Hate is borne by sorrow ... I like that.

First of all, just saying this as a positive constructive feedback,I think that if your argument had a structure from to present what you are stating, it would be easier for your readers to understand and follow your premises and its connection to your second one. Furthermore, why do you conclude hate is triggered by something or is necessary for your belief of yin and yang theme.
I feel that hate is an inner feeling that only hurts inside ourselves, whether we have hate as a natural reaction of an action that happened. It is our own interpretation of how we conduct the feelings.
Personally, I do not believe that hate is necessary to outshow our yin and yang. On the contrary, I feel that hatress only feel our souls with negative energy and conducts us in a wrong way.
We have the power to make decisions in how we react to things but we do not have that so in the way we feel about. Because, at the end of the day, we do not decide or choose how we feel, we just do.
In addition, hating something only harms us and it takes up our energy and gives power to the problem which we are draining ourselves. We can choose to disregard whatever person, action or cause that made us upset and triggered our morals. Choosing to let go and focus on the positive things we like and have that a necessity of conducting ourselves.
In conclusion, I support the realization that the only individual you are prejudicing by having hatress or conducting it so, it is yourself. Therefore, you should choose not to hate anything or anyone; and just disregard it.

Born with a criminal mind and a delinquent attitude — Gnostic Christian Bishop

How do you know that you were born with these and didn't acquire them as the result of trauma and abuse?

Interesting where the standard stages of psychological grief/loss put hate:

Love something
Lose it
Hate that you lost it, or hate it
Justify why it happened
Depression over the loss
Accept what happened

Love something again...
Ad infinitum....

Most of the time we never complete the cycle, I assume.

In this context hate is an eventual natural result of love. And hate eventually leads again to love.

Or... qua the yin/yang: within each facticity exists its antithesis. Waiting to emerge.

The main question for me is are we taking abstractly about ideas here? Which seems the most natural to me.... or are we talking praxis?

If we stay in theoria then hate may be simply a state of patterns that are about to shift. Then the question of what brings it about is kind of silly.

If we want to talk about hate in the world... and how do we deal with it, and what are the causes of hate - and Do we embrace it and how do we deal with those consumed by it.... the answer is that some people get stuck in a moment and can’t get out of it (ok... old U2 song I know) - anyways people get stuck on something that they would naturally move on from.

Is it natural to go through hate? Yes. It isn’t natural to stay in that state.

In a very loose sense what we hate are morally prohibited. — TheMadFool

??

Too loose for me. Tighten it up with a couple of examples please.

Regards
DL

When we have the courage to risk loss, lack, pain or humiliation, there is no need to hate - that’s just fear talking. — Possibility

Hate, like evil, has a good and an evil side and like Yin and Yang, compliment each other. They are not in opposition.

If you look around, you will see a lot more good going on than evil and a lot more love than hate being expressed. In fact, we are too good to each other.

As the Christian hymn says, Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Strange that Christians call furthering god's plan as a fall.

You seem to be doing the same with nature.

Regards
DL

Furthermore, why do you conclude hate is triggered by something or is necessary for your belief of yin and yang theme. — Seneca Advocate

Hate is an emotion and all our emotions are triggered by something or someone.

Why do you conclude that some hate without a trigger? That seems really strange.

I feel that hatreds only feel our souls with negative energy and conducts us in a wrong way. — Seneca Advocate

Oh my. The hate of slavery ended slavery in the U.S. and you seem to think that a bad thing.

How about Rosa parks?
Did her negative energy against segregation lead her the wrong way?

Therefore, you should choose not to hate anything or anyone; and just disregard it. — Seneca Advocate

No thanks.

For evil to grow, all we all need do is as you suggest, and not hate evil.

If you think you should live by the Golden Rule, change the labels in this quote to women, minorities, gays or children being brainwashed by religions and it shows what we should be thinking and doing for each other.

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

Regards
DL

How do you know that you were born with these and didn't acquire them as the result of trauma and abuse? — uncanni

I think we are all born with an almost unlimited potential in terms of human aptitude. We will do as we must to survive.

But yes, my abuse is what jacked up my selfish gene to helping form my a criminal mind and delinquent aptitude.

Regards
DL

And hate eventually leads again to love. — Metaphyzik

Show how please.

The main question for me is are we taking abstractly about ideas here? — Metaphyzik

No. Science and a proven theory of how our instincts guide our morals

If we stay in theoria then hate may be simply a state of patterns that are about to shift. Then the question of what brings it about is kind of silly. — Metaphyzik

Hmmm.
Divorce came to mind, but if you think the reasons for it are silly, you re ignoring the misery of the couples that may want to know why things are falling apart in their lives.

Regards
DL

Everyone has the same aptitude? What does that mean? Everyone has an aptitude for incest? To be a psychopath like Dahmer? To be a genius like Einstein? To hate?

We're born with the same instincts, but what else is the same aptitude in all people?

I'm reading a very interesting book currently: The Reproduction of Evil: A Clinical and Cultural Perspective by Sue Grand. Care to join me?

Reproduction of Evil: A Clinical and Cultural Perspective — uncanni

The author thinks religion comes first and I doubt that I would gain much from her perspective as I have no problem with human to human evil. What we do is no worse than any Alpha male or female would do or any animal looking for its place in our various hierarchies.

Do let me know if you read anything that might refute my naturalists views. If she says that god gave us free will, she is a liar, both on the creation side and the evolution side.

We have no choice in having to compete and cooperate as the situations change, unless you choose to not compete.

Everyone has the same aptitude? What does that mean? — uncanni

All humans all have the same human character traits. We bring them out as required.
You focus on the evil while ignoring that we do the good a lot more than the evil. Are all human character traits shared, more or less, by all normal humans?

Regards
DL

The author thinks religion comes first — Gnostic Christian Bishop

What???? The book has nothing to do with religion!!!!

Hate, like evil, has a good and an evil side and like Yin and Yang, compliment each other. They are not in opposition.

If you look around, you will see a lot more good going on than evil and a lot more love than hate being expressed. In fact, we are too good to each other. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Hate does not have a ‘good’ side, and we are not ‘too good’ to each other, as a general rule. There is a lot more ‘good’ going on than most people realise, sure - but if you’re suggesting that we should hate more, or that there should be a more even balance of love and hate, then I cannot agree with that. Personally, I think this argument is a way to justify a destructive response to fears we refuse to acknowledge.

As the Christian hymn says, Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Strange that Christians call furthering god's plan as a fall.

You seem to be doing the same with nature. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Personally, I don’t think there is a plan - or a fall. I think there is a formula that works (and we’ve yet to completely figure it out), but that’s not the same thing.

Hate is not a part of that formula. It is a human invention, a subjective and delusional rejection of the reality of life: that pain, humility and loss or lack are a necessary consequence of living. There is no experiencing life without this: no knowledge, no love and no achievement. The sooner humans realise this, the sooner we can get back to really living - not just trying to get through it relatively unscathed.

Fear and denial of that fear is what triggers hate. What reduces hate is the courage to be aware, to connect and collaborate despite pain, humility, loss or lack.

I have no problem with human to human evil. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Perhaps this is your problem, which is why I suggested you look at that book. If you're only interested in justifying and rationalizing hatred and anti-social behavior, then just continue to compare us to other animals--which is a straw man, or wolf, if ever I saw one.

Oh my. The hate of slavery ended slavery in the U.S. and you seem to think that a bad thing.

How about Rosa parks?
Did her negative energy against segregation lead her the wrong way? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

It seems like you don’t really understand what hate is.

What ended slavery in the US was not the ‘hatred’ of slavery, but affirming the freedom and dignity of all human beings, regardless of skin colour.

It wasn’t hatred that inspired Rosa Parks to expect equal treatment regardless of skin colour. It was courage.

Yes, you can distort the story and make it seem like people put an end to slavery because they ‘hated’ it, or that Rosa Parks made an impact against segregation by ‘hating’ it - hijacking these examples to support your argument - but this ‘negative energy’ you’re referring to is not what hate is.

To strive to change the status quo in favour of something better is not hate. Frustration, sometimes - but not hate.

What???? The book has nothing to do with religion!!!! — uncanni

I did not mention the book.

I did a quick scan on the author whom I critiqued.

Regards
DL

Hate does not have a ‘good’ side, and we are not ‘too good’ to each other, as a general rule. — Possibility

So you would have told Rosa Parks to not hate having to sit at the back of the bus nor act on that hate.

How about the hate against slavery in the Civil war? Would you tell the north not to hate slavery or go against it?

Ignore evil if you want. I will encourage its hate so that those who can will fight evil.

Regards
DL

You seem to be doing the same with nature. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Never.

I see us and nature as evolving perfection, given that we are all living in the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world given our past.

Regards
DL

If you're only interested in justifying and rationalizing hatred and anti-social behavior, — uncanni

You are reading a lot of garbage into what I put.

Hatred has a good side and I never said word one on anti-social behavior, although I think that anti-social behavior is quite good when the cause is just.

You go ahead and ignore poor laws. I will continue to see fighting those as quite good.

Anti social behavior is a form of vigilantism and quite good for righting wrongs.

Regards
DL

To strive to change the status quo in favour of something better is not hate. Frustration, sometimes - but not hate. — Possibility

Semantics. hate, like love, is a great motivator to action.

Regards
DL

Perhaps this is your problem — uncanni

Perhaps your problem is not seeing that evolution to us is more important than the small evils to those who are less fit.

Regards
DL

You are unable to convince me of anything. I can't take you seriously.

To strive to change the status quo in favour of something better is not hate. Frustration, sometimes - but not hate. — Possibility

Come on, one of his examples was slavery: slaves did not feel just frustrated with slavery, though I am sure there was much frustration. They hated their treatment by the slave owners, quite naturally. Perhaps not all of them, but most of them.

Oh, I got so frustrated with being a slave

sounds absurd to me.

I got frustrated with a dead end job or with a boss who didn't let me engage in more creative projects, sure.

Any laws or systems or practices that as a rule dehumanize and mistreat a group are going to lead to hatred. And that hatred would be a perfectly natural and healthy response. Of course there is likely to also be fear involved and great sorrow.

So you would have told Rosa Parks to not hate having to sit at the back of the bus nor act on that hate.

How about the hate against slavery in the Civil war? Would you tell the north not to hate slavery or go against it?

Ignore evil if you want. I will encourage its hate so that those who can will fight evil. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

It wasn’t that Rosa Parks hated sitting at the back of the bus - plenty of other people hated sitting at the back of the bus, or giving up their seat or even their right to ride the bus. It was that she was “tired of giving in” (her words) to treatment based on skin colour that eroded her rights as a citizen. She did not act on hate - she stood her ground against hate, and if you can’t see the distinction then you’re choosing not to see it. If she had acted on hate as you say, then the outcome would have been very different.

It was not hatred that put an end to bus segregation - it was collaboration. That there were people (black and white) who supported her, who saw in her response not hatred but the dignity and courage of a fellow citizen - this led to the bus boycott and the court case that abolished bus segregation. It had nothing at all to do with hate.

The US Civil War did not come about because the North hated slavery. It came about because the South feared the extinction of their way of life in the wake of the Federation of States acknowledging the basic human dignity and freedom of black people outside the slave states. It was an attempt at co-existence that the South refused to accept - the secession was a Southern initiative and so was the war itself. Most Northern soldiers were apparently indifferent about slavery.

Stop twisting history to suit your argument. Encouraging hate is not ‘fighting evil’ - it’s contributing to it.

Come on, one of his examples was slavery: slaves did not feel just frustrated with slavery, though I am sure there was much frustration. They hated their treatment by the slave owners, quite naturally. Perhaps not all of them, but most of them.

Oh, I got so frustrated with being a slave

sounds absurd to me.

I got frustrated with a dead end job or with a boss who didn't let me engage in more creative projects, sure.

Any laws or systems or practices that as a rule dehumanize and mistreat a group are going to lead to hatred. And that hatred would be a perfectly natural and healthy response. Of course there is likely to also be fear involved and great sorrow. — Coben

I’m not denying that slaves may have hated their mistreatment, or even hated the slave owners. I’m denying hate as the reason for the change, and I’m denying ‘acting on hate’ as the cause of change. To credit hate with the abolition of slavery or civil rights is a ridiculous notion - likely driven by fears over the rise of the conservative right.

Hatred may appear to be a ‘natural’ response, but it isn’t a healthy one, and it isn’t justifiable in my book.

If you have to hate your dead end job or your boss before you will act, then you’re doing yourself a disservice.

I’m not denying that slaves may have hated their mistreatment, or even hated the slave owners. I’m denying hate as the reason for the change, and I’m denying ‘acting on hate’ as the cause of change. To credit hate with the abolition of slavery or civil rights is a ridiculous notion - likely driven by fears over the rise of the conservative right. — Possibility

I agree that hate is likely not the only factor, but it would be one. I don't think frustration would be the main reason either. I was contrasting hate with frustration in relation to slavery.

Hatred may appear to be a ‘natural’ response, but it isn’t a healthy one, and it isn’t justifiable in my book. — Possibility

If you stick with any emotional reaction it isn't healthy, even the so called positive ones.

If you have to hate your dead end job or your boss before you will act, then you’re doing yourself a disservice. — Possibility

depends on what it takes to get a better one. Hatred comes up, when it is not pathological, in situations where one is extremely threated, judged (say, as not really human), mistreated in some extreme (for the standards you are used to) way, plus there are power issues or it is very hard to simply avoid to tune out whatever is doing this to you. Hatred, is a very strong version of anger and it means that the attack has been going on for a long time (or is perceived to have been) or is very intense. And we need a large mobilization of energy to do something. So, we get a huge motivation in the form of hatred. Slaves hated their masters, I would assume with great regularity and we understand that since they were insde systematic hate aimed at them, and then also direct mistreatment. They are many situations in capitalism (and communism of course) where it is not easy to just change jobs, get out from under the thumb of mistreatment. It is understandible that people will hate sometimes. It is not healthy to be mistreated with regularly, but the problem is not the hatred when it arises. The problem is that we are in that situation. Of course there are unhealthy patterns of hatred. I am not arguing that hatred is always a natural and/or healthy response to situations. And one can fixated on an emotional/attitudinal position. One can also feel comfortable hating when one actually is, deep down, confused or scared or both, and it feels easier to blame others. What I am disagreeing with is the idea that per se hatred is bad or unhealthy. This is like blaming the immune system for redness and swelling around an infection, at least, on many occasions.

I agree that hate is likely not the only factor, but it would be one. I don't think frustration would be the main reason either. I was contrasting hate with frustration in relation to slavery. — Coben

Hate and acting on hate - by and on behalf of slaves - did more to fuel the fear and hatred that sustained slavery, than it did to abolish slavery. You cannot argue that slaves who hated their masters and acted on it furthered the cause to abolish slavery in the US one iota.

One of the biggest fears of the slave states was a violent uprising similar to the one in Haiti from 1791 - the only ‘successful’ slave rebellion that established a free state ruled by former slaves (and was maintained by slaughtering the entire white French population in 1804 - hardly a justifiable act of hate). Hate drove all sides of the conflict in Haiti, and resulted in so much cruelty and violence.

Frustration is sufficient to motivate positive, courageous, intelligent and realistic action towards a better outcome. It may not have been the main reason for the Civil War, granted (my mention of ‘frustration’ was in reference to Rosa Parks, not to slavery) but that main reason was not hate. Hate may have been felt by some, but acting on hate does not lead to positive change, only to destruction (as in Haiti). You can try to spin it all you like, but it seems clear to me that slaves hating their owners played at best a very minor role (motivating freed or escaped slaves to fight for the Union, perhaps) in abolishing slavery in the US, and more of a role in bolstering the South’s campaign.

If you stick with any emotional reaction it isn't healthy, even the so called positive ones. — Coben

I can’t argue with you there. But I will say this: that people feel hate is ‘natural’ but not healthy, regardless of whether or not they ‘stick with’ it. It is natural to initially fear something that we’re unable to understand, avoid, control or deny - and that feeling turns to hate if we refuse to acknowledge our fear as a natural response and instead project blame on what triggers our fear. That people then act on the hate they feel is not just unhealthy - it’s unjustifiable.

It is understandible that people will hate sometimes. It is not healthy to be mistreated with regularly, but the problem is not the hatred when it arises. The problem is that we are in that situation. Of course there are unhealthy patterns of hhatred. — Coben

The situation is a problem, yes - but more so is hatred when it arises. The situation one is in may be extremely unhealthy and seem impossible to avoid. That the situation occurs is a reality, whether or not we want it to occur or think it should occur at all. We have to accept that reality first - whether we like it or not - before we can begin to address it. Hatred arises from a refusal to accept the reality as it stands. There are no healthy patterns of hatred.

Lincoln accepted the current existence of slavery in the United States, despite not wanting that to be the situation. It was the South who refused to accept the reality, who denied their fears and blamed the North (and Lincoln) for how they felt. Lincoln abolished slavery by acting (without hatred) when he had the opportunity (and the support of the people) to do so.

Hate and acting on hate - by and on behalf of slaves - did more to fuel the fear and hatred that sustained slavery, than it did to abolish slavery. — Possibility

How did you measure that?

You cannot argue that slaves who hated their masters and acted on it furthered the cause to abolish slavery in the US one iota. — Possibility

I didn't say anything about acting on it. If we are talking about slaves, they had very little power, so it was whites fighting and arguing against white practices, then actually killing people over it. It took the deaths, by intentional killing, of thousands of people to end slavery. Now most of the soldiers on the Northern side were probably not haters of slavery, except the black regiments, who while brave and serving well, played a small role in the whole project. But I am sure many abolitionists had hatred for the practice of slavery. Along with compassion, sense of justice, empathy and other motivations.

One of the biggest fears of the slave states was a violent uprising similar to the one in Haiti from 1791 - the only ‘successful’ slave rebellion that established a free state ruled by former slaves (and was maintained by slaughtering the entire white French population in 1804 - hardly a justifiable act of hate). Hate drove all sides of the conflict in Haiti, and resulted in so much cruelty and violence. — Possibility

And again, sure hatred can lead to serious problems. So can 'good intentions'.

Frustration is sufficient to motivate positive, courageous, intelligent and realistic action towards a better outcome — Possibility

AGain, how do you measure this? determine it? If we talk about Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights movement, we are not talking about being motivated by frustration. Of course there was frustration in there. And of course there was yearning for something better and other motivations. But there was a lot of hate in there also. It is perfectly natural when one is treated as a rule in a hateful manner, over long periods of time, and this includes treatment of your children in this way, to hate back. The problem is not in that responding hate. Yes, sometimes this hate can lead to actions that are not ok. But the problem is not the hate, it is the cognitive elements - that revenge is good or even will help you, for exampe, is one cognitive element that can lead to acting out in certain ways. To tell those blacks that if they hate it is unhealthy and wrong, is just adding more oppression on them. And MLK himself was extremely pissed off towards the end of his life. Listen to his last speech in that church where he keeps saying 'If I should die...' There's rage in there. He got frustrated with the government and whites and since he was not just anti-racist but socialist he has a lot of issues that had gone from frustration to at least very strong anger.

The situation is a problem, yes - but more so is hatred when it arises. The situation one is in may be extremely unhealthy and seem impossible to avoid. That the situation occurs is a reality, whether or not we want it to occur or think it should occur at all. We have to accept that reality first - whether we like it or not - before we can begin to address it. Hatred arises from a refusal to accept the reality as it stands. There are no healthy patterns of hatred. — Possibility

It's a reality that we respond to certain kinds of treatment with strong anger. That is a reality. We are social mammals with limbic systems tightly involved in our reactions to treatmetn by others. THAT IS REALITY. Many people tell us that we must accept the reality of what is outside us, but the inside we must suppress, detach from, radically control, judge. But the inside is real also. I can't see how I can come to love others if I hate parts of myself as my starting point, especially in the face of mistreatment.

You are unable to convince me of anything. I can't take you seriously — uncanni

Not my problem if you are belligerent and obtuse.

Regards
DL

Oh, I got so frustrated with being a slave

sounds absurd to me. — Coben

Ditto.

Regards
DL