Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 228 posts

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#81

Post by robertk »

jpulgarin wrote: post #64
VMG wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Christopher is largely dismissive of the life-extension techniques that transhumanists espouse, such as cryogenic preservation: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/11/hitchens-...

Your site says you operate under Crocker's rules, Julian, so please hear me out. (And to Phil Welch: I understand, but allow me the claim that he probably would have agreed with the message. And even if the distastefulness depends on the probability of a dead man's agreement with a position, should we not prevent ourselves from lashing out at people who post the message so that people may at least read and decide for themselves on an issue as important as this?)

Firstly, Christopher is not dismissive of life-extension techniques that transhumanists espouse. If he could live longer right now due to a technique formerly classified a "espoused by transhumanists," he would choose to, as is evinced all over that essay. Rather, he is largely dismissive of life-extension techniques that don't work. The transhumanism part has nothing to do with it.

In that essay, cryonics is lumped in with the paragraph that discusses bad advice. So we can agree that Christopher considers cryonics as bad science, the same way he considers eating the granulated essence of the peach pit to prevent overwhelming growth of a malignant neoplasm bad science.

On the other hand, the rest of the essay discusses good science, that is, science which has been proven to work. He discusses its "near-miraculous" quality.

Perfusion of chemicals to preserve and prepare brain tissue is already textbook science, just not applied to whole brains. The case of Clive Wearing is one piece of an assortment of evidence that consciousness is a clever illusion (the philosopher of consciousness, Daniel Dennett, can say a lot here). Ultimately, cryonics is science that (by definition) has not been proved to work, but nonetheless serious science. Please don't deny that. Harvard neuroscientist Kenneth Hayworth explains this much better than I could, so I leave the floor to him:

http://brainpreservation.org/documents/killed_by_bad_philoso...

This issue is much too important to worry about what's distasteful.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#82

Post by oelewapperke »

masklinn wrote: post #77
jpulgarin wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Christopher has stated multiple times that he finds the Christian idea of heaven unappealing. Furthermore, if the Christian heaven does exist (which in turn implies that Christian doctrine is true), Christopher is most certainly in hell.

> Furthermore, if the Christian heaven does exist (which in turn implies that Christian doctrine is true), Christopher is most certainly in hell. It's much more complex than that as there is no single "Christian doctrine" (each christian sect has its own doctrine, including concepts of hell, and these doctrines evolve over time). Some christian sects promise hell to all non-convers (and sinners), while others conside…

And all of them agree on the fact that running afoul of Christian doctrine is -by itself- not a reason to go to hell. The usual point is that trying to get into heaven without the bible is like driving a car blindfolded : you may very well get there, it's just ...

You might want to google "good samaritan".

While you're correct that there are variations, they're not that different at all.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#83

Post by gbog »

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…

> "his willingness to debate"

Debating must be done on the ground of good faith, right? Bad faith in a discussion is the sure mark of someone who is not willing to intellectually exchange rational arguments. Then in at least one case Hitchens showed a shocking "unwillingness" to debate:

In his debate about Mother Theresa with Simon Leys, triggered by his book titled "The Missionary Position", Hitchens said "he describes the title of my book as “obscene,” [...] Would he care to say where the obscenity lies?".

This was a killer to me. Never could see him again as someone whose writing could be taken seriously.

See http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1996/dec/19/mother-... Answer http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jan/09/on-moth...

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#84

Post by jpulgarin »

tspiteri wrote: post #79
jpulgarin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of "which in turn" I should have said, "and further assuming", sorry about that. I am almost certain that there are some Christian denominations under which Christopher is now believed to be in heaven, although they are in the minority, and not in the mainstream of Christianity that Hitchens usually debated against. Can you name me two Christian denominations according to whom Christopher is now in heaven?

I do not know much about different Christian denominations, but I do come from a Catholic background myself, and I guess Catholicism does qualify as mainstream. I think that according to current Catholic doctrine, if someone does his best to find out the truth, and lives according to what he sincerely believes, he goes to heaven, even if he's wrong in the end. And I think Hitchens qualifies for those qualities (to be…

In Catholic doctrine one who commits a mortal sin without repenting is bound to hell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin#Roman_Catholicism

If you look at the three conditions that a sin must meet to be considered a mortal sin, I think there is a very high probability that writing a book titled God Is Not Great is a mortal sin. There are hundreds of things that Christopher did which very likely meet those conditions, and there is also a high probability that he has not repented about them before death.

According to Catholicism people do not get into heaven by living according to what they sincerely believe, and many, many, Catholic scholars would say that Christopher is bound for hell.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#85

Post by jpulgarin »

robertk wrote: post #81
jpulgarin wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Christopher is largely dismissive of the life-extension techniques that transhumanists espouse, such as cryogenic preservation: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/11/hitchens-...

Your site says you operate under Crocker's rules, Julian, so please hear me out. (And to Phil Welch: I understand, but allow me the claim that he probably would have agreed with the message. And even if the distastefulness depends on the probability of a dead man's agreement with a position, should we not prevent ourselves from lashing out at people who post the message so that people may at least read and decide for…

Christopher is largely dismissive of the life-extension techniques that transhumanists espouse, such as cryogenic preservation

I should have been clearer:

"Christopher Hitchens believes that most of the techniques that transhumanists think will lead to radically longer lifespans will not work."

I think that we are not in disagreement.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#86

Post by corin_ »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #62
SamReidHughes wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. Why wouldn't an atheist want an afterlife?

I can't speak for others, but this atheist doesn't want one.

I also don't want one, but if someone said "I hope there's a heaven so that he will have gone to it" after I'm dead I wouldn't call that disrespectful in the slightest.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#87

Post by robertk »

jpulgarin wrote: post #85
robertk wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your site says you operate under Crocker's rules, Julian, so please hear me out. (And to Phil Welch: I understand, but allow me the claim that he probably would have agreed with the message. And even if the distastefulness depends on the probability of a dead man's agreement with a position, should we not prevent ourselves from lashing out at people who post the message so that people may at least read and decide for…

Christopher is largely dismissive of the life-extension techniques that transhumanists espouse, such as cryogenic preservation I should have been clearer: "Christopher Hitchens believes that most of the techniques that transhumanists think will lead to radically longer lifespans will not work ." I think that we are not in disagreement.

I see. Then I lay the claim that Hitchens did not have enough medical expertise to know what will or will not work, and conditional on something working, he would have espoused it, and conditional on it not working, he would have not have espoused it. As such, I further lay the claim that he would have been in favor of allowing people to evaluate the underlying science for themselves, in case he made a mistake and it does work.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#88

Post by bravura »

Christoper Hitchens. Rest in Peace. One of the most articulate people, always incisive, even when I disagreed with him.

I saw Hitchens speak at the New York Public Library, as part of their Live! series. Everyone retired to the garden afterwards, to take drinks.

I spoke with Hitchens briefly. He called Mother Theresa "a bitch". I criticized his diction and argued that bitch was the wrong epithet. I don't recall my exact argument, but he conceded my point. I was elated, given that I considered (and still consider) Hitchens one of the most eloquent orators of our generation. In deference to him and his passing, I have mulled my choice of language in this comment.

I am still grateful that I had the chance to engage this great polemicist.

Re: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

#90

Post by bravura »

gbog wrote: post #83
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…

> "his willingness to debate" Debating must be done on the ground of good faith, right? Bad faith in a discussion is the sure mark of someone who is not willing to intellectually exchange rational arguments. Then in at least one case Hitchens showed a shocking "unwillingness" to debate: In his debate about Mother Theresa with Simon Leys, triggered by his book titled "The Missionary Position", Hitchens said "he descri…

I read Hitchens's letter and the reply.

Hitchens is eloquent and direct in his criticisms. Leys, in his reply, is vague and does not answer any of Hitchens's criticisms with any specificity.

Leys demurs and says he has no space for a reply. He then devotes one-third of his letter to joking about Hitchens questioning the use of the word "obscene". His response includes grating ad hominem, with a snide remark that Hitchens must not own a dictionary.

In fact, Hitchens is right and it is Leys who must take deeper council with his copy of the OED. Hitchens, if nothing else, genuinely cares about his use of language. (Note this excerpt: "To represent her as a woman defiled with spittle for her deeds or beliefs is—to employ the term strictly for once—quite incredible." Simply delightful.)

Definition of obscenity, from Wikipedia: "An obscenity is any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious."

Hitchens, when he coyly writes: "Finally, I note that he describes the title of my book as 'obscene,' and complains that it attacks someone who is 'elderly.' Would he care to say where the obscenity lies?" Hitchens knows what he is doing. Most people nowadays don't think the phrase "The Missionary Position" is obscene. Slightly tittilating, yes, but obscene, no. Unfortunately, Leys cannot discriminate the subtlety and smugness in Hitchens's small linguistic victory, and responds blithely and indelicately.

Side note: Classic Hitchens is him saying that people who say that racists are discriminatory could not be further from the truth. Because how can people who dismiss an entire race possess the capacity to discriminate?

Post reply on HN