Is Hatred Useful?

[Trent Wray]

I was having a sort of side conversation with Complexity in another thread, and he agreed to let me post some of that conversation here.

It got me thinking about hatred in general. Overall, I think most people believe hatred acted upon can be detrimental to a person and society as a whole.

But can hatred be beneficial or a "good thing"? Especially if it's embraced with full knowledge of the consequences of one's actions?

It's human to hate, of course sometimes it's fun to give in to varying degrees of it I suppose (malicious intent, spite, revenge, etc ---- if those are degrees of hate). But can it be useful when "used responsibly" ?

Also, for those in the know, are the effects on a human's physical life effected by hate, and if so, how so?

[Trent Wray]

Here is the conversation from the other thread, for those interested ...

Trent Wray - I live in a world in which the majority of people are insane. They control the governments, militaries, and most other institutions. These religious and other superstitious people have no moral or ethical qualms about using the government to coerse those not of their beliefs.

I've taught, argued with, tried to persuade, and finally tried to ignore people who insist upon intruding into my life and trying to control what I do, say, and think.

I'm tired. When these people post their garbage on the forums of my community, the most they'll get from me, and the most I think they deserve, is a growl and a swipe.

Others will react as they wish - I have no problem with that.

I work alone on other, real-world responses, mostly writing. Whether any will bear fruit is uncertain. Do any have a chance at being effective? Not on anyone past childhood, I'm afraid.

I hate what they've done to the world.

Hmm .... I live in that same world.

Hatred is a tough dilemma, if it even is a negative dilemma. It's tough when a person stares into that abyss hoping to combat it, and it looks back at them and overtakes them on some level. Unless of course, the person enjoys it and has embraced it willingly.

I'm immediately reminded of the dual between Vader and Anakin, unfortunately. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I'm reminded of the Comedian of the Watchmen.

And then there are all the other "mere mortals" caught in-between the fighting. Hmm ......

Is society supposed to "make the man"? Or is the man supposed to make the society? Or neither?

ETA: Complexity ---- if I want to open up a thread on "hatred", can I use your post?

Use that post if you wish. If so, I'd appreciate your using the rest of this one as well.

Although it often seems otherwise, I'm not sure I really hate anyone.

I don't think there is such a thing as free will. There is no mind apart from brain and there is no mechanism through which an incorporeal and supernatural mind (if it did exist) could interact with a brain. I don't think that anyone is responsible for their actions.

Our lack of free will doesn't mean that our behavior can't be changed. While I intellectually understand that there is no free will, I am as human as the rest of us and react emotionally in my interactions with others as though there is free will. Our interactions affect behavior.

I hate what the superstitious (and, yes, that does include all of the religious and spiritual, organized or not) have done to the world.

Sometimes I hate these and other people as individuals or as groups. I periodically realize that they aren't in control of, and are not responsible for, their beliefs and behavior. Even when I realize this, I don't want to spend my time being proselytized or condemned to 'hell' by them.

Several of my best friends are religious. We avoid discussions of religion and treat each other with respect. I don't respect their religious beliefs - I respect them. I think of them as having religion tapeworms in their brains (nasty religion and superstition meme clusters, to be more accurate) and readily acknowledge that I'm at least as screwed up, though in different ways, as they are.

I am content to let people be if they behave in the same way. When they insist on intruding on or injuring others or myself, I will strike back.

[Slimething]

Hatred is a basal emotion. It is a very strong motivator. If the hatred is of something that most detest, then, yes, it can be useful. OTOH, if the hatred is of something we cherish, then we would tend to think of it as destructive and useless. Depends on which side of the coin you're on.

[Manopolus]

Both hatred and strife are necessary. Reason is mutually exclusive with neither. Just be careful that your target is justified, and hate the idea, not the person. Also, hate the government, not the country, etc. Hatred and strife go wrong mainly in your failure to be specific enough. Generalizations are the root of all evil, not violence and/or money.

[Cavemonster]

Hatred is a basal emotion. It is a very strong motivator. If the hatred is of something that most detest, then, yes, it can be useful. OTOH, if the hatred is of something we cherish, then we would tend to think of it as destructive and useless. Depends on which side of the coin you're on.

And in the same way, love of something destructive can be terrible for the wellbeing of others. Not to Godwin (since this isn't an argument, I think I'm safe) but, the Nazis loved the idea of racial purity, and the Allies hated the Nazis. The love that those Nazi's held was destructive for their neighbors, and the hatred that the Allies held, fueled their eventual victory.

[blobru]

Hatred's okay, as long as it's recognized as an emotional tool and used selectively. When I'm trying to twist the stuck top off a jar of peanut butter, for example, it's helpful to get angry and swear at it -- "come onnn... you no-good dirty son of a *&^%$#@ whore!" -- to personalize and focus the frustration and, even though it's stupid / irrational, in effect 'hate' the thing, just to get that little extra jolt of strength from adrenaline. So yeah, at least in this somewhat silly case, 'hatred' is useful, for harnessing energy from anger. :mgbanghead:eusa_wall: (Sports, too, is another arena where temporary hatred [of an opponent] is often useful for motivation; and even a sort of limited, targeted self-hatred can be a goad to change for the better ["hatred" taken as the urge to destroy: if what you want to destroy is in fact irredeemably bad, then hatred must be good sometimes]).

[Manopolus]

(Sports, too, is another arena where temporary hatred [of an opponent] is often useful for motivation; and even a sort of limited, targeted self-hatred can be a goad to change for the better ["hatred" taken as the urge to destroy: if what you want to destroy is in fact irredeemably bad, then hatred must be good sometimes]).

I would have never gotten through Army basic training without hatred. That is where I discovered its uses, some physical, some purely a matter of coping. I can see how sports would be similar. Hatred in some contexts is nothing more than determination.

[blobru]

I would have never gotten through Army basic training without hatred. That is where I discovered its uses, some physical, some purely a matter of coping. I can see how sports would be similar. Hatred in some contexts is nothing more than determination.


Good point. In many contexts, such as training for track and field, it feels like overcoming an obstacle, where that obstacle is your own laziness: it's a psychological tactic to push yourself to give a little more.

[Cainkane1]

I was having a sort of side conversation with Complexity in another thread, and he agreed to let me post some of that conversation here.

It got me thinking about hatred in general. Overall, I think most people believe hatred acted upon can be detrimental to a person and society as a whole.

But can hatred be beneficial or a "good thing"? Especially if it's embraced with full knowledge of the consequences of one's actions?

It's human to hate, of course sometimes it's fun to give in to varying degrees of it I suppose (malicious intent, spite, revenge, etc ---- if those are degrees of hate). But can it be useful when "used responsibly" ?

Also, for those in the know, are the effects on a human's physical life effected by hate, and if so, how so?
Hating certain things like crime, deliberate cruelty etc I think is a good thing.

[arthwollipot]

Speaking for myself, I believe that hatred (like anger) is a thoroughly negative emotion, and counterproductive to any situation to which it is applied. There are better ways to deal with bad things than to hate them or to direct anger against them.

However, I accept that others may have opinions that differ from mine.

[Darth Rotor]

Hatred can be a source of motivation, or energy (emotional) to move one to action.

But it's a dangerous tool, and I have hard experience to demonstrate it's long term and short term negative effects.

Use with extreme caution ...

DR

[Bikewer]

I've read a great deal about scientist's efforts to investigate characteristics such as altruism, mutual cooperation, and so forth from a standpoint of evolutionary advantage.

It's pretty obvious that these sorts of characteristics have a sound basis in adaptation; they would have assisted the survival of the group.
How about hatred and other such strong emotions? Is there an evolutionary advantage to be had from hate? (of course, we'd need to define "hate" in this case, as opposed to say, anger.
Could hate just be a subversion of some broader emotion, such as "distrust of the other" which is pretty well documented?

[cienaños]

I was having a sort of side conversation with Complexity in another thread, and he agreed to let me post some of that conversation here.

It got me thinking about hatred in general. Overall, I think most people believe hatred acted upon can be detrimental to a person and society as a whole.

But can hatred be beneficial or a "good thing"? Especially if it's embraced with full knowledge of the consequences of one's actions?

It's human to hate, of course sometimes it's fun to give in to varying degrees of it I suppose (malicious intent, spite, revenge, etc ---- if those are degrees of hate). But can it be useful when "used responsibly" ?

Also, for those in the know, are the effects on a human's physical life effected by hate, and if so, how so?

I say yes, it can be useful. Though, as others have pointed out, due to its base nature, we should stay vigilant when it creeps up on us.

As for the physical effects, I'm no expert, but I've read studies where "executive ulcers" occurred in rats when introduced to high stress environments. Hatred, I think, is often closely related to high stress. Or bottled up stress.

[Trent Wray]

Both hatred and strife are necessary. Reason is mutually exclusive with neither. Just be careful that your target is justified, and hate the idea, not the person. Also, hate the government, not the country, etc. Hatred and strife go wrong mainly in your failure to be specific enough. Generalizations are the root of all evil, not violence and/or money. True, imo. Hatred is better directed towards something rather than someone.

I've read a great deal about scientist's efforts to investigate characteristics such as altruism, mutual cooperation, and so forth from a standpoint of evolutionary advantage.

It's pretty obvious that these sorts of characteristics have a sound basis in adaptation; they would have assisted the survival of the group.
How about hatred and other such strong emotions? Is there an evolutionary advantage to be had from hate? (of course, we'd need to define "hate" in this case, as opposed to say, anger.
Could hate just be a subversion of some broader emotion, such as "distrust of the other" which is pretty well documented? I generally believe that most emotional concepts are rooted or based either in trust or distrust. Underneath distrust and trust lie fear and faith, although I don't mean faith in the sense of religious faith. I mean it in the sense of initially trusting in something for no rational reason .... similar to initially distrusting something for no rational reason.

If I see a dog in my front yard, and feel no fear towards it, I'm initially acting on a faith that might be based on personal history and knowledge, but when it comes to that dog in particular I have no real reason not to expect it to attack me. So I'm operating on a kind of faith in my previous history, assumptions, initial trained responses, etc.

Likewise, if I feel fear, I am distrusting the dog initially. For any number of reasons I might respond this way, but for all I know the dog is harmless.

So I think the fight/flight fueled by fear is one end of the foundation, while feed-breed and comfort and security stem from faith. And I think it's a type of faith, because in order to relax at all from fear, a person essentially needs to feel/think/believe they are "safe" .... when in reality, we are not really ever safe. We are always prone to the elements which at any moment could cause suffering (accidents, medical emergencies, uncontrolled circumstances, etc). Death is always around the corner ... not life. Growth and security and peace aren't guaranteed, rather the opposite is certain.

[cienaños]

True, imo. Hatred is better directed towards something rather than someone.

...*snippers*....

So I think the fight/flight fueled by fear is one end of the foundation, while feed-breed and comfort and security stem from faith. And I think it's a type of faith, because in order to relax at all from fear, a person essentially needs to feel/think/believe they are "safe" .... when in reality, we are not really ever safe. We are always prone to the elements which at any moment could cause suffering (accidents, medical emergencies, uncontrolled circumstances, etc). Death is always around the corner ... not life. Growth and security and peace aren't guaranteed, rather the opposite is certain.

I agree. But I think we can continue the deconstruction here. The pieces, we can tumble them further and rearrange them and we do, we do this every day actually. Let's say this, "I have a fear of not getting closer to the truth, a truth, just, truth." This fear has a warmness to it, oddly, no? Its arm is interlocked with faith quite closely as a matter of fact. And so the 'foundation' you mention, which absolutely exists in fixed state(s) at various times -- becomes rearranged so that it may newly suit our new needs at that particular new time. In those particular new circumstances.

It is this idea that seems/feels the most natural to me. In observing short-term nature, it appears glaringly clear to me that no other "living" thing in it, in nature, is as static as human belief, which stems from the human mind. The same mind that brought you religion, the bomb, the Mozart the FIFA World Cup, the Scarlet Johansson...

What I find most interesting is the idea that "Death is always around the corner" can be turned on its head so that it may newly suit our new needs. This fear of death thing, its tired I think. As a species, I think a radical disassociation needs to occur. As a species, we are still ruled by the linear. The cyclical is the one that outlasts us. Why not reconsider and change our rulers into compasses?

Just sayin'...

[Trent Wray]

I agree. But I think we can continue the deconstruction here. The pieces, we can tumble them further and rearrange them and we do, we do this every day actually. Let's say this, "I have a fear of not getting closer to the truth, a truth, just, truth." This fear has a warmness to it, oddly, no? Its arm is interlocked with faith quite closely as a matter of fact. And so the 'foundation' you mention, which absolutely exists in fixed state(s) at various times -- becomes rearranged so that it may newly suit our new needs at that particular new time. In those particular new circumstances.

It is this idea that seems/feels the most natural to me. In observing short-term nature, it appears glaringly clear to me that no other "living" thing in it, in nature, is as static as human belief, which stems from the human mind. The same mind that brought you religion, the bomb, the Mozart the FIFA World Cup, the Scarlet Johansson...

What I find most interesting is the idea that "Death is always around the corner" can be turned on its head so that it may newly suit our new needs. This fear of death thing, its tired I think. As a species, I think a radical disassociation needs to occur. As a species, we are still ruled by the linear. The cyclical is the one that outlasts us. Why not reconsider and change our rulers into compasses?

Just sayin'...
Hmm .... perhaps :)

Taking your example of a "fear of not getting cloer to the truth," ---- I see that and the warmness you describe as being more of a desire, or want ;)

I think that is what is somehow arm in arm with faith and fear. Initially, we have a fear or a faith .... and then we have a desire because we are aware of "stuff". That desire then chooses to utilize fear/faith to it's own ends, as we become aware of the desire. Maybe. Ultimately, though, I think acting on an intent to see a desire come to fruition comes as a luxury, a luxury stemming from a "faith" or "hope" that the desire will come to fruition, regardless of the circumstances. Fear, ultimately I think, leads to death because the rational choice to avoid all fear is to die and rob death of it's ability to call the shots and hold a person hostage :)

If that is the case, then it is cyclical and non-linear I think ... because reacting off faith/fear .... and forming a desire to change something .... and then attempting to utilize faith/fear to manifest that change .... is almost like feeding faith/fear back into itself.

And fear of death is tiring :) LOL ... but what's the alternative? Faith/religion/etc? A radical dissociation is essentially what magical thinking is.

Unless .... we could do away with both the ruler and cyclical and use the compass to lead us out of fear/faith all together somehow. To do that, we would need to replace those foundations .... fear, faith, and perhaps even pure desire, with some other operating system. Or maybe we should act upon pure desire and not ponder fear/faith whatsoever.

I have an idea what we could replace fear/faith with, but it's a big ten pound block of cheese I'll spare mentioning :)

[RSLancastr]

I have a strong hatred towards what Sylvia Browne does, but not so much towards Browne herself.

Perhaps that allows me to keep the site focused more on her behavior than on her.

[Ron_Tomkins]

If we're gonna talk about whether or not something is "useful" then the first thing we have to do is get away from any judgment, because then we get into the issue of whether it is "right" or "wrong".

I know we seem to keep getting back at the "Morality in Nature" issue, but it's inevitable. Useful doesn't correlate with politically correct. For example, a murderer can find that a silencer is useful for making the crime pass undetected. Now, the issue of whether it's morally acceptable or not, is an entirely different thing.

So yes, as it has been pointed out, hatred can be useful in certain contexts. But it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. I think that anything can be proven useful in certain contexts. That still doesn't address whether or not, such thing should be incorporated into our society as an acceptable mean or getting something done.

Nature is the number one best example: The only thing that ultimately matters is the survival of the gene. Anything that is proven useful for the gene to better survive, is beneficial for it and thus, automatically adopted without a split of a second of a doubt (Nature will never stop on its heels and say "Whoa... hold on... would this be right?). That means, anything that's beneficial to the survival of the gene. Anything that we, humans, would consider horrific, immoral, indecent, unfair, unethical. Anything.

[Piscivore]

Both hatred and strife are necessary. Reason is mutually exclusive with neither.
What? Where do emotional responses fit into logic and reason?

Just be careful that your target is justified, and hate the idea, not the person.
I'd change "idea" to "behaviour", but that's a good point.

Also, hate the government, not the country, etc.
Still too general. "Gevernments" are just collections of people too, and even in the Nixon/Reagan/Bush years 90% of the "government" were just hardworking folks who try to do their jobs the best they can.

Hatred and strife go wrong mainly in your failure to be specific enough. Generalizations are the root of all evil, not violence and/or money.
Second that.

[Manopolus]

What? Where do emotional responses fit into logic and reason?


It is quite possible to be rational and have feelings at the same time. True, sometimes emotion can skew logic... but sometimes it doesn't. I really don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Other than that, I think we've more or less agreed on everything else, other than the literal reading of a generalized example.;)

[Piscivore]

It is quite possible to be rational and have feelings at the same time. True, sometimes emotion can skew logic... but sometimes it doesn't. I really don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
I see what you're saying.