In cognizance of the outline above, why isn't misanthropy a justifiable philosophical resolution to the fact of human existence? Why isn't a misanthropic stance consistent with an existentialist one? Can't one believe in the truth of human existence, dissociate it from its fact in the real world, and then champion an amelioration of its vices? — Aryamoy Mitra

Yes, see my post here along similar lines.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9790/misanthropy

It's kind of like hating all dogs because some might bite or bark at you or disliking books and listing the reasons as all the bad books ever written. Misanthropy simply lacks nuance and makes more sense as a personality feature than a philosophical opinion. You can condescend towards all of humanity if you want but when it's for reasons like these, it's slightly ironic.

...and yet humanity is all we have.

See Humanism gives way to misanthropy

Misanthropy is the moral condemnation of humanity.

Not the hatred of humanity, but the recognition of their moral culpability. The cited article seeks to "recognise the moral awfulness of humanity without drifting into hatred, violence, or despair". — Banno

I concur with you on the matter of misanthropy being far more commensurate with a personality than a philosophy. As far as generalizations are concerned, however, are they inextricably tied to the concept? As there haven't yet been profound axiomatizations of the idea, isn't there a considerable degree of liberty with regards to what it truly is? Couldn't one structure variants of misanthropy that express a rationalized contempt for certain human behaviors, as opposed to condescending human existence altogether? Disliking humankind for its own sake isn't of any utility - that's for certain. For me, however, lamentation isn't an objective; it's the consequence of recognizing mankind's worst follies, and a precursor to transformative changes in that same regard.

That's a terrific statement. Recognizing the immorality of the human being without experiencing either despair or resentment is no small feat.

Cheers. It's a neat article.

Not doing so is @schopenhauer1's failing. Had to laugh at his "...see my post here along similar lines" that linked back to the very same post. That circularity is what despair consists in. It's a form of madness; it is doing the same thing despite knowing it cannot work.

If misanthropy is just a condemnation of certain human behaviours then everyone is a misanthrope. It's the conclusion that these condemned aspects are irredeemable and ubiquitous among humans and that disliking or hating humans is justified or warranted as a result that is misanthropy.

We don't have another intelligent species to compare ourselves too, but I believe that much of your list can blame the way power functions as opposed to humans. Power is so pervasive and commanding, it corrupts leaders but renders individual resistance futile. Politically, economically, religiously, culturally and even morally, the disenfranchised everyday person doesn't have the luxury or the wherewithal to do differently than where the flow of things takes them.

Besides the lack of nuance, your views would tell me more about you than about humanity, truth is constructed, its form a result of the creator's intent. Couldn't another user post a thread today listing only good things about humans and profess how happy and optimistic about it all? What is a third party supposed to make of that except to note how different intentions and perspectives lead to different conclusions? Each view is correct enough to invalidate the other, the varying facts are all just threads to be woven by the intellect. Only specificity diminishes the arbitrariness created by the potential for the creation of truth. That means abandoning the idea that a species-wide condemnation could have any credibility.

If misanthropy is just a condemnation of certain human behaviours then everyone is a misanthrope.

There exists an unmistakable distinction between a commonality's passive condemnation of a vile act, and a misanthrope that brings it into cognizance, rationalizes any hatred, and reconstitutes himself/herself as its antithesis, either through directive behavior or thought. The latter isn't interwoven into misanthropic attitudes, but it most certainly can be engendered by them if one is willing enough.

'It's the conclusion that these condemned aspects are irredeemable and ubiquitous among humans and that disliking or hating humans is justified or warranted as a result that is misanthropy.'

Arrogating to oneself that human existence is irremediable is both futile and hypocritical, insofar as one's existence is complicit in the statement. If misanthropy does, in fact, promulgate that idea, then I'm entirely disinclined to it.

'Power is so pervasive and commanding, it corrupts leaders but renders individual resistance futile.'

One could, perhaps, lay forth the argument that man's intrinsic predispositions and maladaptation to power are culpable for this stated corruption, as opposed to the fact of power itself. One may concurrently argue that these predispositions are ubiquitous, and ancestrally entrenched into the deeoest recesses of the human psyche. Why won't a targeted recognition, and resulting contempt of that trait be of any utility? Isn't it a precursor to any meaningful discussion in relation to remediating that trait?

Besides the lack of nuance, your views would tell me more about you than about humanity, truth is constructed, its form a result of the creator's intent. Couldn't another user post a thread today listing only good things about humans and profess how happy and optimistic about it all? Each view is correct enough to invalidate the other, the varying facts are all just threads to be woven by the intellect.

I'm not attempting to construct an infallible truth. Are my thoughts perspectives driven by intent? Yes, they are. That doesn't detract from them any credence as far as their context is concerned.
Why can't they be distilled and systematized in creating a rational philosophy? Aren't all philosophies effectively singular facets of the same dice? Another individual could most certainly construct an argument for the contrary, and that'd be entirely reasonable. Each corresponding view between the two arguments, however, will not necessarily invalidate another. There aren't varying facts. They're an identical myriad of facts from which different individuals elect to extract disparate interpretations, and in doing so, assemble a distinctive worldview. Rational, targeted and purposeful misanthropy is nestled into mine, and I suspect several that of others.

Misanthropy isn't perfect. As far as a species-wide condemnation is concerned, I understand that for its own sake, it is neither utilitarian nor appealing. The principle upon which the concept rests shouldn't be a cluster of generalities, as it stands today.

Having said that, its consequences, and perhaps some of its implications shouldn't be abnegated without the sparing of a single thought.

why isn't misanthropy a justifiable philosophical resolution to the fact of human existence? — Aryamoy Mitra

If you change the word "existence" to "condition", I would agree. I think that using the word "existence" underestimates the nature of sentience.

Why isn't a misanthropic stance consistent with an existentialist one? — Aryamoy Mitra

I think misanthropy is completely aligned with an existential viewpoint because existentialism makes the error of thinking that we exist for not purpose. I think humanity will find, some day, that there is much more to a sentient perspective than just continuing to act like an animal mimicking sentience.

Can't one believe in the truth of human existence, dissociate it from its fact in the real world, and then champion an amelioration of its vices? — Aryamoy Mitra

I think that is exactly what we have been attempting to do for more than three thousand years to no avail - because we remain an animal mimicking sentient behaviour.

I think misanthropy is completely aligned with an existential viewpoint because existentialism makes the error of thinking that we exist for not purpose. I think humanity will find, some day, that there is much more to a sentient perspective than just continuing to act like an animal mimicking sentience

That's a very insightful assertion. I've never thought about it before. If human beings are animals mimicking sentience, they're effectively intelligent animals - and not solely in the biological sense.

That's a very insightful assertion. I've never thought about it before. If human beings are animals mimicking sentience, they're effectively intelligent animals - and not solely in the biological sense. — Aryamoy Mitra

Exactly. We have equated intelligence with sentience. That is a dangerous misconception that leads to all of the awful ramifications of our current human condition. Being just highly intelligent and not evolved in other sentient ways that fulfills the sentient perspective is a disaster that has been going on for three thousand years. Hmmm, maybe another way to put it is that we have leaned into the intelligence aspect of our evolution and avoided everything else that would make us really, fully, completely sentient.

Thanks for writing that.

In cognizance of the outline above, why isn't misanthropy a justifiable philosophical resolution to the fact of human existence? Why isn't a misanthropic stance consistent with an existentialist one? Can't one believe in the truth of human existence, dissociate it from its fact in the real world, and then champion an amelioration of its vices?

As some have mentioned, misanthropy finds one or two crimes of which only some are guilty and indicts the entire species. It’s unjust, fallacious, and as such, worthy of its own condemnation and ridicule.

'As some have mentioned, misanthropy finds one or two crimes of which only some are guilty and indicts the entire species. It’s unjust, fallacious, and as such, worthy of its own condemnation and ridicule.'

I most definitely concur. Naturally, any individual who engages in this exercise is acting in an erroneous manner. My hope, solely, was to seek a rationalized variant of the concept bereft of generalizations, capable of instilling an antithesis to the revulsions incited by certain human traits. That appears now, nonetheless, to be an idea incomparable to traditional misanthropy entirely.

What tho' the spicy breezes
Blow soft o'er Ceylon's isle;
Though every prospect pleases,
And only man is vile?
In vain with lavish kindness
The gifts of God are strown;
The heathen in his blindness
Bows down to wood and stone. — R. Heber

My understanding has been that misanthropy is a distaste for human society, more than a deep understanding of it. As such it would be invidious to dignify it with the term 'philosophy.

Furthermore, as the quote above indicates, it is, in its Christian tradition, although technically universal and the result of the Fall and expulsion from Eden, actually mainly applicable to others - especially women, and foreigners, and non-Christians.

But lacking the myth of Adam and Eve, the natural philosopher as misanthrope seems bound inevitably to succumb to a global pessimism and be unable to maintain even that 'every prospect pleases', or indeed any. And one is dragged down therefore to the hell of antinatalism, and the loss of meaning.

'Think I'll go and eat worms.'

My understanding is that misanthropy is not about improvement and it's not constructive, a misanthrope is simply someone who holds humans in contempt, we do not know their reason just by the definition. So instead of being futile, it's just not trying to accomplish anything, it simply describes feelings which exist. If you had not used the word misanthropy then I wouldn't have used it for you, I don't fully understand why you're a misanthrope.

Why can't they be distilled and systematized in creating a rational philosophy — Aryamoy Mitra

If that is what you have done or intend to do then you are right, in that case, I underestimated you. You are right, your views wouldn't be invalidated, I made a mistake by saying that.

One could, perhaps, lay forth the argument that man's intrinsic predispositions and maladaptation to power are culpable for this stated corruption, as opposed to the fact of power itself. One may concurrently argue that these predispositions are ubiquitous, and ancestrally entrenched into the deeoest recesses of the human psyche. Why won't a targeted recognition, and resulting contempt of that trait be of any utility? Isn't it a precursor to any meaningful discussion in relation to remediating that trait? — Aryamoy Mitra

I believe a strong argument can be made in your favour, I don't know how power would function for a different species and I can only speculate. I do think there are many mitigating aspects to how things function which we can see humans don't have much control over but to what extent is complex.

You can recognise and hold a trait in contempt but that doesn't make you a misanthrope. I think 100% of people already do that, not much of a proposal. Philosophy lacks nuance, not necessarily yours but in general, the problems are always in the details. You can condemn humanity for your set of reasons but how are you going to convince others that your condemnations are just and correct? People have different personalities, upbringings, beliefs, values, experiences and so on. You say you hate political correctness and identity politics but there are very intelligent posters on this site who do not and you should know how hard it is to change the minds of others, just a single person, let alone a substantial group.

Even that which is unanimously condemned such as theft or rape isn't stopped just by being condemned. Even if 99% of the world's population shares your condemnations, 1% is enough to throw the world into chaos.

Let me ask you, instead of trying to change how human traits lead to your condemned incidents, shouldn't we look towards basically everything besides human traits? Human rights, social welfare, international law, governmental reform and so on? Most of your list of condemnations is either unanimously condemned within the West or highly contentious and highly debated. You point out how you hate political correctness and identity politics but you're not alone. Debate is already taking place, you use strong language but in reality, you're just joining these debates, these two things come up fairly commonly on this forum.

I guess I'm just struggling to understand what separates your proposal from the norm and how it would work.

'
'My understanding is that misanthropy is not about improvement and it's not constructive, a misanthrope is simply someone who holds humans in contempt, we do not know their reason just by the definition. So instead of being futile, it's just not trying to accomplish anything.'

I concur. My use of the term may have been misguided, but it's the most proximal meaning I could find. In that respect, I know for a fact that it needs a considerable degree of modification, or perhaps even a replacement.

'Let me ask you, instead of trying to change how human traits lead to your condemned incidents, shouldn't we look towards basically everything besides human traits? Human rights, social welfare, international law, governmental reform and so on? Most of your list of condemnations is either unanimously condemned within the West or highly contentious and highly debated. You point out how you hate political correctness and identity politics but you're not alone. Debate is already taking place, you use strong language but in reality, you're just joining these debates, these two things come up fairly commonly on this forum'

I agree entirely. Upon reflection, I am partaking in these debates, but the philosophy of misanthropy I'm postulating is independent of any stances on them.

Let's imagine that you, by your own account, consecrated the concept of secularism. Consequently, you wanted to demonstrate a valor in defending it against ethno-national doctrines, which act as proxies to genocide. How would one approach the problem? You'd first recognize an encroachment on your liberty, detest it in light of your religious affinity or principles, and then presumably rebel if you had the wherewithal to do so. You couldn't act without first resenting the encroachment, or the forces that impel it. Everyone undergoes this, which is why the means by which they do should be of greater emphasis.

What I'm postulating is that man's hatred of himself in some circumstances can be distilled into a series of philosophical axioms, instead of being treated as an arbitrary sentiment in passing. If it is subjected to that rigor, it can preclude individuals from remaining passive on a certain matter, and sally them forth into acting out their beliefs, irrespective of what they are. Hatred, as far as I can discern, is a powerful motivator. Socrates conjectured, if I'm not mistaken, that it's one of the two ways whereby a human being's hatred of his or her kind can manifest - the other being evasion, which is how traditional misanthropy approaches the vices it sees.

As far as the specificity of an individual's views are concerned, I'm don't intend to impinge on their sovereignty. You're right in arguing that several individuals are either intransigent, or juxtaposed to my beliefs. Another contributor may well contend my arguments on political correctness in a meritorious fashion, perhaps even emerging victorious to an outsider - and that'd be perfectly fine. I believe nonetheless, that the means by which they embody those beliefs, oftentimes fueled by self-hatred, should be ascribed greater significance.

'My understanding has been that misanthropy is a distaste for human society, more than a deep understanding of it. As such it would be invidious to dignify it with the term 'philosophy.'

I agree with you entirely. It's more so the psychological underpinnings of misanthropy that I was attempting to bring forth and repurpose.

'But lacking the myth of Adam and Eve, the natural philosopher as misanthrope seems bound inevitably to succumb to a global pessimism and be unable to maintain even that 'every prospect pleases', or indeed any. And one is dragged down therefore to the hell of antinatalism, and the loss of meaning.'

One can derive why that's the case. Self-hatred (as far as a species is concerned) for its own sake and without objective, is tantamount to detesting one's nature/essence - and soon thereafter, one's own existence. Antinatalism and an erasure of meaning do prevail, but often as an implication of communal nihilism.

The human being, bereft of sentience, is nothing more than an intelligent animal.

Do you want to share credit for that quote? I think it's terrific, and almost Nietzschean.

One Friday you are giving your first kiss in the bottle, between good cheap Spanish wine and Italian techno from the eighties and the following Friday you are watching an old movie, with omeprazole and an Enantium to calm your back pain.

Time passes quickly and more for those people who, like me, have a good memory.

The signs are more evident every year. You hate Christmas more, you try to be alone, the hangovers are getting worse and that half an hour before going to bed, when you read a book, is usually, more and more, the best time from Monday to Thursday. Friends are balding and have children. Friends are talking more and more about daycare and less and less about sex. You are terribly lazy to get to places where they don't play decent music (although that's something I've always had to struggle with), football keeps getting dimmer and nothing happens if you miss one game, two, twenty seven... You hate the cultural phenomena of youth, you marvel at the looks teenagers wear, and you listen to more and more old music and less and less new music. When you go shopping for clothes, you seek comfort before fashion. Embarrassment in front of others increases, but what they think, you don't care. And as you show yourself more at war than ever against the shitty world we live in, you finally make your peace with yourself. And even with your parents.

Everything I say may seem terrible to many, but it seems wonderful to me. It has been many years since I woke up thinking, "what are you doing with your life?" And not because it is clear to me now, but because I already know that life has meaning precisely because it does not. And that existential limbo, far from terrifying me, seems as comfortable and endearing as a wooden cabin with a fireplace lit in the middle of a polar blizzard and as promising and seductive as the kiss I gave it that night, between good cheap Spanish wine and techno Italian from the eighties.

You'd first recognize an encroachment on your liberty, detest it in light of your religious affinity or principles, and then presumably rebel if you had the wherewithal to do so. You couldn't act without first resenting the encroachment, or the forces that impel it. Everyone undergoes this, which is why the means by which they do should be of greater emphasis. — Aryamoy Mitra

The means by which they do? Isn't this process automatic, I don't need to consciously activate my annoyance of things not going my way. I don't get it.

What I'm postulating is that man's hatred of himself in some circumstances can be distilled into a series of philosophical axioms, instead of being treated as an arbitrary sentiment in passing. — Aryamoy Mitra

It should work this way, "has views" --> leads to misanthropy, not "has misanthropy" --> leads to views.
You've given your reasons for why you're a misanthrope, I more or less condemn the same things but I'm not a misanthrope. Tell me, what avenues of philosophical thought open to you that remain closed to me?

What I'm hearing is that you seek to galvanise people, to care more about their moral stances. To you, hate seems like a good motivator so go with that. What you want is dedication, for people to embody the antithesis of that which they hate, is that right? Is the opposite of your view less about liking humans and more like moral apathy?

'The means by which they do? Isn't this process automatic, I don't need to consciously activate my annoyance of things not going my way. I don't get it.'

Yes, it is automatic, and I'm stating that it doesn't have to be. If it were consciously driven, it'd likely sustain itself in the human psyche, as opposed to vanishing once the stimulus one is reacting to is no longer in sight.

'It should work this way, "has views" --> leads to misanthropy, not "has misanthropy" --> leads to views'.

I concur with you, but people don't forge views on purely on the material basis of what they're viewing. They form them following a reaction that stems from their inner self. In order to be sentient about a particular matter, and in this case resentful, I need to first feel a hatred against it (in this case, the arbitrary use of the term 'misanthropy').

'What I'm hearing is that you seek to galvanise people, to care more about their moral stances. To you, hate seems like a good motivator so go with that. What you want is dedication, for people to embody the antithesis of that which they hate, is that right? Is the opposite of your view less about liking humans and more like moral apathy?'

Yes, exactly. Misanthropy is a misleading term, and I used it solely because its consequences are an ideal example. Moral passivity and/or apathy is what I'm arguing against, and I'm using misanthropy (or a variant of it) as a faculty designed to fulfill that objective.

Isn't it difficult to convince people to feel hatred? Wouldn't any other route of galvanizing people be easier and also, wouldn't different ways lead to more reasonable approaches being taken?

A major issue in America right now is political polarisation but it seems like that's just the result of people doing something quite similar to your suggestion. Moral zealotry, with a real "fuck you" attitude to people who aren't on board with your way of thinking. Is that not the case?

What if we compare how many historical atrocities and evils were caused by moral zealotry and to how many fewer may have occurred if not for moral passivity? It seems like for your way to actually make the world better, we best disseminate it cautiously.

'A major issue in America right now is political polarisation but it seems like that's just the result of people doing something quite similar to your suggestion. Moral zealotry, with a real "fuck you" attitude to people who aren't on board with your way of thinking. Is that not the case?'

That's very disconcerting, and definitely true.
What's happened in the US, for instance, is a clash of collectivistic sentiments. We've observed both liberals and conservatives, who oftentimes refuse to engage in substantive discourse, and will literally exhibit animalistic tendencies in light of opposition. I'd argue that their troubles aren't caused by moral, but ideological zealotry. Moral superiority is solely the guise that people use to shroud their unwillingness to listen or change.

When one feels hatred upon an act, it can be either towards the act in principle, or towards a defiance of their own ideals in relation to the act. Unfortunately, political conflict is directed towards the latter, wherein the remediation of the act is of less significance than avenging for one's defiance.

Let's say, for example, that I deplored any behavior that entailed animal cruelty. I'd like to think that most individuals, by virtue of their humaneness, would concur. Now, if I am solely acting out of my stance, then I'll readily condemn anybody who opposes me on the matter, perhaps even going to the extent of trespassing others' properties.

Having done so, however, I'd be less inclined to act out meaningfully against animal cruelty or distress in my own life, because the hatred I'm channeling is not a consequence of decency, or a love for animals, but instead a falsification of self interest and pseudo-moralistic stances.

Resenting human behavior, in my opinion, should stem from the values that human behavior desecrates, as opposed to who engages in that behavior, why, how or whether they defy me.

In response to your caution, I genuinely believe that the greatest challenge for any philosophy is its preclusion from degenerating into a set of ideological doctrines. What I'm laying forth, therefore, is not a mechanism to better the world precisely, but one to better an individual and one's behavioral consistency with their ideals.

Unfortunately, it appears that what I'm describing is increasingly distant from canonical definitions of misanthropy.

'Isn't it difficult to convince people to feel hatred? Wouldn't any other route of galvanizing people be easier and also, wouldn't different ways lead to more reasonable approaches being taken?'

I'm certain that there are more practical mechanisms by which to mobilize individuals; a number of the ones you stated earlier seem very promising. The one I'm explicating, however, is curated around an individual's states and modes of being, and is therefore not yet of any real utility.

I don't believe what you're describing bears any resemblance to misanthropy. You're seemingly unwilling to condemn even the guilty, let alone the entire species? Honestly, I still struggle to understand how your philosophy deviates from a person simply being their normal self. I resent plenty of human behaviour on moral grounds, normal, I resent human behaviour which tramples on my values, normal.

It seems less so that your ideas would make an individual better but rather more appealing from your point of view. Which may not even have any practical basis. Is that unfair? Why do you care whether people embody their moral views or whether people exhibit moral passivity?

The Quasimodo Syndrome: We can recognize beauty (good) but we, ourselves, are ugly (bad). Oh, the Irony!

Quasimodo sneaks out of the cathedral during the Festival of Fools, where he is crowned the "King of Fools" and meets Esmeralda, with whom he falls in love — Wikipedia

'I don't believe what you're describing bears any resemblance to misanthropy. You're seemingly unwilling to condemn even the guilty, let alone the entire species? Honestly, I still struggle to understand how your philosophy deviates from a person simply being their normal self.'

I understand why my arguments in favor of misanthropy appear dissociated from what misanthropy generally implies, but the concept plays a significant role in what I'm laying forth.

Before acting on any human vice, one must necessarily first discern it. Upon recognizing it, most individuals will engage in an iinstantaneous reaction, or otherwise impermanent sentiment of hatred, and then proceed with their lives without a second thought. I believe in replacing that with genuine, sustained discontentment against the evils that one perceives, occasionally attributed to the whole of humanity. Being passive in light of what one perceives to be a reprehensible act is for many, tantamount to being complicit in that act. If I adhere to that proposition, then I am impelled to therefore condemn all those who remain behaviorally passive to the evil that I apprehend. In some instances, this may inspire a rationally directed hatred towards the human species (misanthropy) - and in others, it may not. Without that sustained hatred, one is devoid of any compelling motivation.

Misanthropy, or sustained resentment in general, to me, when channeled meaningfully, is an intermediary between perceiving an act to be immoral, and embodying a behavioral antithesis to that act - irrespective of what that act comprises.

I understand why my arguments in favor of misanthropy appear dissociated from what misanthropy generally implies, but the concept plays a significant role in what I'm laying forth. — Aryamoy Mitra

Isn't it just a possible result of what you're laying forth while what you're laying forth is not misanthropy. The only connection you offered was "maybe I'll just blame everyone for not doing enough", that's not really compelling, you can do that for a multitude of things totally unrelated to misanthropy. Throughout this thread, you have used the term incorrectly, even describing a misanthrope as though that's the name of people who adhere to what you've described, though now that is clearly inappropriate.

here exists an unmistakable distinction between a commonality's passive condemnation of a vile act, and a misanthrope that brings it into cognizance, rationalizes any hatred, and reconstitutes himself/herself as its antithesis, either through directive behavior or thought. — Aryamoy Mitra

I don't know why you're so insistent on using the term when your usage is just going to mislead people into thinking you're saying something different than you are, it's part of why it's taken so long just to understand what your argument is.

I believe in replacing that with genuine, sustained discontentment against the evils that one perceives — Aryamoy Mitra

Okay.

Being passive in light of what one perceives to be a reprehensible act is for many, tantamount to being complicit in that act. If I adhere to that proposition, then I am impelled to therefore condemn all those who remain behaviorally passive to the evil that I apprehend. — Aryamoy Mitra

Do you adhere to this position? It seems to contradict what you just wrote two posts ago about the political situation in the US.

Without that sustained hatred, one is devoid of any compelling motivation. — Aryamoy Mitra

So you haven't been able to find highly motivated people, motivated in part or entirely by their values or moral beliefs, who don't rely on sustained hatred?

Misanthropy, or sustained resentment in general, to me, when channeled meaningfully, is an intermediary between perceiving an act to be immoral, and embodying a behavioral antithesis to that act - irrespective of what that act comprises. — Aryamoy Mitra

So, you want people to be intensely passionate about sustaining how much they hate animal abuse but how do they embody the rejection or become the antithesis of that?

'I don't know why you're so insistent on using the term when your usage is just going to mislead people into thinking you're saying something different than you are, it's part of why it's taken so long just to understand what your argument is.'

Misanthropy is a general disinclination of a human being towards his own species. Beyond that, I really don't think there are any universal strictures on who a misanthrope is, or isn't. I understand that most are defined solely on the basis on the arbitrary concept of hatred, but one can be a misanthrope for various causes, and in a variety of ways. I'm simply positing that an individual's misanthropic tendencies in this respect can be channeled and repurposed, and therefore should be neither underappreciated or rejected in a philosophical context. I don't think my use of the term is misleading to the extent that it equivocates my argument.

'Do you adhere to this position? It seems to contradict what you just wrote two posts ago about the political situation in the US.'

I'm simply adhering to the idea that passivity leads to complicity. As far as my comments on US politics are concerned, I simply happened to pinpoint that polarization in that instance has been caused by ideological collectivism, as opposed to genuine and meaningful moral differences. How are the two related?

'So you haven't been able to find highly motivated people, motivated in part or entirely by their values or moral beliefs, who don't rely on sustained hatred?'

I personally believe that a rare few individuals are motivated by the fact of their values, and that instead most are driven by egotistic instincts that they cease to acknowledge, and falsify as representations of their ideals. Subconsciously conflating intelligence with sentience is a quintessential example. Sustained resentment, for me, is not a necessity to this motivation. Its concept, however, deserves greater emphasis - both in terms of its ability to act as a catalyst and for what it speaks about an individual's moral constitution.

'So, you want people to be intensely passionate about sustaining how much they hate animal abuse but how do they embody the rejection or become the antithesis of that?'

Becoming the antithesis of what one detests will be never reliant solely on resentment, but on one's resolve and internal consistencies. In this instance, being contemptuous of oneself, and of others who engage in the acts of animal cruelty, should manifest first with personal measures (perhaps of veganism, or assisting stray animals). When this is accomplished, one may attempt to disseminate those very same virtues, by example (not in a pervasive, but civil manner), to the rest of society.

Passivity leads to complicity, you say? You have found a way to condemn swathes of innocent people for doing literally nothing with horrible crimes you aren't seeing them address, I suppose. Of the potentially hundreds of problems an individual can take moral issue with, how many do they need to address? Go save a cat, feed the homeless, a different rally for each day of the week, maintain a blog devoted to activism, do charity work instead of a holiday? It's not good enough to just live honestly without bothering anyone? That's the same as being complicit with all you find morally repugnant? Heh, okay.

I don't have much interest in distinctions like "genuine", the people described by the polarisation are polarised on moral issues for moral reasons. You've actually listed political correctness and identity politics as justifications for your misanthropy, it wasn't too ideological for you when you wrote that? Of course the political polarisation is based on moral issues. Abortion, gun control, economic inequality/redistribution, immigration, crime, racism, law and so many other things.

If a misanthrope were channelling their contempt for mankind in an uncivil or violent way, towards those doing that which they passionately hate, that would make more sense to me than what you're saying. You know damn well that many of the things in your OP shouldn't be treated with civility, it's just a matter of where you draw the line. For many of the issues in the US polarisation and across the world, it's not an ideological game, people's lives are at stake. Why would you ask for moral zealotry, to the extent where a person should live life orientated around their moral ideals, but then expect no serious consequences, only people politely minding their business, bettering themselves and leading by example?

I personally believe that a rare few individuals are motivated by the fact of their values, and that instead most are driven by egotistic instincts that they cease to acknowledge, and falsify as representations of their ideals. — Aryamoy Mitra

I think you just need to look harder, the overwhelming majority of people who are actually doing something to help, unsurprisingly, just want to help. Kind people who want to make a difference, you're a very sceptical fellow...

Honestly, we don't need every person to be gallivanting about with their moral ideals, it's preferable for people to just live well, treat people with respect, take care of their immediate surroundings. We should be aiming to tolerate difference instead of turning every moral issue into a battleground. Most people don't have a clue anyway, got people yelling "death to capitalism" without being able to define it. Isn't there a middle ground between hypocrisy and activism, where someone just lives in accordance with their principles?