Reviews for Letters to a Young Contrarian

The average rating for Letters to a Young Contrarian based on 2 reviews is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2012-01-07 00:00:00 Jeffrey Childers Death hath wrought a pernicious dent in the erudite and intellectual world; Hitchens will not be one to be soon forgotten, nor ever replaced (but emulated, definitely). Let me stop you before you roll your eyes. Yes, I am providing my belated, unasked-for, and pedantic tribute to the late Hitch, but this is as appropriate of a forum as any to do so, right? Indeed, I read this magnificent little collection of letters of advice written to no one in particular (but everyone) in modest and solemn remembrance. I listen to Hitchens' lectures and debates as if they were my favorite records. Instead of singing along to the Bad Romances and the Mmmbopies, or whatever you kids are listening to nowadays, I am obdurately testifying along: "…what matters most… the pursuit of liberty, freedom. And that these things are incompatible, completely incompatible, with the worship of an unalterable celestial dictator; someone who can watch you while you sleep and convict you of thought crime, and whose rule cannot be challenged." "It's not moral to lie to children. It's not moral to lie to ignorant, uneducated people and tell them that if they only believe nonsense, they can be saved." "Bear in mind that you are only dust, as the Christian book says, or you are only fashioned from a clot of blood, as the Quran says; bear in mind that you were convicted and found guilty, before you were conceived, of crimes in which you couldn't possibly have been involved, and you have all the burden of proof in your own defense, and you've been found guilty. But… to make up for that rather horrible indictment, you can be reassured that the entire cosmos is designed with you in mind. False consolation. And that he has a plan for you, on the condition that you agree to be a serf. Forever." I imitate these and many other lines in my best terrible British accent with as much seemingly effortless acumen as I can muster for an audience of my two dogs (both of whom are now atheists and contrarians as well). However, this is not strictly an anti-religious polemic like his acerbic, if slightly inferior god is Not Great, but a multifaceted deconstruction of conventional wisdom and reverence. There are fringe views that deserve to be marginalized, and then there are dissenting views which need to be heeded, or at least considered. Nothing Hitchens says can be shrugged off, and if one tries, they will end up looking even dumber than they did when they became recipients of his critical wit in the first place. Happily, the intellectual public mostly embraced this public intellectual, and realized his worth in a miscellany of areas. As much as I love his railings against religion (around which most of his debates are centered), it is too bad that some people think that was the sole domain of his brilliance (or according to his detractors, his calumny/misguidedness). His reflections on literature (specific pieces, or in general), history, travels, and encounters, are absolute treasures. One should envy the experiences of this man; well, most experiences. Among the things to admire in him is his lack of hypocrisy. One cannot suggest that he 'dishes it out but can't take it'. As he states in the preface, "I attack and criticize people myself; I have no right to expect lenience in return." He prepares for, and anticipates attacks on himself; and throughout his career (and life), he has addressed them head-on. The day of his death, I heard more about his being known for his assailment of Mother Teresa than anything else in his distinguished career from the major cable news networks. Luckily, the likes of Joe Scarborough and Sean Hannity don't get to determine the legacy of this man; at least not for anyone who knew him, or followed his work. Format: Mr. X, the student, (i.e. us), is allowed the privilege of absorbing all the knowledge and nuance that only Hitch could articulate to this effect. How happy I am that these letters were not exclusive to his students (but how sad am I that I was not among them). Several brief correspondences with a hypothetical, representative student, whose responses are assumed, or left out, advise on what it is to be a contrarian. It is not a matter of being the stand-out dissenter, but the nuanced thinker. (At least that's what I gathered). Don't accept anything because someone tells you it is so. Take advantage of your faculties and seek the truth out for yourself. The Advice (In Conjunction With My Own): Consensus isn't always trustworthy. Appealing to experts has its values, I feel, and I don't think Hitchens disagrees with that insofar as dispassionate research reveals the evidence, but in matters of, say, policy, and more pertinent to this third letter, idolatry, the arguments from authority and consensus are not sufficient (nor are they particularly helpful). Disputations are an essential part of crawling toward truth, but let us not get caught up in tautology. It does no good to say either something is true or it is not true. Both of those possibilities are true, and each party in a disagreement can infer as much. Not everything is up for debate, however, as observational evidence cannot be reasonably misconstrued as falsehood, unless we disagree on what observation and evidence are. And around we go. More to the point at hand is the inauspicious concept of Nirvana; sheer nothingness, or mindless 'bliss', which renders discovery and thought useless, or at the very least unnecessary. We shouldn't, I don't think, desire suspension, or termination of the intellect, regardless of the ease it may bring us. "And the pleasures and rewards of the intellect are inseparable from the angst, uncertainty, conflict and even despair". This shouldn't come off as an anti-existential way of thinking, I don't think. Moss can be existential in practice. Rocks may very well be experiencing Nirvana. I'll keep my intellect as long as I am able to (in the service of existential thought, of course). Thinking may cause discomfort, or unease, even unhappiness but that is no excuse to eschew it in favor of becoming a breathing inanimate object. The evasion of verbal conflict is a silly thing. I thought trying to solve problems with words was a good thing, but now even that makes the tender-hearted cry and plead for peace and compromise. My own bit of advice would be: do not ever agree to disagree. Always state your case if you have one and if you are serious about it. When one engages in combative dialogue (I say combative because vehemence in debate is no vice either) it is important to know exactly whom with one is engaging. Go find a sparring partner. Go on! Play devil's advocate if you'd like, or just rant and rave with a like-minded cohort. I'll wait… Wasn't that refreshing? If not, tell me why I am wrong in thinking that argumentation is a common good. Nuance or Obfuscation? Some Improvised Examples: -He burned a Quran, what did he expect? He knew there would be violent reaction and he did it anyway. This implicates him in the subsequent riots and murders. He should be more sensitive and show more respect to the sacredness of people's beliefs. -I'm not anti-gay, I'm pro-family. -Providing abortion services is akin to murder. I sympathize with victims of rape, but we shouldn't punish an innocent unborn child for the actions of their father (said actions being conception of the child through non-consensual intercourse). We already have one victim (of rape). Let's not add another victim (of in utero murder). When such stances are being taken, it may be an apt time to whip out Occam's Razor and do some slicing-and-dicing in the name of common sense. Force them to say what they really mean, and deflate false gradations with the art of "simple… elementary principles". Out of Context and Incorrect Citation: Like Karl Marx's famous Religion is the opium of the people statement (often assumed to have appeared in his Communist Manifesto, when it really appears in A Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right), Hitchens' Antitheism remarks are very poorly understood and unjustly used to discredit him as a credible critic of religion. The word antitheism smacks of a shaking-ones-fist-at-the-sky quality and Hitchens' detractors are quick to point this out. The problem is that, much different than rebellion for its own sake, Hitchens backs it all up with historical (and anecdotal) proof. Seek out and criticize each example on its own terms, sure, but don't bring up the old dross of 'he is just angry at God…' Admittedly, you'd think a statement like 'I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches , and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful' to be contained in a more histrionically titled book, like 'god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything', but, like those who would talk about Marx's opium quote as if it were some kind of Communist slogan, we can confront those who talk about Hitchens' antitheist quote as if it were a way to ride on the coattails of other recent popular critics of religion, because it was written years before, and his later book on the subject was an extrapolation of this point (in that respect, I must say, it is not much like Marx's quote). Self-criticism: I am told that my neutral face is a pissed-off face. I often appear uninterested (often enough, I am), in what other people are saying to me, or I am insufferable and condescending. So, like Hitchens, whose face apparently forms an unintended sneer, I don't fit the old description of a gentleman: one who is never rude except on purpose. So be it. But when I am talking, especially to someone who may very well know more than me about any given subject, I go over each sentence that may escape my lips, in my head (this also depends on my blood-alcohol level). I have been proven wrong before, and I have changed my mind about things of which I have not been proven wrong. There is no shame in this, and nobody needs me to reassure them of that. What is shameful though, is holding a minority viewpoint and conceding to your detractors on that basis. In this area, I am not as confident as the man who wrote "Have I ever thought I might be wrong? Yes, sometimes and briefly", but I hope I am wrong in thinking I will never be. Anticipated, if Unlikely, Outside Criticism: "This isn't a review. You quote Hitchens too much. If I wanted to read Hitchens quotes, I'd buy a book of Hitchens' quotes", to which I respond, as Hitchens says, "You… noticed that I make liberal use of extracts and quotations, not just to show off my reading but also to enlighten my text and make use of those who can express my thoughts better than I am able to." Bonus For Those Who Have Made it This Far: "The ability to discriminate is a precious faculty; by judging all members of one 'race' to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination." Let this be a voice in the back of your head whenever you, or someone else, describes someone, (or himself) first and foremost in terms of 'racial identity', or when 'identity politics' is brought up. I Now Leave You With This: "Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect them to live for you." I am not sure if I would ever wholly embrace any 'words to live by', but if I did, the words above wouldn't be a poor choice. I am saddened only in that there can be no more contributions to the world from the pen of the man who wrote them. Methinks it is time to pour myself some Johnnie Walker Black (neat) in his dignified honor (not to be construed as worship). Cheers Hitch.

Review # 2 was written on 2020-06-30 00:00:00 Michael Morgan Have you ever conceived of a lean epistolary work on the pugnacious pursuit of truth and the importance of descaling your cherished ideals as often as possible in an effort to avoid gestating a stilted intellect that ossifies with time like sun baked avian offal? That was very prescient of you, as the late master of melee most mouthful produced one such work, and now reaches out across time to steady you by your tender morsels, and shotgun, past your trembling lips, the hot second hand vapors of wisdom tirelessly sought. Until you're shouting: "Kiss me hard on the mouth you disagreeable asshole. I wish to learn the pressure points of conventional wisdom, so that I might subdue those who advocate it using only a bottle of absinthe and my thumbs." Have you ever thought to yourself that education's primary concern shouldn't be ladling the gruel of context divorced particulates into the squiggly cortical topologies of curiosity until it all resembles a coagulated mass of stultifying minutiae and rancid chicken stock, but instead should be committed to equipping students with the tools necessary to innervate these channels with stagnation battering, tidal currents? Producing people who are not easily affronted. People who do not avoid verbal conflict in matters that are serious to them. People who find consensus to be insufficient in matters of policy and what they should value. People who are not easily taken in by the emotional appeals of demagogues, charlatans, and wankers. Who, in short, are capable of thinking for themselves. Then let me tell you, those sentiments are well expressed in this svelte correspondence between Hitchens and the prospective gadfly which seeks his counsel. This book examines what it means to gird your loins for intellectual battle while wielding the exotic weaponry of unpopular opinions. This book teaches, much like the chain whip and three-section staff I happened upon in kung fu class, which disincentivize their misuse by mangling your knobby bits when flailed wildly, that you should unsheathe your contrarian objections with great care, and never in the service of calling attention to your asinine shenanigans. It invites you to question authority (not at the expense of allowing your kidney stones to go unpulverized) in its many forms: Political affiliations with pre-packaged, highly processed beliefs which masquerade as perfectly coherent and self evident, but sport nutritional information that is incomprehensible when examined. Fundamentalist religious indoctrination which seeks to stigmatize the act of reasoning itself as an unforgivable act of high treason. The media which promulgate falsehoods of extraordinary omission in order to pander to their viewership, obfuscating substantive debate in favor of the comforting atavistic narratives of us versus them, tribe versus tribe, good versus evil. And finally; you. Your self assurance in matters you are deeply ignorant of. The halo of all those unchallenged presuppositions, gaslighting your drunkards walk through the dark spaces between true knowledge and puffed up pretensions to it. I recommend this book to everyone, without reservation. So lets poor a little Johnnie Walker Black in memory of Hitch and go out with a quote which he was fond of. As Mill said in Chapter II of On Liberty: "The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."