Thursday, December 22, 2011

Meanwhile, in New Zealand

Glenn Peoples writes an obit for Hitchens that goes against the grain. I like it. Stern, but not mean. Honest. I'd probably have done it with more reserve - I'm picky about my dial between 'respect and courtesy' and 'being blunt' when it comes to a situation like death. But I gotta say, I like Glenn's entry more than I dislike it.


Ilíon said...

I had thought about leaving a link to his post in the commbox of your Hitches' post ... but, you saw it for yourself.

Ilíon said...

As for Hitchens, 'prat' is the least of terms that could honestly be used to appraise his life and his person. Myself, I'd use, at a minimum, 'asshole' ... For, even if he had been right about the nature of reality (and he was not), his rightness on that score wouldn't have mattered in the least (*); and so his life's work of "curing" other human beings of their "religious delusions" -- i.e. the psycho-social behaviors and beliefs that enable most human beings to cope with life -- was simply the behavior of an asshole who thinks it's all a big joke to piss in the punch.

(*) If he were right that God is not (and he was not right), then he now no longer exists -- he gets no browniepoints for having been right, his rightness gains him nothing. Likewise, if he were right that God is not (and he was not right), then Mother Teresa, for example, now no longer exists -- she gets no demerits for having been wrong, her wrongness costs her nothing.

NOTHING MATTER unless God is.

Ilíon said...

Myself, I'm done with Peoples.

Crude said...

What do you mean by 'done'? And why?

Ilíon said...

"I'm done with Peoples" means that I don't intend to waste another minute of my life reading his thoughts or trying to discuss anything with him. I even took the (for me) unprecidented step of removing the link to his blog from my list of "interesting blogs"; but then, due to the way he behaves, I hadn't been visiting it but once every month or two for a couple of years now.

And the reason "I'm done with Peoples" is due to vintage Glenn Peoples behavior, as in the following --

Peoples: "Well Ilion, since there’ no accompanying explanation of how I’ve gotten it wrong or what I’m supposed think, I’ll just take your word for it."

But, in fact, I *did* explain what he wasn't quite getting, both in the specific post to which he was reacting, and in a lengthier previous post.

The specific post to which he was reacting is this --

Peoples: "My point, which i made at further length in the podcast I linked to, is that if atheism is true there’s no overriding reason to accept it. If a person finds it freeing, OK they have a subjective reason to accept it, but if a person doesn’t find it freeing, or if they just don’t feel attracted to it, then (if atheism is true), there’s no reason why they ought to believe atheism, even if it’s true. I personally find that a bizarre state of affairs (but not one that shows anything about the truth or falsehood of atheism)." [the bolded sentence is what I commented upon]

Ilíon: "Ah, but that’s because you haven’t yet realized/understood what it means that the truth of the proposition “atheism is the truth about the nature of reality” matters only if the proposition is itself false."

So, since I *had* explained myself, in clear English, I asked him something like: "So, are you telling us that you can't read?"

He apparently deleted that snide response to *his* snideness ... which is no big deal, in itself, and wouldn't bother me. BUT THEN, he sent me an email to tell me that from now on, any comments I might make would go into "moderation" -- and I don't play that game: if someone holds himself free to be snide toward those who comment on his blog, then he must allow the apropriately snide response.

Amusingly, I see that he later made this post ... the meaning of which is: "the truth of the proposition “atheism is the truth about the nature of reality” matters only if the proposition is itself false."