I missed this tribute a few days ago but I liked it too much not to share:
(via Robert Forrey)
JEBUS CRAST THIS IS GREAT!
His end is not as great as you think. He forfeited the grace that could have been his. It is sad to see so many following in his footsteps. http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/
Actually, Dave, you believe in Vishnu. You say you don’t and even claim a different God, but since the word of Vishnu exists and has revealed Vishnu, it is impossible that you don’t. You are just in rebellion. The argument of ‘They know there is a God because if the word of God’ forgets that we don’t believe the word is true. You may be a troll, though, I can’t really tell.
Truth is an addiction?? No, truth is a necessity.
He wasn’t god’s most militant atheist, how could he be? How can you be militant against something that doesn’t exist. He was very much against religion which he saw as an authoritarian instrument that suppressed truth.
Leaving out Forrey’s comments and letting Hitchens speak for himself would have been a more than adequate eulogy.
I will miss discovering Hitch’s next pesona. 60’s radical; 70’s libertine; 80’s leftist; 90’s conservative 2000’s athiest; 2010’s ? The man was a brilliant writer, satirists, and rhetoritician. As a writer and lit major, I adored the man. I have a sneaky suspicion, however, that cancer did what no other force onearth could: trap him in a position. He made a more than good living stiring shit and tossing bombs. I believe he could assume personas and accompaning points of view like an intellectual chameleon. When the N A movement started, there were the big three. But, using only the power of his rhetoric, his ability to assume and write from ANY position, he worked his way into the four horesmen. The ONLY ONE without a hard science background and surrounding CV. Impressive. But, he was not Mark Twain…he was Blackee Lawless and a master of niche marketing….genius!
The man was not addicted to truth. He was addicted to the feeling of “being right”. Therefore he defended increasingly untenable positions, because he was unable to say. I was wrong. His writting was clever, but became more and more dishonest with the passage of time. In which he would subtly try to make implications that were never explicit through clever turns of phrase. That is dishonest, and very Hitchens. I agreed on many issues. Disagreed on many issues. But it was clear that truth was not his addiction. Being “right” was his addiction.
Hermant…Hitch is certainly worthy of one more. So glad we have his writings/image/voice for all our posterity of the future. His presence was large and he is gone too soon.
Re: Hitch’s next persona…Shouldn’t we all be like that? Constantly changing/growing/morphing in the passage of time with the more we come to see and experience in reality? Gawd, I’d hate to be stagnant. Change is here to stay. Change is the law of life. Turn and face the strange…time may change me.
I am all for changing and growing, an organic and internal process. That being said, what Hitch did was discover niche markets from which he could assume a position, generate a beautifully crafted product and market it, himself, and his unique skill set. Like I said, he was not Mark Twain ( a true atheist satirist ). I admire his ability to join a conversation and dominate it effortlessly. I am just not thoroughly convinced he was as true an atheist as his last professional persona. A close historical/biographical critique I believe will reveal this and this pattern throughout his life’s work.
Also, maybe this is shallow and irrelevant, but he was a DREAMY cute guy!!! And to think that strong mind was behind that face just makes it dreamier!