Does Peterson really understand Hitchins’ point?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Perhaps you’ll benefit reading his books in order to understand his views better? There is some nuance to be had beyond the titles.

Perhaps I will. I have read various books supporting atheism or criticizing Christisnity. I think it a good thing to look at different views. I was inviting discussion here however.

I recommend starting with The Trial of Henry Kissinger in order to understand the mind that wrote books on God and religion.

[drumdude]

I think Hitchens was a much more interesting political writer. I religiously read his columns and wish we had his point of view on current events.

He wasn’t afraid to change his mind and wasn’t tethered to specific political allegiances. I don’t know how he would have navigated the past 15 years since he died.

[huckelberry]

Perhaps I will. I have read various books supporting atheism or criticizing Christisnity. I think it a good thing to look at different views. I was inviting discussion here however.

I recommend starting with The Trial of Henry Kissinger in order to understand the mind that wrote books on God and religion.

Well that might be a good recommendation. I will consider, put it on my list.

[Limnor]

That’s an impressively thorough list of things he hasn’t said. His version of restraint by saying nothing must be exhausting. Also, “passing over in silence” seems to have an unusually vocal nuance.

When I first read the bolded part above, I thought it said "Camus exploitation"...

A fitting misread.

Imagine carrying the burden of not accusing people of gluttony. Must be agonizing.

[Physics Guy]

… “passing over in silence” seems to have an unusually vocal nuance.

It’s an allusion:

That of which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence.

The poetic oddness of this phrasing is entirely due to translation. In Wittgenstein‘s original German the sentence is blunt, just using the common German word schweigen, “remain silent”. There‘s no single English verb for refraining from speech, so translators pretty much have to choose between clunky and weird. Various translations have decided this differently, but it’s the above weirder choice that seems to have caught on in English.

The Latin title of the text is translation as well. Wittgenstein’s original title was quite straightforward in German, where double-barreled adjectives are mundane, but the translators were so stumped that they went for Latin. The translations seem to have made the book memorable but they also make it seem more exotic than it really is. Wittgenstein is actually quite down-to-earth for a philosopher.

[IWMP]

When a person like Midgley literally writes that he wouldn't know that rape is bad if his religion didn't tell him so, and therefore he assumes any who reject religion don't have the capacity to know rape is bad either, he fully supports Hitchen's point.

:O This can't be serious.

A lot of children know right from wrong some intrinsically, some because that is what they are taught by the examples around them. Yes religion might give more examples and might train people to have certain ethical beliefs but it doesn't lay down the law that is build in a person's system of thought.

I think it takes extreme cases to cause a child to genuinely think certain things are ok. But then there's things that go either way, I personally don't feel comfortable in the idea of deer hunting for example, others feel it's normal. But Religion isn't the only factor that plays a role in how people think.

I can't imagine how someone can believe that without religion rape would be normal life.

Although, now thinking, in some tribes where they might not have religion as we know it, they might have cannibalism, so maybe...
Some cultures do rape across the culture but I would like to think they know it's wrong deep down.
Edit:correction

[Limnor]

… “passing over in silence” seems to have an unusually vocal nuance.

It’s an allusion:

That of which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence.

The poetic oddness of this phrasing is entirely due to translation. In Wittgenstein‘s original German the sentence is blunt, just using the common German word schweigen, “remain silent”. There‘s no single English verb for refraining from speech, so translators pretty much have to choose between clunky and weird. Various translations have decided this differently, but it’s the above weirder choice that seems to have caught on in English.

The Latin title of the text is translation as well. Wittgenstein’s original title was quite straightforward in German, where double-barreled adjectives are mundane, but the translators were so stumped that they went for Latin. The translations seem to have made the book memorable but they also make it seem more exotic than it really is. Wittgenstein is actually quite down-to-earth for a philosopher.

Interesting, thank you! I wonder how one would translate “passing over in silence at considerable length” back into German.

[Physics Guy]

If we gave up the "passing over" and stuck with Wittgenstein's prosaic original, I'd try "ausführlich schweigen", "keep silent in thorough detail". A native speaker would probably have something better.

[Marcus]

Peterson lauds his intent to keep silent while noting that he could provide vague innuendo. Which he then provides. It's the passive-aggressive version.