Was he as bad as Jordan Peterson

when he was around?

Attached: hitchens.jpg (730x920, 47K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/3MNu2GNx-kQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

meme economy was completely different then. your question suggests you're projecting 2019 values onto the 2007-2010 era, which is utterly fallacious of you.

Hitchens is the anti-peterson

How young/transgenderer are you?

He was more of a polemicist and pop-poli author above anything else, not really in the same lane as a youtube lecturing self help professor.

glib slug

No, he was much better read than JBP.

Hitch is more philosophically inclined, JP is a psychologist.

I suppose they both fight/fought for what they believed in most, and any bad attributed to them is the result of their strong opinions entering the ether.

IMO Hitch was much more of an open minded thinker, and his prose is vastly superior to JP (and most), along with having rhetorical blessings and a wit second to absolutely no one.

IMO JP is more a self help guru, who offers great pick-me-up lines and is popular with youths that feel left out due to the lack of religious public intellectuals.

hitchens knew nothing about philosophy, i gather

his "philosophy" was pretentious

he actually had quite an entertaining wit even though he was a complete pseud, peterson is just a pompous pseud

this post sort of works as its own rebuttal
I gather

whenever any of these idiots get asked about modern philosophy, they haven't any response

Science is modern philosophy.
Look at the strides on Earth since the Enlightenment, are they due to a bunch of philosophers, or science and the empirical method?

I'm not discounting philosophy, but any notion of "modern philosophy" has taken a backseat to science. If it weren't the case we'd still be governed by the churches.

we are governed by magic rituals in our daily lives

the fact that we do not accept the primitive nature of our lives is the reason the world sucks, today

just remember that the people who really matter dont appear on tv

hitchens was very much a left leaning milo iwnfwonwvopolis
smooth with words, fun to listen to, occasionally makes good politically incorrect points that nobody else wants to make, but generally out of their league when debating real experts on anything
they're the kind of guys who you choose to win debates because they rile you up and make you laugh, even though they're losing in every major way. in other words, I think peterson is better, at least marginally. he has more expertise than simply "well-read journalist"

fucking pleb. science answers how and not why

nothing answers why definitively. Relax pham. Take it easy.

Even worse. He was a journalist who could speak well but had nothing substantial to say.

Listen to Lawrence Krauss on the how not why question.

The 'why' denotes purpose, you're already presuming a purpose! You've already warped your own question! You've annihilated your ability to be truly free thinking before you even got started.

How. Always how. That gets you to the answers.

This.

Attached: An_Experiment_on_a_Bird_in_an_Air_Pump_by_Joseph_Wright_of_Derby,_1768.jpg (5639x4160, 3.91M)

Reminder:
youtu.be/3MNu2GNx-kQ

The “how” presumes just as much.

Semantics? How does not presume anything. It doesn't care.

support for the status quo and the technification of everything via instrumental rationality

You complain that asking “why” presumes there is a why, but you don’t think asking “how” presumes there is a how? You may simply be an idiot.

He was very philosophically weak actually

He was not only a better mind, he was a much better writer

He was great. Him and his camp did a lot of good work against Christianity and Islam. And no, I'm not an athiest. Now that much of abrahamic theism has been dismantled and discarded, the future can embrace a pantheistic revolution far more easily, with many current "athiests" (who are compassionate people, and don't appreciate the opposite effect that these religions have had on the world) moving on to such new concepts of "god". It will be glorious.

Oh and panpsychism too, sorry. And animism.

For a writer/journalist he was quite philosophically well read. You don’t need a degree to read Kant sweetie.

First and foremost he was a political-commentator, concerning himself with real-life issues, he didnt even delve into philosophy that much actually

HA HA HE WAS ATHIEST

HE WORE HAT LIKE THIS

HOW FOOLISH HA HA

Attached: Fedora.jpg (580x420, 38K)

>written by tenth grader

Considering he's one of the worst "historians" of all time, yes, far worse

Saying 'for a journalist's lowering your standards right down into the gutter anyway so yes I'm sure he was philosophically deep for a journalist

>Look at the strides on Earth since the Enlightenment
Wait a minute, are you some kind of neoliberal or something?