So another eventful
year has passed, it was both mundane and predictable, but not without its own hints of the
unexpected. Anyway, I would like to address one of the expected but
personally saddening events: the passing of Christopher Hitchens at
age 62 from pneumonia brought on by his cancer. It's funny since just
days before his passing on the 15th of December, 2011, I was contemplating the idea of doing a short review of his
book, “The Portable Atheist”, of which I had some things to say,
but now that train of thought has been halted in its tracks. The
great man with an even greater voice and piercing intellectual
capacity is no longer among those present, but perhaps his legacy
will speak otherwise, and so I will discuss that briefly.
I vividly recall bringing up his name in a discussion just a few months back when others commented about
his physical decline in recent years due to cancer. Now despite how much the man had
changed physically as a result of his physical affliction, I still
continued to see him as an immortal – a titan in his own right. The
man's sheer command of language, and his extremely uncompromising wit committed to his rationalistic, atheistic ideological views, will leave his voice infinitely echoing through the annals of the
literary sphere. Sure, he looked ill, and I could tell that his time was
short; he seemed to be running on pure fumes and passion in his last months, but I know that like most great individuals, his name and his
words would continue to live on, shape and influence greater than
most monoliths of our age and the ages of yore.
Despite having the urge to do so, I simply won't deify this
man, since that'd be ironic. Nevertheless, if atheism and pursuit for objective
knowledge and reason were – for one moment – collectivised as a
single and quaintly counter-theological movement, then Christopher Hitchens could be considered the
pioneering prophet of such a movement. I honestly do feel that
individuals such as myself, and others who're like-minded, have lost
a great source of inspiration, and a great voice for a hidden
generation of critical thinkers and philosophers. The world today lost one of its most unapologetic,
humane, and yet honest humanists, and it also lost one of its poignant
writers – fortunately, since he was such an amazing, eloquent yet
brashly articulate individual, his everlasting contributions and
words have immortalised his presence.
Christopher Hitchens
was a phenomenal individual, and will remain in such light for times eternal. I highly doubt that this man, who
epitomised the intellectual forefront of reason and championed its
every crucial fight, can ever truly become a passage of the past. He
may have died, but there is no grave, nor state of finite mortality
that can entomb this man's invaluable essence, arrogance and humility
as a human and an atheist, and his literary contributions as a
philosophical icon of all human ages.
Having considered all
of the above, and also having fully appreciated what has happened, I bid this my
farewell to Christopher Hitchens. I think now I will get back to
finishing The Portable Atheist again, and then proceed to do a
straight forward critique of just how unportable a joy it has been to
read, even including some brief thoughts on the satisfying pissed off looks I garnered from random onlookers and fellow commuters who already have a hard time digesting my evil demeanour, let alone that demeanour with a thought provoking contrarian book. Heh. We've all got a pretentious side to play up on occasion; sporting that book made my 2011 moment, which I'll discuss later. At this point, I'd gladly carry all of Hitchens' books on my
person, for public display, in their full verbose – such is the value of literary
greatness; the man may have passed, but his impact will forever remain.
-- Kade
2 comments:
Hitchens was very antagonistic. However I believe his confrontational style overshadowed some very legit points and arguments he brought to teh table.
Something like Alex Jones. A guy with logical questions and concern and opinions but is often overshadowed by his antics that cause people in his field to write him off as Tsoukalosian.
Hitchens is indeed a very antagonistic character, and he's also shown himself to be a political opportunist. Nevertheless, I think these were very much intentional qualities that he kept at the forefront of his persona. I doubt I would've ever managed to sink my own teeth into his particular brand of antitheism, had it not been for that trait. Why? Because I'm not that different myself, which is why I appreciate the paradox here because – once again – it limits the marketability of the message and those important questions. However, I also find that certain philosophical discourse, is probably just not suited to large-scale marketing because then it can fall prey to confirmation biases and flawed interpretations for more heinous agendas. This has happened in the past to other rationalists, one of them being used as a fallen prophet for the far-right movement in the states. . . I don't think I need to name her.
In an ideal equation, the readers, and audiences alike, would serve the best role by playing mediators between niche artists such as Hitchens and his ilk, and their extreme opposition. I hypothesis that the goal here isn't necessarily to sway everyone on to one side. . . or the other, but rather, to keep them well grounded in the middle.
It is exactly that kind of playing in the middle that'd have an audience member -- such as my self -- actually finding good points of reconciliation with an individual such as Alex Jones, despite my natural opposition to that kind of overly-emphatic individualistic culture that comprises his political alignment.
Post a Comment