Is hate more irrational or logical? — Questioner

The gut response is to say that hate is irrational. But the science seems to suggest that love is more irrational than hate.

Love and hate use the same brain circuits in the brain. Both the hate circuit (and that for contempt and disgust) and the love circuit include parts of the brain called the putamen and the insula, found in the sub-cortex of the brain. This particular circuit’s function seems to be to process distressing signals.

But there is a significant difference between the neurological processing of love and hate. Large parts of the cerebral cortex – associated with judgement and reasoning – become de-activated during love, whereas only a small area is deactivated in hate. So, hate retains rationality.

Is hate an emotion, or is it more of an attitude, or a judgement? — Questioner

I think what we call hate is mostly anger, resentment, and judgment.

Is hate more irrational or logical? — Questioner

It’s definitely not logical. Is it irrational? I would say it certainly non-rational and destructive. Does that make it irrational?

Does hate serve a purpose? — Questioner

I suppose it serves an emotional purpose, but I also think it leads to ineffective actions.

Do love and hate always express themselves? — Questioner

Well, they affect things. Cause things. Even if they’re not recognized.

Why is it that both love and hate can result in both heroic and evil actions? — Questioner

I’m not sure I agree with the claim here. Besides that there’s no reason something can’t be both heroic and evil.

Which one has the wider radius of effect? — Questioner

I’m not sure what this means.

Is hate what happens when someone is not loved? — Questioner

I don’t think this question makes any sense.

Is hate a stronger force than love? — Questioner

I don’t think either love or hate is a force.

Are destruction and construction two sides of the same coin? — Questioner

I’m not sure what this means, especially in the context of the rest of this post

Is hate ever positive? Is love ever negative? — Questioner

Here’s the deal—the love created by natural selection that brings us together as a social species you discussed at the beginning is not the same love you talk about in the rest of the post. Our natural love is not the opposite of hate, it’s the opposite of indifference.

I am a retired high school biology teacher, and one of the many things that I told my students is that everything about us survived in us because it gave us some kind of advantage in the environment in which we were living. — Questioner

I am a semi retired sociology and psychology introductory course high school teacher and I tried to teach basically the same thing.

Is hate an emotion, or is it more of an attitude, or a judgement? — Questioner

All three.

Does hate serve a purpose? — Questioner

It can keep you safe.

Why is it that both love and hate can result in both heroic and evil actions? — Questioner

I don't think that they can result in either. Heroics and evil actions mostly come from circumstance.

Are destruction and construction two sides of the same coin? — Questioner

Neither are relevant to the topic.

Is hate ever positive? Is love ever negative? — Questioner

Depends on whether you are applying the words to food or the person next door.

Is hate an emotion, or is it more of an attitude, or a judgement? — Questioner

It’s how people feel, so yes, it’s an emotion, though one that may stem from a judgment and a predisposition. A great deal of reasoning seems to me to be motivated or framed by prior emotional dispositions, values, and preferences.

Is hate more irrational or logical? — Questioner

Who knows? I think reason is arrived at through affective preferences, so there's that.

Does hate serve a purpose? — Questioner

Almost everything serves a purpose, the question is, is this purpose useful or warranted?

Do love and hate always express themselves? — Questioner

Not sure what you mean by express. If you mean do people suppress thier feelings and are they sometimes in denial, then yes.

Why is it that both love and hate can result in both heroic and evil actions? — Questioner

Is this true of any emotion; greed, envy, lust? Almost any emotion can lead to negative consequences for someone. I generally avoid the word evil, since it strikes me as a primitive way of describing something much more complex.

Which one has the wider radius of effect? — Questioner

Depends what you mean. Hitler's hate had a much bigger radius of effect than my parent's love. Etc.

Is hate what happens when someone is not loved? — Questioner

Sometimes. I generally think hate is often an aspect of fear and a failure to make sense of something.

Is hate a stronger force than love? — Questioner

Unanswerable except by romantics. It depends on the example. In most cases, love is contained and intimate, while hate is often externalised.

Are destruction and construction two sides of the same coin? — Questioner

As second-rate poetry, perhaps. Eastern religions often hold this view, as do some philosophers. For them, opposites stand in a mutual relationship and continuously transform into one another. The cycle of birth and death may be cited as an example. Personally, I see no particular use for this view, even if it is true.

Is hate ever positive? Is love ever negative? — Questioner

Of course. I doubt there is anything that doesn't have a shadow side or a silver lining.

Hatred and concomitant anger can underpin heroism, just as they can underpin cruelty.

So what do we have? Are you trying to integrate an understanding hatred into your world view?

The evolutionary advantage of love seems obvious, considering we are a social species. Attachment to our kith and kin better ensured we all survived. — Questioner

This could just as easily be rewritten with the word 'hate' substituted for 'love', and it would still make sense. Hatred has often been adaptive: it 'helps' in conflict and war, and provides the motivation to defeat rivals; individuals and tribes alike to protect our kith and kin. From a grubby, scientistic and evolutionary perspective, there is every reason to see why hatred might be regarded as having advantages.

Thank you for your question; I'm interested in this topic. Since this question is being asked on a philosophy forum, I'll be answering philosophically, which may not quite meet your expectations.

I am a retired high school biology teacher, and one of the many things that I told my students is that everything about us survived in us because it gave us some kind of advantage in the environment in which we were living. — Questioner

I'd like to start with your opening statement: "Everything about us has survived because it gave us certain advantages in the environment in which we lived."

This statement is imprecise and can be interpreted in several ways:

1. We possess everything necessary to give us advantages for survival in the environment in which we lived. (This implies that we may also possess something else.)

or

2. Everything we possess is necessary to give us advantages for survival in the environment in which we lived. (This implies that we possess only what is necessary, and that what is not necessary has died off.)

Philosophically, both of these statements are speculative.

First, there are examples of other organisms whose advantages for survival in their environment are no worse, if not better. For example, the falcon, whose eyesight is superior.
Secondly, why does this have to be so? Take the eye, for example. The eye is perfect for seeing underwater, but on land it's vulnerable, which is why land dwellers developed corneas and tear ducts (according to the theory of evolution, which is what I'm trying to answer). Therefore, the eye itself adapted to the environment and wasn't discarded and replaced with another sensor.

These questions immediately arise.
Then why should anything exist for a purpose? A purpose for creation presupposes a creator. What if it's all purely accidental? Why should anything exist in us at all, rather than not? (This doesn't contradict the theory of evolution.)

I see great potential for an interesting discussion on all your questions, but I ask that you formulate your opening statement as precisely as possible.

I am a retired high school biology teacher, and one of the many things that I told my students is that everything about us survived in us because it gave us some kind of advantage in the environment in which we were living. — Questioner

The logical error here is called "affirming the cosequent." Darwinian evolution is based on the notion that if a trait gives us a (genetic) advantage, it will tend to become more widespread. It is a logical error to assume that if a trait has become widespread, it must have given us an advantage.

This is paricularly true of culturally influenced feelings and behaviors, like love and hate. Of course it is possible (even probable) that a trait or behavior that has become common has conferred advantages, but assuming it must have done so is an error

We cannot assume that because wars, witch burnings, pograms, and inquisitions have often "survived", they must have been evolutionarily advantageous.

This is paricularly true of culturally influenced feelings and behaviors, like love and hate. Of course it is possible (even probable) that a trait or behavior that has become common has conferred advantages, but assuming it must have done so is an error — Ecurb

I’m mostly in agreement with your post, although I am a strong believer in a biological, genetic, neurological, psychological, sociological human nature.

I think what we call hate is mostly anger, resentment, and judgment. — T Clark

I too think that hate involves all three of these things, and takes them a step beyond, and that implies that hate is a reaction. A reaction to what? I believe it's a reaction to some harm that we perceive has been done to us. I used the word "perceive" because hate is not always justified. Often, it is the product of misconceptions and a lack of full understanding.

It’s definitely not logical. Is it irrational? I would say it certainly non-rational and destructive. Does that make it irrational? — T Clark

The biology says that we do use our rational faculties in the brain in formulating hate. So maybe, the question is not whether it is rational or irrational, but if it is based on the quality of the input reaching that rational part of the brain. Is what we believe about the person we hate true? And in interpretation, is our focus only on how we fit into the equation, or do we try to see the other side?

I suppose it serves an emotional purpose, but I also think it leads to ineffective actions. — T Clark

For some, it sure does serve an emotional purpose. Taking this to the extreme, there seem to be people who need to hate. This leads me to wonder what is the true source of their hate. Personal trauma? Self-hate? Projection?

Which one has the wider radius of effect?
— Questioner

I’m not sure what this means. — T Clark

Love works really well close-up, but hate can work really well at a distance, especially when we are talking about between groups of people. For example, whipping up hate against perceived enemies is a hallmark of authoritarian rule.

Is hate what happens when someone is not loved?
— Questioner

I don’t think this question makes any sense. — T Clark

Our brains develop in part according to the stimuli they receive. In the absence of love, the hate circuit rather than the love circuit becomes fixed in the brain?

Is hate a stronger force than love?
— Questioner

I don’t think either love or hate is a force. — T Clark

But they can provide impetus to action

Are destruction and construction two sides of the same coin?
— Questioner

I’m not sure what this means, especially in the context of the rest of this post — T Clark

i was thinking of love as a constructive force, and hate as a destructive force

Our natural love is not the opposite of hate, it’s the opposite of indifference. — T Clark

Good point. But from the earliest evolutionary beginnings of love, all other forms of love evolved.

I remember reading something that love first appeared in our ancestors as a mother's love.

But, in the wider context, indifference does not lead to action. Love and hate can both lead to action. So, in their application - in their causing actual behavior - they do have opposite effects.

Does hate serve a purpose?
— Questioner

It can keep you safe. — Sir2u

I do wonder, though, how often the threat is real and how often it is made up in the head.

Are destruction and construction two sides of the same coin?
— Questioner

Neither are relevant to the topic. — Sir2u

I was thinking of love as a constructive force and hate as a destructive force

Is hate ever positive? Is love ever negative?
— Questioner

Depends on whether you are applying the words to food or the person next door. — Sir2u

Good point. I was thinking only in terms of interpersonal or intergroup relationships

may stem from a judgment and a predisposition. A great deal of reasoning seems to me to be motivated or framed by prior emotional dispositions, values, and preferences. — Tom Storm

I agree. I would add to that list one's self-image

Almost everything serves a purpose, the question is, is this purpose useful or warranted? — Tom Storm

We evolved to "fear the stranger" - and to protect ourselves if we did not know if they were friend or foe. But hate seems to grow out of this useful instinct if it is taken to an extreme. Hate is not necessary for self-protection ...

Which one has the wider radius of effect?
— Questioner

Depends what you mean. Hitler's hate had a much bigger radius of effect than my parent's love. Etc. — Tom Storm

yes, I was thinking along these lines.

Is hate what happens when someone is not loved?
— Questioner

Sometimes. I generally think hate is often an aspect of fear and a failure to make sense of something. — Tom Storm

I like this description very much.

In most cases, love is contained and intimate, while hate is often externalised. — Tom Storm

Relevant to the question I raised about proximity

So what do we have? Are you trying to integrate an understanding hatred into your world view? — Tom Storm

For me personally, I do not hate. I do not know what hate feels like. But we see whole groups of people actively expressing and acting on their hate and while I know it is a multi-faceted and complicated question, I am trying to gain some understanding in the context of a shared humanity.

From a grubby, scientistic and evolutionary perspective, there is every reason to see why hatred might be regarded as having advantages. — Tom Storm

Yes, back to my initial point - it must have provided evolutionary advantage. But it seems like it's being misused or misapplied in the context of the present day world. Sort of like how our fight-or-flight response gone out of control is causing all sorts of stress-related illnesses.

Since this question is being asked on a philosophy forum, I'll be answering philosophically, which may not quite meet your expectations. — Astorre

Sounds good. Thank you for replying.

I'd like to start with your opening statement: "Everything about us has survived because it gave us certain advantages in the environment in which we lived."

This statement is imprecise and can be interpreted in several ways:

1. We possess everything necessary to give us advantages for survival in the environment in which we lived. (This implies that we may also possess something else.)

or

2. Everything we possess is necessary to give us advantages for survival in the environment in which we lived. (This implies that we possess only what is necessary, and that what is not necessary has died off.) — Astorre

Yes, thanks for pointing that out, but I did not mean to imply those two interpretations.

No, evolution did not give us everything we need. Only what made us "good enough" to survive in that particular environment. The usual example cited is if a predator is chasing you and your buddy, you don't have to be faster than the predator, only your buddy.

Natural selection is not a process that produces perfection, only what is "good enough." If I consider any part of my structure or function, it evolved because it served some purpose during my evolution that helped me survive. And natural selection proceeds by a process of "costs and benefits" - and if the benefit outweighs the cost - evolution proceeds in that direction.

And yes, I am aware of vestigial functions and structures - things that once served a purpose but are not so important anymore.

Then why should anything exist for a purpose? A purpose for creation presupposes a creator. What if it's all purely accidental? Why should anything exist in us at all, rather than not? (This doesn't contradict the theory of evolution.) — Astorre

I think we need to separate "functional purpose" from "higher or divine purpose" -

Current science does hold that the evolutionary process is a random one.

Darwinian evolution is based on the notion that if a trait gives us a (genetic) advantage, it will tend to become more widespread. It is a logical error to assume that if a trait has become widespread, it must have given us an advantage. — Ecurb

I think you are introducing the notion of "neutral traits" - and they certainly exist. For example, blue eyes evolved from brown eyes, but blue eyes have no functional advantage over brown eyes. Yet, in some regions in the world, blue eyes are more common.

But I was not thinking about these kinds of variation within traits, and so I apologize for my imprecision. I was thinking in more general terms of traits taken as a whole. We all have eyes, and those eyes gave us the evolutionary advantage.

But the premise of my statement - we are products of natural selection - holds true.

We cannot assume that because wars, witch burnings, pograms, and inquisitions have often "survived", they must have been evolutionarily advantageous. — Ecurb

No, we have to limit that claim to human traits - not how they were applied culturally

I'm pleased that my approach prompted you to elaborate, but your clarifications don't quite meet my needs. Please don't perceive me as a villain. I'm merely asking that you refine my opening sentence so that it can be delivered in defense of your life's work. From here, we'll move on.

But the premise of my statement - we are products of natural selection - holds true. — Questioner

My complaint that this involves the logical mistake of "affirming the consequent" remains. We are (doubtless) products of both natural selection and random chance. It is a logical error to assume that because a trait exists, it must have conferred selective advantages. Of course in the case of vision, the selective advantages are obvious (although some creationists argue for irreducible complexity). Love and hate are less obvious. For one thing, attitudes toward love and hate have differed from culture to culture. If these emotions confer selective advantages for humans in general, wouldn't we expect our attitudes toward them to be similar cross-culturally?

Romantic love and its relation to marriage differs dramatically in different cultures.

It is probably true that all female mammals must have some emotional response to their offspring that leads them to nurture and nurse them. This obviously selfless behavior is essential for the continuance of the gene pool. But other forms of love (and hate) are less essential.

I'm merely asking that you refine my opening sentence so that it can be delivered in defense of your life's work. — Astorre

Thank you for making me look at it again. Appreciated. Yes, the word "everything" is much too broad and imprecise. I have changed the opening sentence. thanks again.

Here's the new one:

and one of the many things that I told my students is the traits and characteristics associated with our physical structure - including neurological circuits - survived in us because it gave us some kind of advantage in the environment in which we were living. — Questioner

Love and hate are less obvious. — Ecurb

They don't exist alone, but are outcrops of the universal human mental capacity to process distressing signals. How they are processed will depend on many factors, including learned behavior.

If these emotions confer selective advantages for humans in general, wouldn't we expect our attitudes toward them to be similar cross-culturally? — Ecurb

Not necessarily. Love and hate begin as responses in the same neurological connections, but how they are ultimately conferred with meaning will depend on cultural factors, too.

So, I'm forced to argue with you. This isn't necessary. It's just an idea that groups facts into a convenient way to structure the incoming flow. It's a lens, but not the essence itself.

What's the main idea? It's that if I try to doubt the starting premise, the entire superstructure will crumble. So, I'm the one who doubted your starting premise. Defend it.

Not necessarily. Love and hate begin as responses in the same neurological connections, but how they are ultimately conferred with meaning will depend on cultural factors, too — Questioner

The problem with reductionist explanations for human emotions is that they don't explain anything. Of course love and hate have "neurological connections". Where does that get us? Does it help us understand love or hate? It sounds "scientific" -- but what predictive or explanatory value does it have?

It might be that some day we can understand the neurological bases and triggers for love and hate. Until then, however, we gain more understanding from poetry, novels, essays and songs.

It's a lens, but not the essence itself. — Astorre

I suppose it is the essence I'd like to get a better understanding of

It's that if I try to doubt the starting premise, the entire superstructure will crumble. So, I'm the one who doubted your starting premise. Defend it. — Astorre

Well, I guess that would require a defense of the theory of natural selection. An important feature of the theory is that evolution proceeds in the direction that confers advantage to a population, and I accept that conclusion. At root are our biological characteristics. But as mentioned, every advance in evolution comes with both benefits and costs. We need a threat-detection system, no doubt. But is hate the cost of that threat-detection system?

The problem with reductionist explanations for human emotions is that they don't explain anything. Of course love and hate have "neurological connections". Where does that get us? Does it help us understand love or hate? It sounds "scientific" -- but what predictive or explanatory value does it have?

It might be that some day we can understand the neurological bases and triggers for love and hate. Until then, however, we gain more understanding from poetry, novels, essays and songs. — Ecurb

There is a place for both science and art - after all, they both have the same goal, and that is the pursuit of truth, just using different methods. Each individual, according to their own interests and abilities, can decide which path better suits them, or if indeed they want to take both!