In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 • Hacker News Board

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#171

Post by Florin_Andrei » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 7:37 PM UTC

drumdance wrote: post #163

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the USSR was exactly that kind of society No, it was not. Your username is Slavic, so perhaps you grew up in the Eastern Bloc; I certainly did. Those were not socialist countries. Private enterprise was definitely banned, but the goods were not collectively owned either. The entire country was owned by a small clique with a rigid pyramidal structure. Dictatorship is a much better word.

IMO dictatorship is the inevitable result of Marxism. I once had a girlfriend who was a Marxist. She used to talk about how when the revolution comes, the mean capitalists would all go to prison. I pointed out that mean people don't disappear. They adapt to the system. So a meanie who is adept at scaling the corporate ladder to the commanding heights is equally adepts at scaling the government ladder. Only now he con…

Marx advocated some pretty violent means to achieve the change he desired - so, by the principle of "sow wind, reap hurricane", you must be right. The history of Eastern Europe in the 20th century definitely does agree with you.

Just be careful to not unwarrantedly extend the shadow of violence and dictatorship over the socialist ideas too. I know it sounds like trying to tell apples from oranges, but surprisingly many are ignorant, consciously or not, of the difference, especially in the US.

A free market system with socialist overtones can work wonderfully well. Just look at Northern Europe.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#172

Post by ugh » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 7:39 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #112

ugh wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's peddling your beliefs disguised as a noble statement. I cannot and do not want to speak for Hitchens so I will only speak for myself. My view is that believing in an afterlife is crazy and absurd. (Don't get me wrong: I would love there to be some sort of way for my existence to continue after death. I'm terrified of death. Just wishing for there to be an afterlife doesn't make it happen, though.) I think it…

Wait, you just said you hope there's an afterlife, and so did the GP. Where's the objection?

I do not hope for an afterlife. To hope for an afterlife is akin to (and just as stupid as) hoping to win the lottery, only a lot less likely.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#173

Post by gnaritas » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 8:58 PM UTC

Hari_Seldon wrote: post #103

veidr wrote: post #36

Hitchens was wrong about a lot in my view, but for many atheists he was an important figure. He eloquently made the case for our faith in empirical evidence and the scientific knowing of reality, and he didn't pussy out at the end. Knowing he was dying, and soon on his way into that void, still looked that motherfucker in the face, and stayed frosty. Wish he could have died from old age, though.

"empirical evidence and the scientific knowing of reality" Not sure what you mean by this, do you really believe that science validates a specific view on what constitutes reality?

Science defines our best view of reality, period. And by best, I mean most accurate representation of objective reality.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#174

Post by jarin » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 9:02 PM UTC

emil0r wrote: post #70

borispavlovic wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we don't need it. Our genes are reproduced and they are carrying the best and the worst parts of us and our experience.

Your children carries your experiences?

If you raise them.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#175

Post by philwelch » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 9:04 PM UTC

VMG wrote: post #58

philwelch wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I think it's really distasteful that you people use the deaths of people who probably wouldn't have even agreed with the message of that essay to promote the ideas in that essay.

He went in for cancer treatment, so he clearly wanted to avoid death, which is what the essay is about.

Going in for cancer treatment does not imply a philosophical commitment to human immortality. You people are the new Randroids.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#176

Post by nhaehnle » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 9:09 PM UTC

anatoly wrote: post #137

127 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noam Chomsky quite well articulates what so greatly annoys me in the use of term "marxist". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ It has hardly any relation to the original context or meaning of the writings of one Karl Marx.

This video is appallingly deceitful. E.g. where he argues that the USSR was not only not socialism, but in fact as far from it as possible. He deftly redefines the core idea of socialism to make it look superficially plausible. If socialism was ever about one bug thing, it was the collective ownership of the means of production . This was the slogan of all socialist movements, particularly Marxist socialist movements…

If socialism was ever about one bug thing, it was the collective ownership of the means of production.

What you have to keep in mind in such discussions is that political terms like that tend to have vastly different meaning to people from different backgrounds. One of the best known example of this is that the term "liberal" has a very different meaning in the US than it does in Europe.

In a similar vein, "socialism" over here does not imply the collective ownership of the means of production. If that's what you want to articulate, you should use the term "communism" to be less ambiguous.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#177

Post by ArbitraryLimits » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 9:12 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #170

ArbitraryLimits wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a former Mormon missionary, I can assure you he was not the first person to think of that particular comeback.

Comeback? As an honest question, maybe it deserves an answer. I mean, sure tongue in cheek, but any cookie-cutter idea of heaven is bound to leave some cold. So if you dislike your family, then Mormonism isn't for you?

> So if you dislike your family, then Mormonism isn't for you?

Yeah, pretty much.

Edit: OK, that was unnecessarily flippant. I personally never heard that statement as an honest question, only as a ha-ha-only-serious comeback. It turns out that all the people I met who didn't like their families felt bad about it, and realized it wasn't the way things should be.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#178

Post by anamax » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 9:19 PM UTC

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #171

drumdance wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO dictatorship is the inevitable result of Marxism. I once had a girlfriend who was a Marxist. She used to talk about how when the revolution comes, the mean capitalists would all go to prison. I pointed out that mean people don't disappear. They adapt to the system. So a meanie who is adept at scaling the corporate ladder to the commanding heights is equally adepts at scaling the government ladder. Only now he con…

Marx advocated some pretty violent means to achieve the change he desired - so, by the principle of "sow wind, reap hurricane", you must be right. The history of Eastern Europe in the 20th century definitely does agree with you. Just be careful to not unwarrantedly extend the shadow of violence and dictatorship over the socialist ideas too. I know it sounds like trying to tell apples from oranges, but surprisingly ma…

> A free market system with socialist overtones can work wonderfully well. Just look at Northern Europe.

Anything will work with Northern Europeans (or Mormons, in reference to another thread) so that doesn't prove anything.

The key test is whether {something} works with cultures where other things fail.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#179

Post by tspiteri » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 9:30 PM UTC

super_mario wrote: post #119

TomOfTTB wrote: post #16

Hitchens was essentially a Marxist (by his own admission) who was also in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the foreign policy it represented. So there was very little I agreed with him on. But I'm terribly upset about this and I'll tell you why. Because of his willingness to debate. I'd literally scan right wing talk radio schedules for his name because you just knew it would be a great show. In a world where s…

Anyone who knew Hitchens knows that "heaven" as depicted by cristianity is a "celestial North Korea, where the sole purpose is to praise the dear leader incessantly, compelled to love someone you fear (essence of sadomasochism). You'd think the Lord himself would get bored of this after a couple of billion years"... So, wishing him in heaven from another atheist as you say you are is really saying you don't know much…

Not really heaven, and certainly not Christian heaven, but in an interview with Jeremy Paxman, Hitchens did say that he if he would find himself alive in any way at all, that would be a pleasant surprise. (This is not to imply he believes in or hopes for an afterlife, claiming that would be absurd.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/...

Jeremy Paxman: "Do you fear death?"

Christopher Hitchens: "No. I'm not afraid of being dead, that's to say there's nothing to be afraid of. I won't know I'm dead, would be my strong conviction. And if I find that I'm alive in any way at all, well that'll be a pleasant surprise. I quite like surprises. But I strongly take leave to doubt it.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#180

Post by redthrowaway » Fri, Dec 16, 2011, 10:00 PM UTC

Tloewald wrote: post #104

JeremyBanks wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's absurd. I'm an Atheist but I'd readily echo that statement. It's an expression of appreciation. If you find it insulting that's only your own eagerness to find insult, nothing legitimate.

I'd go further and suggest that a lot of atheists would echo the hope that there is some kind of fabulous immortality beyond the grave, it's just that the concept is, upon examination, absurd.

Eternal life holds no interest for me. Imagine living a million years, seeing and thinking all there is to see and think, then living a billion years after that. Then you realize that you're precisely 0% of the way to the finish line. Long after the heat death of the universe, a consciousness with nothing to cogitate.

No thanks.