Welcome statement


Parting Words from Moristotle (07/31/2023)
tells how to access our archives
of art, poems, stories, serials, travelogues,
essays, reviews, interviews, correspondence….

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Thor's Day: People are praying for you...

But you can't satisfy them all

By Morris Dean

Christopher Hitchens, dying, did as he did in living;
gathered his wits and understanding and wrote
publishable lines he hardly ever blotted, giving
us thoughts that I for one oft find apt to quote.


Christopher Hitchens found himself in June 2010 in transit "from the country of the well across the stark frontier that marks off the land of malady." He was diagnosed to have esophageal cancer, which had already metastatized to a lung and a lymph node. In Mortality, the book published after his death in December 2011, he describes the medical interventions undertaken, against heavy odds, to try to eradicate the cancer. It's harrowing reading, enough to convince me that the choice to undergo such treatment should not be taken lightly.
    Everyone said he was battling cancer, but he concluded that "I'm not fighting or battling cancer—it's fighting me."
    Another thing he had to contend with was people—most of them well-wishers—who insisted on praying for him. He doesn't write much more gently about them here than he did in his 2007 book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything:

Of the astonishing and flattering number of people who wrote to me when I fell so ill, very few failed to say one of two things. Either they assured me that they wouldn't offend me by offering prayers or they tenderly insisted that they would pray anyway....
    As with many of the Catholics who essentially pray for me to see the light as much as to get better, they were very honest. Salvation was the main point...Pastor [Douglas] Wilson [of the New Saint Andrews College] responded that when he heard the news he prayed for three things: that I would fight off the disease, that I would make myself right with eternity, and that the process would bring the two of us back into contact. He couldn't resist adding rather puckishly that the third prayer had already been answered....
    So there are some quite reputable Catholics, Jews, and Protestants who think that I might in some sense of the word be worth saving. The Muslim faction has been quieter. An Iranian friend has asked for a prayer to be said for me at the grave of Omar Khayyam, supreme poet of Persian freethinkers. The YouTube video announcing the day of intercession for me is accompanied by the song "I Think I See the Light," performed by the same Cat Stevens who as "Yusuf Islam" once endorsed the hysterical Iranian theocratic call to murder my friend Salman Rushdie. (The banal lyrics of his pseudo-unlifting song, by the way, appear to be addressed to a chick.) And this apparent ecumenism has other contradictions, too. If I were to announce that I had suddenly converted to Catholicism, I know that Larry Taunton [of the Fixed Point Foundation in Birmingham, Alabama] and Douglas Wilson would feel I had fallen into grievous error. On the other hand, if I were to join either of their Protestant evangelical groups, the followers of Rome would not think my soul was much safer than it is now, while a late-in-life decision to adhere to Judaism or Islam would inevitably lose me many prayers from both factions. I sympathize afresh with the mighty Voltaire, who, when badgered on his deathbed and urged to renounce the devil, murmured that this was no time to be making enemies.
    ...A different secular problem also occurs to me: What if I pulled through and the pious faction contentedly claimed that their prayers had been answered? That would somehow be irritating.
    ...
    PRAYER: Interesting contradictions at the expense of those who offer it—too easy a Pascalian escape-hatch with me on the right side of the wager this time: what god could ignore such supplications? Same token—those who say I am being punished are saying that god can't think of anything more vengeful than cancer for a heavy smoker.
    ...
    If I convert it's because it's better that a believer dies than that an atheist does. [–Mortality, pp. 15-17, 18, 88, 89]
_______________
Copyright © 2013 by Morris Dean

Please comment

22 comments:

  1. It is strange to think that a man of such obvious intellect and independent thought would hasten his own end through heavy smoking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And very heavy drinking. He writes (in obvious rationalization) that his health was so good and he was strong that he could carry on so well, there was no indication that he needed to stop drinking or smoking.

      Delete
  2. Ironic that a man who made a career of railing against those of religious belief, gave them such an opening to say he was wrong because of the way he chose to live. It does not take much imagination to envision religious types saying "see, if only he had believed, he could have controlled his demons and lived a longer, healthier life."

    Obviously I am not among those saying or thinking that, but I will say that because of his smoking I never took much interest in Hitchens, despite much championing of him in Moristotle. Call it judgmental, but I find it hard to believe a philosopher is all that brilliant in thought if they choose to smoke, or if they are too mentally weak to quit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paul mi amigo, I find it hard to believe, that you, of all people would chastise someone for choosing their own path. True it may have killed him, however, we all die of something. If he had done all those things and lived to be a hundred, do you believe if he had not drink and smoked he would have made it to a hundred and one?

    Some people would say racing around the country on a motorcycle and running all over Africa, makes your demand for clean living sound self righteous. I, however, would never entertain such a thought.[smile]
    You know being a non-smoker, non-drinker, and non-meat eater, doesn't mean you will live longer, only that you are betting the odds.

    I, also would never question a man's work by what I saw as bad habits. Steven King wrote much better back when he was doing coke. He could have chosen to keep doing coke and writing good stories, but he decided to write crap and live. Not everybody makes that choice, but that does not lessen their work.

    I've been both a drinker, smoker, and walked through the hell known as cancer. We all have our demons. I no more won some battle against my smoking and drinking than I did my cancer. I chose to stop smoking and drinking and for some reason I was able to do both---I don't know why I could and others can't anymore than I know why I'm alive while others who set with me for hours with that poison being pumped through the bodies are not.

    On a side note: I know nothing about Hitchens, I may like his work or I may not, but I would hope I could judge the work, not the man.

    ReplyDelete
  4. kono, my ex-pat friend. Before I launch into replies to a couple of your points in particular, let me give an example of how clearly drawn is my line against those who smoke. When I was in my mid-40s, for more than a year I had a girlfriend half my age who was a Victoria's Secret quality lingerie and swimsuit model. Then she started smoking. For me there is no better litmus test of what really resides within someone than smoking. After a couple of months it became obvious she was not going to quit anytime soon, so I dumped her. If I could live with that very painful decision, I can without batting an eye dismiss a writer who was often contrary just for the sake of being a contrarian, and who it is arguable died a bloated caricature of himself. Not unlike Jack Kerouac, I might add.

    If Hitchens was merely a lowbrow writer of inane pulp, like Stephen King, and if I actually enjoyed reading such tripe, then no, his being a smoker would not matter. In that case only the work would matter. Hitchens, however, made his fame as a thinking man, and as a thinking person's writer. And I just don't believe someone can smoke and be all that smart or clever. They may play the part, but I don't think it rings true, and that is what I see, or saw rather, in Hitchens: An act that rang hollow.

    I have never tried cocaine, but I respect what it does for most people who do use it. In my lifetime I have known people who used a variety of crutches to keep their lives together: religion, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, meditation, hypnosis, an so on. By far the most entertaining, productive, reliable, best looking, and happiest and least cruel of those people I have known are the cocaine users. Cocaine in moderation has a definite upside for the mind and body, as does alcohol - thus my daily shot of the best Scotch I can afford.

    Smoking, on the other hand, has no upside, as far as I know. Which means people who choose to smoke are deciding to do damage to themselves for some mysterious reason, with nothing positive in the process. I respect those who think it through and with a clear mind decide to commit suicide; I don't trust the philosophical ramblings of someone who is killing himself in small doses. Thus I didn't get caught up in the brilliance of Hitchens, because I wonder how much of his writing and contrarian role playing was real, and how much was just well-practiced shtick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you ever had an addiction, Moto? Kicking a full-scale chemical addiction like tobacco is brutal at best. It took me four tries and nearly ten years. I'd never diss someone for failing that test.

      Delete
  5. Have I ever had an addiction? As in an outside influence that got the better of me? Then probably not, unless you count petite, sexually demanding women. (smile) For the record, I'm not saying I would diss someone for not being able to kick an addiction; I am merely saying I wouldn't put much stock in what they had to say. I would be far more likely to trust words of wisdom and insight from someone who had been able to kick their addiction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm. I intended a much stronger point. Kicking an addiction is harder than you know. Judging the value of Hitchen's work based just on his failure to deal with that is beyond harsh. We'd all better hope that our own life and work are judged more generously than that.

      Delete
  6. Chuck, would you recommend that a ghetto child find inspiration in a gang-banger rapper who died young from drugs and alcohol? Isn't Hitchens basically an aging white guy's equivalent?

    I understand your point about my assessment being harsh. That is in large part because I don't understand why people have such an obsession about searching for wisdom and inspiration in words by others, rather than thinking to life their own wise words. When did we start putting such emphasis on reading, and so little on thinking, anyway? If someone is determined to read rather than think, do they really want to draw their wisdom from someone who smoked and drank himself to death at a fairly early age?

    As for how our own lives and work are judged: Why do we care? If we are doing the best we can, what difference what others think? I will give Hitchens great credit in that he seemed to live that way, not caring what others thought. But it seems to me he took it so far he didn't even care about his own life. If he didn't, why should I?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Pretty handy debating tactic, to dismiss any argument offered from the thought of someone else as demonstrating that the person offering it is weak and therefore not worthy of consideration. I'll have to try to remember it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The principle involved leads to the even handier tactic of dismissing any thought of anyone else on the ground that you didn't think of it on your own. Kind of solipsistic, I think.

      Delete
  8. And glibness is a pretty handy debating tactic as well, apparently?

    To get to specific point rather than esoteric: Can you please explain the big difference between Hitchens and a gang banger rapper who dies young of drug and alcohol abuse? And can you explain why the same people who would dismiss the rapper because of his lifestyle, would be enamored of Hitchens?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sometimes we do need to examine the logic-chopping that is going on and refrain from jumping into the muddy water that the chopping has stirred up. <smile-face here too>

      Delete
    2. I'll foolishly take a swing at that. Unlike the rapper, Hitchens didn't harm, or even threaten, anyone but himself. I'd add that most of the allegedly Wise have bad habits, even those I actually admire. If that disqualifies their work for respect, who is left? Yourself?
      Incidentally, I'm not a fan of Hitchens. I hadn't even heard of him before his cancer got him into the papers. (You can't read everything.) So I have no reason to defend him. I'm just disinclined to accept your judgmental attitude.

      Delete
    3. Chuck, since I fully believe in John W. Gardner's quote (below), I am guilty of being as judgmental about the philosophers I buy into as I am the plumbers I hire. Which may be why I try to do my own plumbing when possible, and why I believe people should spend as much time and effort thinking and writing their own words as reading those put forth by others. Either way, I always enjoy a spirited debate.

      "The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water."
      John W. Gardner - Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under President Lyndon Johnson and former president of the Carnegie Corporation

      Delete
  9. A gang banger that calls for the killing of police and any number of other people. A person who glorify rape and the degrading of of women. And, does this for the soul purpose of making money. I don't care what this person died from, his work can be judged. That I believe is what is at the heart of all this. If we dismiss the work of some very great people because of the life choices, there will only be the Southern Baptist and you left. (Laughing now)

    ReplyDelete
  10. kono, interesting comments as always. However, I have to wonder if what is at the heart of this, to use your description, is that a bunch of aged white folks can be just as mindlessly swayed by what their peer group tells them is cool, as a bunch of black kids can be influenced by what their peer group pushes at them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm pretty certain that there aren't any aged folks among us (I'm thinking mainly of thee, Ed, and me) who do anything because someone else thinks it's cool. Are you serious, Paul? <smile-face again, but I'm a little too nervous at "crossing" you to actually be laughing>

      Delete
  11. I believe the problem you are having is the idea that those who do not believe as you, are mindless. In truth, we all have our on ideas, but seek to justify them. A person who believes in God doesn't care to listen to those who do not believe and so forth. The idea for you to become a vegan was first in your mind to become one and then you justified your belief by research into other people's work on the subject. The people in the Tea Party, believed the way they do, before there was ever a Tea Party.

    You may say a person is being swayed by the peer group, when in fact that person chose that group to reinforce the beliefs they already had. This is true with you, me, the Rapper or Hitchens or any of the other writers or thinkers

    ReplyDelete
  12. kono, you may very well be correct. And I thank you for putting forth some ideas on what could be, with examples to support them, instead of merely saying what isn't, with little to support that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What's up moto, I thought we could keep this going for a couple day at least[smiley face here]

    I don't remember who said it, maybe you have heard it before and remember.
    "There are no original thoughts, just the same old ones phased differently"

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, kono, if you hadn't ruined it by backing up your position, instead of just saying I had no right to mine, I probably could have stretched it out three or four days. Good to see there is at least one old guy out there who actually thinks about what he thinks, instead of just knowing why he knows what he doesn't know. (insert Yogi Berra smiley face here)

    I will agree that there are very few original thoughts in some venues, and apparently it isn't limited just to Fox News.

    ReplyDelete