Also, Trump is clearly a liar, a con man and a rapist (or, at least, a sexual predator). But how does one "stand against" that. He's already been tried and found guilty (in civil court) and fined hundreds of millions of dollars (for both the fraud and the sexual predation), which he hasn't paid. What else can we do?

My personal animosity toward Trump is based on his personality and his extra-Presidential behavior. I also despise his policies -- but I'm not sure they are more immoral than Obama's drone assassinations. Bill Clinton was also a sexual predator. Should we really let our political biases rule our hearts, as well as our minds? Clinton certainly had more charm than Trump (from my perspective). Perhaps our "love" and "hate" are (and should be) subjective. — Ecurb

The struck out is extremely important, imo. But besides this, well done. You seem to be letting your brain stay in your head :)
I also think anyone who thinks his civil conviction is worth the paper its printed on is lying to themselves. But there we go - different strokes :)

One cannot find unity as in love if we are cast in the judgment and negativity of hate unless you are Hegel who is simultaneously posting his own understanding.

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

Hate is a feeling, so an emotion. But it might be augmented or brought about by thoughts, attitudes or judgements - no matter whether true or untrue.

Is hate more irrational or logical?

If you accept what I said above about hate being a feeling then it is irrational by definition since the definition of 'rational' is essentially a thought that uses logic. A feeling is not a thought and feelings don't always occur for logical reasons. Therefore they are irrational.

Does hate serve a purpose?

If you accept evolution (as you say you do and as I do) then it almost definitely serves a purpose since so many creatures have a capacity for it. It must be advantageous in some way otherwise it wouldn't be such a universal behaviour.
My opinion is that it allows us to protect our own interests more effectively.

Do love and hate always express themselves?

Sorry, I don't understand?

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

Whether an action is heroic or evil is extremely subjective imo. But if pushed for an answer then I would say that hate is an emotion that can cause us to push back against perceived injustices, so can therefore be seen as a good action coming from an otherwise negative emotion.

Which one has the wider radius of effect?

Sorry, I don't understand the question here?

Is hate what happens when someone is not loved?

If you accept what I said earlier about hate being an emotion that helps us protect our own interests then you have to accept that hate can occur for other reasons besides not being loved. For instance someone could just be a bit inconvenient to you, getting in the way and making your life slightly more difficult, so you would be inclined to hate them so that they might stop being so inconvenient

Is hate a stronger force than love?

How could you ever quantify this? For a start, the strength of a feeling of love or hate can vary significantly, so I might ignore my mum if he she won't stop talking about boring stuff (strong love beating a weak hate) but I might not forgive a violent criminal if they mugged my mum in the street (non existent love for some random guy Vs strong love for my mum.
Basically, I guess I'm trying to say your question is too loose to be answered in any meaningful way.

Are destruction and construction two sides of the same coin?

An action that improves one person's life might come at the expense of someone else. So yeah, I suppose it's not completely clear cut. Bit things never are.

Is hate ever positive? Is love ever negative?

Is there a larger size than large? Is there a smaller size than small? Is there something you can compare something short against so that the short thing looks long? As a UK citizen if I'm in Australia then is my 'up' here their 'down'?
Has science helped the world? Has science hurt the world?

The point is that you're question is too binary. Too one dimensional. Cases could probably be out forward for cases where hate is positive and cases put forward where it is negative. You could probably put forward cases where it is both and the same time. And the same goes for love.

Thank you for your considered reply. I was prompted to start this thread by witnessing how people can be manipulated by hate - as is evident with MAGA.

Do love and hate always express themselves?
Sorry, I don't understand? — Nichiren-123

Does emotion always lead to behavior?

Which one has the wider radius of effect?
Sorry, I don't understand the question here? — Nichiren-123

We reserve love for those closest to us, but hate can drive an entire segment of society to wish ill upon those who they don't even know.

We reserve love for those closest to us, but hate can drive an entire segment of society to wish ill upon those who they don't even know. — Questioner

Christians are commanded to "Love you enemies, do good to those who hate you." (Luke: 6:27) This kind of love (agape) is more than a mere emotion; it is also an act of will.

Christians are commanded to "Love you enemies, do good to those who hate you." (Luke: 6:27) This kind of love (agape) is more than a mere emotion; it is also an act of will. — Ecurb

I like this very much. Thanks for sharing.

I was prompted to start this thread by witnessing how people can be manipulated by hate... — Questioner

Hate is foolish, love is wise (B. Russell). But whenever a power struggle won't be solved in a good way (e.g. by agreement or respect for shared rules, argument etc), the candidates must either give in or use other means, such as manipulation, bribes, smear campaigns, and ultimately desinformation, violence, fear and hate.

Fear is an emotional response to a potential threat. Hate is an attitude (contempt) for the threat. Like most animals, humans focus on threats as a function of survival, our brains are wired that way. This is exploited by the news media, insurance companies, defence and entertainment industries, and certain political movements thrive on it.

Also love can be used as a means for other interests, but unlike hate, love is not an attitude but an emotional response. Unlike fear, love is about something desirable or admirable.

Well said.

Hate and Love don't appear to be opposites.

Fear and Love make more sense, as Jkop has pointed out.

In this sense, both are apt for their uses. Both of apt for their misuses. Best we just focus on ourselves.

In my inbox this morning, an interesting article about love from Elizabeth Halligan -

Halligan observes how in the English language there is only one word for “love” – (she describes it as the “poverty of English”) - but other languages have several words representing different roles for love.

For example, if we look at the Greek tradition –

Érōs — Fiery passion. Romance. Desire.
• Healthy: vitality, creativity, intimacy
• Unhealthy: obsession, possession, addiction
Storgē — Family love. The bond between parent and child. Kinship.
• Healthy: care, belonging, protection
• Unhealthy: clannishness, nepotism, enabling harm to protect “our own”
Philía — Friendship. Loyalty. Brotherhood. The love of shared values and mutual respect.
• Healthy: solidarity, comradeship, the glue that holds communities together
• Unhealthy: tribalism, exclusion, us-versus-them
Agápē — Unconditional love. Universal. The love that extends to all beings simply because they exist.
• Healthy: compassion, altruism, collective care, empathy
• Unhealthy: martyrdom, self-erasure, the inability to set boundaries
Philautía — self-love.
• Healthy: Self-respect, wholeness, the foundation from which we can love others
• Unhealthy: narcissism, ego-inflation, vanity
Xenía — Love of the stranger. The sacred duty of hospitality.
• Healthy: reciprocity, protection, honoring the outsider
• Unhealthy: blind trust without discernment — or its shadow, xenophobia

Halligan goes on to say –

When a culture collapses all love into érōs, it reflects a collective psyche still ruled by fear and possession.

This is the amygdala in charge. Everything reduced to “mine” or “threat”. Love becomes acquisition, care becomes control, and connection is based on transaction…

Without words for these loves, we struggle to practice them.

In conclusion, she states that we need a new world built with love as structure, not just sentiment -

• Philía in teams and organizations, where loyalty is not weakness but the foundation of trust.
• Agápē in policy and governance, where the measure of success is collective flourishing, and not the GDP of “human capital”.
• Xenía in how we treat the displaced, the different, the stranger at the gate, because borders are constructs that only exist in the mind.
• Philautía as the foundational love of self, because we cannot pour from an empty cup, and self-respect is not selfishness.
• Storgē remembered as strength, not softness — the love that gets up in the night, that sacrifices without scorekeeping, that builds the future of human flourishing, because we are one family.

Once you get into unproven assumptions you have a recipe for great confusion. How do you know love and hate are biological realities? Because scientists say so? But science does not know this. I don't think these emotions exist 'in' the brain. Science has not shown these things are biological in their origin. All science has shown is that the brain is associated with these emotions. But correlation is not always causation. Countless science writers ignore this common sense precept, assuming that things associated with the brain originate in the brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

This post contains all of the English concepts she's saying we don't have. Weird.

How do you know love and hate are biological realities? — EnPassant

I proceed from the position that emotions are produced by neurological functions

Because scientists say so? — EnPassant

Scientists don't just "say things." They make conclusions based on experimental results.

I don't think these emotions exist 'in' the brain. — EnPassant

Then what is your alternative hypothesis?

This post contains all of the English concepts she's saying we don't have. Weird. — AmadeusD

I probably didn't do a good job of relating her main point of her article - that when answering the question - "What is love for?'"- society is strengthened when we come up with a more communal than individual response.

She has written a few other articles about the amygdala (the region of emotion in the brain), including with reference to its being in a transitory state of evolution - connections between it and the analytical frontal lobes are not at the same stage of evolution in all humans.

Nevertheless - I think it is a valid observation that love is not approached by all cultures/traditions in the same way. For example, indigenous traditions tend to prioritize the communal over the individual.

I think that is somewhat wrong. Largely, because its predicated on the idea that because English doesn't carry specific, un-changing single word references to those various concepts, we don't really have them. That just seems patently wrong, to me.

I don't think there's any truck in the thesis. Its a bit romantic, at best.

She doesn't appear to have any background which would support taking her neuroscientific opinions seriously.

its being in a transitory state of evolution — Questioner

This is an extremely weird thing to claim. Evolution doesn't have stop-gaps. Organs which develop do so along evolutionary lines, and there isn't a valid way to claim what she is claiming. Its romantic language dressed up to be scientific.

Nevertheless - I think it is a valid observation that love is not approached by all cultures/traditions in the same way. For example, indigenous traditions tend to prioritize the communal over the individual. — Questioner

First, yes definitely - but only somewhat. The different concepts of love exist in various cultures - there is no sort of 1:0 relationship between those concepts that would have us saying "they see love differently". The West is actually highly predicated on community continuity and closeness along Christian lines. We just have too many people.

I think there's a bit of a tendency to romanticize past cultures coming into play here, resulting in ambiguous, scientifically unsound claims being made. But those societies lack in many ways and are not apt comparisons to multicultural, billion-person societies aimed at exploration, scientific understanding and technological advancement.

This is an extremely weird thing to claim. Evolution doesn't have stop-gaps. Organs which develop do so along evolutionary lines, and there isn't a valid way to claim what she is claiming. Its romantic language dressed up to be scientific. — AmadeusD

Are you arguing against genetic variability in humans? There are a lot of adaptations seen in some, but not all, humans. It is not about introducing “stop-gap” measures, but recognizing that evolution is an ongoing process, and humans do not pose the exception. There exist a lot of mutational variants!

The eight billion or so brains on the planet are not genetically identical. They differ most obviously in cognitive style, and also in forming their moral domain. We all believe we are “righteous” – but there exists variation in how we approach questions of care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation – as Jonathan Haidt explores in his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.

Worth noting is that environmental factors also influence brain development -

Under typical conditions, medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) connections with the amygdala are immature during childhood and become adult-like during adolescence.

… findings suggest that accelerated amygdala–mPFC development is an ontogenetic adaptation in response to early adversity.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3785723/

I think there's a bit of a tendency to romanticize past cultures coming into play here, resulting in ambiguous, scientifically unsound claims being made. But those societies lack in many ways and are not apt comparisons to multicultural, billion-person societies aimed at exploration, scientific understanding and technological advancement. — AmadeusD

I don't think it is romanticizing at all, but an investigation to better understand who we are as a species when the unnatural environment we live in has been peeled away.

Are you arguing against genetic variability in humans? — Questioner

Please stop asking ridiculous questions of me about things I haven't said. Either respond to what I've actually said, or don't. But do not ask me about things I haven't said, or even intimated. Your description betrays what you claim she's said about the Amygdala:

There is no such thing as a "transitory state" of evolution. That is what evolution is. Her claim scientifically unsound, and used in support of an further unsound thesis about emotional regulation. She has no expertise or even training in the area. It doesn't make any sense.

Everything you've said supports my rejection of Elizabeth's claim (which you seemed to be happy with?). What a bizarre exchange.

Under typical conditions, medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) connections with the amygdala are immature during childhood and become adult-like during adolescence. — Questioner

This is wholly irrelevant to the obviously false claim a blogger made.

I don't think it is romanticizing at all, but an investigation to better understand who we are as a species when the unnatural environment we live in has been peeled away. — Questioner

Well, it is. In this case, overtly.

I am saying that science has not shown that emotions originate in the brain. All that has been shown is that the brain is correlated with these things.

am saying that science has not shown that emotions originate in the brain. — EnPassant

The text below is copied from Understanding Emotions: Origins and Roles of the Amygdala -

Emotions arise from activations of specialized neuronal populations in several parts of the cerebral cortex, notably the anterior cingulate, insula, ventromedial prefrontal, and subcortical structures, such as the amygdala, ventral striatum, putamen, caudate nucleus, and ventral tegmental area. Feelings are conscious, emotional experiences of these activations that contribute to neuronal networks mediating thoughts, language, and behavior, thus enhancing the ability to predict, learn, and reappraise stimuli and situations in the environment based on previous experiences. Contemporary theories of emotion converge around the key role of the amygdala as the central subcortical emotional brain structure that constantly evaluates and integrates a variety of sensory information from the surroundings and assigns them appropriate values of emotional dimensions, such as valence, intensity, and approachability. The amygdala participates in the regulation of autonomic and endocrine functions, decision-making and adaptations of instinctive and motivational behaviors to changes in the environment through implicit associative learning, changes in short- and long-term synaptic plasticity, and activation of the fight-or-flight response via efferent projections from its central nucleus to cortical and subcortical structures.

Of course it is our brain that makes our decisions.

I really like Jonathan's analogy of the elephant and rider - a way to understand human behavior - our emotional/intuitive side is the elephant, and our rational side is the rider of the elephant - the rider can see the path ahead, and steers - but the elephant is much bigger and sometimes it determines the direction.

The amygdala participates in the regulation of autonomic and endocrine functions — Questioner

The key word is 'participates'. It correlates with various functions. Correlation is not always causation: https://theconversation.com/if-correlation-doesnt-imply-causation-how-do-scientists-figure-out-why-things-happen-243487

The key word is 'participates'. It correlates with various functions. — EnPassant

If you do not accept that structure produces function, then please provide an alternative hypothesis

My argument is that people are pretending that such and such is established science when it is not, it is merely hypothesis, often based on ignorance of the simple premise; Correlation is not always causation. At any rate my alternative is non material mind. Otherwise I'm condemned to believing that a person is a property of the brain. A Person, with all its sophistication and subtleties and abilities? Think about it. No neurological experiment, that ignores this precept, will convince me the brain produces a person.

While I think Questioner is making two classic mistakes (conflating correlation with causation and appeal to authority) I also think what you're saying isn't quite there yet. You need to be able to tell us what a person is before you can really make this objection. How could we find the boundaries?

PLenty of much, much smarter people than anyone on this forum have been at this for millennia. It's probably best to get across a lot of that - culminating, most importantly, I think, in "Reasons and Persons" by Derek Parfit. It is pushing toward 45 years old and hasn't really lost any flavour.

I take its conclusion: There is no such thing as a person, other than a conceptual comfort humans use to get on with things. There's nothing to be pointed out or drawn-out of the world to give us a necessary and sufficient description of a person.

So if you can approach this one, awesome. Otherwise, the objection isnt quite there yet imo.

A person can interact in the most sophisticated and subtle ways in the social realm. The person can have great artistic or musical talent. We are thinking beings and our thought goes way beyond what I can believe is merely molecular activity in the brain. Whatever you consider the person to be, these qualities of consciousness go way beyond the 5 senses. There is a depth of thought and being that is not convincingly explained by materialism. Religion - despite its corruptions and distortions - explains the person more convincingly.

You've got a hell of a lot of work todo beyond what you're saying here. That's your inuition - and I get that. It is most people's intuition. That's probably the basis for most religion impulse. "We must be more than meat". But there is no real reason to think so. We appear to be sets of dispositions and behaviours. But there are no clear edges, no sufficient and necessary conditions etc..

Again, please get yourself across the discussions on the topic over the years. While its not good for a lot, AI will do a great job are summarizing competing theories. I highly, highly suggest this before looking to have the above comment analysed into nothingness.

That's probably the basis for most religion impulse. "We must be more than meat" But there is no real reason to think so. — AmadeusD

I would say most religious belief comes from intuition and awareness. The deepest form of belief comes from direct awareness of God - knowledge of God, not speculation. Read Teresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich etc.

AI will do a great job are summarizing competing theories. — AmadeusD

A great problem with philosophy and the intellect in general is that the intellect is earthbound. The naive (human) intellect believes, or acts as if, the human world is reality when it is only a physical analogue. Reality is spiritual. The human world exists within reality - in much the same way that a university exists in the world at large; the university is a concept, not the 'real' human world. Matter is not a real thing, it is an image of energy. Physical objects don't have an enduring reality so they are not real in the way that energy is real.

I would say most religious belief comes from intuition and awareness. The deepest form of belief comes from direct awareness of God - knowledge of God, not speculation. Read Teresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich etc. — EnPassant

Yes, intuition, but in this case coupled with obvious falsities. You cannot be directly aware of a God which does not exist, and therein lies the problem. If your suggestion were to be taken seriously, those who do not feel this impulse would be defective. And that wouldn't be a Great God, so a couple of problems there. I am well aware of what are called transcendent religious experiences. You can get these from taking LSD. They are not at all convincing to anyone but someone who already believes.

I think you maybe do not understand how much of what you're saying is unsupported speculation despite it perhaps being common. Its quite hard to respond to the second paragraph withou tjust wholesale saying "Well, that makes very little sense". So I'll just note my discomfort with responding that way to something so clearly genuine and important to you.

You cannot be directly aware of a God which does not exist — AmadeusD

That seems to be another way of saying those who are aware, are aware of something real.

those who do not feel this impulse would be defective. — AmadeusD

I would not use the word defective. I was a (lukewarm) atheist until my early 20s.

I am well aware of what are called transcendent religious experiences. You can get these from taking LSD. — AmadeusD

I can sincerely assure you these are not spiritual experiences, they are psychic and are intensely dangerous and can do great psychic damage. To call them spiritual is like saying banging some irons together is music.

That seems to be another way of saying those who are aware, are aware of something real. — EnPassant

It is not anything remotely close to that. It is exactly what it says: The suggestion that if God is not real, an appeal to experience is meaningless. Given that this appears to be the only confirmation of God adherents can provide, it seems damning - but that wasn't my suggestion there.

I would not use the word defective. — EnPassant

Then the suggestion that that experience is somehow real can be dismissed. If it's not a defect to be unable to commune with God, everything we know about God is nonsense.

You clearly have absolutely no clue whatsoever what you are referring to when it comes to psychedelic experience. Transcendent psychedelic experiences are more effective than religion in ameliorating both long-term trauma and addiction issues. And that's just a random comparison. You're simply making claims that are unsupported.

The suggestion that if God is not real, an appeal to experience is meaningless. Given that this appears to be the only confirmation of God adherents can provide, it seems damning — AmadeusD

Theists believe in God for many reasons but the best reason is communion with God.

If it's not a defect to be unable to commune with God, everything we know about God is nonsense. — AmadeusD

Why anyone be unable to commune with God?

Transcendent psychedelic experiences are more effective than religion in ameliorating both long-term trauma and addiction issues. — AmadeusD

I am not talking about medical issues I'm talking about abuse of these substances. The damage they do is well documented.