Christopher Hitchens 1949 - 2011

[scottycelt]

According to David Cesarani in his book Eichmann: His Life & Crimes, Eichmann's last words were:

"Long live Germany. Long live Argentina. Long live Austria. These are the three countries with which I have been most connected and which I will not forget. I greet my wife, my family, and my friends. I am ready. We'll meet again soon, as is the fate of all men. I die believing in God"

It's strange then that the same David Cesarani claimed that Eichmann apparently lost his faith in 1937, even though that was 'long after most SS men broke with religion'. Maybe not quite so strange when one is suddenly faced with the Great Unknown.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/eichmann_01.shtml

Never mind Eichmann, there must have been many reported sudden death-bed 'conversions' in history but I doubt Christopher was one of the many ...

Christopher Hitchens R.I.P.

[Lateralthinking1]

On a lighter note, what do people think about CH on religion?

I would say that I found him convincing on the politics and the rituals of religion, some of which I have been opposing for many years. However, I have tended to veer away from his views on private belief.

First, all individuals should have the liberty of belief without harassment as long as they don't inflict their views on others.

Next, when it comes specifically to belief, I see some irony both in creationists entering into a rational debate and rationalists attempting to persuade them with rationale.

Thirdly, when I see someone who is rational arguing with an unusual passion, I also find it ironic that what shines through so clearly is their soul.

In terms of psychology, he would talk about the immaturity of needing a godlike parental figure and the damaging effect that can have when required by religious dogma. While I agree, I also see the parent as a component of personal identity.

By this, I mean a part of a person is a parent to the self. It seems to me that this can be comprehended by an individual in a myriad of ways. It could be religious or not religious. What matters is how it is self-perceived.

If it is viewed as wholly wicked, then that is more likely to involve behaviour that essentially attacks the person of whom it is a part. This I would say was crucial to an understanding of his addictions and also of his intellectual battles.

Just thought I'd ask.

[Nick Armstrong]

On a lighter note, what do people think about CH on religion?

Nice segue, Lats!!

This is it in a nutshell, I guess:

“One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody - not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms - had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think - though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one - that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.” ― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything


It's not far off my view on the matter...

[John Skelton]

According to David Cesarani in his book Eichmann: His Life & Crimes, Eichmann's last words were:

"Long live Germany. Long live Argentina. Long live Austria. These are the three countries with which I have been most connected and which I will not forget. I greet my wife, my family, and my friends. I am ready. We'll meet again soon, as is the fate of all men. I die believing in God"

"The people who did Hitler's dirty work were almost all religious."

Not: "Eichmann who did Hitler's dirty work was religious."

If Eichmann's final words had been "Long live Germany. Long live Argentina. Long live Austria. These are the three countries with which I have been most connected and which I will not forget. I greet my wife, my family, and my friends. I am ready. I die supporting Charlton Athletic" you would find that convincing proof of the proposition that "The people who did Hitler's dirty work were almost all Charlton Athletic supporters"?

[amateur51]

"The people who did Hitler's dirty work were almost all religious."

Not: "Eichmann who did Hitler's dirty work was religious."

If Eichmann's final words had been "Long live Germany. Long live Argentina. Long live Austria. These are the three countries with which I have been most connected and which I will not forget. I greet my wife, my family, and my friends. I am ready. I die supporting Charlton Athletic" you would find that convincing proof of the proposition that "The people who did Hitler's dirty work were almost all Charlton Athletic supporters"?

I was merely pointing out that one particular Nazi wqho did a substantial amount of Hitler's dirty work was quoted as being religious.

There was no need to bring Charlton Athletic into it

[scottycelt]

I was merely pointing out ...

Of course you was, Ams ...

[amateur51]

Of course you was, Ams ...

Crikey!

Scotty's office Christmas party must be going well ..... give him a go on the photocopier next, Lorraine!

[Pilchardman]

On a lighter note, what do people think about CH on religion?

It's a funny one. I'm an atheist myself, and believe that religionists should be challenged where necessary. However, I do find myself wishing someone else would do the challenging. And I can't help thinking that the Four Horsemen had got their priorities seriously awry. There they sat, gentleman New Atheists, opposite vicars cut from very much the same cloth, arguing about things that had little import to the vast majority of people. Rather than rooting for them, I felt like cringing.

In the end, they chose the wrong battleground. People can believe whatever nonsense they like, and no amount of rational argument will change that. Nor should it. It's none of anyone's business unless it affects the lives of others. That's where the focus should be, but it never really seemed to be. It seemed to be more about conversion. And why act like a religionist if you aren't one?

[Serial_Apologist]

Thirdly, when I see someone who is rational arguing with an unusual passion, I also find it ironic that what shines through so clearly is their soul.

Well I'm glad you can see it, Lat! I'm assuming you are speaking in metaphorical rather than literal terms, because "The soul" is a pretty loaded concept in itself. Where does it reside? Some would say in the heart; some in the bowels; Taoists near the solar plexus when they point and speak the word "Hsin"; today possibly many would site it in the brain...

Anyway, I digress from the subject in hand...

In terms of psychology, he would talk about the immaturity of needing a godlike parental figure and the damaging effect that can have when required by religious dogma. While I agree, I also see the parent as a component of personal identity.

By this, I mean a part of a person is a parent to the self. It seems to me that this can be comprehended by an individual in a myriad of ways. It could be religious or not religious. What matters is how it is self-perceived.

Gestalt psychology had a very strong influence on me at one point. I'm a bit rusty these days on the theory, but from memory, a Gestalt psychologist would define what you are describing in terms of inner-enacted Helpless Infant/Parent conflict, depletive of psychic energy, in which the individual is unable to let go of the internalised parent image: "What would Mother/Father think?", (Freud's Superego). It would argue that maturity, or personal integration, cannot come about until the Adult replaces the Helpless Infant/Parent dichotomy, and that this is rendered possible (for appropriate cases, at a certain stage) by having a therapeutic setting in which the two warring inner parties - the disapproving "parent" and the cowed "infant" - are invited to "articulate", and the infant to realise his or her natural inner strength to move on from needing the inner parent any more. Are you suggesting, Lat, that CH might have transferred an unresolved internalised hostile father relationship onto his own construction of the God image?

S-A

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Having noted Richard Dawkin's predictable reaction, it would not surprise me if the gentleman in question becomes a Roman Catholic in a few years' time, like T.S.Eliot and Malcolm Muggeridge, both originally fanatical atheists who could not stop telling everyone.

[Lateralthinking1]

Are you suggesting, Lat, that CH might have transferred an unresolved internalised hostile father relationship onto his own construction of the God image?

Oh dear, you tempt me back into some of my own half-baked philosophy. To understand a person's extreme dislike of religion, and what he perceives understandably as God at its centre, I think we need to look further than his relationship with his own father. For youngsters who see their fathers as being at the centre of both their world and the wider world, religion in adulthood may come easy. Many are not as fortunate to have those lazy linkages for a variety of reasons. Some may then be inclined to focus on the huge amount of material which suggests that religion terrorizes. Why, they ask, could anyone be so naive and malevolent to insist that God is a benign protector. While they are entitled to be angry and to argue against religious infantilizing, they might benefit from knowing that this shouldn't necessarily lead towards the cavalier. For those who have God obscure the many components involved in reducing conflict and maximising self-protection, not least in their rigid adherence to broad religion.

I see the parent to self in identity as being non-gender specific. It could be called the self-nurturer which perhaps sounds a little feminine but it also includes elements of drive. Actually, I see it as having three components - the "father" which is shaped by an individual's relationship with his or her own father and other early significant father figures; the "mother" which is shaped by an individual's relationship with his or her own mother and other early significant mother figures; and the "circumstance". This note from me is driven by the latter. The latter is shaped by any formative experience that is removed from the actual parents and yet felt to have an unusual significance. It may reinforce aspects of the other two components, either singly or as a pair, or perhaps more likely contradict them creating complexities. Frequently it will emanate inadvertently from decisions taken by one or other of the parents but it is also linked closely to societal fashion. For example, you can only be affected by boarding school if your parents decide to send you to a boarding school and that can only happen if there are things called boarding schools in existence. It can even be wholly haphazard although I would suggest that this is exceedingly rare and difficult to argue with conviction.

I would describe the parent to self in the adult identity as follows. It is in a sense Bear Grylls deciding to conquer Everest but knowing that survival techniques are not only crucial to the adventure but integral. Being so, it is the self-nurturing that is the more fundamental feature of the exercise than the drive that ever got him onto Everest at all. In his case, the spirit of adventure came directly from his father and was natural. I understand that his mother was very laissez-faire. That absence of typical maternalism could be seen to have encouraged that spirit further. Initially, he found the need for safety procedures difficult to accommodate. They had to be learnt. I would suggest that his ability ultimately to do so emanated from a love from his mother, whatever her motherly limitations. It is the love rather than the specifics of a parent's ability that is important to self-care. Grylls claims to have religious belief and that is all very well. It is meaningful to him and he doesn't inflict it. I respect his interpretation of why he survives. But he knows better than we do what practical work and motivation are involved. It seems to me that they emanate principally from his parented identity and his faith in that is then symbolised to the point where that symbolism is real.

Turning to CH, I don't think that his angry vehemence emanated directly from his relationship with his own father. There may have been traits. His father sounds like he was a very determined man but I am not aware of any exceptional animosity there. That is, the kind of animosity that makes someone a CH rather than an ordinary person. Nor do I think it is evident in CH's fatherly role in respect of his own children who he loved very much, if not in a textbook sense. His mother, of course, committed suicide in a pact with her lover, a former clergyman. I am sure that this was significant both to his outlook on religion and addiction. It is inconceivable that there were not complex feelings of anger there. I guess it also indicates a certain drama in the family. Consider too that it was she who decided that he had to join the intelligentsia. He may have turned on that a bit, intelligently. But there is also just a hint there, beyond the impacts of her partner's manic depression, of an extreme act that was designed to drive her ambition for CH's intellectualism further. It looks very much like the stuff of a tightly woven novel and not without irony brings to mind the phrase "everything in our lives is mapped out". Her unscientific hope and meandering were, I think, crucial to his story.

As for early circumstance, I would see his boarding school experience as having had relevance. I went to an independent day school and then only at age 11. Others would have greater insights although I had comprehension of that culture. It was authoritarian. Its ways were presented as a religion of sorts - the only path to follow, the only right way. It attempted to lord it above everyone else. It felt like an attack. It had enemies outside and encouraged internal divisions. Fortunately, I could come home to my bed with it only partially in my head. I could imagine anger and an isolationism in other places where any desire for closeness could only be found in conflict both with others and selves. It does contribute to lifelong defences. I know from personal experience that I am inclined more towards self-destructive behaviour the more I am in conflict with other people. Sometimes it can't be avoided and rational strengths regrettably can be even stronger when it occurs. Any intelligence can arguably spring from it. So there is a dichotomy. The reward of feeling right while at the same time wanting none of it. It can be very hard work. And then there was in CH the inability really to leave it for witness the company he kept throughout his life. He wasn't spending time in McDonalds with the proletariat. He could speak with Archbishops more easily than he ever could with dustmen.

A person who is removed from his parents at eight is likely to have more of circumstance in his adult parent identity than other people. A broader identification will accompany greater alienation, particularly with any team that appears to oppose the earlier circumstance. In the case of CH, that identification was leftism. Its anti-religion positioning was wholly in line with a need to drive out the pseudo-religious circumstances of his school. For that, in a sense, had distorted the parent component of his identity. It just didn't seem simple or narrow enough to principally reflect his actual parents' traits. I believe that from that point onwards, the raison d'etre became more important than the team itself. He would play for any team that appeared to support it. And, of course, he was then stuck for life in a dialogue far broader than those who just like to potter in the garden. Being in that domain, he remained highly susceptible to new circumstance. There it was with his brother choosing religion. There again with mother and broader symbolism colluding in the ultimate self-defeat as mentioned earlier. Cue a further rallying against religious sacrifice. A part of me thinks that he fought for liberty so hard because his circumstance had been experienced as so totalitarian. Cigarettes, whiskey and ranting were perhaps his only constant reliable support, the slow road to death that two arguably were.

I do understand the notion of God to be a version of the parent to self in the identity. One that is believed to be external and yet to be brought in throughout life towards the self. As a nurturing force, it is generally for the good, although self-nurture can also be experienced in non-religious ways. It wouldn't work for everyone. For the good, that is, in its purest form. The problem is what can be attached to it. Being outside the original family unit, all of the politics, rituals and requirements of religion are also outside the personal identity, particularly where the parents aren't devout themselves. In that way they are circumstantial and can impede self-nurturing based on private belief. It is they rather than God per se, or any conflict with the original actual parents, that often diminish the self-power of parented self. Some of the best lines are placed between ourselves and all the wider pictures.

[eighthobstruction]

Hitchens always did get a good broad argument/debate going QED.... <spitting on palms and rubbing them emoticon>

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, this is not the place for essays so I apologise for the length of the above. However, CH's death and the coverage in the press has really got me thinking and reading. I've read huge amounts in the past 24 hours. I am really surprised by it.

This morning I have been digging back into Russian history; the Attlee Governments; the Communist Party of Great Britain; the International Socialists; and the Vietnam War. Given the successes of Labour in 1945-47; full employment here circa 1960; the return of Labour with Wilson in 1964; and LBJ's Great Society initiative in the US from 1964, what I am trying to do is get inside a mindset. The mindset that saw the Hitchens brothers and thousands of suburbanites at university in the period 1967-1973, not to mention many others in the US, identifying with international socialist theory. It intrigues me and I am looking for help here.

I understand the following: The disillusionment of Nye in the 1950s; Gaitskell versus CND; a belief in the US being too dominant; its anti-Communist witch hunts and territorialism; mixed views over Hungary in 56 and Czechoslovakia in 68; years of Conservative and Republican Governments; unnecessary wars - particularly Vietnam; and the Wilson Governments not delivering. I am more surprised by the insights many appeared to have about where a tentative mixed economy under capitalism might lead. How right they were.

But I am not clear as to whether the political students of the late 1960s were motivated by (a) altruism or (b) being young so that they identified with the have nots more than the haves or (c) no more wars or (d) a mainly cultural coolness.

It also bemuses me that perceived union power in the 1970s with which the Conservatives ultimately "dealt" appears to have been focussed on wage rises rather than achieving new democratic powers. It seems very odd given the small but extensive apparatus in the left wing movement. Had the emphasis been on the latter, I feel that we might have been in a better position now.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”

read by CH at his father's funeral and fit for him too i think ...

[eighthobstruction]

#43 Lat....It's a case of a priori" and "a posteriori....which brings us back to the transcendental....