• More than a genius: A legend.

    The man could out-debate and out-articulate you within a few short minutes. I cannot convey the amount of honor and extreme pleasure to have had the opportunity to have listened to this man and watched him be, albeit for a time that was cut way too short. Hitchens will forever be the sane light in a see of dark idiocy and unintelligent thought - and in a world where in which we truly need it the most now.

  • Yes, he was a genius.

    First off, it is initially difficult to even understand the language of Mr. Hitchens. His casual use of words like "solipsism:'' or his acute memory of an exhaustive studies of academia, let alone his beyond witty responses to difficult subjects. For instance, when discussing difficult theories like the existence of free will or subjects of quantum mechanics - something that would take the average person extensive periods of time to even have a limited understand - he would have no difficulties whatsoever responding in such a way that makes a even the quantum physicist look of average intelligence. He was THE thinker among thinkers. He was the articulator among the articulate. I envy this man's critical thinking skills and his oratory skills. He is truly a man to emulate; but as he himself would say, not idolize. It is a shame he is gone because the world is less knowledgeable by default. We are simply lucky to have the indespensible videos of debates and interview.

  • What a stupid question.

    What a stupid question. Nobody with his wit and rhetorical skills, his propensity for word-for-word questions off his head, his ability to strategically distroy opponents based on wit and cleverness alone, all must surely make him a genius. If he's not, you'll have a hard time convincing me that anyone is.

  • Indeed! (There's a minimum three-word headline. I'm now abusing it out of principle.)

    And no more need be said. (Right. Reckon I'm wrong about that; I'm short 44 words. No fans of brevity here, are there? Now I'm down to 21 needed. Let's think - limericks always work in these circumstances:
    There once was a man from
    Nah! You've heard that one.
    One left now: Cheers!)
    Do miss the old geezer.

  • He was a genius linguistically

    There are different areas that one can excel in -- not just science and mathematics. If we are talking about linguistics, debate, and mastery of the English language, Hitchens is most certainly a genius. There are people who are musical geniuses that can't read. There are mathematical geniuses that can barely write. There are artistic geniuses that cannot do math or have no social skills. Hitchens is a genius in his right.

  • Hitchens was definitely a genius

    Well I suppose we could start by stating that a genius is someone who is so intellectually powerful as to overawe an even intelligent audience, and believe me, of the 4 horsemen, Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, none could hold a candle to Hitchens--his enormouse breadth and depth of knowledge from the Classics, to Shakespeare, to being able to quote chapter and verse from the bible, are rivalled by none. I didn't agree with his Marxist views, but I agreed with his views on religion. He summed it up succinctly: "That which is asserted without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence!"

  • Yes, He was

    I believe his mind was quite unique alone but when you include his incredible memory and extensive research and experience you compile a life filled with profound insight and blunt truth. I often wonder if his way of thinking is the next stage for humanity. I truly hope it is. It is all subjective though and one person may have a different definition of "genius"

  • Clearly, but not without his shortcomings.

    In his writing, rhetoric, memory, logic, and wit, he was a rare gem indeed. In the sense of IQ, the categories that Hitchens excelled in would be off the charts. Of course, he himself admitted to being no good at music, chess, or mathematics, which indicate poor spacial reasoning and numerical intelligence. Even with these deficiencies in mind, I have little doubt that Hitchens fulfills most definitions of genius. If not, we should rewrite the definitions to include him.

  • Not necessarily the smartest guy ever, but if he wasn't a genius, who is?

    What I've seen, heard and read of Hitchens leaves me no doubt he was a genius. A genius has an IQ of 140, and that is not that rare. Somewhere around 1 person in 100 has a genius level IQ, and Hitchens had an intellect that couldn't be less than 1 out of a 100,000 or so. He seemed to remember everything he ever read, and he was able synthisize facts into fantastic arguments. His genius is what made him so special.

  • I think so.

    I think Christopher Hitchens had a very good way with getting people to pay attention to what he was saying. He might have seemed coarse and blunt, but his tactics were always effective. He was excellent at making people look at things in ways that they probably haven't before and opening dialogue on atheism.

  • We Should have Standards on Who We Label A Genius

    Christopher Hitchens was an amazing man that accomplished many things in his life, but earning the label of a genius was not one of them. He was a great writer and journalist but to call him a genius might be a stretch. To be labeled a genius, you should have to pass a test that shows your IQ is at a certain level. If you don't do that, you are not a genius Hitchens was certainly accomplished and creative, but there is no documentation that shows that he can be called a genius.

  • He was no Einstein.

    Christopher Hitchens was certainly not a genius. He was a socialist who was devoted to his written arts. From the books, journals, and further literature he authored he was certainly a philosophical and outspoken man, but not one of brilliance. He did have an impact on the world refining communism into his spawn of socialism though.

  • Absolutely not and thankfully not

    I don't understand how a man as vile as Hitchens can be regarded as intelligent. Just to remind people he openly supported the Iraq war, its ruthless bombing campaign which killed over 250,000 civilians nevermind the countless other soldiers lives wasted following the begotten dream of ruthless imperialists. He supported their chemical warfare and self-identified as a Marxist. He also failed to condemn bestiality when pressed for an answer by an audience member. Genius? Not in any sense of the word.

  • Not based on practicality...

    Having contributed nothing other than compounding knowledge that anyone irksome could withdraw into, I find no compelling evidence that he contributed anything new of value. Barring unforeseen evidence of humanity of an afterlife by his ignoring said evidence wherewithal his definitions were spurious, no not a genius. Not. Even. Close.

  • No no no

    I actually dont really know but from what ive seen he was intelligent and stuff like that. A aa a a a a a a aa a a a aa a a a a a a kaakaka kk kk k j j jk k kj k kj j j j

  • No no no

    I actually dont really know but from what ive seen he was intelligent and stuff like that. A aa a a a a a a aa a a a aa a a a a a a kaakaka kk kk k j j jk k kj k kj j j j

  • Brilliant, yes; Genius, no.

    His arguments about evolution and atheism were brilliant, yet his cognitive dissonance was troubling: an atheist who married one wife in a church, another in a synagogue, after reported excesses in gay life. He was a prolific writer but left no remarkable trend or insights. Read criticisms about him and see.

  • Depends on your definition of genius.

    I was very sorely tempted to answer yes, because I've admired Hitchens for a long time. He clearly had remarkable intellectual and linguistic abilities, both as a debator and a writer. But genius is as much about profound creativity as it is about intellect, and they can't just make an important discovery, they need to open new worlds, it's something that even most talented people can't live up to. In science, for example, by my definition, Heisenberg, Dawkins, Pauling, and even Bohr were extraordinary, but Newton, Darwin, and Einstein were genius'. As much as I admire Hitchens, he's not in the same class as a writer like Shakespeare, Montaigne, or Nabokov. The first person who would admit that would be Hitchens himself.

  • Genius isn't the word I'd use...

    Instead, I'd say he was exceptionally insightful, incisive to a fault, courageous in every way and to his last breath, smart, sophisticated, wonderfully witty, a surgeon of sarcasm, incredibly kind, completely respectful (of anything actually deserving respect), a methodical and deliberate thinker of the highest calibre, and someone who truly understood how the world works. He had moments of inspiration, and I loved him for all his faults, and I miss him beyond expression. But a genius? No. He was much more than that pigeonhole!

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.