What do you think of dialectical thinking? I have heard atheists say it is not logical, but I feel they are dismissively missing the point . (The idea that considering recursive opposites yield a new truth can sound like the fallacy of the middle, and a lot of atheists on the right are prejudiced against Marx or Hegel. I think they’re misapplying the method. )
The thinking of Hegel or Marx is a recursive fractal. Every new thought doesn’t just build off the old ones, but it contains them too, as you reach for total knowledge.
Supposing it’s false, it’s still a promising way of brainstorming insight. Hitchens also mentioned he considers dialectical marxism valid, but few of his followers care.
Moving on to Hitchens, here are some good Hitchslaps.
“For the first 97,000-98,000 (years) of this, heaven watches with indifference. ‘Oh, there they go again. That whole civilization’s just died out. Eh, what are you gonna do? They’re raping each other again. They think that the other tribe has poisoned the wells, so they’re going to kill all their children.’ Just watch all that. Three thousand years ago it’s decided that, ‘No, we’ve got to intervene now.’
“You have to believe it. You have to believe it, and revelation must be personal. It has to appear. So, we’ll pick the most backward, the most barbaric, the most illiterate, the most superstitious and the most savage people we can find in the most stony area of the world. We won’t appear to the Chinese, who can already read. … No, we’ll appear to this brutal, enslaved, hopeless, superstitious crowd, and we’ll force them to cut their way through all of their neighbors with slaughter, genocide and racism and settle on the only part of the Middle East where’s there’s no oil. And all subsequent revelations occur in the same district and without this, we wouldn’t know right from wrong.”
The background music makes it sound profound, like he’s a hero giving a speech at the end of a movie! It’s easy to link his looming death to that of Socrates or Nietzsche.
5:50 is where it gets good.
Christian: “I don’t consider you an enemy.”
Hitch: “Well I’m very sorry to hear that.”
Christian: “I know, you want me to be your enemy.”
Hitch: “Excuse me, you are my enemy.”
Christian: ‘Well, but you’re not my enemy.”
Hitch: “How do you figure that?”
Christian: “Well I don’t feel the need to silence you-“
Hitch: “Oh well you don’t have a chance of doing that. I don’t meant that at all, I mean your preachments are evil and thery’re a direct threat to the survival of civilization.”
It’s so great is how the Christian hinted at thinking of silencing Hitchens. At first I thought Hitch sounded uncomfortably black and white, but yeah, politically speaking Christians are naturally his enemies.
Christian: “I don’t understand why you’re treating me with such hostility.” (He’s trying to trap Hitchens so he can say Jesus teaches you to love everyone, so he can try to take the moral high ground.)
Hitch: “Well I don’t mind if you understand it or not. I’m talking to your listeners as well.
Hitch: Well go your love enemies, don’t go loving mine. Mine are the theocratic facitsts. I don’t love them, I want to destroy them. You go love them, best of luck!”
Sometimes you have to display contempt; you have to talk past who you’re talking with to make a point.