What is hate's relation to love? The obvious reaction is perception of a spectrum. Love is the most positive feeling a person can experience just short of divine ecstasy. Hate is negative in its natural, undiluted form, at the opposite end of the scale. With this information, one would assume hate and love are polar opposites, inexplicably connected, yet indelibly divided, always and forever. Yet cannot one hate love, and in turn love hate? Oy vey...
It seems we are not dealing with a scale or a spectrum, a cycle or a span. The complex mysteries of man do not leave room for the simplifying and summarizing of concepts so ancient and sacred. To break it down to manageable terms only dissolves the very importance of it to whom we are as a race, a species. This sort should not be dissected, its purity is at stake.
If love is the answer, then is hate the question? Philosophically worded, yet comprehensively nonsense. If hate is a question, an answer to which is "not here, not now." But at the same time, love is the answer to everything. Isn't it? John Lennon?
Hate comes in many forms, from the most simplest-- animosity towards an opposing agent; which really isn't hate in its purest meaning, but dissent-- to the most extreme-- absolute abhorrence. Hate can be directed towards everything from a concept or idea, to an entire nation of people. This last form seems to be the most prevalent in today's global society. Generally spawned from centuries of misunderstanding between cultures, hate makes itself most apparent in bigots, racists, religious fanatics, and xenophobes. The function in our minds that causes the ignorant-minded to kill spiders and fear the dark is the same that creates tension between peoples at odds. Avoid what we cannot grasp. Kill what we cannot avoid.
The smaller incarnations of hate are seen less in the media, but closer to home. People tend to hate one another, for reasons other than what they stand for-- either as an individual or member of a group. This usually stems from some misdeed or misdoing performed in someone's personal history. And it's the number one cause for homicide. Always has been. Forgive and forget, live and let live, lessons often forgot.
In conclusion:
In the beginning there was Man, there was love, and there was hate, and Man's desirable need to find middle ground in every situation accounts for the plethora of emotions, consciences, reactions, relations and states of metaphysical being available for consumer use today. With so many alternative options, what continues to drive us to hate, I wonder? I can honestly say I've never been compelled to feel such virulence towards anything, man-made or Mankind or other-otherwise. Maybe I'm lucky. Maybe I haven't the opportunity. Maybe I'm out of my element and should stop playing with fire.
Postscriptum:
ReplyDeleteIt seems today's culture frowns upon the broad use of the word, "Man," in description of our species as a whole. "Humankind" seems to be the preferred nomenclature. But "Man" had been used suitably for thousands of years before today's necessity for political correctness branded it inappropriate, tarnishing its reputation, and diluting its lingual impact. It was good enough for Ayn Rand, and it is good enough for you. For this and many reasons, I refuse to acknowledge the modern school of equal thought, and will continue to use "Man" in all of "His" glory, not in masculinity or misogyny, but in reminiscence of a time when Man was afraid of sticks and stones, God and the Devil; and words were only clusters of letters.
You've changed a lot since high school...and boy, what a post!
ReplyDeleteI'm always disappointed when people make light of things, either because their belief system says they should or they don't understand them.
On Easter, a celebrity whose initials are K.C. sent a text message to his son, whom I happened to be friends with on Facebook. I don't know whether K.C. thought his text was supposed to be a "history" lesson or was just trying to be hilarious; but his son found it funny and posted it as a status update. Unfortunately, the text contained a statement that I and other Pagans found offensive and I lashed out in an unladylike manner. (Causing the end of what wasn't a very good friendship in the first place.) Perhaps C.C. didn't realize that his father meant the text to stay between the two of them; but that doesn't excuse the fact that K.C. said it at all.
Incidences like that leave me to wonder why we cannot accept others for the people they are; rather than the faith they practice, the color of their skin, etcetera. I find it sad that poison can easily filter through families like that--especially when I feel certain that K.C.'s late half-brother preached tolerance to -his- branch of the family.