Do Humans Need Hate?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-05-2013, 10:24 AM
RE: Do Humans Need Hate?
(10-05-2013 09:55 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Vera.

Let it be written. Thou and I shalt enbattlenate! Let the best man win (if that winds up being you, I'm gonna be soooooo embarrassed).
[Image: kitten2.gif]

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vera's post
11-05-2013, 05:39 AM (This post was last modified: 11-05-2013 07:17 AM by fat cat.)
RE: Do Humans Need Hate?
(09-05-2013 02:09 PM)SecretPManatee Wrote:  Maybe hate gives us purpose, or brings us together as a community? Is it something else?

The idea that hate gives us purpose ignores the fact that we make choices. Hate doesn't give anyone purpose, though people may choose to carry out a perceived purpose in response to their or others' hate.

The same goes for things which bring people together. The active role in bringing people together is people choosing to get (or force others) together for whatever perceived reason, rather than the reason itself.

(09-05-2013 02:31 PM)Vera Wrote:  That's not hate. That's fear. The tribal instinct. Us or them. The other tribe, that we don't know and thus, it may pose a threat. I guess it made sense back then. But now that the world is our "tribe", this mentality is painfully outdated, backwards and disgusting.

Given the fact that deception and delusion are human abilities, I would say the idea that "it may pose a threat" is not outdated. After all, murder by strangers still happens often. But I take it you were more referring to any preconceived notion that "the other tribe" does pose a threat, in which case I would share your disdain.

Regardless, the OP wasn't specific enough for us to know it referred to anything other than "hate".

(09-05-2013 02:31 PM)Dom Wrote:  But it seems that people thrive on controversy, and some more than others.

Maybe it's just upbringing (drama at home) or maybe it's innate.

Controversy can lead to new insights... given people are civil about it and think, lol.

People can "thrive" on anything their mind allows, but that doesn't make the "thrived"-upon subject a "need".
My impression is that it's always innate and learned, though what specifically can be attributed to each is perhaps impossible to say, since both exist in conjunction and can influence each other.
Anything can lead to new insights given people "think".

(09-05-2013 02:42 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Without hate, how do we know what to cherish? Without hate, love is meaningless.

I don't believe that's true. Without "hate", "love" can still be meaningful, because we can still distinguish it from all other emotions. And even without other emotions, we could still know what to "cherish" by the varying intensity of "love".

(09-05-2013 02:42 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  we'll likely always have it in some form or another.

Saying we will likely always have something is as unfounded as simply saying we will always have something.

(09-05-2013 02:42 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Even those who hate the fact that hate exists prove that it is inescapable.

No, they don't prove hate is inescapable, because there are people who don't hate the fact that hate exists, just like every other hated thing is regarded uniquely by each individual.

(09-05-2013 02:42 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Unless, of course, we someday evolve into wide-eyed circle-drummers who have a naturally constant flow of endorphins pouring over our brains.

Or we could become people who just don't have any flow of whatever constitutes hate.

(09-05-2013 02:59 PM)Dom Wrote:  And we sorely need a definition of "hate" in this discussion.

I was wondering when somebody would mention this. I think of "hate" as nothing more than an emotion (chemicals or whatever) independent of whatever thoughts it corresponds to, and as far as I can tell it is the same emotion as "irritation", "frustration", "annoyance", "anger", "fury", "dislike", etc.

(09-05-2013 03:16 PM)Ghost Wrote:  There will always be us vs them because there will always be competition. No organism is exempt from competition. It's an integral part of the evolutionary process. But competition doesn't necessarily demand hatred.

Evolution may involve competition, but that's a result of individual choices within groups. Evolution requiring competition depends on circumstances within the individuals, between them, and external to the group. We humans can decide what we compete with. For that reason, saying we will always have competition is a faithful notion if referencing competition specifically between human beings.

(09-05-2013 03:16 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Evolution laughs at should. Evolution only cares about is. That's one of the reasons I spend so much time figuring out the mechanics of human interaction. Figure out what enables hatred to thrive and reduce/eliminate that and you don't have to worry about should.

I don't take you as one who doesn't understand this, but one anthropomorphizes if one believes evolution "cares". "Evolution" is just an abstraction of independently acting aspects of the universe. It is not a unilateral process. If we want to know what enables hatred to thrive, we have to understand the physical constitution of hatred and its immediate atmosphere. I don't have such an ability, though, nor do I know that anyone does.

(09-05-2013 03:24 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Death is the opposite of life. Nothing more.

A direction's "opposite" is clearly defined - a vector 180 degrees away. "Opposite" applied to abstractions as broad as emotion and death are more complicated, of course. Might it be that they don't have opposites?

(09-05-2013 04:25 PM)Dom Wrote:  A lot of hate is based on fear, fear of the different, fear of change, fear of the new.
Racism is based on fear, wars are based on fear(mongering), religion is based on fear and what have you.
Fear pervades everything.

Based on and consisting of are two different things. Hate is not fear, and fear is not hate. People can hate what they fear, but they can also hate things they don't fear.

(09-05-2013 05:03 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  And because fear is a vital part of the human animal...

Vital for what?

(09-05-2013 05:45 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  Obviously, I don't NEED that hatred, but honestly? I'd rather have IT, than cold indifference to the crime!

Granted, but hatred and indifference are not the only two emotions one can experience in observation of such violence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fat cat's post
11-05-2013, 07:26 AM
RE: Do Humans Need Hate?
Do I need food and water to survive? Yes I do.

Do I need hate to survive? No.

Like Phat cat has mentioned Hate and fear are two seperate things. I would say that fear (fight or flight) has some instinctual roots but the majority is learned/taught. I don't think hate is instinctual but can be still be compared to some degree with fear because that is also learned.

Hate is a consequence/reaction of our deep and complicated psychological behaviour. When you were born you were not born with hatred.... its something you pick up.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2013, 07:43 AM
RE: Do Humans Need Hate?
(11-05-2013 05:39 AM)fat cat Wrote:  
(09-05-2013 02:09 PM)SecretPManatee Wrote:  Maybe hate gives us purpose, or brings us together as a community? Is it something else?

The idea that hate gives us purpose ignores the fact that we make choices. Hate doesn't give anyone purpose, though people may choose to carry out a perceived purpose in response to their or others' hate.

The same goes for things which bring people together. The active role in bringing people together is people choosing to get (or force others) together for whatever perceived reason, rather than the reason itself.

(09-05-2013 02:31 PM)Vera Wrote:  That's not hate. That's fear. The tribal instinct. Us or them. The other tribe, that we don't know and thus, it may pose a threat. I guess it made sense back then. But now that the world is our "tribe", this mentality is painfully outdated, backwards and disgusting.

Given the fact that deception and delusion are human abilities, I would say the idea that "it may pose a threat" is not outdated. After all, murder by strangers still happens often. But I take it you were more referring to any preconceived notion that "the other tribe" does pose a threat, in which case I would share your disdain.

Regardless, the OP wasn't specific enough for us to know it referred to anything other than "hate".

(09-05-2013 02:31 PM)Dom Wrote:  But it seems that people thrive on controversy, and some more than others.

Maybe it's just upbringing (drama at home) or maybe it's innate.

Controversy can lead to new insights... given people are civil about it and think, lol.

People can "thrive" on anything their mind allows, but that doesn't make the "thrived"-upon subject a "need".
My impression is that it's always innate and learned, though what specifically can be attributed to each is perhaps impossible to say, since both exist in conjunction and can influence each other.
Anything can lead to new insights given people "think".

(09-05-2013 02:42 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Without hate, how do we know what to cherish? Without hate, love is meaningless.

I don't believe that's true. Without "hate", "love" can still be meaningful, because we can still distinguish it from all other emotions. And even without other emotions, we could still know what to "cherish" by the varying intensity of "love".

(09-05-2013 02:42 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  we'll likely always have it in some form or another.

Saying we will likely always have something is as unfounded as simply saying we will always have something.

(09-05-2013 02:42 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Even those who hate the fact that hate exists prove that it is inescapable.

No, they don't prove hate is inescapable, because there are people who don't hate the fact that hate exists, just like every other hated thing is regarded uniquely by each individual.

(09-05-2013 02:42 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Unless, of course, we someday evolve into wide-eyed circle-drummers who have a naturally constant flow of endorphins pouring over our brains.

Or we could become people who just don't have any flow of whatever constitutes hate.

(09-05-2013 02:59 PM)Dom Wrote:  And we sorely need a definition of "hate" in this discussion.

I was wondering when somebody would mention this. I think of "hate" as nothing more than an emotion (chemicals or whatever) independent of whatever thoughts it corresponds to, and as far as I can tell it is the same emotion as "irritation", "frustration", "annoyance", "anger", "fury", "dislike", etc.

(09-05-2013 03:16 PM)Ghost Wrote:  There will always be us vs them because there will always be competition. No organism is exempt from competition. It's an integral part of the evolutionary process. But competition doesn't necessarily demand hatred.

Evolution may involve competition, but that's a result of individual choices within groups. Evolution requiring competition depends on circumstances within the individuals, between them, and external to the group. We humans can decide what we compete with. For that reason, saying we will always have competition is a faithful notion if referencing competition specifically between human beings.

(09-05-2013 03:16 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Evolution laughs at should. Evolution only cares about is. That's one of the reasons I spend so much time figuring out the mechanics of human interaction. Figure out what enables hatred to thrive and reduce/eliminate that and you don't have to worry about should.

I don't take you as one who doesn't understand this, but one anthropomorphizes if one believes evolution "cares". "Evolution" is just an abstraction of independently acting aspects of the universe. It is not a unilateral process. If we want to know what enables hatred to thrive, we have to understand the physical constitution of hatred and its immediate atmosphere. I don't have such an ability, though, nor do I know that anyone does.

(09-05-2013 03:24 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Death is the opposite of life. Nothing more.

A direction's "opposite" is clearly defined - a vector 180 degrees away. "Opposite" applied to abstractions as broad as emotion and death are more complicated, of course. Might it be that they don't have opposites?

(09-05-2013 04:25 PM)Dom Wrote:  A lot of hate is based on fear, fear of the different, fear of change, fear of the new.
Racism is based on fear, wars are based on fear(mongering), religion is based on fear and what have you.
Fear pervades everything.

Based on and consisting of are two different things. Hate is not fear, and fear is not hate. People can hate what they fear, but they can also hate things they don't fear.

(09-05-2013 05:03 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  And because fear is a vital part of the human animal...

Vital for what?

(09-05-2013 05:45 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  Obviously, I don't NEED that hatred, but honestly? I'd rather have IT, than cold indifference to the crime!

Granted, but hatred and indifference are not the only two emotions one can experience in observation of such violence.

Fat cat, you assume that most people are capable of acting rationally. I don't think so. There are a lot of people who seem to rarely ever think about anything but how to get their creature comforts. And a good number don't even think about that. I don't think that "hate" is something they rationally decide to do.

I think a lot of people simply "hate" because their peers profess to do so, and it makes them buddies.

But for instance with racism, I have had the opportunity to watch a black person enter a community who had never laid eyes on anyone who was not Caucasian. And what I saw was doubtlessly fear. Totally unfounded fear, the black person was in no way dangerous or aggressive. But the fear was palpable.

I agree with you that we could all be in control of such emotions, but the fact is that people are not.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2013, 11:48 PM
RE: Do Humans Need Hate?
"I don't believe that's true. Without "hate", "love" can still be meaningful, because we can still distinguish it from all other emotions. And even without other emotions, we could still know what to "cherish" by the varying intensity of "love"."

I can understand and sympathize with this. Still, as I stated, hate creates a fine contrast to love. I wouldn't put myself in harm's way for those I hate. I would put myself in harm's way for those I love. (Few though they may be) Even if this fact doesn't warm my heart; it warms theirs.

But again, I can understand your reasoning.

"Saying we will likely always have something is as unfounded as simply saying we will always have something."

Guess it's a good thing I wasn't trying to make a scientific prediction, then.

"No, they don't prove hate is inescapable, because there are people who don't hate the fact that hate exists, just like every other hated thing is regarded uniquely by each individual."

Yes, there are those who don't look upon hatred with distaste. (I'm a prime example of this) But the point is that even those who despise hatred are living under its influence. That says a lot about the nature of hatred.

"Or we could become people who just don't have any flow of whatever constitutes hate."

I realize we were pondering exact definitions earlier, but if we look at it; hatred is just an extreme level of dislike. I don't like chinese food. But I'm cool with it being around. I really don't like my neighbor's dog because it killed my cat. But while I'll be a dick to it if I see it; I'm not gonna go end its life. I truly hate religious indoctrination. I will, for as long as I am able, seek to eradicate it.

These are all varying degrees of dislike, and hatred is at the extreme end of the spectrum. Again, unless we can have a constant outflow of feel-good hormones that are so potent that we just absolutely love everything; there is going to be distaste. There are going to be things we don't care for. And whatever the most extreme level of that distaste is, is going to be "hatred". Hatred is a natural part of the human psyche. This is why I believe - as a matter of personal observation and opinion - that it will never be overcome. Nor do I necessarily think it should be.

"A direction's "opposite" is clearly defined - a vector 180 degrees away. "Opposite" applied to abstractions as broad as emotion and death are more complicated, of course. Might it be that they don't have opposites?"

This is getting into an entirely new realm of philosphy, into which I don't personally care to venture. Sure, perhaps at some point we'll reason that "we're all both alive, and dead at the same time!", but I'm not going there. Scientifically, as far as we currently understand, death is a lack of life. Just as Atheism is a lack of Theism. So, as far as we're concerned, death is the opposite of life. Not the opposite of love (or whatever was spewed as an argument), as someone else said.

"Vital for what?"

Survival. Without fear of the dark; we're not going to be wary or alert of what might lurk in the shadows, waiting to make us its meal. Without fear of pain, we're not going to be as wary of putting ourselves in danger. Granted, it could be argued that "We're smart enough to be wary without being fearful", but if that argument were to be made, it would assume that we know the dynamics of every new situation into wich we venture; which is impossible. (Sorry. Had to counter that before someone tried to use it as an argument) And ultimately, fear of death itself is what preserves us - and our genes - alive to breed another day. Fear is a very, very important part of the human animal.


In the end, my comment was an expression of my personal sentiments. Maybe we need hatred; maybe we don't. But personally, I think it is useful and isn't necessarily a problem. The only time it really becomes a problem is when it is a hinderance to ourselves or others. I'm a misanthrope, but I don't sit over here just seething in hatred for everyone and everything. I don't like people, no. But I can manage to enjoy spending time around them without needing to mow them down with a chainsaw.

If I or others couldn't manage that, then in our unique cases, I'd say it's a problem. But overall, I think hatred is an acceptable part of our species.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 05:28 PM
RE: Do Humans Need Hate?
(11-05-2013 07:43 AM)Dom Wrote:  Fat cat, you assume that most people are capable of acting rationally.

No, I was not assuming and do not assume any amount of people are capable of acting in any particular way. I make no assumptions about how others can mentally act, but instead speak from a perspective that none of us know how they will be able to act. I believe individual capability depends on internal and external conditions subject to change on a momentary basis, thus some capabilities may change while others may not.

(11-05-2013 07:43 AM)Dom Wrote:  I don't think so. There are a lot of people who seem to rarely ever think about anything but how to get their creature comforts. And a good number don't even think about that. I don't think that "hate" is something they rationally decide to do.

I've also gotten such an impression from the things people say and do. However, we don't actually know how others think, but instead only know how they communicate their thoughts and how we interpret their thoughts based on their actions. We might be completely wrong in our analyses.

Regardless, even if someone does rarely ever think about anything other than getting their creature comforts, that does not support the notion that person simply can not do so.

(11-05-2013 07:43 AM)Dom Wrote:  I think a lot of people simply "hate" because their peers profess to do so, and it makes them buddies.

People "hating" because their peers profess to is something I think has happened and can happen. But if such "hate" is sincere, then that's just one reason of many for which people hate, and if it is not sincere, then it is not really hate.

(11-05-2013 07:43 AM)Dom Wrote:  But for instance with racism, I have had the opportunity to watch a black person enter a community who had never laid eyes on anyone who was not Caucasian. And what I saw was doubtlessly fear. Totally unfounded fear, the black person was in no way dangerous or aggressive. But the fear was palpable.

The only way I think fear might be palpable in such a situation is through smell. Otherwise, any fear residing within a given individual can not without technology be perceived by other individuals. What's otherwise palpable in situations such as yours are indirect effects of fear, such as facial expressions, body language, etc.

But even if that's false, how does the fear in your story relate to whether or not hate is needed? Did I miss what you were getting at with your story?

(11-05-2013 07:43 AM)Dom Wrote:  I agree with you that we could all be in control of such emotions, but the fact is that people are not.

My view was and is that at all times we can't control how we feel, though we can control aspects of ourselves which we recognize have influence on our feelings and thus indirectly influence how we feel. Thus, while recognizing that many people don't at all try to influence how they feel, I still acknowledge that one day they might, just as they might never.

(11-05-2013 11:48 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  I can understand and sympathize with this. Still, as I stated, hate creates a fine contrast to love. I wouldn't put myself in harm's way for those I hate. I would put myself in harm's way for those I love. (Few though they may be) Even if this fact doesn't warm my heart; it warms theirs.

But again, I can understand your reasoning.

Ah, I apologize if I was unclear. I wasn't at all disagreeing that hate creates much contrast for love. I was just disagreeing that hate is the only contrast for love as implied by your statement that without hate love is meaningless.

(11-05-2013 11:48 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  "Saying we will likely always have something is as unfounded as simply saying we will always have something."

Guess it's a good thing I wasn't trying to make a scientific prediction, then.

I hope you didn't take that comment of mine in a snappy way, because I wasn't at all under the impression you were trying to make a scientific prediction, but instead was only trying to encourage us all not to make any prediction about something for which we know not all the determining factors.

(11-05-2013 11:48 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Yes, there are those who don't look upon hatred with distaste. (I'm a prime example of this) But the point is that even those who despise hatred are living under its influence. That says a lot about the nature of hatred.

I'm glad you also don't hate hatred. Smile

But that those who hate hatred are living under its influence is how I interpreted your original statement. I was only disagreeing that people living under such influence proves hate is inescapable.

(11-05-2013 11:48 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  I realize we were pondering exact definitions earlier, but if we look at it; hatred is just an extreme level of dislike.

I don't know if you saw the part of my post where I mentioned it, but my definition of "hate" is the same as what you've stated here.

(11-05-2013 11:48 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  These are all varying degrees of dislike, and hatred is at the extreme end of the spectrum. Again, unless we can have a constant outflow of feel-good hormones that are so potent that we just absolutely love everything; there is going to be distaste.

By "absolutely love", do you mean the extreme of the like spectrum? If so, I would say the least amount of like for everything would also prevent distaste. Also, if the emotion of "love/like/taste" is a separate entity from that of "hate/dislike/distaste", then simply the absence of "hate/dislike/distaste" would prevent distaste regardless of whether or not there is any "love/like/taste".

(11-05-2013 11:48 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  There are going to be things we don't care for. And whatever the most extreme level of that distaste is, is going to be "hatred".

That's only the case if we would choose to use the term "hatred" in that way. However, I don't know that anybody currently does.

As far as we can know, all that exists, exists now. Therefore each moment we have a different most extreme amount of distaste. Also each moment we may have memory of past extreme amounts of distaste, and we recall them being higher or lower than what we currently experience, and thus might not consider our current experience "hate". I think that's generally how people unconsciously decide when they "hate" or "dislike" or whatever else on the same spectrum, and thus I think that people would generally not use the word "hate" if they stopped experiencing the emotion's amounts they currently refer to as "hate".

Regardless, I don't think the new extreme being labeled "hatred" is relevant to the OP, anyway, because I believe the OP was asking about absolute amounts. Perhaps SecretPManatee can tell us, though.

(11-05-2013 11:48 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Hatred is a natural part of the human psyche. This is why I believe - as a matter of personal observation and opinion - that it will never be overcome. Nor do I necessarily think it should be.

All parts of the human psyche are natural.

(11-05-2013 11:48 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  This is getting into an entirely new realm of philosphy, into which I don't personally care to venture. Sure, perhaps at some point we'll reason that "we're all both alive, and dead at the same time!", but I'm not going there. Scientifically, as far as we currently understand, death is a lack of life. Just as Atheism is a lack of Theism. So, as far as we're concerned, death is the opposite of life. Not the opposite of love (or whatever was spewed as an argument), as someone else said.

I can only hope I'll be able to effectively communicate this.

I was not saying we're dead and alive at once. I was saying "alive" and "dead" are abstractions pertaining to objects differing from each other, whereas something like "direction" is purely an abstraction the meaning of which is not specific to any particular types of objects. We understand one direction by understanding other directions. We understand life by observing living things. We understand death by observing the process of living things no longer living. Yes, death is the absence of life, atheism is the absence of theism, darkness is the absence of light, etc, but one direction is not the absence of its opposite.

My point was that the objects we refer to as love and hate are not just abstractions, so any opposition they have to each other may just be the product of us observing one and concurrently imagining the other as opposing it.

(11-05-2013 11:48 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Granted, it could be argued that "We're smart enough to be wary without being fearful", but if that argument were to be made, it would assume that we know the dynamics of every new situation into wich we venture; which is impossible. (Sorry. Had to counter that before someone tried to use it as an argument) And ultimately, fear of death itself is what preserves us - and our genes - alive to breed another day. Fear is a very, very important part of the human animal.

I don't at all mind you countering that argument. I like others to feel free in expressing any bit of themselves, and I like seeing signs that others are critical of their own conclusions.

I disagree with your counterargument, though. I don't believe we have to believe we know the dynamics of every situation in order to be without fear, because I think that what we believe we know about any given situation is just one variable influencing how much we fear that situation, if at all.

I also don't think that fear of death is the only thing that preserves us, let alone the only emotion that can motivate the other factors which preserve us. For example, I think a love of life could motivate self preservation. I also think one can choose to preserve one's self regardless of how one's self feels. And I think self preservation might in most cases be a mostly unconscious intent persisting through all emotions, though to different amounts of commitment.

(11-05-2013 11:48 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  In the end, my comment was an expression of my personal sentiments. Maybe we need hatred; maybe we don't. But personally, I think it is useful and isn't necessarily a problem. The only time it really becomes a problem is when it is a hinderance to ourselves or others.

A thing's utility depends on one's objectives, as does its hindrance. My goal is happiness, the potential of which hatred's presence within me would diminish because I can't feel happy while hating. It also might diminish potential for my happiness by harming my overall health which influences how I feel emotionally. My hatred could only directly hinder others if they could sense it, but as for indirect hindrance, that's something the possibility of which I have no awareness, because I don't know how others think and feel. But until I'm made aware otherwise, because I know my hatred does not directly benefit them, I choose to err on the side that their belief in my hatred would not help them, and in fact might harm them. For all these reasons, I find no utility in hatred, and thus avoid it within me whenever I can. And honestly, I believe the last time I felt hatred (as in, an absolute range of the feeling's intensity) toward anybody was eleven years ago. That lack of feeling hatred is the experience from which I write in this thread that I believe we don't need it.

(11-05-2013 11:48 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  I'm a misanthrope, but I don't sit over here just seething in hatred for everyone and everything. I don't like people, no. But I can manage to enjoy spending time around them without needing to mow them down with a chainsaw.

I was quite a misanthrope myself until I realized that I was generalizing individuals as much as groups of people when I thought I didn't like anybody, including myself. If we can enjoy spending time around them, might we be able to like them, too?

(11-05-2013 11:48 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  If I or others couldn't manage that, then in our unique cases, I'd say it's a problem. But overall, I think hatred is an acceptable part of our species.

Yeah, I believe hatred often occurs without severely harming anybody, but because much of our behavior is entirely unconscious, I prefer to discourage hatred whenever I can out of the belief that those who do act harmfully out of hatred might not act harmfully without their hatred.

A complete aside, Misanthropik, do you have a YouTube account with a clown face or something like that for an avatar?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 07:26 PM
RE: Do Humans Need Hate?
Is not hatred the polarised position akin to adoration?
Both seem pretty dangerous states to me if over indulged.
In the 30s comeraderie stupidity, and tribalism led to chronic mass hatred.
Dislike in its various degrees and to ignore is far healthier than endogenous crippling. hatred, surely!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2013, 03:05 AM
RE: Do Humans Need Hate?
I'm a very hateful person. I rather say "I hate" than "I dislike". Complaining and talking shit about things or people is a lot of fun, if you're alone. Ah fuck it, nobody understands me, I hate you guys.



[Image: 9f6.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 04:02 AM
RE: Do Humans Need Hate?
Hate is fuel, and sometimes we need fuel to get shit done.

I don't have a problem with hate, in fact I can mention a few things I think is very much worth hating.
Think about it, would the world be a better place if people didn't hate stuff like racism or stupidity?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 06:58 AM
RE: Do Humans Need Hate?
Fuels don't work universally; for example, a combustion engine can't run on wood kindling. If anybody thinks they need hate to get anything other than hating done, they don't much have an "open" mind.

What things do you consider worth hating, and why?

Are you asking if humanity's current stance on racism and stupidity would exist had it not been for past hate, or are you asking if the world will get better if people stop hating those things? Either way, without a definition of "better" and a specification of which "people", we can't accurately answer your question. Regardless, hate is not a requisite to counteracting something, if that's what you were getting at.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: