Dec 29 2012: Yes, I use emotion as well as logic to convey a point. No crime there.
I read your original comments as partially facetious, largely pretentious, wholly patronising and completely missing the point.
This is not what you said but it IS how I read it. Forgive (and correct) me if I'm wrong:
1. I agree with the statement
2. I will now reword the original, subtly changing the meaning
3. I will now pontificate about a completely trivial reading of the quotation that I have helped to manipulate you into seeing by my clever rewording of the original phrase.
4. I will now make it clear that my agreement with the statement is conditional on the statement being read the wrong way.
5. I will now criticise the author (damn his Hitchy britches!) with slanderous abandon.
6. Having knocked the (now dead) competition, I shall demonstrate my incredible intelligence by displaying what a deep philosopher I am... let me ask you some solipsistic questions and show you what a deep thinker I am.
I don't know where to begin, really. Let me have a go:
Christopher Hitchens was a great many things; he was a great man; what he was not, however, was ignorant on how and why people accept or reject various statements. He was a great writer, a great thinker, a great philosopher and a great speaker. He understood more about why people accept or reject various statements than you, my young philosopher, will likely ever do. Well done for noting that human brains tend not to make decisions without emotional or cognitive bias. How clever you are. Really. Pat yourself on the back for stating the bleeding obvious.
The questions you pose at the end of your comments are... ironic! The GENIUS of the original quotation is just that it asks (and answers) those same questions, if you would but read it properly... only he doesn't get bogged down with "should"... he just relates to the reality of what people will accept or reject.
Now I cannot rest until you bow to the genius that was Hitch!
Dec 26 2012: No, I can't see any way that a moral can be anything but subjective.
Your example is not necessarily universal in everybody's eyes.
Consider the teacher getting a painful stone in the back of the head while writing on the board, asking "who threw that?" and getting no answer. In the interests of maintaining discipline which will be better for all the kids in the long run he might hold the whole class behind for detention. Is this morally wrong? Certainly many kids will feel hard done by... but you could argue that it's the right action nonetheless.
Dec 26 2012: Seriously? I think the words chosen were spot on. It is a statement of fact. Without evidence it is only possible to have a childish "yes it is" "no it isn't" type argument... if you wish your assertions to be strong enough to stand against rebuttal and rejection then you must have evidence. It is a sublimely clever quotation with perfectly chosen words.
Dwell on "can". That doesn't mean "should" or "will".
You CAN assert anything you like.
(Many people may agree with you)
But without evidence behind your assertion IT IS POSSIBLE THAT (can) one person in your audience will dismiss what you say.
I actually take it further, though, as it suggests (and you may have read it this way) that in a rational World where we seek truth we probably OUGHT to dismiss all assertions without evidence. I go with the weak and strong readings of this statement completely but actually the weak version is all he said, as you can see by substituting "it is possible to" for "can":
Would you agree with
Anything that it is possible to assert without evidence is by its nature possible to dismiss without evidence.
Dec 26 2012: Really? I wholeheartedly agree with the Hitch and I think you should do too. Think hard about it before judging. Your point that people do tend to make decisions about statements without recourse to due evidence, reason and logic is precisely why the long-suffering (fools, that is!) Hitch had to make the damned point in the first place.
And as to your frankly child-like questions as to evidence... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But this doesn't have any bearing on the question at hand: is it correct to say that in a debate any imbecile who presents ideas without any logic, reason or evidence OUGHT to expect to be told that they are an imbecile and their thoughts worthless? Unfortunately, though, by simple appeal to feelings and instinct and emotions, such arguments are ofttimes given too much weight instead of being soundly dismissed.
I not only agree with the statement but also feel that the World would be a better place if we taught this to children instead of laughable intelligent design!
TEDCred score: +0.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: âThat which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.â â Christopher Hitchens. Do you agree?
I read your original comments as partially facetious, largely pretentious, wholly patronising and completely missing the point.
This is not what you said but it IS how I read it. Forgive (and correct) me if I'm wrong:
1. I agree with the statement
2. I will now reword the original, subtly changing the meaning
3. I will now pontificate about a completely trivial reading of the quotation that I have helped to manipulate you into seeing by my clever rewording of the original phrase.
4. I will now make it clear that my agreement with the statement is conditional on the statement being read the wrong way.
5. I will now criticise the author (damn his Hitchy britches!) with slanderous abandon.
6. Having knocked the (now dead) competition, I shall demonstrate my incredible intelligence by displaying what a deep philosopher I am... let me ask you some solipsistic questions and show you what a deep thinker I am.
I don't know where to begin, really. Let me have a go:
Christopher Hitchens was a great many things; he was a great man; what he was not, however, was ignorant on how and why people accept or reject various statements. He was a great writer, a great thinker, a great philosopher and a great speaker. He understood more about why people accept or reject various statements than you, my young philosopher, will likely ever do. Well done for noting that human brains tend not to make decisions without emotional or cognitive bias. How clever you are. Really. Pat yourself on the back for stating the bleeding obvious.
The questions you pose at the end of your comments are... ironic! The GENIUS of the original quotation is just that it asks (and answers) those same questions, if you would but read it properly... only he doesn't get bogged down with "should"... he just relates to the reality of what people will accept or reject.
Now I cannot rest until you bow to the genius that was Hitch!
A comment on Conversation: There exist objective moral truths
Your example is not necessarily universal in everybody's eyes.
Consider the teacher getting a painful stone in the back of the head while writing on the board, asking "who threw that?" and getting no answer. In the interests of maintaining discipline which will be better for all the kids in the long run he might hold the whole class behind for detention. Is this morally wrong? Certainly many kids will feel hard done by... but you could argue that it's the right action nonetheless.
A reply on Conversation: âThat which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.â â Christopher Hitchens. Do you agree?
Dwell on "can". That doesn't mean "should" or "will".
You CAN assert anything you like.
(Many people may agree with you)
But without evidence behind your assertion IT IS POSSIBLE THAT (can) one person in your audience will dismiss what you say.
I actually take it further, though, as it suggests (and you may have read it this way) that in a rational World where we seek truth we probably OUGHT to dismiss all assertions without evidence. I go with the weak and strong readings of this statement completely but actually the weak version is all he said, as you can see by substituting "it is possible to" for "can":
Would you agree with
Anything that it is possible to assert without evidence is by its nature possible to dismiss without evidence.
?
A reply on Conversation: âThat which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.â â Christopher Hitchens. Do you agree?
And as to your frankly child-like questions as to evidence... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But this doesn't have any bearing on the question at hand: is it correct to say that in a debate any imbecile who presents ideas without any logic, reason or evidence OUGHT to expect to be told that they are an imbecile and their thoughts worthless? Unfortunately, though, by simple appeal to feelings and instinct and emotions, such arguments are ofttimes given too much weight instead of being soundly dismissed.
I not only agree with the statement but also feel that the World would be a better place if we taught this to children instead of laughable intelligent design!