A Discussion About Hate and Love
I am a retired high school biology teacher, and one of the many things that I told my students is the traits and characteristics associated with our physical structure - including neurological circuits - survived in us because it gave us some kind of advantage in the environment in which we were living.
And so, it must be with love and hate. The evolutionary advantage of love seems obvious, considering we are a social species. Attachment to our kith and kin better ensured we all survived. But what of hate? We see so much of it, in the current political turmoil darkening the world. What is the evolutionary advantage of hate?
Here are my questions below. I’d love to hear your answers on one, two or however many you have thoughts about.
Is hate an emotion, or is it more of an attitude, or a judgement?
Is hate more irrational or logical?
Does hate serve a purpose?
Do love and hate always express themselves?
Why is it that both love and hate can result in both heroic and evil actions?
Which one has the wider radius of effect?
Is hate what happens when someone is not loved?
Is hate a stronger force than love?
Are destruction and construction two sides of the same coin?
Is hate ever positive? Is love ever negative?
And so, it must be with love and hate. The evolutionary advantage of love seems obvious, considering we are a social species. Attachment to our kith and kin better ensured we all survived. But what of hate? We see so much of it, in the current political turmoil darkening the world. What is the evolutionary advantage of hate?
Here are my questions below. I’d love to hear your answers on one, two or however many you have thoughts about.
Is hate an emotion, or is it more of an attitude, or a judgement?
Is hate more irrational or logical?
Does hate serve a purpose?
Do love and hate always express themselves?
Why is it that both love and hate can result in both heroic and evil actions?
Which one has the wider radius of effect?
Is hate what happens when someone is not loved?
Is hate a stronger force than love?
Are destruction and construction two sides of the same coin?
Is hate ever positive? Is love ever negative?
Comments (134)
The gut response is to say that hate is irrational. But the science seems to suggest that love is more irrational than hate.
Love and hate use the same brain circuits in the brain. Both the hate circuit (and that for contempt and disgust) and the love circuit include parts of the brain called the putamen and the insula, found in the sub-cortex of the brain. This particular circuit’s function seems to be to process distressing signals.
But there is a significant difference between the neurological processing of love and hate. Large parts of the cerebral cortex – associated with judgement and reasoning – become de-activated during love, whereas only a small area is deactivated in hate. So, hate retains rationality.
I think what we call hate is mostly anger, resentment, and judgment.
Quoting Questioner
It’s definitely not logical. Is it irrational? I would say it certainly non-rational and destructive. Does that make it irrational?
Quoting Questioner
I suppose it serves an emotional purpose, but I also think it leads to ineffective actions.
Quoting Questioner
Well, they affect things. Cause things. Even if they’re not recognized.
Quoting Questioner
I’m not sure I agree with the claim here. Besides that there’s no reason something can’t be both heroic and evil.
Quoting Questioner
I’m not sure what this means.
Quoting Questioner
I don’t think this question makes any sense.
Quoting Questioner
I don’t think either love or hate is a force.
Quoting Questioner
I’m not sure what this means, especially in the context of the rest of this post
Quoting Questioner
Here’s the deal—the love created by natural selection that brings us together as a social species you discussed at the beginning is not the same love you talk about in the rest of the post. Our natural love is not the opposite of hate, it’s the opposite of indifference.
I am a semi retired sociology and psychology introductory course high school teacher and I tried to teach basically the same thing.
Quoting Questioner
All three.
Quoting Questioner
It can keep you safe.
Quoting Questioner
I don't think that they can result in either. Heroics and evil actions mostly come from circumstance.
Quoting Questioner
Neither are relevant to the topic.
Quoting Questioner
Depends on whether you are applying the words to food or the person next door.
It’s how people feel, so yes, it’s an emotion, though one that may stem from a judgment and a predisposition. A great deal of reasoning seems to me to be motivated or framed by prior emotional dispositions, values, and preferences.
Quoting Questioner
Who knows? I think reason is arrived at through affective preferences, so there's that.
Quoting Questioner
Almost everything serves a purpose, the question is, is this purpose useful or warranted?
Quoting Questioner
Not sure what you mean by express. If you mean do people suppress thier feelings and are they sometimes in denial, then yes.
Quoting Questioner
Is this true of any emotion; greed, envy, lust? Almost any emotion can lead to negative consequences for someone. I generally avoid the word evil, since it strikes me as a primitive way of describing something much more complex.
Quoting Questioner
Depends what you mean. Hitler's hate had a much bigger radius of effect than my parent's love. Etc.
Quoting Questioner
Sometimes. I generally think hate is often an aspect of fear and a failure to make sense of something.
Quoting Questioner
Unanswerable except by romantics. It depends on the example. In most cases, love is contained and intimate, while hate is often externalised.
Quoting Questioner
As second-rate poetry, perhaps. Eastern religions often hold this view, as do some philosophers. For them, opposites stand in a mutual relationship and continuously transform into one another. The cycle of birth and death may be cited as an example. Personally, I see no particular use for this view, even if it is true.
Quoting Questioner
Of course. I doubt there is anything that doesn't have a shadow side or a silver lining.
Hatred and concomitant anger can underpin heroism, just as they can underpin cruelty.
So what do we have? Are you trying to integrate an understanding hatred into your world view?
Quoting Questioner
This could just as easily be rewritten with the word 'hate' substituted for 'love', and it would still make sense. Hatred has often been adaptive: it 'helps' in conflict and war, and provides the motivation to defeat rivals; individuals and tribes alike to protect our kith and kin. From a grubby, scientistic and evolutionary perspective, there is every reason to see why hatred might be regarded as having advantages.
Quoting Questioner
I'd like to start with your opening statement: "Everything about us has survived because it gave us certain advantages in the environment in which we lived."
This statement is imprecise and can be interpreted in several ways:
1. We possess everything necessary to give us advantages for survival in the environment in which we lived. (This implies that we may also possess something else.)
or
2. Everything we possess is necessary to give us advantages for survival in the environment in which we lived. (This implies that we possess only what is necessary, and that what is not necessary has died off.)
Philosophically, both of these statements are speculative.
First, there are examples of other organisms whose advantages for survival in their environment are no worse, if not better. For example, the falcon, whose eyesight is superior.
Secondly, why does this have to be so? Take the eye, for example. The eye is perfect for seeing underwater, but on land it's vulnerable, which is why land dwellers developed corneas and tear ducts (according to the theory of evolution, which is what I'm trying to answer). Therefore, the eye itself adapted to the environment and wasn't discarded and replaced with another sensor.
These questions immediately arise.
Then why should anything exist for a purpose? A purpose for creation presupposes a creator. What if it's all purely accidental? Why should anything exist in us at all, rather than not? (This doesn't contradict the theory of evolution.)
I see great potential for an interesting discussion on all your questions, but I ask that you formulate your opening statement as precisely as possible.
The logical error here is called "affirming the cosequent." Darwinian evolution is based on the notion that if a trait gives us a (genetic) advantage, it will tend to become more widespread. It is a logical error to assume that if a trait has become widespread, it must have given us an advantage.
This is paricularly true of culturally influenced feelings and behaviors, like love and hate. Of course it is possible (even probable) that a trait or behavior that has become common has conferred advantages, but assuming it must have done so is an error
We cannot assume that because wars, witch burnings, pograms, and inquisitions have often "survived", they must have been evolutionarily advantageous.
I’m mostly in agreement with your post, although I am a strong believer in a biological, genetic, neurological, psychological, sociological human nature.
I too think that hate involves all three of these things, and takes them a step beyond, and that implies that hate is a reaction. A reaction to what? I believe it's a reaction to some harm that we perceive has been done to us. I used the word "perceive" because hate is not always justified. Often, it is the product of misconceptions and a lack of full understanding.
Quoting T Clark
The biology says that we do use our rational faculties in the brain in formulating hate. So maybe, the question is not whether it is rational or irrational, but if it is based on the quality of the input reaching that rational part of the brain. Is what we believe about the person we hate true? And in interpretation, is our focus only on how we fit into the equation, or do we try to see the other side?
Quoting T Clark
For some, it sure does serve an emotional purpose. Taking this to the extreme, there seem to be people who need to hate. This leads me to wonder what is the true source of their hate. Personal trauma? Self-hate? Projection?
Quoting T Clark
Love works really well close-up, but hate can work really well at a distance, especially when we are talking about between groups of people. For example, whipping up hate against perceived enemies is a hallmark of authoritarian rule.
Quoting T Clark
Our brains develop in part according to the stimuli they receive. In the absence of love, the hate circuit rather than the love circuit becomes fixed in the brain?
Quoting T Clark
But they can provide impetus to action
Quoting T Clark
i was thinking of love as a constructive force, and hate as a destructive force
Quoting T Clark
Good point. But from the earliest evolutionary beginnings of love, all other forms of love evolved.
I remember reading something that love first appeared in our ancestors as a mother's love.
But, in the wider context, indifference does not lead to action. Love and hate can both lead to action. So, in their application - in their causing actual behavior - they do have opposite effects.
I do wonder, though, how often the threat is real and how often it is made up in the head.
Quoting Sir2u
I was thinking of love as a constructive force and hate as a destructive force
Quoting Sir2u
Good point. I was thinking only in terms of interpersonal or intergroup relationships
I agree. I would add to that list one's self-image
Quoting Tom Storm
We evolved to "fear the stranger" - and to protect ourselves if we did not know if they were friend or foe. But hate seems to grow out of this useful instinct if it is taken to an extreme. Hate is not necessary for self-protection ...
Quoting Tom Storm
yes, I was thinking along these lines.
Quoting Tom Storm
I like this description very much.
Quoting Tom Storm
Relevant to the question I raised about proximity
Quoting Tom Storm
For me personally, I do not hate. I do not know what hate feels like. But we see whole groups of people actively expressing and acting on their hate and while I know it is a multi-faceted and complicated question, I am trying to gain some understanding in the context of a shared humanity.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes, back to my initial point - it must have provided evolutionary advantage. But it seems like it's being misused or misapplied in the context of the present day world. Sort of like how our fight-or-flight response gone out of control is causing all sorts of stress-related illnesses.
Sounds good. Thank you for replying.
Quoting Astorre
Yes, thanks for pointing that out, but I did not mean to imply those two interpretations.
No, evolution did not give us everything we need. Only what made us "good enough" to survive in that particular environment. The usual example cited is if a predator is chasing you and your buddy, you don't have to be faster than the predator, only your buddy.
Natural selection is not a process that produces perfection, only what is "good enough." If I consider any part of my structure or function, it evolved because it served some purpose during my evolution that helped me survive. And natural selection proceeds by a process of "costs and benefits" - and if the benefit outweighs the cost - evolution proceeds in that direction.
And yes, I am aware of vestigial functions and structures - things that once served a purpose but are not so important anymore.
Quoting Astorre
I think we need to separate "functional purpose" from "higher or divine purpose" -
Current science does hold that the evolutionary process is a random one.
I think you are introducing the notion of "neutral traits" - and they certainly exist. For example, blue eyes evolved from brown eyes, but blue eyes have no functional advantage over brown eyes. Yet, in some regions in the world, blue eyes are more common.
But I was not thinking about these kinds of variation within traits, and so I apologize for my imprecision. I was thinking in more general terms of traits taken as a whole. We all have eyes, and those eyes gave us the evolutionary advantage.
But the premise of my statement - we are products of natural selection - holds true.
Quoting Ecurb
No, we have to limit that claim to human traits - not how they were applied culturally
I'm pleased that my approach prompted you to elaborate, but your clarifications don't quite meet my needs. Please don't perceive me as a villain. I'm merely asking that you refine my opening sentence so that it can be delivered in defense of your life's work. From here, we'll move on.
My complaint that this involves the logical mistake of "affirming the consequent" remains. We are (doubtless) products of both natural selection and random chance. It is a logical error to assume that because a trait exists, it must have conferred selective advantages. Of course in the case of vision, the selective advantages are obvious (although some creationists argue for irreducible complexity). Love and hate are less obvious. For one thing, attitudes toward love and hate have differed from culture to culture. If these emotions confer selective advantages for humans in general, wouldn't we expect our attitudes toward them to be similar cross-culturally?
Romantic love and its relation to marriage differs dramatically in different cultures.
It is probably true that all female mammals must have some emotional response to their offspring that leads them to nurture and nurse them. This obviously selfless behavior is essential for the continuance of the gene pool. But other forms of love (and hate) are less essential.
Thank you for making me look at it again. Appreciated. Yes, the word "everything" is much too broad and imprecise. I have changed the opening sentence. thanks again.
Here's the new one:
Quoting Questioner
They don't exist alone, but are outcrops of the universal human mental capacity to process distressing signals. How they are processed will depend on many factors, including learned behavior.
Quoting Ecurb
Not necessarily. Love and hate begin as responses in the same neurological connections, but how they are ultimately conferred with meaning will depend on cultural factors, too.
So, I'm forced to argue with you. This isn't necessary. It's just an idea that groups facts into a convenient way to structure the incoming flow. It's a lens, but not the essence itself.
What's the main idea? It's that if I try to doubt the starting premise, the entire superstructure will crumble. So, I'm the one who doubted your starting premise. Defend it.
The problem with reductionist explanations for human emotions is that they don't explain anything. Of course love and hate have "neurological connections". Where does that get us? Does it help us understand love or hate? It sounds "scientific" -- but what predictive or explanatory value does it have?
It might be that some day we can understand the neurological bases and triggers for love and hate. Until then, however, we gain more understanding from poetry, novels, essays and songs.
I suppose it is the essence I'd like to get a better understanding of
Quoting Astorre
Well, I guess that would require a defense of the theory of natural selection. An important feature of the theory is that evolution proceeds in the direction that confers advantage to a population, and I accept that conclusion. At root are our biological characteristics. But as mentioned, every advance in evolution comes with both benefits and costs. We need a threat-detection system, no doubt. But is hate the cost of that threat-detection system?
There is a place for both science and art - after all, they both have the same goal, and that is the pursuit of truth, just using different methods. Each individual, according to their own interests and abilities, can decide which path better suits them, or if indeed they want to take both!
Well, hate to come across as unfriendly, but I think this is a mistake, and a mistake that characterises a lot of shoddy thinking in modern culture.
Evolutionary biology is many things, but a philosophical epistemology it is not. It is a biological theory about the evolution of species. As such, it explains many things about h.sapiens biological descent and attributes. Many basic elements of the anatomy such as the basic layout of limbs and ears, can be traced back to a proto-fish species that flourished hundreds of millions of years ago (‘Your Inner Fish’, Neil Shubin.)
But plenty of organisms survived for billions of years without love or hate, language or tool-making, and many of the other abilities that characterise h.sapiens. The trope that whatever characteristics we possess must have contributed to our survival, is an attempt to reduce those abilities to a kind of lowest common denominator with other species. Whereas it is clear in all kinds of ways that though we’re descended from common ancestor species, we diverge from them in ways much more significant than the biological.
Culturally, evolutionary explanations have occupied the void left by the abandonment of biblical creation myths (to which I do not at all subscribe) as a creation story. Many critics have noticed that ‘social Darwinism’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ (a term not coined by Darwin, but later endorsed by him) can be used to justify liberal political structures and economic theories, to say nothing of eugenics. (One of Darwin’s cousins, Francis Galton, was founder of and advocate for eugenics.)
It might interest you to know that a current professor of cognitive science, one Donald Hoffman, has published a book The Case Against Reality, which claims that h.sapiens don’t see reality as it is because perception is adapted to survival, not to truth. This is the ‘fitness beats truth’ theory. A Christian philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, argues along similar lines to a different conclusion - that if rational insight is the consequence of evolutionary adaptation, then we have no reason to presume it must be true.
I’m not an advocate for either argument, but the fact that they exist highlights the deep philosophical issues that this throws up. Evolutionary psychology is a legit scientific discipline with important things to teach but I don’t think it ought to be viewed as an adjudicator for philosophical questions.
We could take a complex dynamical systems approach instead of an evolutionary one. The result might look like this:
Both living and non-living phenomena can be placed on a single line depicting a history of the evolution of complexity. What is common to both organic and inorganic forms is a play between the temporary equilibration of organized structures and their disequilibrium on the way to the formation of a higher, more stable structural organization. At the level of living organisms, this play manifests itself as the oscillation between the ongoing stable functioning of a creature in its enviroment and the interruption of it goal-directed activity. As Piaget wrote:
“ Need is the expression of a totality momentarily incomplete and tending toward reconstituting itself.”
At the level of conscious awareness in humans, love and hate express the play of equilibrated and disequilibrated functioning. We love what enhances and reinforces the stability of our goal-directed activities and hate what threatens to interrupt them. Fundamentally then, while the awareness of love and hate emerge through the evolution of consciousness, the primordial origins of the play of love and hate predate biological evolution. We find ourselves thrown into relatively stablizing or destabilizing experience just as inorganic processes constantly cycle through organizing or disorganizing phases. It would make no sense to say that love and hate are arbitrary evolutionary adaptations, as though in some other part of the universe there are creatures who evolved differently, such that they are devoid of the experience of love and hate, or they love to hate and hate to love.
Quoting Questioner
Hatred is a desire to eliminate something no matter what value it may have to others.
All three. You can feel the fires of hatred yet not act on it. You can not feel hatred, but judge and act on it. Finally you can take a stance that nothing matters and anything that gets in your way should be destroyed.
Quoting Questioner
Hate can be rational or irrational. Hate is the motivation to destroy something without compassion, and sometimes that is needed in life. Ever seen a pedophile in the act of trying to rape a child? That hate is rational. You're trying to prevent something horrific from occurring.
Hate can also be completely irrational. A personal dislike of something can bloom into an irrational hatred that is merely a circular feeding of your own feelings into an ever greater intensity of emotion. That's not rational, that's an animal seeking the fix of empowerment and intensity that such strong emotions can bring.
Quoting Questioner
Because love is the desire to protect and preserve something no matter its value to others. If you have irrational love, you can do great evil to others in pursuit of preserving the thing you love. Same with irrational hatred.
Quoting Questioner
No, its just a human emotion that is used to motivate destruction when needed. I have seen unloved people become the most loving people in the world to others because they wouldn't dare deprive to others what was deprived to them.
Quoting Questioner
I view them as equal. Some people have a greater capacity for one or the other. Wielded correctly, they can be very powerful forces of good.
Quoting Questioner
Hate is what punishes criminals. Hate is what allows us to kill your fellow man when they are trying to kill you. Hate is what motivates us to eradicate terrible diseases. The world is unfortunately not a nice place at times, and hate is a very useful emotion to have when there is a need to destroy something in it that is very harmful.
The problem with both hate and love is irrationality. Hate and love in themselves are not necessarily forces of good. Rational application of them is. The world is full of both irrational hatred and love. Our goal as those interested in philosophy is not to try to eliminate or vilify these emotions, but find practical and reasonable ways to apply them for the benefit of mankind.
There’s a popular trope that the present day world is in decline and that everything used to be better. You see it in YouTube comments under old music or movie clips, and in conversations about governments and society more broadly. I’m not convinced. Every period has its problems, and ours is no different. What seems distinctive about our time is a heightened fear of others and a kind of moral panic that fuels tribalism and culture wars. Social media amplifies this to the point where it appears far more pervasive than it is.
The theory of evolution, as presented in your version, has both explanatory power and its limitations. The fact is that any normal scientific theory is like this. The situation is similar with non-scientific explanations.
For example, the biblical explanation of human origins very well describes why humans are the way they are—after all, they are created in the image and likeness of God. However, this approach is not very applicable when it comes to curing appendicitis.
Similarly, the approach you use is very good at describing humans as they were 100,000 years ago. However, since then, humans have changed biologically to a lesser extent. Anthropologists and philosophers with whom I have spoken generally agree that over these years, changes have occurred in humans associated with the acquisition of abstract thinking. According to their claims, the most significant breakthrough in this area occurred around 40,000 years ago, enabling a dramatic cultural evolution. Note that this is less a matter of biological evolution.
According to this line of explanation, what a person feels as a biological organism influences his behavior less than the way he perceives the world. And, for example, the very fact that you're writing this thread is precisely about this: you developed certain feelings due to a slight discrepancy between your experience and your prejudices. Can you think of another biological being that experiences feelings solely because its actual experience does not match its ideas?
Now, to your questions about love and hate. What if we assume that this is less a matter of physics and more an abstraction? Following this approach, the following picture emerges: a person doesn't get what they imagined they wanted, they wind themselves up, endlessly wandering in the depths of their mind, which leads to irritation, then anger, and ultimately hatred. Hatred, when viewed in this way, is less a biological model and more a construct of the mind. Love can be explained in much the same way. I'm not ruling out biomechanics right now. After all, sexual arousal or blinking an eye in response to a threat, for example, can and should be explained biologically. And yes, any feeling, no matter how much it is constructed by the mind, has a biological trace. But does it have a necessary evolutionary cause? That's where I doubt it.
You'll agree that this approach has its explanatory power. However, it doesn't claim to be strictly scientific and certainly won't be taught in schools.
So, to summarize what I've said. Your approach (biology, evolutionary theory) isn't universal for describing human behavior. Therefore, asking questions based on this foundation isn't entirely correct. This isn't a mistake. The phenomenon itself is quite widespread and has been described, for example, by Gadamer: prejudice is an opportunity for understanding.
Perhaps hatred grows from this same principle? Hatred serves as a defense mechanism to support strong attachments? If I love my family and something endangers them, then I need to have built a strong response system, otherwise I wouldn't have the instinctual motivation to protect or fight for them.
That's just taking an evolutionary approach though, which I don't think is necessarily the best way to frame the question. Similar to what Ecurb was saying, just because a quality of humanity exists, doesn't mean it was selected for, nor does it explain why we retain those qualities today.
Of course, understanding the biological underpinnings of hate is not enough. But it’s reasonable to allow biology to inform philosophy. From that understanding, philosophical questions (of both morality and politics) arise. Just because a behavior is biological in nature does not mean that that behavior is “good.” But still, I have the need to understand the source of hate at its root.
With that understanding, I am less likely to judge the hater, even if I judge the hate. First, in the micro view, I want to note that hate hurts the hater. If you are consumed by hate, you cannot be a happy person. If happiness is the goal of life, if peace of mind is what we all want, it follows that hate disturbs that. I'm curious as to why anyone would choose hate.
And even if you understand that hate is a normal and natural response, it does not follow that haters should be able to act on their hate with impunity. In the macro view, hate can be weaponized and used against entire groups of people. This leads to a discussion about hate speech, and whether all speech should be “free.” Should hate speech be criminalized?
Some think it shouldn’t – that words and actions fall into different categories. But hate speech can be a powerful incitement to violence. Should one be free to spread hate? My answer is no. Hateful speech is a form of assault, and interferes with the safety and security of the targeted group, as well as negatively affecting the public order. The less fights in a society, the more stable the society is.
But what of governments that spread harmful propaganda seemingly without consequence? Should power be the factor that determines, by removing, limits? Hate + power can be a deadly combination, especially when there is a large segment of the population receptive to the message of hate, and willing to act on it.
Quoting Wayfarer
I don't agree with the "lowest common denominator" point-of-view, and I am sorry if that seemed implied in what I was saying. Indeed, I am well aware of the great variation that exists among species - and variation does not dispute the theory of natural selection. Natural selection instead explains the variation we see.
Quoting Wayfarer
I imagine you are talking about our high level of consciousness, as well as cultural attributes, like science, art and religion. I would counter with - if not for the biological basis of our brains, none of that would have developed.
Quoting Wayfarer
I think this statement may confuse cause-and-effect. It's not that the loss of the supernatural caused the rise of science, but that the increased knowledge provided by science tended to put the supernatural aside.
Quoting Wayfarer
And that would be based on a misunderstanding and a misuse of the theory. "Survival of the fittest" does not refer to the most powerful, or strongest, or greatest, but rather refers to reproductive success due to being the best "fit" in a particular environment - best able to get what they need and avoid danger, and so the chances of their offspring surviving to reproductive age increases.
Quoting Wayfarer
This is very interesting. Thanks for sharing it. I can't agree, though. I think the prevalence of humans engaged in art and science dispel this idea. I think humans are very interested in truth. We are very curious creatures, after all. Curiosity rewards our dopamine pathways.
But - this does make me think of confirmation bias, and that might fit your theory. But this brings into play the whole "belonging to the group" motivation. So, maybe, our evolutionary drive to belong to the group trumps our need to know the truth. There's that old adage about forgoing difficult truths for comforting lies. Might this in part explain adhering to a religion?
Quoting Wayfarer
No, not an adjudicator, and I don't think that can even happen. Science asks the "how?" and philosophy asks the "why?" that springs from that. I don't think philosophy should ignore science, but allow it to inform it.
Oh wow, this is fascinating. Thanks so much. And our prime directive as living organisms is to maintain homeostasis - in all of our systems. Balance is nature's rule. When we meet destabilizing factors, hate is among our repertoire of coping mechanisms. When we meet stabilizing factors, we are attracted to them. For some people, hate gets them to the middle, for others, love gets them to the middle.
This idea of balance pervades all aspects of our life. I am reminded of Plato's Golden Mean - that virtue exists in the middle ground between any two extremes.
But yet everyone's experiences with hate and love are different. I suppose this means that we each develop our own personal spectrum that includes love and hate, and our point of survival would thus be different for different people.
I like this definition very much. I, too, think that hate involves a desire to get rid of the thing you hate.
Quoting Philosophim
This brings up the question: Is hate ever justified?
Sometimes I just think the human species is made up of a great number of people all trying to do the best they can. Everyone is just trying to do the best they can, and no-one is ever the bad guy in their own story. This doesn't mean we should excuse deviant or hateful behavior, but so many things can go wrong with brain development, and sometimes that brain development produces deviant or hateful behavior. Of course, the safety and security of the society must come first, but that doesn't mean we need to hate the person who is a victim of their own brain development.
Quoting Philosophim
Interesting observation. Why are some people able to break the cycle, and others aren't?
Quoting Philosophim
But wouldn't a justice system better operate with objectivity?
Quoting Philosophim
Are you talking about personal self-defense, or war?
I do wonder whether hate needs to be involved in either one.
Quoting Philosophim
But if subjectivity trumps objectivity, sometimes innocents end up getting hurt.
Quoting Philosophim
No, I would not vilify the hater. But I also can't see any practical application of hate.
This is true. Some may say that Trump is a demagogue, but that doesn't make him atypical. There have been lots of demagogues throughout history, and Trump would be a typical one. What may be atypical is that a demagogue has taken the US presidency.
And we are living in somewhat of an experimental time - with the internet and social media - which provides a far-reaching propaganda tool that has never been available before.
But both love and hate are destabilizing -- the enemies of homeostasis. Ira Gershwin's lyric:
I was doing alright
Nothing but rainbows in my sight
I was doing alright
Til you came by.
So love is a destabilizing factor -- but it doesn't lead to hate (unless we are weirdos, whose unrequited love leads us to hate the object). WE long to become unbalanced -- we seek adventure -- and romantic love is an adventure.
Only in a bad romance :)
Quoting Ecurb
I was fortunate to find true love in my marriage. It was the most stabilizing thing I have ever known.
Quoting Ecurb
This is a really interesting observation. But I wonder if it is a drive to be unbalanced or to feel.
I am reminded of something Burke said in A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful - that above all humans seek passion, and there is no greater passion than that found in the sublime -
The passion caused by the great and sublime in nature, when those causes operate most powerfully, is astonishment: and astonishment is that state of the soul in which all its motions are suspended, with some degree of horror. In this case the mind is so entirely filled with its object, that it cannot entertain any other, nor by consequence reason on that object which employs it. Hence arises the great power of the sublime, that, far from being produced by them, it anticipates our reasonings, and hurries us on by an irresistible force. Astonishment, as I have said, is the effect of the sublime in its highest degree; the inferior effects are admiration, reverence, and respect. (Part II, Section I)
So, what we have is a combination of astonishment and horror. With love, I wonder if the "horror" consists in allowing yourself to be vulnerable.
Romantic novels and movies END at marriage, because stability and adventure rarely coexist. A "romance" can refer to either a fictional adventure story, or to a love affair. Marriage -- in a sense -- ends "romance". So romantic love is destabilizing -- it becomes stable when the "romance" (i.e. adventure) ends.
I'm not sure this conclusion follows from what you wrote just before it. Yes, the time period around 40,000 - 35,000 years ago is referred to as "the great leap forward" - advances in technology, art, music - but there is evidence that our brains had changed structurally and genetically by around that time, too.
By around 40,000 years ago, our brains had reached their current shape, which involved a reorganization of brain regions, including the parietal lobes and cerebellum, contributing to increased capacities in planning, language and visuospatial integration. It was also around that time that modern humans got the gene microcephalin (MCPH1) by interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans. MCPH1 may influence brain-related traits, causing better performance. Also, a genetic mutation around that time in the NOVA1 gene produced a variant that affects how neurons connect, modifying intelligence and cortical area, especially in language-related regions.
Quoting Astorre
But perception is a biological function? As is the interpretation of what is perceived.
Quoting Astorre
Interesting question. I think memory needs to enter the equation here. Yes, our brains have analytical power, but the analysis is based on what we have learned before. Memory is certainly a biological function. But the precise pathway from memory to newly created thoughts is more of a mystery.
Quoting Astorre
Constructed from what?
Quoting Astorre
Not directly, but implicitly
Quoting Astorre
Behavior can be learned - and it can be unlearned, too. But this necessarily involves changing neurological connections.
That wasn't my personal experience. For nearly 40 years of marriage, every day was an adventure. Every day had romance, right up until my husband died in 2021.
We dealt with serious illness, so maybe our expressions of love were counters to that.
I get it. But adventure and homeostasis (stability) are at odds. Without uncertainty, there is no adventure.
I like this ideal as well. I believe that most people fall under this category. However the reality is that there are some evil and selfish people out there who think their personal emotions, access to resources, and gratification justify using other people for their own ends. Even in Western societies there are child labor camps, sex trafficking, neighbors who will laugh at your misery, reprobates, and people who would stab you in the back, take the dime you were carrying in your pocket, and whistle happily after kicking your corpse.
I genuinely despise and hate these people. If we want a society in which we only have those who are trying the best we can, we have to eliminate those who don't care or want to. Of course we do this reasonably with rules, courts, and appropriate punishments and restraints. But if we didn't have the emotion that, "This should not exist" (hate) then we would only be appealing to the better nature of a thief who chuckled at our helplessness and slit our throat for fun. There are some things we absolutely need to hate in life. We should just make sure that our hate is reasonable, justified, and meted out fairly.
Quoting Questioner
Sometimes it is the brain. Sometimes its a choice. Take a person who has no guilt, remorse, or empathy for hurting a human being. Does that mean they have to choose to shoot, rob, or harm innocent people? Not at all. That person makes an excellent soldier, enforcer, or even potentially someone who has to manage people on an abstract level logistically. A person with immense guilt, remorse, or empathy can have an extremely difficult time enforcing boundaries or doing what needs to be done for the health of an abstract group. We are not merely animals that react and obey our emotions like dogs. We are also thinking creatures that can choose our path in life despite our emotions.
My father was an alcoholic for years. Drank, smoked, and did harder drugs every so often. He could have just blamed his brain. Instead he realized following his desires was melting his family. He chose to do something about it and fought to overcome his baser nature. He's been sober of all drugs for decades now, a changed and happier man.
Empathy is nice, but it should not be divested of respect and responsibility. My mother could empathize with my father's addiction, but she respected him and told him to take responsibility, get help, and get over it. Coddling or saying, "He can't help it," would have my father in a grave years ago with my life likely very different and much worse off from today.
Quoting Questioner
I don't know. I could punt and say 'genetics', but 'what genetics' exactly? Humanity has the capacity to learn and defy their own emotional genetics with discipline. It could be people who have more empathy than others, or those who think if they give empathy they will get back what was never given to them. I think teaching empathy and rational thinking allow many people to break from from their emotional hard wiring into something greater.
Quoting Questioner
Absolutely. Hate is the motivator, rationality is how it should be actioned upon. Laws should be made on objective measures where possible. Subjective laws are subject to enforcement based on the enforcer and judge's personal whims and interpretations. Objective and concrete facts allow measured judgement, actions, and outcomes.
Quoting Questioner
Can you go up to a random person, have no emotion in your heart, and shoot them in the head? Likely not. If you study war propaganda one of the most important things is to dehumanize the enemy or make them, 'the other'. You can't talk with them, you only have to kill them. You have to foster hate or blind obedience in your troop's hearts, or else they won't be able to kill who needs to be killed when the living enemy is in front of them.
Quoting Questioner
Agreed. A person's subjective hate should be channeled into objectively rational outcomes, not catered to because they are personally hurt, wronged, or denied something they wanted. The hate of a parent towards their child's murderer does not mean the proper thing is to let them torture and then kill the murderer in revenge once apprehended. The parents might want it with all might, but its not the rational thing to do in a civilized society.
Again good topic and points.
I'm just not sure that hate is any kind of solution to the problem. For example, I do believe that in many cases, violent criminals can be rehabilitated. Norway's prison system is a good model of a system that focuses on the humanity of the prisoners, and rehabilitation, rather than emotion-driven revenge.
Your can read more about how prisons in Norway are run at this link.
The important statistic is this: In Norway, the recidivism rate is around 25%. In the USA, it's closer to 70%. So, a prison system that focuses on rehabilitation benefits both the offender and society.
Quoting Philosophim
I know two brothers. They had an alcoholic father who beat them. Both brothers fell into drinking in their twenties. One brother, around the age of 30, said to himself, "This is becoming a problem. I have to do something about it." and he never had another drink in his life. The other brother is now near 70 and he never quit drinking, and continued to blame everyone else for his problems. He has no relationship with his children or grandchildren. Can it be concluded that the brother who quit drinking had some mental capacity that the other brother lacked?
Quoting Philosophim
I agree. Understanding the behavior of others does not mean lowering expectations for respect and responsibility.
Quoting Philosophim
Makes me question whether war is part of human nature or an aberration of it.
Quoting Philosophim
There are stories of parents of a murdered child forgiving their child's murderer, and by all accounts it is healing for all involved. Here is one such story:
A mother forgives her son's killer and the two forge a friendship
I agree that rehabilitation is normally the best solution. I think we're fundamentally viewing hate as a different thing. Hate is an emotional motivation, and it can either be used rationally or irrationally. Hate can drive someone to stop a criminal while rationally placing them in rehabilitation. Hate does not mean, "kill", nor does love mean "hug". Emotions are motivators, our actions are what we do about those motivators.
Quoting Questioner
Unknown. They both had different experiences in life too. Perhaps the younger brother saw the path of the older brother, something the older brother did not have. Nature vs nurture will forever be debated. I am inclined to believe it is a mixture of both with variation in which one matters more depending on context.
Quoting Questioner
If it helps, most living things are violent towards one another in regards to resources, territory, and mates/offspring. Chimpanzees who are our closest genetic cousins go to war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
"The Gombe Chimpanzee War, also known as the Four-Year War,[3][4] was a violent conflict between two communities of chimpanzees in Gombe Stream National Park in the Kigoma region of Tanzania between 1974 and 1978. The two groups were once unified in the Kasakela community. By 1974, researcher Jane Goodall noticed the community splintering.[5] Over a span of eight months, a large party of chimpanzees separated themselves into the southern area of Kasakela and were renamed the Kahama community....During the four-year conflict, all males of the Kahama community were killed, effectively disbanding the community. The victorious Kasakela then expanded into further territory but were later repelled by two other communities of chimpanzees."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
Quoting Questioner
Absolutely. And there are stories of parents finding their murderers and killing them in cold blood. And stories of murderers who laughed in the face of the families when caught. The point is to respond rationally through one's emotions, not irrationally. We have found it best if we arrest people, give them a trial, and let society as a whole decide the appropriate punishment for transgressions. The individuals who were wronged get a say, but they do not get to decide despite their emotions. Society does through objective law and actions that were originally thought through divested of personal passions.
Me too. As a Canadian, I've made many, may trips to the USA. I love the country and its people, and it pains me to see the dysfunction they are going through now.
Trumps hate of Mexicans constructed a massive wall. My love of sunlight made me chop down 2 massive almond trees.
I really need to be more precise. I was thinking about forces used against people, not in terms of walls and trees.
Walls are used as a weapon of force against people, and trees can be used to build them.
It is virtuous to hate evil and evil to love evil.
Sympathy for the devil isn't a positive trait.
Walls and trees neither hate nor love.
Of course, it is wise to bear in mind, historically speaking, religious people tend to get their information about the world around them trickled down from those who tend not to have their best interest in mind.
It is our ego that assumes we as a believer to be a non-biased party capable of differentiating between the two, despite the fact our entire understanding of the world and others is a result of those we cannot (or at least tend not to) question.
Unfortunately, historically speaking, for many self-professed devout and pious religious persons, the devil is anyone I (or someone who manages to charm, bribe, or otherwise deceive their way to religious "authority") say. Which means the devil is real. But he's not some far off evil figure plotting misdeeds in darkness. No, more often than not, he's the person in the mirror. The reflection in the lake. Diligently awaiting orders, orders he will follow to the death without hesitation or question.
What if a person does not believe in "evil" and "the devil" as entities unto themselves?
It is only the atheist who knows of altruism, and with purity of heart, passes his wisdom, generation to generation.
Quoting Outlander
And yet you transcended this limitation and know the truth. How did you do this?
Quoting Outlander
To be an atheist would be so enlightening, but alas, not all received that indoctrination.Quoting Outlander
Of course. Could there be an alternative to a corporeal demon to make this make sense?Quoting Outlander
Yes because I too murder and rape even when I don't and so I have no moral standing
How about this: if you don't stand against the immoral, you are immoral. That you pretend to lack the ability to know rape and murder is immoral isn't interesting, nor are your musings about religion.
To respond to the details of a metaphor shows a failure at abstraction. Sympathy for the devil asserts nothing about an actual devil, yet you spent the entirety of you response dwelling on the literal detail as if it literally mattered.
If you're questioning whether there is an identifiable referent for "evil" or "the devil" (as the quotes indicate a differentiation between the word and the thing), I can't see how that matters here. Are you suggesting you have no idea what good and bad are?
I sincerely hope this is vindictive mockery.
Quoting Hanover
I never said I knew the truth, other than I felt I recognized times when those like me were fed and led to believe lies. Though perhaps, as I've said before, one cannot in an absolute sense determine something to be a lie without at least some pre-manifestation of truth, at the very least. It does come down to a sense of "trusting oneself" (or perhaps as it was said to 'know thyself') but still circles back to my original concern. We can be raised to believe anything. And even in spite of being raised to believe truth, we can be convinced of the opposite with enough time and effort.
Quoting Hanover
All I know is that any person can be convinced of anything by someone they respect (either by cordial will, in the way I respect your intellect, or by fear, in the way one "respects" a mafia boss who demands payment to ensure one's business operates peacefully. The clear difference is, one I would consider offering my own life to protect, the other I would consider offering the same to destroy. The difference is literal night and day.). The universal fallacy of modern religion is that we assume those who happen to reside in positions that seem to demand or at least encourage respect and reverence, we have no true proof, evidence, or knowledge that they are rightfully warranted to be there, and simply didn't commit the all too human crime of harm, theft, or deceit to achieve what they covet.
Quoting Hanover
You may not. But many like you have and do, and will in the future.
Quoting Hanover
All I'm saying is, mankind is not infallible. We are not "born perfect." We can't blame every single crime we see nonstop everyday and all day on semi or formerly divine beings who logically speaking have no real reason or purpose to intercede or otherwise interfere in the affairs and toils of man. It just doesn't make sense, all things considered.
Religion means one thing for you, and a complete different thing for another. Just as you believe yours is correct and others are incorrect, this same sentiment is shared across the board. This sentiment is not unique in any way.
Quoting Hanover
I suppose it was just over my head then. Yes, that is the only logical option remaining. You have much to learn. May you be given ample time to.
Perhaps. My post had nothing to do with religion, yet you're telling me the dangers of blind allegiance.
I simply said one should stand against the immoral. If you suggest you don't know what is immoral or not, I doubt it, but even if you truly had no such notion, what I say analytically stands. If X is immoral (regardless of what you know), you ought stand against it. Your duty isn't just to do good, but to be against evil.
Right, but the average person is.. an average person. They don't know anything beyond what they're told.
Is that guy destroying the cobblestone road you've walked to school everyday a worker of the State removing a danger to rebuild something greater (doing good) or is he just a vandal or malevolent force ruining or changing something for the worse, as far as you and yours are concerned (doing evil). The entire "morality" as far as what any average person is concerned is going to be contingent on what they're told or otherwise end up believing.
If you're walking down the street and a man pulls a gun on another man and forces him into physical restraint, how do you judge the situation? Is it a police officer who's arresting a criminal? Or is it a man dressed up like authority accosting an innocent person? We have social assumptions that allow us the illusion of peace and justice. And often, these assumptions are refined enough to more or less reflect and in a sense truly offer a reliable glimpse and sturdy enough foundation for those concepts. But at the end of the day, man is fallible and can do great evil all while thinking he doth the opposite. Surely you acknowledge this simple truth.
This may or may not be true. Tomorrow, a new, more convincing study will be conducted that will explain it all differently, and everyone, including you, will be forced to admit it.
What am I telling you in all your answers? I'm telling you that biology, physics, and every other science have some universality, but also limitations.
For example, I really like the explanation some psychologists give for why men prefer women with large breasts. Supposedly, evolutionarily speaking, larger breasts increase the likelihood of successful breastfeeding. Why do I like this explanation? It beautifully combines all the dominant discourses of today, including biology, psychology, and so on.
However, there is also an esoteric explanation – supposedly breasts are "antennas of love" that radiate energy into space, which attracts men.
As a biologist, you can call one or another explanation preferable, or perhaps neither. However, what about the connection to reality? I don't know. And no one knows.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Biology has great explanatory power, but it can't describe all of life. My answers are essentially a critique of reductionism. In particular, describing love or hate is not biology's job.
I'm suggesting "evil" can only be used as an adjective, not a noun. We can talk about "evil behavior" but can't talk about a spirit or power that represents evil. Evil is not an entity, but a descriptor.
What is "blue"? What is "blueness"? What about someone who believes their idea of "blue" is the ultimate experience as far as human experience. How do you address one person's diehard understanding of a word that may not only differentiate from your own, but indisputably differs from that of many others?
If I'm told a flipping a switch connected to an electrical node shocks a rather-large psychiatric inmate who if not shocked might overpower an innocent orderly, thus if this switch is not flipped might result in serious injury to the innocent man, not flipping it would be considered socially-unacceptable. Or is this your definition of evil? Not that which punishes, but that which one can find one's self punished for.
What if I knew for a fact this patient is an innocent man framed by whatever powers that may be, and though I may harm an innocent person who simply knew no better, the safety of the objectively innocent outweighs the suffering of 1,000 quasi-innocent men who did have a choice to make the right decision long ago.
Well, that would certainly upend what we understand of the human brain's evolution.
Quoting Astorre
Of course, but science provides the best explanations for things based on the available evidence.
Quoting Astorre
But neither should philosophy reject science. Philosophy without empirical restraint adds up to no more than fairy tales. I'm not saying science should be worshipped, but it is a source of knowledge that can be used to complement philosophical points-or-view. There are many philosophical questions that cannot be answered by science, especially the type of questions that begin, "Should we...?" A knowledge of evidence-backed science may help to inform answers to those types of questions.
No, science cannot explain all of life. A poem about love or hate, for example, may much better capture the essence of how those emotions really feel.
What difference does it make? Will I treat evil differently if it has an independent physical referent or if it appears as a property of a physical entity?
I would say that people have differences of opinions and experiences.
Quoting Outlander
I would call behavior evil if it is intentionally and seriously harms others, without a speck of remorse.
Ambiguous situations appear in all contexts, from the moral to whether I'm buying the correct toothpaste, yet I navigate and effectively participate in the world. What is demanded upon me in the moral context isn't omniscience.
Unless your point is that epistemic uncertainty demands permanent inaction, I don't see the logic in what you're pointing out. It remains the case that one is equally bound to do good as he is to defend against the bad regardless of whether mistakes will be made.
Well, yes it will make a difference. Calling people evil, rather than their behavior, condemns the whole person - whereas "evil behavior" may be separated from who the person is. "Separating the behavior from the person" - is actually a mainstay of both parenting and psychology. It allows you to engage from a more compassionate place. Evil behavior may be rehabilitated, an evil person not so much.
This doesn't follow. You're distinguishing accidental properties from essences, ultimately both arbitrary categories vague at the edges, neither distinct ontologically. A red shirt can be bleached white (changing its attribute) as much as it can be made a pair of pants (changing its essence).
This is just syntax masquerading as semantics being used to justify a particular ideology that all persons are morally salvagable. It seems you want to say evil is correctable. We can say that regardless of how English grammar treats the word "evil."
Absolutely. So what, pray tell, distinguishes your bluster of words or storm of thoughts from that of another's? Why should we listen to you and not someone who speaks the opposite simply because you appeal to words and concepts that most would consider defensible despite not knowing any true depth as far as what posturing or beliefs truly entail, not only for those immediately affected but those might be negatively impacted whose fate doesn't seem to concern you?
Quoting Questioner
But this is not accurate since a mentally ill person or someone under the influence of drugs of alcohol can do so without realizing the act they're performing, let alone such complicated after-thoughts such as remorse. This, while technically "unintentional" describes a frame of mind where such dynamics simply aren't part of the equation. It still crosses into the territory where a man who is otherwise legally sane (albeit barely) can perform intentional actions without truly understanding the long-term consequences of such.
If I break into a man's house and stay there for some time, my idea of what is right and wrong shifts based on whatever it was I've happened to have performed. So if a house owner or his army attempts to evict you, this is what we call "a battle of good and evil." You have your argument (I used strength to obtain what I have) and the person has theirs (I didn't ask for conflict simply a useless vagabond with nothing left to lose threatened my life so I fled for the moment).
You might be surprised how the things we take for granted might be used significance more efficiently than ourselves. Does this mean it belongs to them? Even if without their commandeering humanity might be worse off? It's a good question. A fair question. Yet one that is seldom answered by polite words and pleasantries.
And this is absolutely correct. And further ushers in my larger point. Simply put, there's 8 billion people with 8 billion ideas of what is the best path moving forward, and yes, what is "right" as opposed to what is "wrong." So how do we go about elevating true virtue or value from billions of equally valid opinions, beliefs, and samples? Sure, we attempt to at first freeze or otherwise hold off on impulse by establishing basic laws, right and wrong. As you say, if we find someone who says "murder and rape is not wrong but right" we can, ideally, isolate and neutralize those who will live and die believing this falsehood. Not just for, obviously our own sake, but for their own and those unfortunately under their temporary transient power or control. But then what? Where do we go from there? Unless we believe they were just born crazy or evil or whatever, and not warped or turned into their sad state by an even sadder set of circumstances, that in all fairness, could one day befall ourselves, turning us into said person or even worse, what are we really doing but putting more band-aids on a wound that needs something else altogether?
Nietzsche: "I have destroyed the distinction between good and evil, but not that between good and bad."
Behavior can be good or bad -- but it is not "evil". This is the basic Christian position, but makes sense even for us non-Christians. Evil is the quality of a person, not an action. Let's posit two pedophiles, both locked in solitary confinement. One has repented, and if he were released would never commit another crime. The other is unrepentant, and if he were released would return to his evil ways, Can we really say both are equally "good" or "evil"? Neither is behaving in an evil manner (they can't -- they're locked up).
Behavior is never "evil" without intent. The person who reasonably believes he was defending himself is not guilty of violence -- even when he was not in danger. It's the intent, not the reality, that makes an action both evil and legally culpable. Behaviors can be (per Nietzsche) good or bad -- people can be good or evil (or, like most of us, a bit of both).
I'm distinguishing who the person is from what they do. Not arbitrary at all. It is the difference between the self and the reactions to stimuli effected by that self. I believe that the self cannot contain some strain of what we would call evil - which suggests a dark force that inhabits the self - but rather that evil acts result from dysfunctional manifestations of the survival instinct.
Quoting Hanover
This is a poor analogy, since you are describing what is done to the shirt, rather than what the shirt does.
Also, we are much more than a piece of cloth.
Quoting Hanover
Actually, my observation came before the belief.
This presents as needlessly confrontational.
You are free to criticize the content of my posts, but not me.
Quoting Outlander
This is a good argument for separating the behavior from the person.
Quoting Outlander
I think it is important not to conflate "right and wrong" with "good and evil" - At least not in the way that we take "good and evil" to be some supernatural force acting on humans
You're suggesting the statement "Bob is evil" asserted anything ontological in the first place. Whether "evil" has a referent (i.e. some tangible dark force you can put in a jar) unaffects its meaning if you use the term the same regardless. To the extent you're suggesting I've used evil as a thing, that's a strawman.
Classification upon Aristotlian attribute versus essence is arbitrary because determining which is which is arbitrary. I can just as much say a person's essence is rooted in their moral demeanor as in their height.
Quoting Questioner
This is a missed abstraction, focusing on the insignificant details. If you want to say the essence of the shirt is to be worn on the torso, its essence changes when made into pants. That is, your every objection can be met by modifying the details of the analogy if you focus on the abstract principle being shown. Specifically, regardless of attribute (which can be physical, functional or whatever), it can be modified. That means a person can be evil and can be changed regardless of whether you arbitrarily describe it as essential or accidental property.
And that's my point. It doesn't matter how you describe it.
Quoting Questioner
Explain why you said this. Did someone think people were cloth? Does the analogy only hold to cloth things?
If you're just offering a social way of thinking about things, as in it's best to think of people as fully malleable in terms of moral behavior so that we always work to see that they do better (as opposed up declaring them broken and evil), I can see that as a strategy. If that's the goal, just say it, as opposed to dredging up ancient problematic philosophical debates to present your position.
I think what he was doing was rejecting the idea of a supernatural source of evil. That evil acts don't happen because of some demonic influence. Rather, actions should be judged in the circumstances in which they happen - and yes, they can be "bad."
When I say an action is "evil" - I mean it only in the common, not supernatural, usage of the word.
Explain this sentence. "True virtue" as used here describes an objective morality, but "billions of equally valid opinions" describes complete subjectivity.
If murder is truly wrong, then the billions of opinions otherwise would not be valid.
I didn't mention you at all. I was only trying to explain my position.
Quoting Hanover
When the essence is self, and the attribute is behavior, the distinction is not arbitrary. The self includes all of the traits who make you who you are. Your behavior is the outward, external expression - observable actions, based on the choices you make.
Quoting Hanover
Oh my, more accusations. The only thing I am trying to do is contribute to the conversation, based on my thoughts. You are free to participate, or not.
Sure it is. Why can't the essence be behavior, as in only humans do X? And what is the self but the behavior, considering you went to great lengths to point out "evil" had no physical constitution? Does the self have independent constitution or is it just a placeholder for attributes.
Quoting Questioner
There was no accusation. I pointed out your position had pragmatic application without the need for confused philosophical scaffolding.
Actions are never evil. They can be bad. Suppose an innocent person is convicted of a crime and sent to prison. This is clearly a "bad" thing. It is evil only if the judge had wicked motives for convicting the person incorrectly. If the conviction was merely an honest mistake, the action is bad but there was no evil involved.
Hate is the reaction of our narratively constructed world view having an immune system, rejection towards that which threaten it. Some of it is logical, much of it isn't.
You hate a person who killed someone you love because the act of doing so needs to be stopped in order to preserve the being of your group. Naturally, it becomes a way to defend against what could destroy you and your loved ones.
But the irrational hate we see is that reaction system going haywire because of the constructed narratives we live by. Someone hates the other football team, because it threatens the success of their own group, based on the fictional narrative constructed about this sport and this tournament.
The same fictional narratives exists everywhere; we construct narratives that define our entire sense of being and world view.
Why we see an increase of hate in the world is because social media's research found out that conflict gains more attention and interactions, so the algorithms pits two opposing views together to produce that drama, increasing hate. Two fictional narratives which collides into hateful behavior.
While shutting off these algorithms would generate a good neutralization of much of today's hate, the solution to hate in general is to find out which narratives are fictional and which are based in actual facts. The narrative based on facts should be strived towards as the way of life, being and world view to dominate and we should abolish narratives based on nothing else by constructions through arbitrary experiences.
It is mostly through these arbitrary narratives clashing with truth that we get irrational hate. But I see no problem with those fighting for narratives which are based on facts to hate those who operate on arbitrary ones or outright lies for the purpose of power. That form of hate is the "immune system" fighting against a destructive social construct.
Because we were talking about individuals, not humanity. My behaviors do not make me “me.” I exist in the absence of my behaviors. When I am doing nothing, I am still me. We can talk of a cause-and-effect relationship – with my self/identity as the narrative in my head, and my behavior as the performance resulting from that script.
But you do raise an interesting point – the “essence of humanity” – which brings to mind the idea of a “shared self” – like in the Hindu view of the Atman, or the claim made by Schopenhauer, that we are manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon – even though we are all living different experiences.
We’d have to look for something we all share. I understand consciousness to be an emergent property of neurological processes. The structure is the brain, and the function of that structure is to produce the mind/consciousness. But what factors distinguish my consciousness from everyone else’s? How are they all the same? Something interesting to think about.
Quoting Hanover
Behavior is an effect of the decision-making of the self. To call behavior the self, is to equate cause and effect.
Behavior is not driven by a physical constitution called evil – but by a combination of the instincts and memories guiding it.
I’m not sure about the word “placeholder” as it suggests a static condition, whereas self/consciousness is dynamic.
yes, this is a better use of the terminology. I was using the word evil as a substitute for bad, but without any supernatural connotations to it, just as it might be commonly used.
Quoting Ecurb
But we all do have some notion of what we mean, when we say, that was an evil thing to do. If it is morally reprehensible, we might say it is "evil behavior." No cosmic force involved, though.
I cannot judge, of course, except by examining actions. But I agree with the Christain view. Evil is a state of immorality which may or may not lead to wicked acts. Evil is a personal quality; a defect. When we say behaviors are "evil" we mean they result from this quality. "Bad" simply means harmful.
Love and hate are different states of emotional arousal, each with different consequences. Neither are rational. Both have social consequences, but of the two, hateful arousal tends to have much stronger consequences, because hate can be harnessed to focus on individuals or groups with whom we have no personal connection.
As one wag said, love doesn't make the world go round, but it keeps it populated. That's eros. The Greeks have a taxonomy of love (eros, philia, agape, etc.), but not one for hate, as far as I know.
We like to be among our own kind (whatever that might be); it isn't so much "love" of our own kind as comfort. We tend to delineate "our own kind" by exclusion of others. It isn't that we hate everyone who isn't "our kind", it's that we don't find much comfort among outsiders. Discomfort with outsiders can slide into hate, or be pushed into that unfriendly state, by excessive social friction or deliberate manipulation.
I don't have confidence that love can be marshaled on behalf of the outsider, especially groups of outsiders. We are, according to religious preaching, supposed to welcome the stranger in our midst. That such action requires a command suggests that it doesn't just happen spontaneously.
Perhaps this is a pessimistic assessment. Humans have been manifesting love and hate for a long timed I don't expect any change. We are what we are.
Good analogy, and I think it is fear that cranks up the psychological “immune system” – fear of the stranger, fear of the unknown, fear of loss – sometimes to the point of an "autoimmune disease” harming the psyche – whether in an individual or in an entire group of people.
Autocrats know this and fearmonger, often with lies - propaganda
Quoting Christoffer
The instinct to belong to the group, and protect the group, cannot be underestimated as a motivator of human behavior. Goes way back. But in this day and age, we hope we are more enlightened and able to go beyond the “He hates me, so I hate him” reaction. For example, posted earlier in this thread was the story of a mother who forgave the person who murdered her son, and it led to healing for all involved. The more we are able to rise above our base instincts, the more just the outcome will be.
Quoting Christoffer
Yes, those “constructed narratives” are often fictional. This observation in fact played a part in my posting this thread. I am highly disturbed by the way hate is winning in the USA. It’s caused me to question my previously held (naïve?) belief that love always wins out. With my own eyes, I see every malignant behavior of the autocrat excused, so long as he “gets” the people his supporters hate – like the “left” and immigrants. In many instances, it seems like cruelty is the point. The power of hate has somewhat shocked me.
Quoting Christoffer
But in many people, fear of the stranger/unknown has taken control of their consciousness. Hate rules them and it would take massive redirection of their neural connections for them to admit they have been lied to. Hate can completely occupy a brain.
I think the hope lies in the future, but this will entirely depend on what kind of leadership the USA has in the next decade.
Quoting Christoffer
But what if there is a market for comforting and/or hateful lies?
And - who should abolish the offending narratives?
Quoting Christoffer
Exactly.
Quoting Christoffer
I can’t agree with this. I don’t think hate is ever a factor in the solution to a problem.
I think the better idea is to take the infectious agent away.
How is a state of being made evil? What is the mechanism?
Quoting Ecurb
But if you say someone is inherently evil, you are judging them.
Quoting Ecurb
How does the evil enter a person born as a newborn baby?
I always like to say the only perfect thing in this existence is a newborn baby :)
How about if we think of them in terms of the action/reaction they might cause?
Quoting BC
mentioned earlier in the thread - hate and love reactions are produced in the same regions of the brain, but only the hate circuit is connected to the the cerebral cortex – associated with judgement and reasoning – which become de-activated during love, whereas only a small area is deactivated in hate. So, hate retains rationality.
Quoting BC
What would it take to harness love in the same way? Is it even possible?
Quoting BC
Agreed.
Quoting BC
Good observation.
I think political leadership has a role to play in how a society reacts to the strangers.
Quoting BC
No, I thought it realistic more than pessimistic.
Why can't we be more like Finland, ranked the happiest country in the world in 2025?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
I'm not judging them. I'm saying that a perfect judge could judge them. I'm also saying that evil is a human quality. We all must fear and avoid it. It's not inherent to the few, but to all of us. We don't banish the evil in our own hearts only by avoiding bad acts, but by seeing ourselves as loving, decent and honorable; by yearning for the good instead of the evil.
Also, what's wrong with judging people? I do it all the time. Of course I can judge only by their words and actions -- I can't see their motives or secret desires. Still, the idea that we shouldn't "judge" seems silly. How are we to decide whom to befriend? Whom to avoid? Whom to love?
Of course we shouldn't condemn people without evidence, but we can contemn them based on less certain evidence than we would need for condemnation.
Where do we find this perfect judge in this existence, here and now?
Quoting Ecurb
I am reminded of a quote from Marie Curie:
"Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less."
Quoting Ecurb
This gets to the heart of why people do bad things. It always leads me to wonder what went wrong in their lives. What kind of childhood did they have? How were they shown love?
Quoting Ecurb
There are always reasons for people doing what they do. I want to make it plain that I am in no way condoning or excusing hateful behavior. I just think the answer lies in something more complicated than there is evil inside of them. Maybe we can help them, but that really requires that we don't judge them.
Quoting Ecurb
I meant judge as evil.
Knowledge doesn't banish fear; it increases it. When we know the possibilities of the future we reasonably fear them. When Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, she would "surely die". Doesn't this refer to knowledge of our own mortality? Irrational fear is cowardice. Fearing real danger is honesty which may protect us.
Evil doesn't "lie inside (people)". It is nourished and festers. But "hateful behavior" (which you claim to find inexcusable) is often its result. Of course all human behaviors are "complicated". I am certainly not claiming there is one explanation for "hateful behavior". Instead, I'm suggesting we look at the "hate" as closely as we look at the "behavior".
Not in all cases. Sometimes we are afraid of things we don't need to be afraid of. For example - fear of the stranger often subsides once we get to know the stranger
Quoting Ecurb
Unless it is replaced by love?
Well, that's the Christian answer. We have moved away from religious belief, but we needn't throw out the baby with the bath water.
I would define hate as directed, persistent anger, contempt, and Ill will. I'm with you, traits, especially emotions, must serve a purpose.
I hate Trump, aka Ill Douchey, aka Fail Shitler. I despise the subhuman turd. Seeing that asinine face, those plump, pursed lips, those cruel, piggy, dead eyes, makes me sick to my stomach. He is a petty, noxious, malignant buffoon, not fit to run a used car shop, let alone a super power. I wish him the absolute worst, I hope he does us all a favor, strokes out, and dies in the most humiliating, demeaning, and painful fashion possible.
I'm wondering if this hatred, of perhaps the most hated man in history, points us to function: the eviction of toxic members of society. We hate the unjust, the abusers, the takers, the freeloaders, the cruel. Those who levee costs, but don't offer gain in recompense.
Crucially, true hatred endures until it is satisfied by the ruination of the hated. If the hated just injured one victim, that victim's hatred is just a vendetta, which may or may not amount to anything. But as victims grow in number, so does the resulting hatred. In principle, the victimizer can only injure so many people before their haters become impossible to resist, and their social position, or even their life, becomes precarious. Hatred in this view limits evil behavior.
If this is the case, then we can see that hatred is a failure. It is an emotion, and is too vulnerable to manipulation. Those we should hate, instead use hate, nurture it, to their own advantage. The innocent are cast as unjust, abusive, takers, freeloaders, and cruel. And so minorities are hated, migrants are hated, out groups of all kinds are hated, and victimized. Hatred, which should be cleansing, righteous wrath, instead becomes a tool of evil, itself a force which sickens all of us.
Perhaps in small scale society, hatred was ironically a force for good. The abusers, the takers, the exploiters were driven out by people under the sway of the evolutionary instinct of hatred. But today, in mass, hierarchical, multicultural society, the exploiters who should be checked by hatred, instead are able to hack the hatred instinct, twist it toward their own benefit, and compel us to hate the innocent instead.
I understand. But, if my reaction to Trump is to hate him, then I have allowed Trump to change me. I don't want to give him that kind of power over me. I don't want hate in my constitution. And so I prefer to think of him as one example of the variation we find in the human species (albeit at the malignant end of the spectrum) - and then study both him and the outsize influence he's had socially and politically.
Should people who know better than him check him on his worst instincts? Absolutely. A strong political opposition is vital. But rather than coming from a position of hate, it must come from the position of "doing what is right." It must come from a position of love for those who have been wronged.
In the words of Martin Luther King Jr -
"Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love."
Quoting hypericin
Yes, this is what we have seen as part of the pattern with all autocrats.
Quoting hypericin
It wouldn't be the only instinct that works better in small groups. There's much research showing that our "fight-or-flight" response gone haywire is a cause of much illness.
Quoting hypericin
Very much so.
"Those who don't know history, are condemned to repeat it."
This interested me although we may have moved past it. Is Trump immoral, should we take a stand against him and his cronies? I ask because it seems to me people don’t share views about what makes immorality.
We can talk about rape or killing being immoral but when we seek specific examples. we often fail to agree. Any thoughts?
Also, what does it mean to "stand against immorality"? One could "stand against" Trump by refusing to vote for him, by demonstrating in the streets, or by plotting a revolution.
Also, Trump is clearly a liar, a con man and a rapist (or, at least, a sexual predator). But how does one "stand against" that. He's already been tried and found guilty (in civil court) and fined hundreds of millions of dollars (for both the fraud and the sexual predation), which he hasn't paid. What else can we do?
My personal animosity toward Trump is based on his personality and his extra-Presidential behavior. I also despise his policies -- but I'm not sure they are more immoral than Obama's drone assassinations. Bill Clinton was also a sexual predator. Should we really let our political biases rule our hearts, as well as our minds? Clinton certainly had more charm than Trump (from my perspective). Perhaps our "love" and "hate" are (and should be) subjective.
The struck out is extremely important, imo. But besides this, well done. You seem to be letting your brain stay in your head :)
I also think anyone who thinks his civil conviction is worth the paper its printed on is lying to themselves. But there we go - different strokes :)
Hate is a feeling, so an emotion. But it might be augmented or brought about by thoughts, attitudes or judgements - no matter whether true or untrue.
If you accept what I said above about hate being a feeling then it is irrational by definition since the definition of 'rational' is essentially a thought that uses logic. A feeling is not a thought and feelings don't always occur for logical reasons. Therefore they are irrational.
If you accept evolution (as you say you do and as I do) then it almost definitely serves a purpose since so many creatures have a capacity for it. It must be advantageous in some way otherwise it wouldn't be such a universal behaviour.
My opinion is that it allows us to protect our own interests more effectively.
Sorry, I don't understand?
Whether an action is heroic or evil is extremely subjective imo. But if pushed for an answer then I would say that hate is an emotion that can cause us to push back against perceived injustices, so can therefore be seen as a good action coming from an otherwise negative emotion.
Sorry, I don't understand the question here?
If you accept what I said earlier about hate being an emotion that helps us protect our own interests then you have to accept that hate can occur for other reasons besides not being loved. For instance someone could just be a bit inconvenient to you, getting in the way and making your life slightly more difficult, so you would be inclined to hate them so that they might stop being so inconvenient
How could you ever quantify this? For a start, the strength of a feeling of love or hate can vary significantly, so I might ignore my mum if he she won't stop talking about boring stuff (strong love beating a weak hate) but I might not forgive a violent criminal if they mugged my mum in the street (non existent love for some random guy Vs strong love for my mum.
Basically, I guess I'm trying to say your question is too loose to be answered in any meaningful way.
An action that improves one person's life might come at the expense of someone else. So yeah, I suppose it's not completely clear cut. Bit things never are.
Is there a larger size than large? Is there a smaller size than small? Is there something you can compare something short against so that the short thing looks long? As a UK citizen if I'm in Australia then is my 'up' here their 'down'?
Has science helped the world? Has science hurt the world?
The point is that you're question is too binary. Too one dimensional. Cases could probably be out forward for cases where hate is positive and cases put forward where it is negative. You could probably put forward cases where it is both and the same time. And the same goes for love.
Thank you for your considered reply. I was prompted to start this thread by witnessing how people can be manipulated by hate - as is evident with MAGA.
Quoting Nichiren-123
Does emotion always lead to behavior?
Quoting Nichiren-123
We reserve love for those closest to us, but hate can drive an entire segment of society to wish ill upon those who they don't even know.
Christians are commanded to "Love you enemies, do good to those who hate you." (Luke: 6:27) This kind of love (agape) is more than a mere emotion; it is also an act of will.
I like this very much. Thanks for sharing.
Hate is foolish, love is wise (B. Russell). But whenever a power struggle won't be solved in a good way (e.g. by agreement or respect for shared rules, argument etc), the candidates must either give in or use other means, such as manipulation, bribes, smear campaigns, and ultimately desinformation, violence, fear and hate.
Fear is an emotional response to a potential threat. Hate is an attitude (contempt) for the threat. Like most animals, humans focus on threats as a function of survival, our brains are wired that way. This is exploited by the news media, insurance companies, defence and entertainment industries, and certain political movements thrive on it.
Also love can be used as a means for other interests, but unlike hate, love is not an attitude but an emotional response. Unlike fear, love is about something desirable or admirable.
Well said.
Fear and Love make more sense, as Jkop has pointed out.
In this sense, both are apt for their uses. Both of apt for their misuses. Best we just focus on ourselves.
Halligan observes how in the English language there is only one word for “love” – (she describes it as the “poverty of English”) - but other languages have several words representing different roles for love.
For example, if we look at the Greek tradition –
Ér?s — Fiery passion. Romance. Desire.
• Healthy: vitality, creativity, intimacy
• Unhealthy: obsession, possession, addiction
Storg? — Family love. The bond between parent and child. Kinship.
• Healthy: care, belonging, protection
• Unhealthy: clannishness, nepotism, enabling harm to protect “our own”
Philía — Friendship. Loyalty. Brotherhood. The love of shared values and mutual respect.
• Healthy: solidarity, comradeship, the glue that holds communities together
• Unhealthy: tribalism, exclusion, us-versus-them
Agáp? — Unconditional love. Universal. The love that extends to all beings simply because they exist.
• Healthy: compassion, altruism, collective care, empathy
• Unhealthy: martyrdom, self-erasure, the inability to set boundaries
Philautía — self-love.
• Healthy: Self-respect, wholeness, the foundation from which we can love others
• Unhealthy: narcissism, ego-inflation, vanity
Xenía — Love of the stranger. The sacred duty of hospitality.
• Healthy: reciprocity, protection, honoring the outsider
• Unhealthy: blind trust without discernment — or its shadow, xenophobia
Halligan goes on to say –
[i]When a culture collapses all love into ér?s, it reflects a collective psyche still ruled by fear and possession.
This is the amygdala in charge. Everything reduced to “mine” or “threat”. Love becomes acquisition, care becomes control, and connection is based on transaction…
Without words for these loves, we struggle to practice them.[/i]
In conclusion, she states that we need a new world built with love as structure, not just sentiment -
[i]• Philía in teams and organizations, where loyalty is not weakness but the foundation of trust.
• Agáp? in policy and governance, where the measure of success is collective flourishing, and not the GDP of “human capital”.
• Xenía in how we treat the displaced, the different, the stranger at the gate, because borders are constructs that only exist in the mind.
• Philautía as the foundational love of self, because we cannot pour from an empty cup, and self-respect is not selfishness.
• Storg? remembered as strength, not softness — the love that gets up in the night, that sacrifices without scorekeeping, that builds the future of human flourishing, because we are one family.[/i]
I proceed from the position that emotions are produced by neurological functions
Quoting EnPassant
Scientists don't just "say things." They make conclusions based on experimental results.
Quoting EnPassant
Then what is your alternative hypothesis?
I probably didn't do a good job of relating her main point of her article - that when answering the question - "What is love for?'"- society is strengthened when we come up with a more communal than individual response.
She has written a few other articles about the amygdala (the region of emotion in the brain), including with reference to its being in a transitory state of evolution - connections between it and the analytical frontal lobes are not at the same stage of evolution in all humans.
Nevertheless - I think it is a valid observation that love is not approached by all cultures/traditions in the same way. For example, indigenous traditions tend to prioritize the communal over the individual.
I don't think there's any truck in the thesis. Its a bit romantic, at best.
She doesn't appear to have any background which would support taking her neuroscientific opinions seriously.
Quoting Questioner
This is an extremely weird thing to claim. Evolution doesn't have stop-gaps. Organs which develop do so along evolutionary lines, and there isn't a valid way to claim what she is claiming. Its romantic language dressed up to be scientific.
Quoting Questioner
First, yes definitely - but only somewhat. The different concepts of love exist in various cultures - there is no sort of 1:0 relationship between those concepts that would have us saying "they see love differently". The West is actually highly predicated on community continuity and closeness along Christian lines. We just have too many people.
I think there's a bit of a tendency to romanticize past cultures coming into play here, resulting in ambiguous, scientifically unsound claims being made. But those societies lack in many ways and are not apt comparisons to multicultural, billion-person societies aimed at exploration, scientific understanding and technological advancement.
Are you arguing against genetic variability in humans? There are a lot of adaptations seen in some, but not all, humans. It is not about introducing “stop-gap” measures, but recognizing that evolution is an ongoing process, and humans do not pose the exception. There exist a lot of mutational variants!
The eight billion or so brains on the planet are not genetically identical. They differ most obviously in cognitive style, and also in forming their moral domain. We all believe we are “righteous” – but there exists variation in how we approach questions of care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation – as Jonathan Haidt explores in his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.
Worth noting is that environmental factors also influence brain development -
Under typical conditions, medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) connections with the amygdala are immature during childhood and become adult-like during adolescence.
… findings suggest that accelerated amygdala–mPFC development is an ontogenetic adaptation in response to early adversity.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3785723/
Quoting AmadeusD
I don't think it is romanticizing at all, but an investigation to better understand who we are as a species when the unnatural environment we live in has been peeled away.
Please stop asking ridiculous questions of me about things I haven't said. Either respond to what I've actually said, or don't. But do not ask me about things I haven't said, or even intimated. Your description betrays what you claim she's said about the Amygdala:
There is no such thing as a "transitory state" of evolution. That is what evolution is. Her claim scientifically unsound, and used in support of an further unsound thesis about emotional regulation. She has no expertise or even training in the area. It doesn't make any sense.
Everything you've said supports my rejection of Elizabeth's claim (which you seemed to be happy with?). What a bizarre exchange. Quoting Questioner
This is wholly irrelevant to the obviously false claim a blogger made.
Quoting Questioner
Well, it is. In this case, overtly.
The text below is copied from Understanding Emotions: Origins and Roles of the Amygdala -
Emotions arise from activations of specialized neuronal populations in several parts of the cerebral cortex, notably the anterior cingulate, insula, ventromedial prefrontal, and subcortical structures, such as the amygdala, ventral striatum, putamen, caudate nucleus, and ventral tegmental area. Feelings are conscious, emotional experiences of these activations that contribute to neuronal networks mediating thoughts, language, and behavior, thus enhancing the ability to predict, learn, and reappraise stimuli and situations in the environment based on previous experiences. Contemporary theories of emotion converge around the key role of the amygdala as the central subcortical emotional brain structure that constantly evaluates and integrates a variety of sensory information from the surroundings and assigns them appropriate values of emotional dimensions, such as valence, intensity, and approachability. The amygdala participates in the regulation of autonomic and endocrine functions, decision-making and adaptations of instinctive and motivational behaviors to changes in the environment through implicit associative learning, changes in short- and long-term synaptic plasticity, and activation of the fight-or-flight response via efferent projections from its central nucleus to cortical and subcortical structures.
Of course it is our brain that makes our decisions.
I really like Jonathan's analogy of the elephant and rider - a way to understand human behavior - our emotional/intuitive side is the elephant, and our rational side is the rider of the elephant - the rider can see the path ahead, and steers - but the elephant is much bigger and sometimes it determines the direction.
The key word is 'participates'. It correlates with various functions. Correlation is not always causation: https://theconversation.com/if-correlation-doesnt-imply-causation-how-do-scientists-figure-out-why-things-happen-243487
If you do not accept that structure produces function, then please provide an alternative hypothesis
PLenty of much, much smarter people than anyone on this forum have been at this for millennia. It's probably best to get across a lot of that - culminating, most importantly, I think, in "Reasons and Persons" by Derek Parfit. It is pushing toward 45 years old and hasn't really lost any flavour.
I take its conclusion: There is no such thing as a person, other than a conceptual comfort humans use to get on with things. There's nothing to be pointed out or drawn-out of the world to give us a necessary and sufficient description of a person.
So if you can approach this one, awesome. Otherwise, the objection isnt quite there yet imo.
Again, please get yourself across the discussions on the topic over the years. While its not good for a lot, AI will do a great job are summarizing competing theories. I highly, highly suggest this before looking to have the above comment analysed into nothingness.
I would say most religious belief comes from intuition and awareness. The deepest form of belief comes from direct awareness of God - knowledge of God, not speculation. Read Teresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich etc.
Quoting AmadeusD
A great problem with philosophy and the intellect in general is that the intellect is earthbound. The naive (human) intellect believes, or acts as if, the human world is reality when it is only a physical analogue. Reality is spiritual. The human world exists within reality - in much the same way that a university exists in the world at large; the university is a concept, not the 'real' human world. Matter is not a real thing, it is an image of energy. Physical objects don't have an enduring reality so they are not real in the way that energy is real.
Yes, intuition, but in this case coupled with obvious falsities. You cannot be directly aware of a God which does not exist, and therein lies the problem. If your suggestion were to be taken seriously, those who do not feel this impulse would be defective. And that wouldn't be a Great God, so a couple of problems there. I am well aware of what are called transcendent religious experiences. You can get these from taking LSD. They are not at all convincing to anyone but someone who already believes.
I think you maybe do not understand how much of what you're saying is unsupported speculation despite it perhaps being common. Its quite hard to respond to the second paragraph withou tjust wholesale saying "Well, that makes very little sense". So I'll just note my discomfort with responding that way to something so clearly genuine and important to you.
That seems to be another way of saying those who are aware, are aware of something real.
Quoting AmadeusD
I would not use the word defective. I was a (lukewarm) atheist until my early 20s.
Quoting AmadeusD
I can sincerely assure you these are not spiritual experiences, they are psychic and are intensely dangerous and can do great psychic damage. To call them spiritual is like saying banging some irons together is music.
It is not anything remotely close to that. It is exactly what it says: The suggestion that if God is not real, an appeal to experience is meaningless. Given that this appears to be the only confirmation of God adherents can provide, it seems damning - but that wasn't my suggestion there.
Quoting EnPassant
Then the suggestion that that experience is somehow real can be dismissed. If it's not a defect to be unable to commune with God, everything we know about God is nonsense.
You clearly have absolutely no clue whatsoever what you are referring to when it comes to psychedelic experience. Transcendent psychedelic experiences are more effective than religion in ameliorating both long-term trauma and addiction issues. And that's just a random comparison. You're simply making claims that are unsupported.
Theists believe in God for many reasons but the best reason is communion with God.
Quoting AmadeusD
Why anyone be unable to commune with God?
Quoting AmadeusD
I am not talking about medical issues I'm talking about abuse of these substances. The damage they do is well documented.
I can't argue without asking: What do you mean by 'best'? It seems to be the least reliable, the least amenable to interrogation, the least presentable and the least-strong in terms of any logical deduction. It can be explained in many ways besides an actual communion with a hypothetical God.
So what do you mean by 'best'?
Quoting EnPassant
Well, God doesn't appear to exist for one - but you're also simply ignoring the argument. It doesn't matter why. The concept is that if people are unable to, you've said you wouldn't use the term defective - so, what is it - everyone can commune with God, or that God choose who to commune with arbitrarily?
Quoting EnPassant
Psychedelics cause the least amount of damage along any axis of known, reported drug use metrics. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-the-most-dangerous-drug
Popular reporting, to be sure, but hte sources are reported statistical realities. I understand being resistant due to being ill-informed, but you are wrong on this count. Paddle boats do more damage.
There are many levels of faith. Some have an intuitive sense of God, some have deeper faith and enter religious life, some become mystics and have a deeper relationship with God. By 'best' I mean the most instructive and exemplary - Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Avila, Kahlil Gibran...
Quoting AmadeusD
There are many reasons. There is a time for everyone, People need to be ready. This is what religion is for: it makes it know to people that they can know God. Many people are not interested because they want to live on their own terms. Some - like Dawkins - seem very angry about God.
Quoting AmadeusD
What kind of damage are they measuring? I'm talking about psychic damage. These people are entering into areas they don't understand. These substances can open the mind to dangerous psychic realities. I knew one such 'psychonaut' as he called himself. His mind was visibly burned out.
I think you may, for whatever reason, be disposed to misread these questions. I presume you're a theist?
The question asked was why is it this experience Quoting EnPassant
Not at all, and explicitly so. I take it you've not read any of his work? He's clearly not an angry man beyond watching religious zealotry illogically cause damage, whether personal or social. You may disagree, and that's fine, but his position isn't one of anger - quite clearly. He just has a rather reasonable gripe with supernatural beliefs because beliefs encourage/motivate behaviours. Many of which, from the religious impulse, are negative in his view (and mine, and millions of others).
Quoting EnPassant
Physical, psychological, social, economic.
All of them. There's nothing missing that could matter.
Quoting EnPassant
You're going to need to say a lot more about what you mean by "psychic realities" and how they could be "dangerous" for this to fly anywhere. I also suggest you do not have a visual line on that bloke's mind. That is absurd.
Religions are corrupt. Supernatural beliefs per se don't cause damage, it is the corruption and misuse of religion that causes damage.
Quoting AmadeusD
Read about Syd Barret from Pink Floyd and the damage these substances did to his mind.
Quoting AmadeusD
Syd Barret. There are many who have been seriously damaged. This is well documented.
Well, no. What you call 'corruption' are logical inferences from texts. It's worth noting "religion" is not a monolith. Early Christian teachings were barbaric. Current islamic ones are (and were, tbf). They aren't the same thing in practice, so I understand what you're saying - but you again, missed the point. Supernatural beliefs motivate behaviour. This is a bad thing because any negative result can be attributed to the will of the supernatural. Its simply intellectually dishonest.
Quoting EnPassant
I am big Pink Floyd fan, and know well Syd Barrett's story. If that's your rebuttal to peer-reviewed meta studies, I'm going to say you're trolling.
Your next response doesn't begin to come close to answering the question asked. Syd Barrett is not a psychic reality. You seem to not know anything about that which you speak.
Unscrupulous individuals can use anything as an excuse for evil. Even Stalin used religion. That does not, in itself, make religion evil. The world is corrupt. What's new? At any rate these evil uses of religion say nothing about whether spiritual teachings are true. Religion begins with revelation to various individuals. The problem begins when people distort the original teachings and infiltrate them with untruths and corruptions of all kinds. But revelation is continually given to humanity. Read the saints. Read Kahlil Gibran or the many mystics who have continually updated the correct teachings of religion.
Quoting AmadeusD
Let me put it straight to you. These substances are a kind of poor man's magic. They open the mind to maligned spirits and terrible things can result. Syd Barret is only one of many examples of people who have been destroyed by this stuff. The studies you mention don't measure psychic damage. Schizophrenia for example is mentioned in this link https://americanaddictioncenters.org/lsd-abuse/what-does-lsd-do-to-your-brain
I can't believe you are defending something that has been clearly shown to be psychically lethal.
You're not actually engaging with that which is being said to you.
In any case, no one said religion was evil. So this is incoherent.
With the greatest respect, you are entirely ignorant about that which you speak:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-link-found-between-psychedelics-and-psychosis1/?utm_
https://psychedelics.berkeley.edu/challenging-old-assumptions-twin-study-reveals-surprising-connection-between-psychedelics-and-psychosis/?utm_
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38280572/
You are peddling long-debunked myths in support of I know not what. This exchange is pointless. But suffice to say, you should be humble and admit you don't know what you don't know, and that you now have that information.
There is a link to mental illness. I have seen it with my own eyes. I once witnessed a friend of mine in a state of pure terror from taking this stuff. No 'study' can nullify what I have seen with my own eyes.
I just posted a link showing that lsd can cause schizophrenia. You posted one saying the opposite. So much for links. I'll trust my own first hand experience of people who take this stuff.
I posted three peer-reviewed studies that you did not read.
You are not capable of a rational exchange on this, it seems.
Like I said, I have seen with my own eyes what this stuff does. Nothing you post can compete with first hand knowledge. I don't see anything 'irrational' about reporting first hand experience. You are gaslighting me.
*Generally speaking, 'mental' conditions are spiritual conditions. In recent times the medical community has created a misleading nomenclature that has replaced traditional spiritual language. Now spiritual conditions are bleached of their meaning and turned into a kind of medical tautology: new labels have been invented and everything has been renamed. As a result the psyche has become little more than an academic medical tautology. But changing labels and renaming everything does not change reality. The mind is a real thing, not the academic whirl of definitions that have been invented.
We live in entirely different worlds. I suggest yours is a bit unfortunate. Take care mate.