Hate is triggered by many things and takes many forms, in my opinion, arm-chair philosophers tend to try to give explanations that ignore complexity. That's not to say arm-chair philosophy is inferior to something else, it doesn't apply to everyone. I think the word "hate" and what I define as "hate" are different because the word hate is used non-chalantly to describe a strong dislike while hate for me, is something personal and emotional. If you "hate" something like traffic or crying babies and what you mean is you find those things annoying then I would say that's not hatred. For something to qualify as hate it needs to be emotional, intense and persisting. That's not a fact, that's my interpretation of what it means to hate.

I think that historically, hate has rarely been a factor in any changes for the better but endless examples of how it played a hand in what we'd have rather avoided. When a group experiences hate, that hate takes over and overpowers reason, tolerance and kindness. Hate is rarely pragmatic, hate allows people to forget about the consequences. Even hating evil leads to more evil, some people probably see things like the death penalty and lynchings/vigilante justice as examples of that. No forgiveness, persistent and overpowering anger which lends itself to thoughtless choices.

In almost all cases where hate can be argued to be something good, it's actually love for the opposite thing that's good - or would be much better. In the case of something like slavery, I would want people to love freedom and tolerance and not feel hatred. I believe this kind of attitude will lead to happier people and better solutions. I think all emotions can be manipulated and given contexts where they're good but unfetted hate has a terrible track record, can't ignore it.

In almost all cases where hate can be argued to be something good, it's actually love for the opposite thing that's good - — Judaka

Exactly the point I want to make.

When we create a love bias, we automatically create a hate bias against anuthing that would jepordize that which is loved.

All our biases are created to help us through life.

That is what makes hate good.

Regards
DL

Not my problem if you are belligerent and obtuse. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You are absolutely right. I will try to mend my ways.

That is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVivkbmu3To

for me.

Regards
DL

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. — Coben

Yes, there were (and are) militant acts within the Civil Rights movement, and many who respond to racism with anger and violence and hate; who feel justified in spitting venom at those who treat others in a hateful manner. I’m not talking about them - I was arguing against the particular claim that Rosa Parks was an example of someone who acted on hate.

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. — Coben

The problem IS in that responding hate. Natural, yes - it is an animalistic tendency. If you were incapable of abstract thought or of understanding how another person might feel, then yes - I could understand that you were unaware of the destructive nature of responding hate. But I don’t believe you are that ignorant.

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. — Coben

I didn’t say ‘wrong’ - I have repeatedly acknowledged that the feelings leading to hate (fear, frustration, even anger) are understandable in these situations - but I maintain that hate is unhealthy and unjustifiable.

The claim you and GCB are making here is that hatred can sometimes be justifiable, and you keep watering down your definition of hatred to include frustration and anger in order to support your argument. Frustration is a feeling, anger is a feeling, fear is a feeling - hate is a decision. When we feel afraid, frustrated or angry, our thoughts and beliefs help us try and ‘justify’ a response that is hateful - or one that is thoughtful, even loving. Sometimes the limbic system makes that decision for us - that is no excuse. We have the capacity to think it through, or to enable a thoughtless response instead.

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. — Coben

I haven’t heard or read that speech - I’d appreciate a link to it, or a quote, if you have one. Frustration or very strong anger is not hate. MLK is NOT an example of justifiable hatred.

Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love... Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding.

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.

Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. — Martin Luther King Jr, ‘Strength to Love’

When we ‘hate slavery’ today, we have the luxury of refusing to accept a situation that is no longer part of our current reality. We don’t have to respond to it, because it isn’t there. When you claim that abolitionists had a ‘hatred for the practice of slavery’, you say that they were refusing to accept their current reality: slavery continues to occur. That’s fine as long as you can keep from being aware of or exposed to the reality. But what happens when that reality - the one you refuse to accept - is unavoidable? If you continue to reject that reality, then fear, frustration and anger turns into hate. You have two choices: be aware that slavery exists, acknowledge it and take measured and reasonable steps to eradicate it; OR continue to reject it, and fight tooth and nail against anything and anyone that points to or exposes you to that reality: in other words, hate.

The same situation applied to Rosa Parks’ situation. She sought to accept the reality of her situation. She said: "I would have to know for once and for all what rights I had as a human being and a citizen." That is not hatred.

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. — Coben

I’m not expecting you to hate parts of yourself at all. I have never denied that the potential for hatred is an internal reality: that it exists in our minds. But YOU choose whether or not that potential becomes actual - whether or not it determines who you are: what you think, what you say and how you act. That choice is not made by your circumstances, or by someone else’s words or actions. That our limbic systems are tightly involved in our reactions to treatment by others is real, but it is not a foregone conclusion - our limbic systems are only one input in the process of our minds. If you choose to give it full rein, that’s on you.

You can’t blame reality for being real, just because you don’t agree with it. And you won’t change external reality by hating it. Lincoln, Rosa Parks and MLK understood that.

You can’t blame reality for being real, just because you don’t agree with it. And you won’t change external reality by hating it. Lincoln, Rosa Parks and MLK understood that. — Possibility

True.

They knew actions were required and did what they could.

You may think they were motivated by something other than hate for the reality they lived in, but I do not think so because hate is created by our love biases and love for the good comes before the hate for the evil that threatens that which is loved.

Equality in the cases here.

And yes, hate has degrees, just as love has, so using the various degrees in discussions is kosher.

Regards
DL

You may think they were motivated by something other than hate for the reality they lived in, but I do not think so because hate is created by our love biases and love for the good comes before the hate for the evil that threatens that which is loved.

Equality in the cases here. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Hate is created by our feelings: fear of losing what we love, frustration or anger at the lack of what we love - but it is hate only when we refuse to accept the reality of this loss and lack.

The reality in the cases here is that not everyone loves equality. There is a very real lack of equality in the world, even now, whether we like it or not. For us to change that, we first have to accept that this is the world we live in.

When we are confronted with this fact, how do we respond? Do we attack or spit venom at anything or anyone that reminds us of this lack of equality? Or do we accept that it exists and then seek to increase awareness, connection and collaboration in order to draw attention to this lack of equality and where opportunities exist in our situation to effect real and actual change? Can we do that without hate? I say yes. Lincoln, Rosa Parks and MLK are examples of that.

And yes, hate has degrees, just as love has, so using the various degrees in discussions is kosher — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Hate varies in the degree we will go to in order to restore our illusion. It is not a degree of feeling, but of action. Love, too, has various degrees of action. Love is a decision we make to actualise our perception of potential. Love is created by our feelings, but it is love only when we choose to be aware, to connect and collaborate in manifesting the potential we see in others or in the world.

When we hate what threatens that which is loved, we are trying to define, confine and control what we claim to love, as if it is possible to make this our entire and unchanging universe - our reality - just by thinking or believing it to be so.

Does hate occur? Yes.
Is it necessary? No.
Is it effective? No.
Therefore, is it justifiable? No.

So by all means, share your frustration, talk about your anger, admit your fears - but hate will not effect change without bringing about more pain and loss, more violence, hatred, despair and oppression than you can hope to eliminate with your words or actions.

I was arguing against the particular claim that Rosa Parks was an example of someone who acted on hate. — Possibility

I think it is very unlikely that she did not hate the laws and at times hated her treatment. If you google 'rosa parks hated' you will find that people who have written about her think that hatred of the systematic racism was with her since she was a child. You don't have to be a violent person to hate, and when you are regularly treated with hatred, and for a black of that time, afraid to express yourself in so many ways and afraid to do so many things for reasons having nothing to do with who you are hatred is a natural and understandable response. Just as the body will swell up and become red if you are slapped hard. Once might induce anger or frustration. Systematic 'slapping' will lead to something stronger.

Natural, yes - it is an animalistic tendency. If you were incapable of abstract thought or of understanding how another person might feel, then yes - I could understand that you were unaware of the destructive nature of responding hate. But I don’t believe you are that ignorant. — Possibility

We are social mammals. Our limbic systems are inextricably involved even in our rational thinking.

The claim you and GCB are making here is that hatred can sometimes be justifiable, and you keep watering down your definition of hatred to include frustration and anger in order to support your argument. — Possibility

I mean, hate.

hate noun, often attributive
\ ˈhāt \
Definition of hate (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
b : extreme dislike or disgust : ANTIPATHY, LOATHING
had a great hate of hard work

Any person living in a society that regularly discriminates against them, it seems to me, is extremely likely to feel hate. This is understandable, natural, not unhealthy - though being oppressed is - and further telling someone that their hatred is unhealthy would be unjust. And probably not healthy either.

We are social mammals. Our limbic systems are inextricably involved even in our rational thinking. — Coben

I’m not denying that. There are people who give the limbic system priority in certain situations, and then rationalise around thoughtless, emotion-driven behaviour so that it appears justified. This stimulus-response behaviour is a cop-out for those of us who have the capacity for creative thought and self-reflection.

None of what you write here justifies your judgments of strong emotional reactions. Reason has been used to justify all sorts of horrible acts. Emotions are not only natural, but part of what motivates us to do good things. Both reason and emotions can be part of processes that turn out to be negative. But there is nothing per se negative about emotions or what you judge as animalistic - empathy is also animalistic, love is, playfulness, taking care of our young and so on because we are social mammals with all that entails. For most people the word animalistic is very perjorative, and in the context of black people's reactions to racism...well, I would, myself, not even start down that road. In fact a very common practice by people with power, be it corporations or governments or other powerful groups, is to judge those who react negatively to abuse as overly emotional and sometimes as animalistic. They present themselves as the rational ones. And of course, given their priviledge, they are not as triggered, the status quo is working for them, so they can present themselves as rational and not emotional, or less emotional, or, as it is often framed, as not so negative or not having negative emotions.

I mean, hate.
hate noun, often attributive
\ ˈhāt \
Definition of hate (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
b : extreme dislike or disgust : ANTIPATHY, LOATHING
had a great hate of hard work — Coben

Ok, let’s go with this definition:

Hate is NOT frustration and anger, but derives from these feelings (as I have said).

Hostility and aversion are not a healthy response - they involve either attacking or turning away.

Dislike, disgust, antipathy and loathing refer to opposing something that one refuses to accept.

I have no argument here.

You can’t blame reality for being real, just because you don’t agree with it. And you won’t change external reality by hating it. Lincoln, Rosa Parks and MLK understood that. — Possibility

I don't think you get to tell me what these people felt. And as public figures they are going to present themselves strategically - which could take lots of forms. We don't know for sure what they felt or thought. I do know from communication with people in the Civil Rights movement that despite being non-violent many felt a great deal of hatred for the systematic abuse. I know people feel things that fit the dictionary definition of hate, which I quote earlier, in situations much less abusive than what they experienced then. These are not people who are pathological in any way. Of course hatred can be a part of problematic patterns. But it need not be. And it often is not. And being raised in de facto apatheid situations or other situations with systematic discrimination or oppression, it is not problematic to have feelings of hatred arise, even with some regularlity.

Hate is created by our feelings — Possibility

Correct. Yet you deny that it is the feeling of love that creates the hate.

Here is science making my point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LIb22-5Lwg

Regards
DL

??

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

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

What we hate we prohibit. Not all we hate are immoral. Yet all that is immoral is prohibited.

None of what you write here justifies your judgments of strong emotional reactions. Reason has been used to justify all sorts of horrible acts. Emotions are not only natural, but part of what motivates us to do good things. Both reason and emotions can be part of processes that turn out to be negative. But there is nothing per se negative about emotions or what you judge as animalistic - empathy is also animalistic, love is, playfulness, taking care of our young and so on because we are social mammals with all that entails. — Coben

What judgements? ‘Animalistic’ refers to behaviour that we have in common with animals. Yes, we are social mammals, but our mental capacities are such that we are more than (not better than) emotional animals. That’s not to say that we are purely rational beings, either - and to give rationality full rein is just as unhealthy, in my opinion. We also have insight into the subjective experiences of others and can develop a broad understanding of the value they bring to the universe as a whole. And we have insight into our own emotional reactions - we perceive the harm that our words and behaviour can inflict on others, and we understand how it feels to have similar harm inflicted upon us. More importantly, though, we have the capacity to consciously choose how we respond despite our feelings and despite what is considered ‘rational’ - to love, hate, speak, stand, apologise, run, hide, etc.

I never said that emotions were negative at all. I said that giving full rein to our emotions - considering our capacity for rational thought, self-reflection and various other evaluative and relational tools - is unhealthy. I stand by that. ‘Love’ (as an emotion), playfulness, taking care of our young and even empathy - when given full rein - can all be unhealthy when we use their ‘natural’-ness to justify hate toward something else. Personally I don’t see love as an emotion but a decision, like hate (as I described earlier).

I suppose it seems to you like I’m criticising those who feel the fear, frustration and anger of oppression, and you’re defending their right to feel this way - but I honestly have no problem with these feelings. The feelings are justified - but hate is not the feelings themselves. Hate is specifically how we integrate those feelings as thoughts, words and actions that close down awareness, connection and collaboration - the very things that enable us to effect change.

There are many people who have been fearful, frustrated and angry at their oppression, at the hate or violence directed toward them, but used the energy of those feelings to increase awareness, to connect with others and to collaborate to effect change. You and GCB call this acting on hate, but I disagree: this is acting on love. They aren’t directing their energy toward their oppressors or the system of oppression, but toward others who feel the same, toward useful sources of information and toward those who have the capacity to help. They are perceiving the potential in the world, and increasing awareness, connection and collaboration in manifesting that potential. That has nothing at all to do with hate. They are surrounded by hate, but have the courage to love instead.

If I am obviously missing the context, my apologies. But in general I don't think this is the case. There are things I hate that I would not forbid. I hate romance novels - in the sense of extreme dislike (which is part of the dictionary definition of hatred) - I hate cosmetic lip surgery, I hate people who stand in line behind me speaking very loudly on their cellphones. There are many things that I hate, but I would not want to outlaw or forbid.

Not all we hate are immoral. — TheMadFool

Not all we hate are immoral. — TheMadFool

Right but you said all we hate we forbid. That was the part I was disagreeing with. I could have been clearer.

Yet all that is immoral is prohibited. — TheMadFool

One example against this is all I would need to refute your statement.

Our governments presently use the tax system to impose poverty.
Ghandi and others think that that is immoral, yet it is not prohibited.

I see religions doing the same, especially the televangelists.

Regards
DL

I thought it unnecessary to qualify immorality with "outright" or "absolute". Maybe I'm mistaken but grey areas tend to complicate discussion and thus my "bold" statements on the matter.

Right but you said all we hate we forbid. That was the part I was disagreeing with. I could have been clearer. — Coben

I guess we should learn to live with the truth which I hear is not sweet but rather bitter, like most medicine. Odd that people should so assiduously visit the doctor and swallow the proverbial bitter pill to avoid an untimely death but take rather extreme measures on occasion to avoid the truth. Reminds me of J S Mill's categorization of pleasure into higher (mental) and lower (physical).

I guess we should learn to live with the truth — TheMadFool

I find the truth sweet, as I do not think we should live in delusions.

There are too many in Socrates' cave. Therein lies the grey area you speak of.

Regards
DL

I find the truth sweet, — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Liar. I won't tell anyone :zip: :flower:

Hate is created by our feelings
— Possibility

Correct. Yet you deny that it is the feeling of love that creates the hate. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Yes I do. That’s because hate is created by the feelings of fear, anger or frustration that stem from failed attempts to construct our reality only from what we ‘love’.

There is a lot more going on in between this ‘feeling of love’ and the decision to hate than you’re acknowledging here. To leap to the conclusion that love creates hate or that hate is either good or necessary ignores the complex processes that surround what we prefer, value or desire, and the capacity we have to choose not to hate.

I want to reiterate here: I’m not arguing that hate is wrong, unnatural or even evil. Hating hate is a pointless exercise. My argument is that hate is ineffective, unnecessary and unjustifiable.

It is our awareness of these feelings of what you call ‘love’ (preference, value, desire) that help us to map the fifth dimensional aspect of our reality: that of value. We locate objects or events and relate them to each other not just according to space-time values (size, shape, distance, speed, velocity, etc) but also in relation to values of experiential quality (colour, feel, taste, sound, smell), and of relational quality, or how it interacts with the rest of our world.

This awareness of a fifth dimensional aspect to our reality is a capacity that has developed to varying extent in all social animals. It is the reason why babies respond the way they did on your video, or why dogs often appear to be a good judge of character.

When we experience preference or desire towards certain combinations of these values, it inspires us to be open to further interaction with the world, to build our world around this ‘goodness’. There is no natural boundary - a feeling of ‘love’ relates to the entire experience and naturally radiates outward. But that doesn’t fit with other experiences that identify harm in the world. Fear inspires us to close ranks - to define and control the ‘object’ of our love, so that we don’t open ourselves up to potential harm. It is the extent to which we allow our fears to confine this feeling of love that leads to hate - not the feeling of love itself.

I want to reiterate here: I’m not arguing that hate is wrong, unnatural or even evil. Hating hate is a pointless exercise. My argument is that hate is ineffective, unnecessary and unjustifiable. — Possibility

You cannot justify hating murderers, rapists, Hitler etc., and allowing your hate to move you against such vile characters. Ok.

Hating Hitler and his ilk is what has us go to war. It was effective.

Regards
DL

You cannot justify hating murderers, rapists, Hitler etc., and allowing your hate to move you against such vile characters. Ok. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Exactly. That you do hate them, I also don’t consider to be wrong or immoral. But I maintain that hatred is unnecessary, ineffective and unjustifiable.

When we hate murderers and rapists, we unequivocally refuse to acknowledge that this behaviour is a very real part of the spectrum of human behaviour. ‘Lock them up and throw away the key’ or ‘take them out of the gene pool’ is how we continue to live in the delusion that human beings simply don’t behave like that - even though they do. And my suggesting that ‘rapists are humans too’ would undoubtedly make your blood boil. Ok. Take a breath.

We aren’t going to remove this behaviour simply by refusing to accept it. We actually have to recognise rape and murder as human actions before we can even hope to effect the change in human thought and behaviour that leads to it. Hating murderers and rapists actually prevents us from achieving this.

Fear, frustration and anger are very real emotions here - I get that. It’s almost impossible to think practically and rationally when every fibre of our being screams ‘NO!’ at the thought that human beings just like you and me - who live a life not entirely dissimilar to our own - are choosing to act this way. To acknowledge this is to accept our own capacity to do the same. Even worse, to acknowledge this is to recognise our neighbour’s capacity to behave this way. That’s some scary shit. Most of us don’t have the courage to admit this reality to ourselves. THIS is why we hate.

Hating Hitler and his ilk is what has us go to war. It was effective. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Ah yes, war - I know it seems like all those murders and young lives irreparably broken were ‘justified’ because Hitler and the Holocaust were brought to an end, and I’m certainly in no position to suggest there may have been a more effective or less destructive way to achieve this. But looking back now, and knowing what we know now, we would have handled it differently, wouldn’t we? We know that the whole thing was preventable at certain points in history, but we also have to acknowledge that Hitler’s role as the lynchpin in all of this doesn’t preclude the fact that he was one human being in a society and world that formed much of his thinking and behaviour. Do you honestly think that none of it would have happened at all if this one human being didn’t exist?

Hating Hitler is denying the reality that all of this can so easily happen again: that our own fear, frustration and anger can be whipped up into a collective decision to hate a group so much - to refuse to accept the reality that they are fellow human beings - that we would support a government initiative to ‘wish them away’.

that we would support a government initiative to ‘wish them away’. — Possibility

Which we do not.

As to a different and better way to end what Hitler was doing, your wish list does not show it and I will not try to second history. I was not there.

You want unconditional love, and there is no such thing.

Our hate biases are there to protect us and you would discard them. Tsk tsk.

You make many assumptions, like what I quoted, while I prefer to deal with reality and facts.

Regards
DL

that we would support a government initiative to ‘wish them away’.
— Possibility

Which we do not. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Try reading the whole sentence. I’m not saying that we do. I’m saying that the capacity is still there, and hating Hitler is not going to protect us from that.

Our hate biases are there to protect us and you would discard them. Tsk tsk. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Protect us from what? From the hate biases of others? From our own inevitable death? From having to experience pain, humiliation or loss in our brief and relatively insignificant lives? Our hate biases protect us from nothing but reality.

Our hate biases protect us from nothing but reality. — Possibility

Exactly. A negative reality, while our love biases push us to what we see as a better loving reality.

Regards
DL