Comment: Well the drinking thing was a

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Wrong about what? (see in situ)

Well the drinking thing was a

Well the drinking thing was a pot shot. But he was much my intellectual inferior, and not much impressive to serious thinkers. He was a barely matured product of some kind of 18th century rationalism, unripened atheism of the Voltaire variety. Almost like he was born before the French revolution, or before Bolshevism, or Nietzsche, or evolutionary psychology.

I considered him wrong on nearly everything. He had engaged in some debates, but was a poor student of rhetoric, used cheap ploys, pandered to the crowd, displayed insecurity before the audiences applause, couldn't really hang when it came to strict logic. He managed to be on the wrong side of nearly every intellectual current at each historical juncture, almost as though it were an instinct.

His huge personal flaws and clownish behavior on the stage indicate his lack of maturity past a sophomoric level. He went to debates unprepared with even a cursory acquaintance with the other side, merely asserting his devotion to his own confused faith.

He was a poor substitute for a man.