Merriam defines
- hate as “intense hostility …” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate
- hostility as " deep-seated … ill will" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hostility
- ill will as “unfriendly feeling” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ill will
So hate is just the extreme end of an “unfriendly feeling” which is synonymous to a negative feeling. We can go “golden middle” on this and say that moderate negative feelings are ideal, but even the moderate form seems synonymous to bias or prejudice.
- bias as “an inclination of temperament or outlook” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias
- bias as “to give a settled and often prejudiced outlook to”
I think you can’t spreadsheet your way through emotions — there isn’t a scoresheet that sorts them into a tidy “Good” column and an equally neat “Bad” column. I don’t think you can banish feelings you dislike and license only the pleasant ones.
I think what’s possible is learning to recognize what you’re feeling, fully experiencing it, and choosing deliberately how to direct that energy. Regulating actions and words. I think you can’t stop feelings from arising.
Life improves when you practice feeling deliberately, however imperfect the process, instead of suppressing emotions until they blow up.
I think you can’t stop feelings from arising.
ok sure but like an addict ought not to act on their impulse, similar to hate or the continuum of negativity. Like we can have an impulse or emotion, but we oughtn’t entertain it. That is if we categorically disagree with the ends it brings. It is to recognize that negativity, especially intense negativity, is a pathway to hate, and hate is categorically undesirable. It’s just like how urge to use drugs leads to a pathway that is categorically undesirable (i.e., addiction).
there isn’t a scoresheet that sorts them into a tidy “Good” column and an equally neat “Bad” column
There could be. Maybe we can make one. Maybe one was already made.
I searched online and i found this neat graph and news article
I don’t think you can banish feelings
If you mean to banish as in to remove, then why not remove bad or nonconstructive feelings? If all things hateful is ultimately counterproductive, and hate is a degree of intensity from the emotion of dislike, then moderating that level of dislike ought to be good, just logically. Removing (banishing) hateful feelings, or being anti-hate, seems both popular and logical.
They said “I don’t think you can banish feelings”, you even quoted that, and you consequently suggest banishing feelings?
Conveniently, there’s a Psychology Today article on stoicism and banishing of emotions. I am surprised how easy it was to find cheap confirmation. Sharing for credibility-factor, even though I think the act of sharing this is for credibility a bit superficial. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ataraxia/202508/how-to-banish-negative-emotions
yes, this is a simple difference of opinion. I’m not sure what the hiccup is.
- “I can’t afford to buy food, I’m hungry”
- “Have you tried buying food?”See the (non-philosophical) problem?
The role play is lacking important information for me to understand. It resembles a riddle. Can you speak directly with complete sentences?
No, I’ve tried twice to point out the simple concept of not being able to do something and its relation to iii@mander.xyz 's comment, I thought the second attempt may have been a bit too condescending but apparently it wasn’t.
I’m sorry but you’re on your own.
Ok, it is tragic that it is difficult for you to express yourself. I am reminded of the 3 monkeys: see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil. Screens distort what we see. Headphones block out our listening. And the decline in literacy and reading as well as civility is making it hard to speak. It would be a dark time once our eyes, ears, and mouths are closed off from each other
Sometimes hate just is. Ain’t nothing going to cause me to not hate cilantro. Just because I hate it though does not mean I wish harm to it. I just want to avoid it.
Avoiding ppl is often seen as ok or good but it is also synonymous with estrangement, alienation, neglect, and marginalization. Also a form of discrimination & prejudice. Thats a lot of words with negative connotation but i meant the literal definitions
Fam if I don’t talk to a stranger, that isn’t neglect. You aren’t owed padded, fluffy kindness by everyone :)
What do you think the word “strange” mean in stranger and estrangement? I am going to need a “vibes” dictionary in order to communicate with yall.
Thats a stretch. Everyone does not hang out with folks they don’t care for and do hang out with folks they do. I liked hanging with fandom folks at fandom events but im meh to sporting events and sure as heck don’t want to sit through a religious service. Its not discrimination because you go to the library over a bar but each place has a type of person with some crossover for bi types.
Look at the dictionary because i am skeptical if you are aware of what discrimination means. There is also the act of “discriminating” as in to discern what from what. I get the impression that there is “vibes” understanding of the words instead of their meaning.
if hate is categorically bad
Well, it’s not.
I wonder if there’s a term for a worldview that views hate good sometimes.
a worldview that views hate good sometimes
I found the word “hatemonger” and these other related terms
I hate rape. I hate blatant, dangerous immorality. Hatred is rarely appropriate, but rarely does not mean never. There is a time for everything, after all. Now, if you’re not making a bad faith argument, get diagnosed for the tisms and reassess your statements.
I appreciate your comment as it provides color and contrast for the embracement of hatred. It is persuading me to trust myself in being opposed to, or not entertaining of, hate & negativity.
I like that you responded to “I hate rape” with “this is persuading me to trust myself in being opposed to…hate[ing rape]” Yikes!
Relativists can’t stand for anything, it’s a cowardly position that comes from understanding uncertainty and our limitations (both very real). It’s wise to be “somewhere in the middle”, as black and white thinking is rarely accurate (or productive), but even for that attitude there are exceptions. Discernment is needed.
The “this” was vague. I was referring to autism stigmatization & accusation. That phrase in that comment was hateful & fallacious
There are things one has to be/will be vehemently opposed to and morally disgusted by, or “hate”, if you believe in virtue (or simply stand by anything). 🤷
Right, that was certainly Aristotle’s interpretation on the concept of magnanimity. Aristotle claimed to have said,
"He [who is magnanimous] must be open both in love and in hate, since concealment shows timidity; and care more for the truth than for what people will think; and speak and act openly, since as he despises other men he is outspoken and frank, except when speaking with ironical self-deprecation, as he does to common people… "
(I got this quote from Wikipedia entry of Magnaimity who got it from this link https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker+page%3D1123a#note2 ) )
However, Aristotle was born before the Greek Stoics. Some Stoics thought that being good was transcending pain-pleasure, love-hate, into a more rational plane of existence. Here’s a quote by Stoic Marcus Aurelius,
“… the Magnanimity is the elevation of the intelligent part above the pleasurable or painful sensations of the flesh, and above that poor thing called fame, and death, and all such things.”
In conclusion, there are differing views of what virtue means, for Aristotle it means something close to good judgement or the wisdom of how to moderate one’s actions away from excess while for the stoics it means acting rationally despite hardship and embracing life in its entirety. For example, not letting negativity impact you, not getting carried away by passion.
Is this an LLM? MOOOOOOOOODS!
Can you articulate this suspicion? Do I need to speak inauthenticly so that you don’t falsely accuse me?
This user was reported for being an LLM. I do agree that they have a very thorough writing style that is uncommon.
LLM doesnt cite primary sources, nor can it think critically. But i guess it passes the turing test for some folks. The new turing test is for humans to prove they are human, which may he a shit-flinging contest because AI dont have grostesque animal bodies like we do. I would say the reporting is ridiculous, but rhat would be negative and hateful, so I guess i just gotta accept the reality that people are going to be paranoid and anti intellectual. But hey, thats diversity. Gotta love our differences
I think you’re being downvoted because hatred is fueling the world.
I was researching stoic philosophers on their opinion of hatred. Here’s some quotes I’ve collected:
- Mankind is born for mutual assistance, anger for mutual ruin: the former loves society, the latter estrangement. The one loves to do good, the other to do harm; the one to help even strangers, the other to attack even its dearest friends. The one is ready even to sacrifice itself for the good of others, the other to plunge into peril provided it drags others with it. Who, then, can be more ignorant of nature than he who classes this cruel and hurtful vice as belonging to her best and most polished work? Anger, as we have said, is eager to punish; and that such a desire should exist in man’s peaceful breast is least of all according to his nature; for human life is founded on benefits and harmony and is bound together into an alliance for the common help of all, not by terror, but by love towards one another. ~ Lucius Annaeus Seneca (c. 4 BC – A.D. 65)
…
- Keep this thought handy when you feel a bit of rage coming on – it isn’t manly to be enraged. Rather, gentleness and civility are more human, and therefore manlier. A real person doesn’t give way to anger and discontent, and such a person has strength, courage, and endurance – unlike the angry and complaining. The nearer a man comes to a calm mind, the closer he is to strength. ~ Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121 A.D. – 180 A.D.))
…
- Do you suppose that you can do the things you do now, and yet be a philosopher? Do you suppose that you can eat in the same fashion, drink in the same fashion, give way to anger and to irritation, just as you do now? ~ Epictetus (c. 55 – c. 135 AD)
Epic and saved
“I must hate. Hate is the killer of things I might disagree with right now. Hate is the little-life that brings total self satisfaction. I will post my hate for anonymous people on the Internet. I will force it on them and over them. And when it has choked and annoyed them I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the hate has gone there will be the Epstein list. Only Nazis will remain”.
Hmmm. These seem a lit-tle outdated.
Hmm seems humans havent recieved a software update yet.
After I lost my belief in free will, I also seem to have lost my ability to feel hate. I haven’t felt that in years - almost a decade. To me, hate is just a story you’re telling yourself to stay angry. I don’t tell myself such stories.
I can still feel annoyed, irritated, or dislike someone, but hate is incompatible with my worldview. And I don’t mean “hate” in the casual way people use it in everyday speech - I mean true hatred. I can’t hate an object, because it just is and couldn’t be otherwise. But in the same way, I can’t hate people either, because while I think they have the ability to act differently in the future, I don’t believe they could have acted differently in the past once something has already been done.
Hating someone for what they are seems to imply they should’ve been different, which makes no sense. If someone is being an asshole, it’s not their fault - they can’t help themselves. I might not want to be around that person, but I don’t hate them. It’s like hating the rain or the darkness.
It’s an interesting reflection because I’ve been noticing a similar phenomenon regarding words such as “demon”, “evil”, “dark”, among other words.
The concept of “demonizing” itself does exactly what the word describes, to the word “demon”.
Since I became a demonolater and follower of Left-hand path spirituality, I get a similar feeling whenever I see people using these words in such a way that it implies “demons are undesirables”, “evil is undesirable”, “dark is undesirable”, even “Satan is undesirable” and “Lucifer is undeirable”.
Then people go farther and use these words to describe people or actions, people or actions of which are extremely despicable.
Example: people saying that “Charlie Kirk went to hell with Satan”, implicitly associating Satan (and demons) with the far-right bigotry. As a demonolater, I sincerely ask people: please, use whatever adjectives (gross, f-word, despicable, etc) to describe those bigoted individuals, but don’t do gratuitous attacks on entities (and their worshipers) who have nothing to do with those bigoted individuals, because you’re implicitly and unwillingly attacking whole belief systems (Luciferianism, theistic Satanism, Thelema, Goëtia, Quimbanda, etc).
Demons aren’t evil! The word originally derived from Greek Daemon, meaning neuter spirits, then it was distorted to mean “evil”. Even “evil” isn’t necessarily a despicable thing, evilness can be positive just like goodness can be negative.
All these connotations were imposed binary concepts (us vs them), meant to keep people under control by depicting rebelliousness as something to be avoided.
Do you wonder why demons and Satan were “demonized”? Try to think if society recognized the Luciferian rebellion against the dictatorship of God as something desirable, how society would behave, how “populace” would behave? People wouldn’t be easy to control if they were to see rebelliousness as desirable and “heavenly authority” as undesirable. People wouldn’t be easily convinced to be cogs in a machine. Instead of rebelling, society learned to “give the other face” whenever their face is slapped, because “Jesus said that”.
Turning “demons” and “Lucifer” (which originally means light bringer) and “Satan” (originally meaning “adversary”) and names/words alike as synonyms for things to be avoided was all about control, and this thing keeps happening even among those who don’t even believe there are demons, because we are prone to imitate other’s social behaviors unconsciously.
So, yeah, the phenomenon you described can be traced back to control, religious control.
demonization is a psychological term. It is also related to dehumanization. Love/hate distorts perception… and this is seen a lot in memes such as “chad-incel” formats where theres an idealized figure and a devalued one. It is also related to “splitting” aka idealization-devaluation. As another example, a lot of anti trump images are distorted and grotesque. It makes him appear more monsterish which resembles demons. Because it is trendy, you also see this with memes distortig the face of Charlie Kirk.
I dont know demonology or the history of demons & satan. I respect your expertise on the matter.
