Death of Intellect and Reason: what does it mean for us?

     Considering the death of the late Christopher Hitchens, as an enthusiast of great modern thought I feel obligated to share one of my many concerns— which will no doubt digress into at least a few of these said irrelevant concerns. Along with Hitchens, in the past decade we've lost the likes of Professor Carl Sagan and comedians Bill Hicks and George Carlin. Right now, on the fringe of greatness are celebrities such as Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Al Franken, and even activists such as George Clooney and Ashley Judd (who is currently vying to replace Senate Minority lead Mitch McConnell). What concerns me, however, is not the possibility that the conversation, so to speak, won't be held anymore or even less that intelligence will shrink out of the equation, but that people will stop listening (if they ever were listening to begin with). There is no joke about Jon Stewart's claim to have the number one trusted news source with his Daily Show; the show mocks political and social interactions and points out the absurdities of our political institutions and social interactions yet it reaches as much of an audience as any mainstream news source and defeats its competition.

     Even more alarming is the fact that great writers and essayists such as Christopher Hitchens are overlooked simply for the fact that they write for the likes of Vanity Fair. However valid the question may be— “why should I read a fashion magazine?” or “why should I waste my time with satire?”— such is the platform that so many who have so much to say must operate on.

     I must admit that my recent found appreciation of Hitchens doesn't stem from the many arguments, essays, and books of his that I have not yet read, but it is found in his final work “Mortality” which is proclaimed to be the most self-indulgent of all his work (and understandably so). As Hitchens divulges some of his very mortal fears and general worries— and as he also revisits some of his prior arguments in this process— I am learning something about myself in his coming-to-terms with death and his vain attempts to put it off.

     Regret is natural and regret is inevitable; we will demonize ourselves for things we have done or have not done, and others will disrupt our desperate search for solitude in life by blaming us for things that are petty, at best, or completely irrelevant, at worst. In a swift and hilarious motion, Hitchens dismisses the hypothesis that his esophageal cancer has come due to blasphemy stating that the cancer has come only because decades of cigarette smoking is finally catching up with him. He further states that even the many notoriously christian doctors he has debated with and looked to for advice have also come to that same conclusion.

     Perhaps the most powerful part of this book, however, is when Hitchens explains how through the tribulations of Christian right-wingers, there are a number of folks who had written to him saying that despite their inability to find common ground, their moral philosophy is one in the same, that he is a man in their prayers, and a man “worthy” of saving. It's here we can identify those who find the conversation instrumental in pinning down the good life; these are people of faith who aren't willing to ignore the speak of reason and one of a different faith.

     But that is where the problem lies; with the death of Hitchens comes a blow to intelligence in our media and in society because such few use reason, eloquence, and non-accusatory manner in their attempt to explain something they see so differently from other people. And, we all know, without a good argument, people will cease to listen.

     I was told over and over again in grade school and high school math classes that if I didn't provide the work proving the answer correct, then I could not ensure myself full points for that answer. Naturally, I have struggled with this logic the entirety of my short life, but human nature appears to have given me a good reason why. Coming to an answer by brain-work is only good enough so long as the answer does not apply to anyone else; when it comes the time that the answer must be presented in a broad aspect, not all are going to understand it, so it must be simply explained and defended with concrete evidence.

     To explain in other words— or reiterate if I have communicated my thesis well enough already— it's my fear that this common form of explaining the perceived world is coming to an end. It is my fear that fact will become something akin only to science and not to everyday life and how people conduct themselves and how people should conduct themselves. What Hitchens represents in society is the evolved thought, the voice of reason that everyone is capable to find growing within themselves.

     Ultimately, what I fear, is that the world does not recognize it has lost another Martin Luther King Jr., another Mahatma Ghandi, someone who does not claim virtue or prophecy, just merely insight. For those who find the wisdom to cease speaking and listen, I am afraid there is less and less to be heard.

     Perhaps Hitchens would say that the era of listening is over. After all, one of his greatest peeves has been inaction, and action is the only evidence of a “listener” in fact “hearing” the message. But how should the listener conduct himself or herself as they face the end of the era of listening? Following the footsteps of those before us, however much sensibility the individual may have possessed, is not progressive, but stagnant at the least and conservative at the worst. That said, we must ask ourselves a more serious and important question: how do the “listeners” distinguish themselves from the “followers”?

     This is where we are at now. With “current issues” being a term understating its own definition, we struggle with global hunger, war, poverty, and other entirely feudal problems, and these are struggles of our own making. Too many of us authentic listeners fail to make actions of our own, and its what makes us less than followers and what perpetuates the problems at hand.

     This is where I bid Professor Christopher Hitchens a very late farewell. I hope that if his theory of the afterlife (which I share) is incorrect, I am not judged too harshly.
~ Joe