Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Hitchens even explicitly denied any real connection to the Right because he partially understood the connotations viz-a-viz American traditionalism.
Hitchens was so thoroughly normalized by the end that many forget he was a very promiscuous bi-sexual man for most of his life.
Anyway, the man loved a soundbite, was eloquent in an argument, but displayed no rigor when it came to any kind of cohesion amongst his own arguments, or that of his opponents.
Look at his debate partners. Not a serious scholar among them. He preferred the flim-flam artists, the backwoods preachers, the fools...
That's probably part of the Orwell in him - although Orwell was far greater - but Hitchens definitely felt it was important to fight fire with fire.
|
I disagree with a lot of this:
1) Hitchens stated he had a couple of same sex affairs when he was very young, but was a monogamous straight man.
2) As for his debate partners, yes he took on some over the top people. When one of your main topics of debate is religion, you simply aren't going to attract many people that non-religious people would consider to be serious scholars. Most people having these debates are going to be experts in religion and not scholarly subjects.
3) Hitchens lacked "cohesiveness" because he wasn't a partisan. He didn't subscribe to one distinct political bundle of beliefs. He looked at each position on its merits, regardless of whether it was politically cohesive with other positions. He was also open to change in his positions. Both great qualities IMO.