The search for Nirvana, like the search for Utopia or the end of history or the classless society, is ultimately a futile and dangerous one. It involves, if it does not necessitate, the sleep of reason. There is no escape from anxiety and struggle."

Be seeing you, Sir Hitchens.

[Moniker]

Hitchens was a humanist and moralist. I'm pretty sure the concepts of good and evil can exist without religion, and did so prior to its invention.

Disclaimer: I have a woefully inadequate background in philosophy.

If morality does not come from social conditioning or other hand-me-down methods, then options are fairly narrow. Innate morality must come either from an objective source outside humankind, which role can only be played by a deity, or it comes from genetically-derived instinct, i.e. drives toward survival and reproduction. In strictly instinctual morality, however, wrongness only exists on the receiving end of a given act. For example, it is wrong for someone to steal my food in order to survive, but it is right for me to steal another's food in order to survive. I suppose one might argue that in the course of natural human development, an individual must needs examine this contradiction and come to a natural understanding of the Golden Rule, but there are too many exceptions to this. Such principles are not abstracted any further than the familial tribe, the largest natural society of human beings.

If we accept the above (a big if), then in instinctual morality, evil, defined as the violation of a moral code or of nature, does not exist. Such morality is not based on a code, but on self-interest (individual or collective). For a moral code to properly exist, it must be equally applied to the self and the other.

As for good and evil existing prior to religion, I'm not sure there *is* such a thing as "prior to religion." Prior to monotheism, certainly, but evil considered as the abstract concept we're familiar with today was shaped by monotheistic cultures (Plato, yes, but more so Plato's Christian interpreters).

[GaijinPunch]

Innate morality must come either from an objective source outside humankind,

I don't think innate morality exists. At our core, we are greedy bastards, only driven by our primal needs/desires: food and procreation. We still are to an extent but society gives us far more options than to simply go it alone and kill what we eat.

[Skykid]

Hitchens was a humanist and moralist. I'm pretty sure the concepts of good and evil can exist without religion, and did so prior to its invention.

Disclaimer: I have a woefully inadequate background in philosophy.

If morality does not come from social conditioning or other hand-me-down methods, then options are fairly narrow. Innate morality must come either from an objective source outside humankind, which role can only be played by a deity, or it comes from genetically-derived instinct, i.e. drives toward survival and reproduction. In strictly instinctual morality, however, wrongness only exists on the receiving end of a given act. For example, it is wrong for someone to steal my food in order to survive, but it is right for me to steal another's food in order to survive. I suppose one might argue that in the course of natural human development, an individual must needs examine this contradiction and come to a natural understanding of the Golden Rule, but there are too many exceptions to this. Such principles are not abstracted any further than the familial tribe, the largest natural society of human beings.

If we accept the above (a big if), then in instinctual morality, evil, defined as the violation of a moral code or of nature, does not exist. Such morality is not based on a code, but on self-interest (individual or collective). For a moral code to properly exist, it must be equally applied to the self and the other.

As for good and evil existing prior to religion, I'm not sure there *is* such a thing as "prior to religion." Prior to monotheism, certainly, but evil considered as the abstract concept we're familiar with today was shaped by monotheistic cultures (Plato, yes, but more so Plato's Christian interpreters).

I really don't want to get into the philosophy of morality and its relevance under religious, monotheistic or deist worship. I'm comfortable that 'innate' morality (despite much being shaped by the long-term presence of religion in society) can exist freely of worship, and therefore it's totally possible to judge religious indoctrination as an 'evil.'

I wish Hitch was around as I'm sure he'd settle the contradiction with a lot more finesse than I.

He started as a Trozkist at Cambridge in the '70s

According to his final interview (now posted twice) he said he'd die a Marxist.

[Randorama]

Chopping a bit for space and clarity reasons:

If morality does not come from social conditioning or other hand-me-down methods, then options are fairly narrow. Innate morality must come either from an objective source outside humankind, which role can only be played by a deity, or it comes from genetically-derived instinct, i.e. drives toward survival and reproduction.

The latter is argued for, in Marc Hauser's Moral Minds. He proposes a specific theory. He proposes that moral rules one finds culture after culture (don't steal) are solution to the impasse of, say, stealing food from someone belonging to the same group. This is not a strategical move, as it creates tension and competition within-group, which is generally a poor social move (a maladaption).

If we accept the above (a big if), then in instinctual morality, evil, defined as the violation of a moral code or of nature, does not exist. Such morality is not based on a code, but on self-interest (individual or collective). For a moral code to properly exist, it must be equally applied to the self and the other.

Moral codes tend indeed to arise when basic groups (collectives) find a form of "self-interest". One does not steal to members of the same group, for the reasons above. From there, Hauser suggests that basic forms of religion as "a moral code" represent cristallized solutions to problems that arose when societies arose.

As for good and evil existing prior to religion, I'm not sure there *is* such a thing as "prior to religion." Prior to monotheism, certainly, but evil considered as the abstract concept we're familiar with today was shaped by monotheistic cultures (Plato, yes, but more so Plato's Christian interpreters).

Well, classical Greek notion of "evil" was not so different from Christian one. Abstract concepts tend to be a standard staple of complex societies, anyway, and classical Hellenic culture had quite a complex and sophisticated set of beliefs and notions that were tightly connected with Religion (Agape', "filiality" being one).

I'd jump and say that Hitchens indirectly said that, once one purges the full structure of organized religions, the core "moral rules" we have, as social beings, offer a basic form of "morality" on which to go about our daily lives.

Science can offer an insight and empirical validation on this claim. Say, it can show that a society based on a "no stealing" rule has better survival chances than one in which everybody steals. Somebody has done it, as it is a relatively simple game theory problem (Maybe Leda Cosmides).

Whether innate morality exists is, as everything else, an empirical question.

Now, I remember that Hitchens often *sounded* like he was referring to these types of research, when he discussed these topics. I recall him being rather vague on this, though.

@Skykid: ah, yes, but Trozkism is a specific sub-type of Marxist, he became "soft" with age!

[scrilla4rella]

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/ ... ens-201201

Just to change it up a little bit. I've been watching Hitchslaps all week on youtube but this series of articles was really intense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/opini ... yt&emc=rss

Here's an op-ed where the token conservative on the NYT writes about how Hitchens had many close religious friends whom he respected and enjoyed debating with.

[blackoak]

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/ ... ens-201201

Just to change it up a little bit. I've been watching Hitchslaps all week on youtube but this series of articles was really intense.

Good article. Its fascinating that a person as learned as Hitchens would realize such central naivetes so late in life. And quite sad that it takes immense pain, which one suspects Hitchens had not felt to this degree before, to engender those kinds of thoughts. If Hitchens was starting to question certain of Nietzsche's hyperindividualistic maxims, you wonder what else he might have reconsidered had he lived. The experiences that might really change us are often the fatal ones... he seems to now regret blithely telling people "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger"... in fact, I feel like I remember hearing him say that in a debate once.

(all said as a once uncritical and fervent devotee of Nietzsche)

[burgerkingdiamond]

sucks. I loved this dude. He was so smart and I loved seeing him rip religious people to shreds.

[undamned]

Watched an interesting film this evening called "Collision." It covers a debate tour / book co-authored by Hitchens and Douglas Wilson. I was shocked to see Hitchens "warm-up" to his Christian opponent through the course of the film. Info here: http://www.collisionmovie.com
-ud

[njiska]

That does sound like an interesting film. Available anywhere?

[mesh control]

I'd like to see pre-9/11 Hitchens debate post-9/11 Hitchens.

[NTSC-J]

Hitchens fans (and even non-fans) should check out his posthumous novella, Mortality. I think a lot of it was already published in articles in Vanity Fair and may be partly collected in that essay anthology of his, but it's a very sweet and sobering book about his thoughts on death leading up to the final hour.

[undamned]

That does sound like an interesting film. Available anywhere?

I actually watched it on youtube.
-ud

[njiska]

Want to share the link then?

[undamned]

Want to share the link then?

I purposely didn't post the link because I don't know if it's on youtube legally. It's not hard to find, if that's what you are wondering.
-ud

[njiska]

Oh it's probably not legally posted there, but I see that as Youtube's problem. Still fair enough, your decision not to share and that's cool. Interestingly it looks like the film is still playing in cinemas. I may petition my local small-time cinema to carry it.