The philosophy of Hate

  • Thread starter jammieg
  • Start date
  • #26
Pseudonym
Originally posted by Elledan
What you call a 'rational' version of hate is in fact no different from the hate of people during the Middle Ages when confronted with a 'witch', or 'possessed' individual.
I think what NIT14 was trying to say was that hate might be justified if it was directed against an actual evil or threat, not a 'witch,' or some unreasonable scapegoat for all of life's problems.

Would you say it's okay to hate child predators?- or maybe if not the person, the act?
 
  • #27
NIT14
What I meant was that "rational hate" is something that occurs when one is confronted with an issue that is critical to his survival, or something to that extent. For example, if insects were rational entities, with the ability to feel emotion, it would be rational for them to hate snakes because the snake is what eats them. Their hate would kind of be a defense mechanism, in a sense. I'm not sure if you can understand what I'm saying through that strange example, but my point was that I believe "hate" isn't always irrational, and is at times necessary.

Would you say it's okay to hate child predators?
Well, I hate them. I don't see how one couldn't. Our hatred for them is precisely what prevents them. I suppose it's just a matter of what you believe we are and aren't allowed to prevent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
33
0
Originally posted by NIT14
What I meant was that "rational hate" is something that occurs when one is confronted with an issue that is critical to his survival, or something to that extent. For example, if insects were rational entities, with the ability to feel emotion, it would be rational for them to hate snakes because the snake is what eats them. Their hate would kind of be a defense mechanism, in a sense. I'm not sure if you can understand what I'm saying through that strange example, but my point was that I believe "hate" isn't always irrational, and is at times necessary.
However, one can only hate what one doesn't understand. As long as one perceives the snake (to use your example) as a threat without attemping to grok the snake's nature and motives, that snake remains a bogeyman: the subject of irrational fear and hatred.

My own experiences support this. With my understanding of the world improving at an ever increasing pace, I have noticed that since a couple of months I can no longer feel hate, or at least not for more than mere seconds. The same counts for other 'negative' emotions, like anger and grief.
 
  • #29
NIT14
However, one can only hate what one doesn't understand. As long as one perceives the snake (to use your example) as a threat without attemping to grok the snake's nature and motives, that snake remains a bogeyman: the subject of irrational fear and hatred.
No, one can definitely hate what he understands. The insect realizes the snake is not his friend. He understands that the snake must eat him to survive, but he is not interested in the snakes interests. Therefore, he hates him, because the snake is a detriment to his agenda and survival. How can it be irrational to hate something that you clearly understand and when you know exactly where the hatred arises from? I understand exactly what "child predators" are, and I hate them for good reason.
 
  • #30
33
0
Originally posted by NIT14
How can it be irrational to hate something that you clearly understand and when you know exactly where the hatred arises from? I understand exactly what "child predators" are, and I hate them for good reason.
This is where you are wrong.

You do not understand "child predators", just like you aren't capable of explaining and predicting human behaviour.

You're probably still struggling to define that which defines you as a unique individual, meanwhile pursuing goals which are utterly pointless. Lacking even a basic understanding of logic, everything you see around you is covered by pretence: your family, friends, the career you're dreaming of, the person you love, all of your preferences, ad nauseam. It's all pretence.

Humans are living organisms, with a neural network (brain) which is advanced enough for a level of conscious sufficiently high to make it concern itself with more abstract things. Yet all humans still desire two things: order and a goal. This irregardless of whether their sense of order (understanding of the world) is realistic and their goal(s) are merely futile.
From this all human behaviour arises, including the concept of a unique identity (one's 'self').

Everyone fears the unknown. One hates that which one fears. Hence one only hates things that are unfamiliar.
 
  • #31
233
0
I am not familiar with space. I do not know it, but I do not hate it.
On the contrary, I love it because its unfamiliarity is so exciting and mysterious.

You should never say "You are wrong" to anyone Elledan. In a philosophy forum of course we expect logical reasoning andwellfounded arguments, which you have done very well here, but never say "You are wrong" because you might not be right yourself and "You arew wrong" is not a very discouraging comment. Say rather, in my opinion.

It appears that you seek a perfect human that does not hate. I disagree. We do not hate everything we do not know, as illustrated above, and even though hate, grief and anger are irrational feelings, as you claim, we need them. We were born with hormones and brains that are capable of responding with such feelings. These feelings are produced by chemicals, nerve impulses and genes for that matter. Negative emotions sustain the balance that we need. If all was Heaven and Merry-go-around, we would become tired and weary of living.

No one understands child predators, rapists, psychopaths etc etc. Hate is natural and acceptable reaction, though seemingly not to you.
We are living organisms yet, and we are stunning, amazing, powerful, yet foolish and irrational. Accept it. A struggle towards something better would be desperate.
 
  • #32
NIT14
You do not understand "child predators", just like you aren't capable of explaining and predicting human behaviour.
Well, I see what you are saying, and you're right in a sense. I certainly do not understand the mind of a child molester. Being one yourself is probably a prerequisite to have this understanding.

My only point that I'm trying to establish here is that hate is at times necessary, like almost all things. I may not understand how child molesters work, but I clearly understand what they do. Their actions conflict with my moral beliefs. I therefore hate them, because they are dimented individuals in my opinion (hopefully in many peoples' opinion). Do you not see the point I'm trying to state here? Do you NOT hate child molesters? Hate is an element of prevention and precaution.
 
  • #33
jammieg
I think that the thing everyone seems to be against, and seems to be very hush hush is the thing that nobody wants others to have because if you understood how effective hate was at getting what you want then it would be so apparent how most everyone is suckered into believing that they should be doing good for their fellow humans and yet such people don't seem to get anywhere, they will likely live out their whole lives never figuring it out until it's too late, that everyone is out for whatever they can take from everyone else, behind all the pretense and fancy words and nice clothes and clubs and such nonsense people's actions show that they truly only care for themselves, for instance nobody really cares about donating money to musculular distrophy research, unless they have the disease or unless they convince themselves that it's somehow the right thing to do with some blind faith, but in reality it amounts to paying the salaries of people who if they found a cure would be out of a job.
Hate is what pushes predators over the edge and makes all the difference between survival and extinction, the future of the human race may very well belong to those who can view this world and those around them as they truly may be- very simple minded fools and easily manipulated for one's own benefit, no suprise that the most manipulative and devious should rise to the top of the social structure and the proof is everywhere. All one really has to do to follow the philosophy of hate is start seeing how everyone else is taking from everyone else and especially oneself, in time a person should grow to be armed to the teeth with that understanding so that they can fight fire with fire or at least defend themselves properly.
Man is the dominate species on this planet because of his intense hate for anything he can't completely control, a prison has been created to keep fewer people from realizing the power of hate though it may destroy the world. Nice people finish last.

...on second thought there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with this view of the world although I'm not sure what it is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
33
0
Originally posted by Thallium
I am not familiar with space. I do not know it, but I do not hate it.
On the contrary, I love it because its unfamiliarity is so exciting and mysterious.
Well, I screwed up. I should have said "one can only hate something which one fears." instead of "One hates that which one fears." :)

You should never say "You are wrong" to anyone Elledan. In a philosophy forum of course we expect logical reasoning andwellfounded arguments, which you have done very well here, but never say "You are wrong" because you might not be right yourself and "You arew wrong" is not a very discouraging comment. Say rather, in my opinion.
Speaking as a scientist, isn't the essence of the scientific method that a theory is right until it is sufficiently proven to be wrong? I have not found sufficient evidence to discredit any of the theories I've explained in my posts in this thread. In that regard I am right and the post I replied to is wrong.

It appears that you seek a perfect human that does not hate.
Wrong. I seek explanations, understanding. Explaining emotions was just one of the many things that had to be done to reach this goal.
I disagree. We do not hate everything we do not know, as illustrated above, and even though hate, grief and anger are irrational feelings, as you claim, we need them. We were born with hormones and brains that are capable of responding with such feelings. These feelings are produced by chemicals, nerve impulses and genes for that matter. Negative emotions sustain the balance that we need.
The problem is that this is hardly a rational explanation. You're going for the mystical approach by making unfounded statements, like "[..] even though hate, grief and anger are irrational feelings, as you claim, we need them.". In what way do we need them?
You can only say that conscious beings require emotions if you can prove that those emotions play an essential role in their functioning.

However, as I explained earlier, humans are examples of 'living' (possessing a nervous system) organisms, and the only place emotions can have in such a nervous system is that of symptoms of another process (or processes).

I'm finding it very difficult, however, to put this theory into words, as language is still unfamiliar to me.
If all was Heaven and Merry-go-around, we would become tired and weary of living.
On this I completely disagree. Humans become tired of living because they're not really living. Instead they're resisting it by not recognizing reality. What's wearing them out is the discrepancy between their sense of order (pretence) and reality.

No one understands child predators, rapists, psychopaths etc etc. Hate is natural and acceptable reaction, though seemingly not to you.
We are living organisms yet, and we are stunning, amazing, powerful, yet foolish and irrational. Accept it. A struggle towards something better would be desperate.
I understand all of those states of mind which you mentioned. They're fully explainable in a scientifically acceptable manner.

The reason I can not hate is because reason (logic) excludes the need for anything else.

Finally, one more quote: "Complexity is the repetition of simplicity." :)
 
  • #35
472
0
jammieg, careful, on the other thread you were locked in as a noble. Actually the representation of a 1960s movie I recall of a noble and his squire searching fo rthe holy grail in which he and his squire only found death in the end in the face of passing innocence which was the understanding of infinity which passed by them because they were still locked in at the edges of the bowl.

Yet I read your words here, in this thread and I am smiling again.

Evo, nice post, what it is to be human and understand what moves us is the greatest understanding, because it is the essence of what we are and how we connect with life.

We are chemical programs, and hate is a function of that program. It would not exist if it did not have a function for greater survival, yet now maybe more, maybe always maybe more.
 
  • #36
233
0
Originally posted by Elledan
The problem is that this is hardly a rational explanation. You're going for the mystical approach by making unfounded statements, like "[..] even though hate, grief and anger are irrational feelings, as you claim, we need them.". In what way do we need them?
You can only say that conscious beings require emotions if you can prove that those emotions play an essential role in their functioning.

On this I completely disagree. Humans become tired of living because they're not really living. Instead they're resisting it by not recognizing reality. What's wearing them out is the discrepancy between their sense of order (pretence) and reality.

In response to the first paragraph, perhaps I should have formulated my reply a bit clearer. We do not exactly need the negative feelings, but they are there because there exists such a thing as negativity. Illness and evil etc are such things we fight against and many hate them. We hate evil because we know it is no good or at least many of us do. Whether or not we hate illness could be discussed, but the main point is that there exists a negaitivity.

Does the negative feelings have an essential role in our functioning? I have to think about that for some time before I post my suggestions.

To the second paragraph in the quote, that is correct. I had not thought of that before and I retract my earlier comment. But I would like to ask if it would then be worth living if everything was Heaven and Merry-go-around, as I put it? Would there we have values, aims and dreams that we needed to fight for? And if not, would our lives become boring and not worth living?

It is interesting what you point out in the last line. What is wearing them out is the discrepancy between their sense of order(pretence) and reality, but what is reality in relation to their sense of order?
 
  • #37
33
0
Originally posted by Thallium
In response to the first paragraph, perhaps I should have formulated my reply a bit clearer. We do not exactly need the negative feelings, but they are there because there exists such a thing as negativity. Illness and evil etc are such things we fight against and many hate them. We hate evil because we know it is no good or at least many of us do. Whether or not we hate illness could be discussed, but the main point is that there exists a negaitivity.

Does the negative feelings have an essential role in our functioning? I have to think about that for some time before I post my suggestions.
I used to consider emotions as things without any direct relation to each other except that they were all called 'emotions', and that they were an intrinsic property of neural networks. It wasn't until I really began to study emotions that I realized that all emotions can be explained as the symptoms (output and error-messages, if you wish) of a single process: that of maintaining and expanding one's sense of order. Every concept or combination of concepts that are unfamiliar, pose a threat to this sense of order. If this threat can be neutralized by finding a place for it in one's view of reality, this leads to 'positive' emotions, like when you grok a complex mathematical concept.
The whole idea behind a 'joke' and similar is that two or more concepts/things are linked in an unusual way. The more difficult it is to grasp the suggested link between those things, the more amusing the joke is. On the other hand, failure to understand a joke (or having it explained it to you) leads to (mild) frustration, which is a negative emotion, which when amplified is called anger and then hate.

To the second paragraph in the quote, that is correct. I had not thought of that before and I retract my earlier comment. But I would like to ask if it would then be worth living if everything was Heaven and Merry-go-around, as I put it? Would there we have values, aims and dreams that we needed to fight for? And if not, would our lives become boring and not worth living?
About four years ago I had a sudden insight in reality which was more than just shocking. It is an experience which is hard to describe, but what it felt like was as though I had been sitting on the ground, scribbling stuff in the sand and moving pebbles and other small stuff around, when suddenly I looked up to see a vast empty space around me, after which the ground and everything else vanished until I was left alone in a dark, cold place. Yet around me I could still see and feel such a vastness while at the same time I realized that everything I had been doing up till that point had been completely pointless.

It took me weeks to recover from that experience and around 2 years to finally grasp the meaning of it.

Existence is meaningless. It doesn't matter whether the universe exists or not. However, in the face of this reality a number of things also become obvious:

- it is meaningless to exist. However, it is even more meaningless to die. Dying is always possible, but there is no reason why it would ever be an option in any reasoning.
- the only thing a conscious being can do is to learn to understand its surroundings. Anything else is futile.

The fact that I exist is because I exist. I exist because I'm learning to understand my surrounding. This is reality.

It is interesting what you point out in the last line. What is wearing them out is the discrepancy between their sense of order(pretence) and reality, but what is reality in relation to their sense of order?
Reality to those who don't understand logic yet is covered by pretence, yet it is impossible for any virtual reality to completely obscure reality. A good example of this is death. Easily explained by science (which is the study of reality), death is twisted into something significant, often something religious/spiritual, in order to fit in virtual realities, but this way death is merely covered by a blanket of pretence, underneath which its shape is still visible. This inability to explain death is what results in fear, anger, sadness and grief.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
233
0
Originally posted by Elledan
Reality to those who don't understand logic yet is covered by pretence, yet it is impossible for any virtual reality to completely obscure reality. A good example of this is death. Easily explained by science (which is the study of reality), death is twisted into something significant, often something religious/spiritual, in order to fit in virtual realities, but this way death is merely covered by a blanket of pretence, underneath which its shape is still visible. This inability to explain death is what results in fear, anger, sadness and grief.

..and which is why there have been made up stories and "fairy tales" of where we go when we die.. But be careful. We do not know where we go after death, if death might be a door to another space/time/world. I have heard interesting near-death-stories, but whether these are true or not there is too little scientific research for to say anything about it. Roger Penrose and an American brain surgeon explained the near-death experience in the way that our conscience consists of superpositionary particles in our brains. These can move outside the body and in that way comprehend what is going on on the outside in spite of the person's state of clinical death. We are here taling of patients undergoing surgeries in a hospital. The patients have then experienced this as moving further and further away from the body and coming to another world where they have seen perhaps their grandparents who died years ago.

When they return and wake up they can tell what the surgeons where saying during the surgery. They can describe the instruments that were used without having seen them before the operation(the instruments are covered up to remain sterile).

You said you had studied emotions. What kind of study was this? Psychology?
 
  • #39
33
0
Originally posted by Thallium
..and which is why there have been made up stories and "fairy tales" of where we go when we die.. But be careful. We do not know where we go after death, if death might be a door to another space/time/world.
Death is the result of total organ failure in the body, after which all organic molecules which make up the body's structures are either used by other organisms or decompose into other molecules.

The brain is simply yet another organ and once activity has ceased in it, it decomposes in the same way as any other organ. Furthermore, no form of radiation or anything else has ever been recorded during death which might suggest that 'something' was leaving the body at that point.

The current scientific explanation is unchallenged until anyone discovers something (reproducable) which doesn't fit in this theory.
I have heard interesting near-death-stories, but whether these are true or not there is too little scientific research for to say anything about it. Roger Penrose and an American brain surgeon explained the near-death experience in the way that our conscience consists of superpositionary particles in our brains. These can move outside the body and in that way comprehend what is going on on the outside in spite of the person's state of clinical death. We are here taling of patients undergoing surgeries in a hospital. The patients have then experienced this as moving further and further away from the body and coming to another world where they have seen perhaps their grandparents who died years ago.

When they return and wake up they can tell what the surgeons where saying during the surgery. They can describe the instruments that were used without having seen them before the operation(the instruments are covered up to remain sterile).
I regard such stories and theories merely as another sign that we still don't have the faintest clue of how (biological) neural networks function.

You said you had studied emotions. What kind of study was this? Psychology?
A study employing the scientific method. I don't think that there is a commonly accepted term for the kind of research I do, or at least I'm not aware of one.

I don't acknowledge that there is a difference between the disciplines within science, or between science and philosophy. To me there is only science.
 
  • #40
233
0
Originally posted by Elledan
I regard such stories and theories merely as another sign that we still don't have the faintest clue of how (biological) neural networks function.

The typical narrow-minded thinking of a scientist. And the way to failing in including all possibilities.
 
  • #41
33
0
Originally posted by Thallium
The typical narrow-minded thinking of a scientist. And the way to failing in including all possibilities.
You misunderstood me. I didn't say that I think that those stories/theories are nonsense or anything like that, only that they're among many other stories and theories with all of those theories failing to fully explain the functioning of neural networks like the human brain.

It's easy to believe something to be true. It's hard to find sufficient evidence to back up a theory. The moment you believe a theory to be correct, you're often no longer motivated to search for evidence in favor of or discrediting that particular theory.

In essence, all theories are correct except those which fail to explain that which they were created for to explain.
 
  • #42
233
0
Originally posted by Elledan
It's easy to believe something to be true. It's hard to find sufficient evidence to back up a theory. The moment you believe a theory to be correct, you're often no longer motivated to search for evidence in favor of or discrediting that particular theory.

I agree. This theory is however only lingering in the air and I don't know if there has been more research to proove this theory, but yet it cannot be fully disproved. I am open to anything and I only presented this theory and I do not believe in it untill it is proven.
 
  • #43
33
0
Originally posted by Thallium
I agree. This theory is however only lingering in the air and I don't know if there has been more research to proove this theory, but yet it cannot be fully disproved. I am open to anything and I only presented this theory and I do not believe in it untill it is proven.
In that case we both agree :)
 
  • #44
jammieg
On second thought there's probably something fundamentally wrong with love too.
 
  • #45
233
0
Originally posted by jammieg
On second thought there's probably something fundamentally wrong with love too.

What do you mean?
 
  • #46
jammieg
What do you mean by asking what do I mean?
 
  • #47
MacTech
Originally posted by jammieg
What is hate?

Hate: is imo a survival tactic which steams from competition for resources.
 
  • #48
102
0
Originally posted by String Theorist
I think hate is bad.

i think hate is bad too...

;P

now to a serious response->

when hate is looked at in almost any situation, it is incorrect and selfish...

if you hate someone for killing your parents even, i think you are really not understanding why that person killed your parents..

lets say little johny boy swore to find the killer of his parents and avenge them by killing the man he ultimately hates in his life, the person who killed his parents. the way society functions has communicated to lil jon that an act has a consequence (prison, detention at school, any sort of punishment), but what i say is that negative consequence to a negative act causes more negative act... in the consequence in itself, and to future acts of consequencial methods...

now lets say the killer of the boys parents was some crazy nut that was abused and tormented as a child by his own parents, so this nutjob thinks that all parents are evil or something, eventually causing him to spin off in some rationally retarded state of mind that caused him to start killing parents. this person is not at fault, this person is lost, detached, without direction...

now the uncontrolable reaction to hate someone may be there, but not everyone that doesnt hate suppresses it.

i have come to the conclusion that i truly do not hate anyone, and i am completely happy with that... anything anyone does has a reason, a reason to be recognized by the hater...it should eventually try to be resolved by the hater in a NON-NEGATIVE WAY... that is how most of the chemistry in this universe works... this is just another example of how a positive act most definitely outrules a negative one...

in the case of lil jon, there is no way for him to resolve the problem except for finding out why, the reasoning behind the act of negativeness... maybe understanding this will free his hatred, and bring resolution to his mind... MAYBE i say, because society has not evolved enough so that EVERYONE that hates could completely overlook there hatred and search for reason...

i feel i am capable of this ability... and i am happy...

there are people i would rather not be with but i would still tolerate them. what i mean is i do not hate anyone...

thus in my opinion higher intelligence will eventually rule out petty things such as hate... yes PETTY.

hate is worthless waste of energy...
 

Related Threads on The philosophy of Hate

  • Last Post
3
Replies
71
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
26K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Top