Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
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.
|
Hitchens only stopped sleeping with men when they stopped finding him attractive - his own words.
There were many historians who challenged his mis-characterization of the early Church. Theologians who challenged his rhetoric on doctrine. The list goes on.
He wasn't an intellectual. He was a celebrity, and a good essayist. I really feel that he wanted to step into the shoes of his idol, George Orwell, and spent his entire life looking for a moral crusade that was worthy of Orwell's own battles against totalitarianism, but was unable to do so - both because he was not as serious as Orwell, and thus, lacked the true moral clarity that Orwell embodied as a journalist and writer.