Posted on 01/15/2012 2:18:32 PM PST by rhema
Hitchens' eisegesis notwithstanding, the parable of the good Samaritan does not suggest and was not intended to suggest that "morality comes from us".
Mr. Hitchens' presumed to know what blind, impersonal, omnipotent matter wants us to do; that is, what we ought to do and what we ought not do. Of course, the idea of moral incumbency, which entails the notion of something not functioning as it 'ought' to function, in in a purposeless, accidental universe, is inchoherent and unintelligible.
The problem of the existence of abstract, universal invariants is something that was apparently way over Hitchens' head. He could never seem to grasp that the raising of this metaphysical problem was not a challenge to his nature as a moral being, or an accusation of immorality against him, but was simply the observation that If his own presuppositions were actually followed to their logical conclusion then his moral indignation was, quite literally, groundless and absurd.
Cordially,
Let me give you some pointers on how human conversation usually works:
When you describe someone as a "dishonest man" (as you described Hitchens), people who challenge you on that assumption are not claiming that that person never, ever told a lie, or didn't at some point say or do something in their life that could be classified as "dishonest". What they are doing is challenging your classification of that person as a "dishonest man/woman", as opposed to someone who is an "honest person".
When I said that Hitchens was never dishonest, most people would understand that I was referring to the fact that I haven't seen Hitchens utilize dishonest means to further his point of view, even though there's many things I disagree with him on.
And I still haven't seen example one from you to back up any of your claims that he was dishonest in any of the arguments or causes he supported.
So again, please feel free to cite some examples. Otherwise, find someone else to play semantic parlor games with.
Thanks for your reply. I still admire Hitch for playing “Devil’s Advocate” at the Vatican. How many people have that on their resume, lol?!
Lovely post. Hitchens was often the loyal opposition in American politics and literature. He kept a lot of us honest in our thinking. Or at least we had to try harder to be honest with ourselves.
Lots of words;very little substance. Most people would simply admit that claiming Hitchens was “never dishonest” was just hyperbolic exuberance, and let it go.
Bless your heart.
It wasn't hyperbole; it was a true observation. I never saw any examples of Hitchens being dishonest in his public, professional life.
Of course, you could prove me wrong if you had the testicular fortitude to back up your libelous accusations, but it's quite clear that you lack stones, the evidence, or both.
That's not to say that there aren't some great things she accomplished, as well as great and noble women in her order, but there's more to her story than we've been sold by the media.
Not at all, GunRunner. I had not seen your post here when I posted my #61, but there I try to make it clear that my point has nothing whatever to do with whether Hitchens had ever done anything undesirable or morally unacceptable in his life. I happen to agree with you that Mother Teresa should have returned the money, but I was attempting to make a point about a philosophical system, not the personality who adhered to it.
Cordially,
How many people can write well? In my experience, very few.
So true. There is a moral obligation to listen the contrary argument and Hitchens demonstrated such a willingness to challenge his own biases. I usually disagreed with him but I always loved listening to his arguments.
Understood. I mistook your comments as an excuse. As long as you are willing to admit that the money should have been returned, I have no argument with you.
Christopher Hitchens is in heaven now.
I’ve never seen so much sputtering over an obviously indefensible proposition. But, if you want to continue to believe that Hitchens was “never dishonest,” I won’t dispute it further. In fact, I’ll double down: just in case the Easter Bunny palys a major role in your belief system, I’ll leave that one alone too.
All you have to do is stop fellating yourself for two seconds and provide us with an example of Hitchens' dishonesty. Then you would succeed in proving that you have you have a valid argument, and dispel the apparent impression that you're nothing but a self-sodomozing moron.
So put up or shut up, then you can go back to tossing your own salad.
He was a thief who railroaded many decent people out of their savings.
Appreciate the context of this parable, it comes as a reply to the question, “Who is my neighbor?”, after Christ had just taught to “LOVE THY NEIGHBOR” In the Holy land in the time of Christ, Samaritan was a dirty word. What made this Samaritan good, was his courageous, selfless help to the robbed and injured man, including paying for his lodging and food. Christ is using a fictional character to illustrate a spiritual truth, about how God loves us, even through the help of our fellow man. To understand this story in Modern terms, substitute,
“Hamas Cleric” for Samaritan. We do not associate selfless acts of kindness to Jews with Hamas Clerics, neither did first century Jews associate Samaritans with such selfless acts. We do not know if there was a specific true act of a Samaritan to which THIS Christ parable refers. It has been the tradition of commentators over the ages, to postulate that there was no true basis for this story.
The fact that this parable relates an improbable act, makes the illustration of God’s love more pronounced.
In the centuries since this parable was first recorded, we have come to associate Samaritan with “good.” This was not the case in the time of Christ.
From this post I would surmise that in real life you are either Chrissie Matthews or someone who has an advanced degree from the Chrissie Matthews School of Analysis.
Apart from the obscene invective, I notice that you are resorting to one of Hitchens’ favorite forms of intellectual dishonesty: attributing a strawman argument to an opponent. You know that the guffawing on FR about your claim that “Hitchens was NEVER dishonest” has nothing to do with a belief that Hitchens had an avocational interest in shoplifting at Walmart.
Your hero-worship of Hitchens is misplaced. In fact, hero-worship is never a good thing. To say that Hitchens sometimes wrote perceptively and accurately or that he sometimes swerved into the truth would be accepted by virtually everyone. To say he was “never dishonest” is ridiculous and doesn’t merit a book review or an analysis of his debates with Douglas Wilson and others.
You could have admitted to having posted in a moment of “irrational exuberance”, and no one would have thought the worse of you for it. As it is, you seem not to have learned the first law of holes: when you find yourself in a hole; stop digging.
I’m looking forward to your next post, which undoubtedly will, like your last, display the temperment of an outraged bonobo.
This is pathetic. I’ve never seen anyone run away from backing up their claims in such a silly fashion. The fact that you won’t provide evidence for your claim that Hitchens was a “dishonest man”, proves that you are a liar and a coward.
Trying to change the subject again, I see. As a refresher, the issue was your absurd claim that Hitchens was “never dishonest”. This is a claim that spans his entire career as a “public intellectual”. It also involves a multitude of intellectual sins.
You evidently have no idea that Hitchens was once a Marxist and a Trotskyite. If you had any familiarity with those systems of thought, you would know that adherents have a “novel” concept of truth; namely, the “truth” is whatever serves the struggle, which is to say that they completely reject “bourgeouis” conceptions of “truth.”
What is your concept of truth? If you think a Marxist theory of “truth” is legitimate, then that might partly explain your postings. Of course, Hitchens later moved to some degree toward a more bourgeouis theory of truth, raproachment with capitalism, and abandonment of anti-colonialism, much to the consternation of his Marxist friends who accused Hitchens of selling out for fame and fortune.
That apart, here is Hitchens from his intellectually dishonest God is Not Great: ““Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith.”
Here Hitchens is mainly taking a swipe at Christianity, his bete noir. The statement is obviously false with respect to Christianity, and Hitchens knows it to be false. The authors of the NT, for example, again and again state clearly that they are presenting evidence so that others may believe. Hitchens was entitled to reject the evidence, but he is not entitled to say that Christianity ASKS us to believe things without evidence.
This sort of distortion, along with omissions, exaggerations, and smears were a great deal of Hitchens’ stock-in-trade. For those familiar with his ideological haunts, the techniques are obviously the residue of his Marxist/Leninist allegiances.
While Hitchens gave up on socialism as an economic system about 10 years ago, he never, to my knowledge, stopped admiring Marxist theory or stopped thinking of Lenin and Trotsky as “great” men.
I can’t wait to hear from you again. I am coming to enjoy your spittle-flecked rants.
Bless your heart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.