Hitchens:

“Yes, but he [Ramadan] would say, or people like him would say, that if I doubt the historicity of the prophet Mohammed, I’ve injured them in their deepest feelings.”

Book: Page 43 
URL: 00:02:32 timer

Analytic commentary

Jung formulates the attitude of the intuitive towards facts as follows: “The intuitive mind is noted for its disregard of facts in favour of possibilities.” (CW. 11, par. 804)  The so-called fact that Hitchens states here is: “…but he would say, that if I doubt the historicity of the prophet Mohammed, I’ve injured them in their deepest feelings.”  Hitchens is referring here to Tariq Ramadan, and thus to a possible statement by Ramadan.  Note that Ramadan has not actually made this statement.  Hitchens’ statement is therefore not based on an actual fact, but on a so-called fact.  From this we can see how relative facts are for the intuitive type.  Such so-called facts do not provide a sufficient basis for a rational critique by individuals with a thinking mindset such as Dennett, Dawkins and Harris.  The intuitive type, however, is comfortable with such so-called facts and herein displays a disregard of actual facts.

This example by Hitchens illustrates Jung’s view stated above that “The intuitive mind is noted for its disregard of facts …”

02

The Four Horsemen

Extract

Book: pp. 58-9 [From the last par. on p. 58: “By the way, on that tiny point…” to the end of the par. on p. 59: “Because if you don’t, it’s flat-out dishonest.”]

Hour 1 of 2
URL: 00:22:22 to 00:23:17 timer

Hitchens:
“Well, yes, I have indeed heard it said that Hamas provides social services in Gaza.  And I’ve even heard it said that Louis Farrakhan’s group gets young black men in prison off drugs.  I don’t know if it’s true – I’m willing to accept it might be.”

Book: page 58-9
URL: 00:22:41 timer

Analytic commentary

The above clearly illustrates Hitchens’ intuition is content to accept this so-called fact without the need for verification.

03

The Four Horsemen

Extract

Book: p. 59 [From the middle of the first section on p. 59: “I have no doubt that Scientology…” to the end of this section: “…it’s flat-out dishonest.”]

Hour 1 of 2
URL: 00:23:03 to 00:23:17 timer

Hitchens:

“I have no doubt that Scientology gets people off drugs, too.”

Book: page 59
URL: 00:23:03 timer

Analytic commentary

In making this statement, Hitchens does not provide detail of actual facts related to Scientology.  He is comfortable to make a statement without the need for proven facts. 

04
The Four Horsemen

Extract

Book: p. 66-7 [From the second par. on p. 66: “Yes.  Because I’ll take things that you and Richard say on human natural sciences…” to the end of the same par. on p. 67: “They’re not being fooled; they are fools.”]

Hour 1 of 2
URL: 00:33:09 to 00:34:30 timer

Hitchens:
“Public opinion is often wrong. Mob opinion is almost always wrong. Religious opinion is wrong by definition.”

Book: p. 66 

Hour 1 of 2
URL: 00:33:45 timer

Analytic commentary

Here we see that not only does Hitchens not provide a definition of “religious opinion”, but even more significantly his intuition has no need to define religious opinion.  He offers the individual with a thinking mindset a vague bold statement ― without anything empirical to reflect on.

05

The Four Horsemen

Extract

Book: pp. 83-4 [From the last par. on p. 83: “That would be of interest.  James Wolfensohn…” to the end of the par. on p. 84: “...would turn me even more against him.”]

Hour 1 of 2
URL: 00:57:20 to 00:58:04 timer

Hitchens:
“James Wolfensohn … recently the negotiator on Gaza, says he firmly believes that he had tremendous influence for good with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas because he was an Orthodox Jew. If so, I think it would be disgusting – and he shouldn’t have had the job in the first place … But his self-satisfaction in saying so, even if it were true, would turn me even more against him.”

Book: page 83-4

Hour 1 of 2
URL: 57:20 minutes

Analytic commentary

Another example illustrating Hitchens’ acceptance of a so-called fact without the need for verification.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY

We have demonstrated the so-called facts stated and accepted by Hitchens.  Irrespective of whether Hitchens’ claims are actually correct or not, the main emphasis here is placed on the fact that the intuitive statements made by Hitchens are not based on actual or real facts.  Although his irrational statements are possible, factually they are not verified.  Hitchens’ intuition is content to accept these so-called facts without the need for verification.  This is an aspect of irrational intuition.  Verification of existing facts is what the rational intellectual mind would need to do. 

WHEN FACTS DO COUNT AND ARE ACKNOWLEDGED

The intuitive often disregards facts, but then again in other cases intuition goes into great detail about certain facts.  In contrast to intuition’s disregard for facts and acceptance of so-called facts, Jung articulates that for the intuitive facts do count – as follows: “Facts are acknowledged only if they open new possibilities of advancing beyond them and delivering the individual from their power.  Nascent possibilities are compelling motives from which intuition cannot escape and to which all else must be sacrificed.” (CW. 6, par. 612)

Please study the relevant self-representation.

DEMONSTRATION

The Four Horsemen

Extract

Book: p. 61 [The entire par. on p. 61 from: “O no, I must insist…” to the end of p. 61: “Probably in London, I’m thinking.”]

Hour 1 of 2
URL: 00:25:33 to 00:26:54 timer

Hitchens:
“I must say a good word here for Professor Alister McGrath, who … said it wasn’t true … that Tertullian said: ‘Credo quia absurdum’ – ‘I believe it because it’s ridiculous’. No, … I’ve checked this now … in fact Tertullian said the impossibility of it is what makes it believable … In ―other words, the likelihood that something could have been made up is diminished by the incredibility of it … That actually is, I think, a debate perfectly well worth having.”

Book: page 61 

Hour 1 of 2
URL: 00:25:33 timer

Analytic commentary

In this example we see that for Hitchens this fact actually does count – and counts a lot – this is only so because it is a fact that opens up or leads to another possibility.  Hitchens actually checks this fact.  To him it is well worth a debate – it fascinates him because it holds inherent potential for a new possibility: “in other words … the likelihood … actually is … a debate perfectly well worth having.” His rationally minded fellows cannot grasp this – to them it seems to be a joke – they do not sense that Hitchens is in fact dead serious.  This actual fact, for Hitchens, justifies his motivation for a debate.  This resonates with and illustrates Jung’s view that “Nascent possibilities are compelling motives from which intuition cannot escape …” 

In Psychological Types Jung summarises by saying: “Facts are acknowledged only if they open new possibilities of advancing beyond them and delivering the individual from their power.  Nascent possibilities are compelling motives from which intuition cannot escape and to which all else must be sacrificed.” (CW. 6, par. 612).

CONTRASTS

In this unit we have highlighted two aspects of Hitchens’ intuitive use of facts.  Firstly, we note Hitchens’ willing acceptance of so-called facts confirming Jung’s view on intuition having a “disregard for facts”.  Secondly, we note that Hitchens actually verifies a certain fact which counts for him in that it “open[s] new possibilities of advancing beyond [it]”, which is also in keeping with Jung’s view on intuition that facts are acknowledged if they open new possibilities of advancing beyond them.

For both aspects of the intuitive’s use of facts, it is all about possibility.  This is not the case for the rigid rational intellectual mind.  By contrast, and in the context of rational thinking, Jung speaks of: “the safe basis of real knowledge of the facts.” (CW. 18, par. 577)