/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13570818]

Where do I start with this lecherous maniac? Should I even read him? In debates he ignored the ontological argument in favor of associating suffering with God (or religion) and blaming God for man's errors. Seems like a brainlet, but he's fun to listen to.

[Anonymous No.13570821]

I hope that portrait was taken in satire, otherwise that's a cringey yikes from me dawg

[Anonymous No.13570826]

>>13570821
it's Christopher Hitchens, and he was trying to look cool and urbane for college girls. literally more sad than Stellan Skarsgaard's character in Good Will Hunting.

[Anonymous No.13570828]

who is that?

[Anonymous No.13570834]

>>13570828
>>13570826
>it's Christopher Hitchens
He was 1000x more entertaining than Sam Harris, but not any more convincing.

[Anonymous No.13570842]

>>13570826
sad

[Anonymous No.13570843]

>>13570818
How can anyone take the ontological argument seriously?

[Anonymous No.13570846]

>>13570843
by having a 130+ IQ

[Anonymous No.13570849]

>>13570826
does anybody take sloppy seconds serious?

[Anonymous No.13570858]

>>13570818
>>13570821
>>13570826
>>13570828
Here's the deal: Christopher Hitchens is one of the greatest literary critics of the 20th century. He was born in Portsmouth to a Navy father. His mother committed suicide when he was 23. He was Oxford educated and spent his twenties as a Marxist revolutionary journalist. Into the eighties, he started writing more seriously. He grew out of Marxism and began writing more seriously. He was, throughout his life, a vehement free-speech defender and an avid US constitutionalist. He sheltered Salman Rushdie when the fatwa was issued against his life. He documented the unique relationship between the US and the UK in "Blood, Class, and Empire," (a great book, btw), and was a prolific contributor to Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, and numerous other magazines.

He was a heavy smoker, a heavy drinker, a prolific traveler, a well-connected political insider, and among the most amusing and most forthright political commentators in Washington.

[Anonymous No.13570867]

>>13570858
and God took his atheist voice away lol

[Anonymous No.13570870]

>>13570858
OK cool story but has he written any novels or books worth reading?

>relationship between the US and the UK in "Blood, Class, and Empire"
lol what a shit subject and an even shittier title

[Anonymous No.13570881]

>>13570818
>>13570858
He's a half-baked journalist posing as an intellectual who only got a platform in America due to his British accent and use of 3 syllable words being enough to impress the burgers.

[Anonymous No.13570887]

>>13570870
It's a great book for anyone interested in English or American history and literature from 1860 onward.
And yes, his essay collections are well worth reading: Love, Poverty, and War, Arguably, and "And Yet...". Also, his small collection of columns entitled "Mortality" are a very good collection.

>>13570867
His atheism is the least interesting thing about him. Get over it, Christfag.

[Anonymous No.13570894]

>>13570881
He got a platform for defending the first amendment. He got a platform for being outspoken in his defense of Salman Rushdie. He got a platform for being outspoken in his criticism of Islam. He got a platform for being a well-read, well-spoken, and well-adjusted literary critic.

[Anonymous No.13570895]

>>13570858
>t. Christopher Hitchens' ghost
Thanks for the recommendation though. Having heard him in debates, I'm not really interested in his anti-theistic works as he willfully refuses to engage with philosophy and sticks to shaming and blaming God by his association with Man. I would be interested to hear his political thought and literary criticism. Good post.

[Anonymous No.13570902]

>>13570887
is he a Historian? is he in /lit/ top 100?
sorry, i keep asking you questions.
i just don't want to waste my time on political hacks...and this guy totally sounds like one to me

[Anonymous No.13570912]

>>13570895
Thank-you. It's truly a shame that most of his most obnoxious defenders and critics both cite his atheistic writings....those were truly the worst and least interesting things he had to offer. His criticism and historical and political commentary was his best work, hands down.

[Anonymous No.13570916]

>>13570894
>He got a platform for defending the first amendment
>He got a platform for being outspoken in his criticism of Islam

So he's Milo Yiannapolous, good to know

[Anonymous No.13570923]

>>13570902
He's not a formal historian, no. He is a historical commentator with tremendous insights on historical matters. For example, he would be one to review the most highly-regarded historians' works, and would cover them with unique and specific insights that bring the historical work itself more to life.

He was well known for his encyclopedic memory and a specific knack for historical detail.

[Anonymous No.13570925]

>>13570916
How man degrees does Milo have?
In what countries does Milo hold citizenship?
For how many publications was Milo a major contributor?
How many fatwa targets did Milo shelter?

That's what I thought you fucking pleb.

[Anonymous No.13570933]

>>13570923
>>13570912
Oooh, I did listen to Hitchens talk about Churchill's character and his legacy of conflicts and western leadership in the MENA in the latter 20th. That actually was riveting. Basically he claimed Churchill created such a legendary political figure that was destined to be emulated by later generations as the definition of a hard nosed politician, even at the cost of pointless semi-passive conflicts.

[Anonymous No.13570935]

>>13570925
Jesus, the guy has a degree and the only claim to fame he has is "Durr, Muslims bad XD".

[Anonymous No.13570937]

>>13570933
just like he tried to emulate Camus in that portrait I see lmaooo

[Anonymous No.13570960]

>>13570937
cosmological oof

[Anonymous No.13570995]

>>13570935
His literary, political, and historical criticism is really top notch. He's not a philosopher. He's not a novelist. He's not a politician.

He's a commentator, and, truth be told, he lived the literary life that most of us envy.

[Anonymous No.13570997]

>Hitchens should be read because he had sex

[Anonymous No.13571030]

>>13570858
>and an avid US constitutionalist
dumb

[Anonymous No.13571034]

>>13570858
>prolific traveler
Big Yikes.

[Anonymous No.13571035]

Take the Peter pill and become a man

[Anonymous No.13571037]

>>13570887
What's interesting about him?

[Anonymous No.13571040]

Total piece of shit. His ilk and the Christians deserve one another.
https://youtu.be/vZiIU3u3e6I

[Anonymous No.13571050]

>>13571035
*puritanical cuckold

[Anonymous No.13571162]

>this thread
>Hitch still triggering the religious from beyond the grave
that beautiful bastard

[Anonymous No.13571185]

>>13571162
He can't keep getting away with it

[Anonymous No.13571194]

everyone who thinks they know shit about hitchens forgets that they don't know shit about hitchens unless they know that he was basically just a trotskyist leftist who turned 'atheist' liberal to troll the fuck out of the religious appeasing far and liberal left. it was easy pickings and someone had to do it. the left were making asses of themselves and embarrassing their own secular humanist and enlightenment roots and a prickly pom who sounded and spoke like an up himself don was perfectly situated for that task

[Anonymous No.13571195]

>>13570881
As much as you might dislike him or disagree with this man, he went head to head with the Clintons, Kennedy, Mother Teresa and others, calling them murderers! He even had Kissinger apologize to him and got him out of the 9/11 commission. The man was a verbal powerhouse.
You're welcome to disagree. Constructively, of course.

[Anonymous No.13571201]

>>13570818
>he ignored the ontological argument
Who wouldn't

[Anonymous No.13571221]

>>13570818
>in debates he ignored the ontological argument
That's because religious people are very dishonest when they debate. If I go into a debate with a Christian about the existence of "God" I expect him to defend the Yahweh who genocided the Canaanites and flooded the world, but instead they come to argue about lower case 'g' god; that is, some sort of abstract deistic entity pertaining to none of the worlds religions.

This is why the New Atheists were exceptionally good at ripping apart religious opposition. They kept their eye on the ball. Whenever their opponents tried to dishonestly take the conversation away from their god and retreat to deism the New Atheists would simply push back and point out all of the bullshit in the bible (they mostly debated Christians) and how there's no evidence for it. You cite it as a fault, but this is how all debates between non-believers and religious people SHOULD go. Why should we spend hours talking about the Ontological Argument or the Kalaam Cosmological Argument or the Fine-Tuning Argument or the Prime Mover Argument when they have absolutely nothing to do with proving religion?

[Anonymous No.13571272]

>>13571221
>This is why the New Atheists were exceptionally good at ripping apart religious opposition
who do you mean exactly? Hitchens himself was an embarrassment. He refused to ever enter the arena of metaphysics, preferring instead to take cheap shots at scripture and purposely failing to understand the problem of evil. Surely you can't mean Sam Harris, or Weinstein, or JBP.

Also your first line is a strawman. I refute it thus: religious people do NOT argue about a small g god.

[Anonymous No.13571278]

>>13571221
>Fine-Tuning Argument or the Prime Mover Argument when they have absolutely nothing to do with proving religion?
Uh... everything?

Fine tuning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj8qUx9Vzns

Prime Mover: literally read Aquinas or any of the scholastics. God as first principle of uncaused cause.

Git gud.

[Anonymous No.13571283]

>>13571272
>He refused to ever enter the arena of metaphysics
You say that like it's a bad thing. And why would anyone argue the existence of evil with a theist when they can't even agree without their own god damned sects.

>>13571278
God therefore my interpretation of god, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.13571288]

>>13571272
>Also your first line is a strawman. I refute it thus: religious people do NOT argue about a small g god.
The Teleological Argument, the Fine-Tuning Argument, the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, the Ontological Argument, all of Aquinas's arguments, William Lane Craig's "Argument from Morality", etc. all of these arguments are trotted out by religious people as if they pertain to the conversation at all. They don't. We take objection to religious gods, not small 'g' deistic entities.

If what you mean by "enter the realm of metaphysics" is "address those non-sequitur arguments cited above" then you simply have to reread my first post because I already addressed why we don't need to do this when arguing against religious people.

[Anonymous No.13571296]

>>13571288
Slightly unrelated, but I like arguing with "spiritual" types. They're just so cute with their over active imagination.

[Anonymous No.13571311]

>>13571296
now I know why the fedora meme is a thing. You're definitely not as smart as you think you are lol.

[Anonymous No.13571315]

>>13571311
I don't think I'm smart, just don't have my head in the clouds.

[Anonymous No.13571321]

>>13571315
>I'm just a humble guy debating all of those weirdos
kiss my ass you dishonest biatch.

[Anonymous No.13571322]

>>13571321
I'm not humble either, you need to stop making assumptions.

[Anonymous No.13571328]

>>13571322
you're neither smart nor humble but act like you are. Gotcha.

[Anonymous No.13571335]

>>13571288
>The Teleological Argument, the Fine-Tuning Argument, the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, the Ontological Argument, all of Aquinas's arguments, William Lane Craig's "Argument from Morality", etc. all of these arguments are trotted out by religious people as if they pertain to the conversation at all. They don't. We take objection to religious gods, not small 'g' deistic entities.

You are a complete moron. The ontological argument is not about small g deities. It is about God. The uncreated first cause. You're a moron, out of your depth, and shouldn't be commenting on things you don't understand.

[Anonymous No.13571341]

itt: religitard snowflakes triggered by a man who has been dead seven years
rest in peace hitch ya contrarian sod

[Anonymous No.13571348]

>>13571328
How many times have you tried this now. Stop trying to profile people from a handful of anonymous posts you're not qualified. If you have a question, ask it. Stop making assumptions thanks.

[Anonymous No.13571356]

>>13571335
..... The Ontological Argument, if granted, proves nothing further than an infinitely great being, an "uncreated first cause", exists. It says nothing about the Yahweh who genocided the Canaanites and spoke to Moses in a burning bush. My point has been very simple throughout this conversation, if you can't understand it you're just low-IQ.

[Anonymous No.13571365]

>>13571335
here we see anon claim to know the nature of god

[Anonymous No.13571369]

>>13571356
That's fine except you're ignorance of the New Testament is showing. Jesus is God is the Logos is the Father is the Creator of all is the first cause. It has been revealed and it has been reasoned. God is first cause. God is good. God is omnipotent. God is infinite. These are not religious claims, but philosophical ones.

Did you even start with the Greeks?

[Anonymous No.13571374]

>>13571348
>omg why react this way to a condescending reply from my pretentious mind

[Anonymous No.13571375]

>>13571369
>God is good.
pffft
you religious fucknuts are hilarious

[Anonymous No.13571377]

>>13571374
Quite literally yes, why did you take offense. Non was intended yet here you are beyond ass blasted be some perceived ill that doesn't fucking exist...
Not that reality has ever really mattered to you but still.

[Anonymous No.13571378]

>>13571375
Clearly you never read Aristotle, or even to the end of my post. God being good was his claim. Like I said, it's not a revealed truth but a deduced one. You are sub-average IQ and can stop replying now.

[Anonymous No.13571385]

>>13571369
I read the Bible cover-to-cover in my teenage years, so no I'm not ignorant of the New Testament. The rest of your post is just babble. There's no way you can get from the Ontological Argument to Yahweh.

[Anonymous No.13571391]

>>13571385
>The rest of your post is just babble.
Okay. Christianity has zero to do with neoplatonic thought. Gotcha. You're a southern baptist aren't you.

[Anonymous No.13571401]

>>13571378
>Like I said, it's not a revealed truth but a deduced one
here we have another anon who claims to know the mind of god
you people really are hilarious

[Anonymous No.13571405]

>>13571385
>I read the Bible cover-to-cover in my teenage years
wow you must have been the most insightful teenager ever. a literal prodigy
did you share your magical teenage insights with any known scholars? i am sure they would have been most interested to hear your profound thoughts

[Anonymous No.13571409]

>>13571391
I'm an atheist/agnostic. You're talking babble, yes, what the fuck does Plato have to do with Christianity? He lived before Jesus and he didn't believe in Yahweh, nor is there any evidence that he knew or cared about Judaism. Someone with his beliefs would have been executed by the Ancient Israelites.

Either way, this has nothing to do what we've been talking about. You can't get from the Ontological Argument to Yahweh. If we grant that an infinitely great first cause exists we can't then assert that this being must be Yahweh or any other religious god.

[Anonymous No.13571419]

>>13571405
One time is enough, friend. If I had to go through that rigmarole all over again I'd shoot myself.

[Anonymous No.13571443]

>>13571419
I like the parables.

[Anonymous No.13571502]

>>13571409
He said NEOplatonic, you spastic. That makes it very unpleasant for me to agree with you, but I do. All of those arguments are only related to deism.

[Anonymous No.13571506]

>>13570858
Sadly, you're not gonna convince any of the minors on this board. Hitchens was mainstream and held conventional opinions, and this board is all about exotic schizophrenics and obscure clowns. He's just not exotic enough for /lit/.

[Anonymous No.13571536]

>>13571409
>If we grant that an infinitely great first cause exists we can't then assert that this being must be Yahweh or any other religious god.
We can if the Church adopts not only revealed wisdom of scripture and witness of the disciples but also the deduced knowledge of the philosophers of the same era.

[Anonymous No.13571544]

>>13571536
>the church
Why would I care about anything the church says? You're just retarded, I'll leave you alone now.

[Anonymous No.13571687]

>>13571544
ahh, the Hitchens defense. just refuse to engage in any kind of philosophical thought and, Job-like, continue to ignorantly heap blame on God.

let me know how that works out for you.

[Anonymous No.13572215]

>>13571687
Worked fucking wonders where have you been.

[Anonymous No.13572217]

>>13571506
Cope

[Anonymous No.13572548]

he was the establishment´s fool

[Anonymous No.13572559]

>>13571687
I don't know if you're just trolling. I asked you how any of the philosophical arguments I mentioned prove the Abrahamic god. You respond by saying "they just do, the church says so". There's nothing further to say to you after that. It's not me who's being closed-minded, it's you.

[Anonymous No.13572562]

>>13571034
As a journalist/foreign correspondent, fool. Not a fucking cool wine aunt.
>>13571030
Explain why that's dumb.

[Anonymous No.13572617]

>>13572562
>Explain why that's dumb
He can't, nobody can.

[Anonymous No.13572686]

>>13570818
I admire Christopher Hitchens, and especially like what has become dubbed as "Hitchens Razor", which is, "That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".

...and Christfags and Religicucks have been seething ever since. Sorry for your cope.

[Anonymous No.13572748]

>>13571335
If I just state over and over again that our universe is a simulation on a computer of a alien in another dimension and that alien has the qualities to be an unmoved mover, does that proves definitively that we are a simulation?

[Anonymous No.13572758]

>>13571369
>a series of blanket assertions
this isn't how you form an argument, anon

[Anonymous No.13572771]

>>13571401
they just latch onto claims that make them feel good. that's at the core of the religious mind, wishful thinking. they aren't even trying to link their theism to any of the arguments they've raised, it's just their leap of faith but their too cowardly to admit it's faith

[Anonymous No.13572789]

>>13572559
he's just too cowardly to admit he believes on faith. I guess it's a progress of a sort that faith is too embarrassing for them to mention now

[Anonymous No.13573264]

>>13570818
Is he doing a Camus Cosplay?

[Anonymous No.13573318]

So nothing. This guy has written nothing? how can that be?

He's all over Youtube as a celebrity or sorts.

[Anonymous No.13574642]

>>13573318
Read his historical analyses.

[Anonymous No.13574979]

I won't pretend to be overly familiar with Hitchens but most people who are seem to think that his anti religious writing is his least interesting.

[Anonymous No.13574990]

>>13570828
Albert Camus

[Anonymous No.13575008]

>>13574990
looks like SHIT

[Anonymous No.13575025]

>>13570826
Lmao

[Anonymous No.13575030]

>>13570818
His brother is smarter

[Anonymous No.13575417]

>>13574642
but he's not a Historian.

[Anonymous No.13575436]

>>13571034
there is literally nothing wrong with this picture

[Anonymous No.13575993]

The man was highly intelligent and an excellent writer. Not enough to be remembered in 20 years (since he was just a journalist), but far above most writers.

That being said I hate the man for his turn towards being a right-wing neocon apologist. He became so obsessed with his hatred of religion he was willing to apologize on behalf of illegal warfare and American aggression.

[Anonymous No.13576022]

>>13571221
>That's because religious people are very dishonest when they debate. If I go into a debate with a Christian about the existence of "God" I expect him to defend the Yahweh who genocided the Canaanites and flooded the world, but instead they come to argue about lower case 'g' god; that is, some sort of abstract deistic entity pertaining to none of the worlds religions.
And you call Christians dishonest?

[Anonymous No.13576026]

>>13571375
>HUR IF NO NOs HAPPEN DEN HE NOT GOOD

[Anonymous No.13576032]

>>13571385
>There's no way you can get from the Ontological Argument to Yahweh.
Accepting arguments that there is a creator is not the same as accepting Christianity, but the former is necessary for the latter.

[Anonymous No.13576035]

>>13571385
>t. I'm going to read the Bible literally like a southern baptist to win against a straw-man.

[Anonymous No.13576056]

Don't mind me, just the superior Hitchens broher passing through

[Anonymous No.13576102]

>>13575417
ESLfags need to leave

[Anonymous No.13576113]

Why does this board attract so many christcucks?

[Anonymous No.13576126]

>>13576113
>why do people whose great interest in life is a holy work of literature come to /lit/

[Anonymous No.13576133]

>>13576126
You tell me.

[Anonymous No.13576147]

>>13576133
I just did.

[Anonymous No.13576171]

>>13570887
>>13570894
>>13570925
>>13571195

Lmao, the butthurt is real

[Anonymous No.13576185]

>>13571385
>I read the Bible once when I was a teenager

[Anonymous No.13576465]

>>13576102
great argument buttwipe

[Anonymous No.13576640]

>>13571221
Fucking based.

[Anonymous No.13576731]

>>13570826
why? he’s gay.

[Anonymous No.13576808]

There’s nothing wrong with atheism, you just have to be capable of finding your own Inner Law with which to give purpose. The problem with atheism arises when midwits take up the cause and can’t find meaning outside of a deistic system. Atheism is for the smart.

[Anonymous No.13577723]

>>13576808
> Atheism is for the smart
Reddit is that way sir

[Anonymous No.13578168]

>>13577723
No, I don’t mean the midwits convinced they are smart. Perhaps ‘smart’ is the wrong word. I am referring to those among us who have the greatest Will, the ability to set their own course and never falter. Everyone has the ability to reach this stage through inner reflection and meditation, but few are capable of fully transcending the bounds of reality and the existing without ego. It is only then, when the Self and the Non-Self are at peace with each other, that one is capable of living without the guiding light of religion.

[Anonymous No.13578180]

>>13576808

[Anonymous No.13578189]

>>13570858

He went from being a Marxist journalist to being one of the most outspoken cheerleaders of Islamophobic imperialism. He ran out of interesting things to say ten years before he died and is only remembered in a diminishing capacity by every new generation of atheist edgelords. Read him for the wit, but understand he got cranky and scared of everything as he got older.

[Anonymous No.13578234]

>>13578189
>Islamophobic imperialism
>islamopobia is imperialistic

[Anonymous No.13578254]

>>13578234

Imperialism is Islamophobic, absolutely. That was an invaluable tool in shoving the Middle Eastern Forever Wars™ down the throats of the American people from 2003 onward.

[Anonymous No.13578259]

>>13570858
I know everyone's shitting on you anon, but I genuinely appreciate your summary of his life. I only recently discovered this man, so thank you.

>>13570867
also kek

[Anonymous No.13578266]

>>13570821
>>13570826
he's doing the Camus pose, it's an homage