0096 2251 2110 8105 Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 I don’t know if this has been already posted, but I was watching Qtronman’s video on Hitchens and his few occasional comments on Ayn Rand, and then went to do some research, which lead me to this old article he wrote. So, here are some of the highlights: "True Randians call themselves "objectivists," after the pitiless and materialistic philosophy evolved by their guru, which promulgated thoughts and actions by which man must abide to live a proper life." or "The cliché about Randians, as Branden reminded me, is that they are moody youngsters going through a rebellious phase." I’ve heard Hitchens has at least some respect for VoS, but I can’t really get how he managed to actually read the book (or maybe he didn't) while ignoring her definition of “selfishness” since he can’t seem to make the distinction (4:38), or (1:27) for example, there are probably a few more. You can tell by his tone and everything how he refers to Rand and objectivists condescendingly. What a waste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Hitchens' views on Ayn Rand have been mentioned here several times. In the end, Hitchens becomes a pseudo-intellectual when the subject of Ayn Rand comes up. I think he has some respect for her philosophy, but somewhere along the line he loses all reason when discussing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...amp;hl=Hitchens The topic and this reference in particular has been discussed before. Hitchens is a mess ethically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Erik Martinsen Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Perhaps he's so obsessed with being a "contrarian" and "free thinker" that he rationalizes when it comes to Objectivism, making up excuses not to commit to a full philosophical system defined by someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0096 2251 2110 8105 Posted November 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Well, I was trying to make a thread specifically addressing his general point of view towards Ayn Rand, rather than focusing on just one of his videos, etc. I also noticed that nobody posted the article I found here, so it would be interesting to share it with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 It is a rather interesting article. Just read it. Hitchens often condemns Christianity for things I've not heard anyone else condemn it for except for Objectivists (And Nietzsche ); that it requires self-immolation and sacrifice and that is immoral . STill, he holds to intuitionism as the source of morality and human solidarity as its main goal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Perhaps he's so obsessed with being a "contrarian" and "free thinker" that he rationalizes when it comes to Objectivism, making up excuses not to commit to a full philosophical system defined by someone else. I only came recently on Hitchens, but from what I've seen and heard, I tend to believe you're right. It looks like he fancies himself as an 'enfant terrible', taking on everything and everybody to show how clever he is - and he certainly is bright. But I see no sign of a philosophical spine in him. The article is worth reading (btw, irrelevant, but interesting is that it was published August,2001). I think he is not completely honest, as he played a little fast and loose with what Nathaniel Branden said in the (phone?) interview. Here : (writing about young O'ist businessmen). 'But then, the young generation is so often a disappointment to the pioneers. And, as he [branden] added, mournfully, "people adapt her teachings [Rand's] in the same way as they adapt their religious beliefs in such a way as to suit their own local needs". ( C.H. continues ) :'Since one of Rand's most unswerving principles was an utter hostility toward all forms of spirituality and superstition, this counts as a tough criticism.' What? This is bare-faced editorializing and misrepresentation of Branden's words; N.B. was obviously critical of the people - making up their own context of Rand's teaching - NOT O'ism, and made an ill-advised analogy to religionists, which C.H. deliberately distorted. This is error by evasion. Also that quote about "moody youngsters", by Branden, surely was about the cliche, or the perception, of O'ism, not an attack on O'ism, by him. (And, tellingly, N. Branden describes himself as a neo- Objectivist, which is a long way from being the "enemy" he is commonly made out to be.) Hitchens seems to thrive on controversy, of his own making, half the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Yeah, the date of it is what should interest most people who know the history of Hitchens dealings with politics. Before 9/11, he largely considered himself a Marxist/Trotskyite. Since he has seemed to develop a less evil view of the world in general, though certainly not a positive one yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 It is a rather interesting article. Just read it. Hitchens often condemns Christianity for things I've not heard anyone else condemn it for except for Objectivists (And Nietzsche ); that it requires self-immolation and sacrifice and that is immoral . STill, he holds to intuitionism as the source of morality and human solidarity as its main goal do you have a source for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 He mentions it in many debates. However, a mainstay in most of his recent debates is his accusation that vicarious redemption is immoral, which is also a unique criticism. You can hear that in his debate against Turek on youtube. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) He mentions it in many debates. However, a mainstay in most of his recent debates is his accusation that vicarious redemption is immoral, which is also a unique criticism. You can hear that in his debate against Turek on youtube. do you know which debates he mentions those two (intuitionism and human solidarity) ? Edited November 12, 2009 by Mikee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Yeah, the date of it is what should interest most people who know the history of Hitchens dealings with politics. Before 9/11, he largely considered himself a Marxist/Trotskyite. Since he has seemed to develop a less evil view of the world in general, though certainly not a positive one yet. That's because the Jihadists attack scared the piss out of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Yeah, the date of it is what should interest most people who know the history of Hitchens dealings with politics. Before 9/11, he largely considered himself a Marxist/Trotskyite. Since he has seemed to develop a less evil view of the world in general, though certainly not a positive one yet. That's because the Jihadists attack scared the piss out of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Grathwohl Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Hitchens is a mess ethically. Perhaps, but he's sure as hell fun to watch be interviewed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axiomatic Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I can't help but love Hitchens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alone Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Christopher Hitchens is an incredibly intelligent, well spoken journalist. I underline journalist because his opinions and viewpoints come primarily from being well read, and not from engaging in or committing to the rooting out of contradictions in his own philosophy, or even being particularly concerned with understanding philosophy. As a result, tragically as is most often the case, his viewpoints are a contradictory cobbling together of exposures to various intellectuals and their ideas with only a surface level of consistency. I absolutely love to hear the man speak, because he quite obviously thinks highly of himself and can deliver a point with such precision that I hold him as a role model simply to become as good at speaking as he is. Criticisms are necessary, but I want to point out an ideological alignment that I feel is important. [*] Atheism - His Book "god is not Great" is an important component in the shifting American culture right now because of the growing movements of Atheism, secularism, anti-religious fundamentalism, pro-science and reason, etc... If there is ever to be a revolution of ideas in America, religious stigmas and dogmas will have to be removed first. Now, of course flaws abound because of the aforementioned lack of integration in his belief structure. [*] He believes himself to be a "Libertarian Marxist," and believes that Das Kapital predicted many of the recent failures in the U.S. economy. This, while confessing a horrible understanding of economics also exposes a horrible understanding of the philosophical roots of Marxism and its logical end, and its necessary conflict with individual liberty. [*] As mentioned before he is a hard critic of religious dogma, but takes a pro-life position and insists that a fetus be regarded as an "unborn child." [*] Believes in an interventionist foreign policy (labeling himself a neoconservative), but criticizes the United States for employing torture techniques like water-boarding to extract life saving information from potential, or known, terrorists. The list can go on and on for his contradictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0096 2251 2110 8105 Posted November 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 The list can go on and on for his contradictions.Oh, yes, please go on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alone Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Oh, yes, please go on. That reply seemed sarcastic, do you not believe this mans contradictions are much more numerous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0096 2251 2110 8105 Posted November 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 That reply seemed sarcastic, do you not believe this mans contradictions are much more numerous?It was really an honest reply, and yes, but you’re the one who seems to have knowledge of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alone Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 It was really an honest reply, and yes, but you’re the one who seems to have knowledge of it. It was the opposite of an honest reply, because it was sarcasm. You said the equivalent of "oh yea smarty pants, tell us all more since you're so smart." Your intention was mockery, while your post mimicked that of someone asking for more information. It isn't like hitchens masks what he believes and, being a journalist, there is plenty of print as well as interviews to draw definite conclusions from. You are replying as though I'm claiming to have some special knowledge about him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted November 21, 2009 Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Please, you two, keep this conversation going. It's really interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0096 2251 2110 8105 Posted November 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 It was the opposite of an honest reply, because it was sarcasm. You said the equivalent of "oh yea smarty pants, tell us all more since you're so smart." Your intention was mockery, while your post mimicked that of someone asking for more information.For goodness sake, if I’m telling you that it wasn’t sarcasm, and I’m the one who said it, and I am the one who knows what my intentions are, why do you keep insisting?? I said what I said, and that is: “Oh, yes, please go on”, which means “Oh, yes, please go on.” You indicated some contradictions, I was interested and asked for more, and that was it. But hey, fine, never mind, I’ll just wait for someone else to do it. Jesus Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 (edited) Why is someone's view on Ayn Rand so often used as a litmus test on these forums? Imagine all the people in American history that you admire. Many of them held beliefs that were diametrically opposite of some of Rand's positions. Yet you do not condemn them. Let's not apply a different standard to people who happen to have lived during her lifetime. Edited November 22, 2009 by The Wrath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0096 2251 2110 8105 Posted November 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 (edited) Why is someone's view on Ayn Rand so often used as a litmus test on these forums? Imagine all the people in American history that you admire. Many of them held beliefs that were diametrically opposite of some of Rand's positions. Yet you do not condemn them. Let's not apply a different standard to people who happen to have lived during her lifetime.Well maybe because he is a very important contemporary intellectual who many of us admire, and have an easier access to his material, since he is also a very active figure n the media today. He gets a lot of attention from it, and also from people in general who are becoming more open to rational thought because of him and the “New Atheist” movement. He is a very respectable man among many Objectivists, and since his word has certain degree of value, and he is one of the very few semi-rational voices out there whom average people may listen to, it’s a very interesting thing to see what he has to say about Ayn Rand and her ideas, given that he has a bigger opportunity to reach a greater number of people than, for example, ARI, and his opinion may have a very possitive or not so good effect on Objectivism in the future. So that is why I think it's important. Edited November 22, 2009 by 0096 2251 2110 8105 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 The thing about Hitchens is that it's very difficult to figure out what he actually believes about anything. He does a great job debunking religion, but he doesn't overtly replace it with anything. I'm sure he has his own beliefs, but no one seems to know what they are. I have heard him talk about Ayn Rand with a certain degree of respect, but I feel certain that he disagrees with much of her philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.