Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

HATE

Rate this topic


DavidV

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(Leftist "anti-hatred" types, on the other hand, devote all their time to their hatred of "haters" !)

:)

Yes, the very word hate has taken on new meaning in this pc world we live in.

It's true that those that fling this word as a weapon are the ones doing most of the hating it seems to me. If you don't love and actively promote the liberal agenda and simply would prefer to live free, you are a "hater".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Leftist "anti-hatred" types, on the other hand, devote all their time to their hatred of "haters" !)

That is because they are not really anti-hatred. They are just against anybody hating THEM.

It is similar to the reason why "tolerationists" are so intolerant toward those they disagree with and go off on hysterical rants labelling their opponents "tribalists," "cultists," "rationalists," etc. Tolerationists don't want to be tolerant. They want to be tolerATED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hatred is an emotion, all emotions are good. They are gentle reminders of ones existence. If one has the capacity for love, then the opposite emotion must also be present. I do not believe it possible, to be devoid of emotion.

Acting upon that particular emotion, by initiation of force, ( I hate them, therefore, I will use some form of violence on them) would be irrational, unless it was in defense of ones life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betsy: Hate is the inescapable automatic emotional reaction to that which threatens ones values. Emotions, being automatic and unchosen, are not subject to moral evaluation as "proper" or "improper."
Richard_Halley: To be devoid of emotion is to be devoid of values.

Excellent points, both.

"Negative" emotions -- hate, anger, worry, fear, sadness -- have an important role in human life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emotions are neither good nor bad. They are subconscious and exempt from all moral judgment.
Hailey - are you telling me, this is a tenant of Ojectivist view. If so, then I have some problems with it. Yes you can make a moral judgment. I would much rather live in world filled with love then hate.

"Negative" emotions -- hate, anger, worry, fear, sadness -- have an important role in human life.

What about positive emotion, is your position, they have a less important role.

I am still learning the objectivist views and will say, I have not read Rand yet, book is on order. However, I am beginning to see some disturbing views.

Most of the comments, anybody makes, have been corrections to grammar or nit picking a single word used. Often by wroth memory, of canned phases, lifted, from I assume to be, Rands book.

Is there anybody here, with an intellectual thought of their own. I can read Rands book, and nobody can live a singular philosophy 100%

This board appears, at first glance, to be very interesting. It is rapidly losing appeal. Maybe a name change to the Ayn Rand canned phases board, is in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hailey - are you telling me, this is a tenant of Ojectivist view. If so, then I have some problems with it. Yes you can make a moral judgment. I would much rather live in world filled with love then hate.
The reason you prefer love to hate is not because one is good and the other bad. It is because love is more pleasurable than hate. Pleasureable and morally good are two different things. Only volitional actions are subject to moral judgement; because emotions are involuntary, they are not subject to moral judgement.

I am still learning the objectivist views and will say, I have not read Rand yet, book is on order. However, I am beginning to see some disturbing views.

I think you will find that after reading her work many of these views will seem less disturbing.

Most of the comments, anybody makes, have been corrections to grammar or nit picking a single word used. Often by wroth memory, of canned phases, lifted, from I assume to be, Rands book.
Objectivists take definitions very seriously. They are a huge part of Objectivist epistemology. It is important that you think very carefully about your choice of words in philosophical discussions; the nature of philosophy requires an incredibly exact form of communication. There are some terms that were given exact definitions by Ayn Rand in her writings; it is important to heed these definitions, because areas of her philosophy are built around them. Sometimes it is necessary to give a definition when there is confusion.

Is there anybody here, with an intellectual thought of their own. I can read Rands book, and nobody can live a singular philosophy 100%

Most of the people on this board have intellectual thoughts of their own. If you don't see a reference to Rand or quotes around something, it indicates an individual thought.

There are people who have fully integrated Objectivism into their lives. I have not, but several others on here have. It is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nobody can live a singular philosophy 100%
Why not? What about living a singular philosophy is in contradiction to human nature?

Hailey - are you telling me, this is a tenant of Ojectivist view. If so, then I have some problems with it. Yes you can make a moral judgment. I would much rather live in world filled with love then hate.

Really? Or would you rather live in a world filled with people acting on love than hate? Actions are subject to moral judgment--they are volitional--feelings are not.

What about positive emotion, is your position, they have a less important role.
Hopefully not... positive emotions serve the same purpose as negitive emotions, specifically, they are automatic clues as to how our values corrospond to a thing/situation.

Most of the comments, anybody makes, have been corrections to grammar or nit picking a single word used.

Really? I have only seen this done to you once, which was a correction from "Objectioness" to "Objectivist." I see no problem with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only volitional actions are subject to moral judgement; because emotions are involuntary, they are not subject to moral judgement.

That was pretty much what I was thinking. It's not the emotion which is judged. It would be the action taken in response to the emotion which would be subject to moral judgement.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Don,

I agree with everything you said. I am still overcoming my life as a sailor, and it's exclusive use of profanity to solve all problems , while holding a beer. In hind site, I recognize my inability to understand fully, prior to reading Rand, before I posted. Just couldn't stop myself, I am very opinionated, by nature.

However, I still don't believe anyone can follow one philosophy to the exclusion of all others, not even Rand herself, and she wrote it. People are just more complicated then that, maybe after I learn more, than my opinion will change.

I do find it curious, that on most posts I have made, Hailey loves to comment negatively towards the post with little explanation, followed by you, and a detailed explanation in support. Just an observation, and a thank you, you're efforts are appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anybody here,  with an intellectual thought of their own.  I can read Rands book, and nobody can live a singular philosophy 100%

This board appears,  at first glance, to be very interesting. It is rapidly losing appeal.  Maybe a name change to the Ayn Rand canned phases board, is in order.

Since we are all hypocritical robots (heh) whom you find unappealing and uninteresting, I presume you have no more interest in participating on the forum. Good day, sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been brought to my attention, I may have offended several posters with an earlier post.

My apologies to all that took offense.

As Dongitalia has pointed out, I need to choose my words more carefully. My intent is to spur debate, not offend. My attacks are meant to probe objectivist views, since any worth while philosophy can with stand such attack. It was my perception, correct or not, that I was receiving only rhetoric. Once again, I shall state, my intent is knowledge, debate is the route to truth. Devils advocate, is my way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was receiving only rhetoric

What does this mean?

Suppose I tell someone: "the earth goes around the sun".

And, supose they reply: "Don't give me rhetoric... you're simply echoing the canned idea from the geography books".

Hmmm! Well, I am echoing the standard view from geography books. Must I feel guilty that I agree with that view? Should I state a different view --- one that I know to be untrue -- just to be different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were a rape victim, would you hate your rapist?

If you were a slave, would you hate your 'master'?

If you were a torture victim, would you hate your tormentor?

It's true.

Hatred is a feeling that is composed of both detestation and helplessness.

A rape victim will hate the rapist, but someone who did not suffer directly will not hate him. He will simply despise him and be disgusted by him.

Hatred means not only being disgusted, but also being personally hurt.

So I agree with GreedyCapitalist that one should not hate people in ordinary, daily life. A man who hates, without being personally hurt enough to justify it, reveals a psychological weakness, a thread of unjustified helplessness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems an admission of hating someone shows that the person does not adequately know who or what they are hating. The irrational part of hate is deciding that someone is intrinsically flawed, and not merely mistaken. Once you realize that a person is merely mistaken and not intrinsically "evil" there's no rational reason to hate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems an admission of hating someone shows that the person does not adequately know who or what they are hating.

Not so.

Although I am a positive value-seeker almost exclusively concerned with gaining and keeping the things I love, there are a few things, here and there, which have been able to hurt me (an IRS audit that dragged on for three years comes to mind) and I know exactly what I am hating.

The irrational part of hate is deciding that someone is intrinsically flawed, and not merely mistaken.  Once you realize that a person is merely mistaken and not intrinsically "evil" there's no rational reason to hate them.

Setting aside the fact that some things (like IRS persecution of innocent people) are evil, that is not what the emotion of hate is all about.

Hate is the normal, automatic, response to those things which destroy your values. You can hate more than people. You can hate the flood that destroys your house, the disease that shortens your life, etc.

In fact, although I always label evil people as evil, I usually don't hate them. That's because good people like me are strong, and evil people are weak, pathetic, and unable to do much of anything -- including hurt me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does this mean?

Suppose I tell someone: "the earth goes around the sun".

And, supose they reply: "Don't give me rhetoric... you're simply echoing the canned idea from the geography books".

Hmmm! Well, I am echoing the standard view from geography books. Must I feel guilty that I agree with that view? Should I state a different view --- one that I know to be untrue -- just to be different?

What I mean by "repeating rhetoric", is that it serves no useful purpose to me. I can read a book, and the perceptions I apply to its meaning are mine. By simply repeating what you read, while I can appreciate a persons excellent memory, tells me nothing of their interpretation of it. What needs to be added, is why you believe it to be true, insights to you're thinking. This offers me an alternative view of the same information, and more knowledge.

I'll have to single out some folks here, and I mean no insult to them. I use them for purely example purposes only. Hailey, my apologizes in advance. I hope you take this in the manner in which I offer it, as an observation from my perspective only. While I'm sure he is very intelligent, he offered me no clues, to how he thinks, and appeared to only defend objectivist views, by quotes from Rand. There are others that appear to operate this way. While Donditalia, also defended objectivist views, however, offered an insight into his thinking on the subject and answers.

Only offering quotes or repeated statements, will offer insight to the person quoted, it offers no insight to the person you are communicating with, and everyone has experiences and intellect that are different from mine. This is the information I am interested in, not Rands. Rand is the base for the original philosophy.

By listening to others people interpretation of the same information, the possibility of new insight exists. By reading the same sentence over and over, my interpretation is not likely to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emotions ARE actions, because they are a form of thought, and thinking is an action. Emotions are a value judgment, and the emotion ascribed to that jugment will tell you its value.

So the question is: Do you value hatred?

I like to think of the analogy of sensations:

I value my ability to smell all the dirty smells in the world?

I value my ability to see all the filth.

I value my ability to taste yucky stuff .

These are all useful abilities.

I'd rather smell roses than garbage.

You could say, I value the smell of roses, not the smell of garbage.

Is it possible that I can smell only roses and never smell garbage? (Perhaps it is, if I were to be surrounded by garbage all the time that I begin to "shut it out".)

Even if it possible, is it desirable -- consider the case of people who can feel no pain in certain parts of their body, and consequently are less aware of reality.

Emotions, like sensations, are vital tools of survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Donditalia, also defended objectivist views, however, offered an insight into his thinking on the subject and answers.

I should make clear to you that I am still in the process of learning about Objectivism myself and many of my statements are not to be taken as "Objectivist views." I merely state things as I see them. When I am making a statement about what is actually part of Objectivism, I will usually specify that is the case. Anything else is my view and my view alone and is subject to debate. Objectivism (as much as I have learned so far anyway) is infallible and not open to debate.

edit: You shouldn't take to heart that people around here don't feel the need to explain themselves to you. 1) They owe you no explanation, and you owe them none. 2) It is generally assumed that members of this forum are familiar with Objectivism and no explanation is necessary in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hate is the normal, automatic, response to those things which destroy your values."

In the examples provided, the inanimate objects which you hate are not so much things which "destroy" values, often they provide challenges which reinforce values and the rightness thereof. Hating something like the natural order of the world is not quite indicative of a healthy value system, if you hate reality, what can you love? What you express is closer to frustration or anger, hate could be reserved for any of the deeper more ideological concepts which we might experience, but I find it hard to think that I would ever hate anyone as more than a momentary irrational thought, as the individual would either, as you say, be too weak and pathetic to prove a source of potently contrary values, or they would be touching upon an instance in which they were right and I was wrong, and then from that experience conceivably I could better myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sailor wrote:

Rand is the base for the original philosophy.
That is exactly the reason her words are more relevant to Objectivism than anyone on this forum. How would you go about discussing a woman's ideas without citing the woman herself?

By listening to others people interpretation of the same information, the possibility of new insight exists. By reading the same sentence over and over, my interpretation is not likely to change.

Ayn Rand was very clear about what she meant in all of her writings. Her's is the only valid interpretation. All anyone else can do is APPLY her philosophy to their own lives. She was also very clear about the methods by which her philosophy should be applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were a rape victim, would you hate your rapist?

If you were a slave, would you hate your 'master'?

If you were a torture victim, would you hate your tormentor?

RadCap,

to answer you: Not necessarily. Most would think that such acts would involuntarily create such emotions, but having been in a similar situation, i would have to disagree that you always hate the offender. in fact, i don't really think i beleive in hate. i don't know how rational this is, because i guess that must mean that i don't beleive in love, but what i'm saying is that, i have never encountered a person or situation that caused me so much anger that i could really state "I HATE THIS". I can't really conceie myself saying that about anyone. i mean, it's only about being able to understand and later accepting, isn't it always? yet love doesn't work that way. that one is involuntary, and the same process would not change the effects...you will still love. so i think the idea of hate isn't very clear in it's nature.

i've got to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have never encountered a person or situation that caused me so much anger that i could really state "I HATE THIS". I can't really conceie myself saying that about anyone. i mean, it's only about being able to understand and later accepting, isn't it always?

No!

Sometimes it is rational to understand, accept, and continue to hate something.

BTW, I notice you sometimes use capital letters, so your shift key isn't broken. How come you type the personal pronoun "I" in lower case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Continue to hate something, not someone, to say that you hate even the most anathema historical character is to say that you pay credence to the superiority or validity of their errors and admit that you don't know why someone did such an aggregious act or can't come up for an explanation for it, whereas if you truly understood their error you would not "hate" them, but simply understand that they were mistaken and move on.

This reminds me of Peikoff's writing On Good and the quandary which would be someone who could be rational and at the same time commit suicide, who Peikoff says would deserve the worst criticism for their hatred of life itself, the standard upon which all else is built. I don't understand how such an individual could possibly exist, for true rationality would dictate that understood life was of ultimate value and therefore could not "hate" it.

All suicides, at least in situations where there is another rational recourse, and all hatred towards an individual, assigning them intrinsic value of evil, is irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...