Reasons to Hate
Oct 18, 2020Why is there so much hate in the world? Is hatred ever morally justified? Or does hate just breed more hate? What exactly is hatred anyway? These are some of the big questions we’re tackling on this week’s show, Why We Hate.
Comments (37)
Alfredo
Saturday, October 3, 2020 -- 1:10 AM
More than 70 years after WWIIMore than 70 years after WWII, few topics stir such heated conversations in France as the collaborator vs resistant debate. It boiled back up after the Eichmann trial and never left the surface. In 2008, the Bibliothèque de Paris hung the work of André Zucca on its walls. The pictures depicted ordinary Parisians going about their daily lives under the occupation. His work revealed a third, seemingly larger category of French people: the passive citizen. It was a scandal. It seemed the passive citizen drew almost as much hate as the "collabo."
Daniel
Tuesday, February 7, 2023 -- 10:30 AM
Evidently. March of 2003 inEvidently. March of 2003 in the U.S. is a good example. When the moral revulsion directed towards the apparent criminal behaviors of the U.S. government at the time which was experienced by citizens who cared about international relationships was discovered not to be shared by some other citizens who claimed to care about their country, a palpable hatred was observed to be directed towards fellow citizens, so that hatred of the government's actions came to include hatred of those who were complacent in the face of U.S. military aggression. In this way, the power of the citizenry over the future of the country could be considerably reduced by the creation of artificial divisions within it designed to cripple popular control over public assets, such as clean air, healthy food, affordable education, etc. In agreement with your point, then, the assertion here is of deliberate use of hatred produced by the distinction between public supporters and opponents of the Iraq invasion which benefited private control over the state. By means of war, then, hatred is used to divide the public so that it can not defend itself against assaults by private power. Does that sound about right?
Tim Smith
Tuesday, March 14, 2023 -- 10:59 PM
Alfredo,Alfredo,
Sorry to miss you in time, as I am only now returning to this show. Let me catch in space.
Thanks for your insightful post on France's collaborator vs. resistance debate during WWII. Your observation of the emergence of the passive citizen category is thought-provoking and highlights the complexities of human behavior and choices during the conflict.
It makes me think of this image we can't share here (grace be given), but it sticks in my mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#/media/File:GolodomorKharkiv.jpg
That image echoes sidewalks in my hometown, walking past houseless and destitute addicts, outcasts and, worst of all, kids.
Drawing a parallel between the Holodomor genocide and the Russian occupation of Ukraine, we can see that similar patterns emerge in different historical and geographical contexts. It is essential to acknowledge the existence of various categories of people, including collaborators, resistants, passive citizens, and victims, as each group represents different perspectives and experiences.
Your post has not only shed light on the complexities of French society during the occupation but also allowed us to explore these dynamics in other contexts, such as Ukraine. Individuals' diverse roles and experiences during these events not only develop a perspective on historical conflicts but highlight present-day scenarios far away and close at hand. We haven't seen the last of these conflicts in France; not in our lifetime, not yet.
I appreciate your ability to bring forth a divergent but thoughtful point.
Thank you for this,
Tim
John D Thinkinfeller
Wednesday, October 28, 2020 -- 12:04 AM
Hello, I listened to yourHello, I listened to your recent episode concerning hate. The guest Berit Brogaard suggested that hate when not acted upon can have positive benefits for a person, although she did not disclose any details about how these benefits manifest in individuals or society. The reason I believe is because there are no examples of this.
What happens when such a strong emotion as hate is indulged? I think it would seek an outlet. What happens when one is not provided because of philosophical constraints? Is the individual who holds hate and does not act on it destined to just constantly grumble and become bitter?
I think this creates an atmosphere wherein we want to blame other humans for all the problems in the world.
When we blame we create enemies. This tendency may feel good at the moment and bolster our egos but is ultimately self defeating. The reason is that whether we like it or not we are all to some extent dependant on each other collectively, and wouldn’t it be a more happy and functional collective if we held feelings of goodwill towards our fellow humans rather than hate?
I would like to ask your guest Berit if she thinks we are controlled by a need to hate or do we have a choice.
Cheers! Love the show!
PS: Most People are a product of their conditioning and do not make conscious choices.
Daniel
Monday, February 6, 2023 -- 3:16 PM
Of course you understand thatOf course you understand that that's a statement of self-reference. Either you're pre-conditioned to claim that people's choices are pre-conditioned and not deliberate, or you're saying that you are yourself exempt from the pre-conditioning which you attribute to others. If the first is the case then you're not aware of what you're saying, and if the second is true, then the claim is speculative and without any evidence that you can verify on your own. In short, you've contradicted yourself, in a similar way to what seems to be going on in the main part of your post above. In order to show that "feelings of good will" are preferable to those of hatred, you're arguably showing yourself to hate the hater so others might have feelings of good will towards you. Is that accurate?
Harold G. Neuman
Monday, March 15, 2021 -- 8:16 AM
All good questions about aAll good questions about a universal human condition. But, as usual, I'll offer something a bit different. My question is: Do we hate people for who they are, or is our hatred more about what they do---or don't do? No one, it seems to me, is intrinsically abhorrent,solely based on their ethnic and/or racial characteristics. Anyone who claims to hate a group, is naive, as to the foundations of such hatred. Why? Because, those sorts of stigma are mired in fear; mistrust; suspicion and a few other misconstructions.. Such unreasoning behavior can also emerge from superstition and personal history. But, all else equal, it is not who someone is, but what she does that makes her abhorrent to someone else. I would charge gentle readers and thinkers to consider this position carefully. Think of those whom you dislike or with whom you may even violently disagree: ask yourself where that truly comes from.
Are you feeling threatened? Jealous? Envious?---because of something they have but you do not?
Is that ' something' a something you can, in all likelihood, never expect to attain? Hatred is a trickster.
It fools us, far more often than we are fooled by other people. And, it is such a drain on those better angels of our nature.. Think of these remarks as a primer on a philosophy of psychology. Whether you can agree with them, or no.
Daniel
Tuesday, February 7, 2023 -- 1:57 PM
There is indeed much to agreeThere is indeed much to agree with here, though I also agree that if one considers your remarks as a "primer", or technical introduction, on "a" (appropriately not "the") philosophy of psychology, the reader's agreement with them is irrelevant. My thanks are extended to this psychologist, as are my hopes that a response might be forthcoming if the insightful author is still available.
Etymologically the term is translated as "study of the mind"; and this study must follow the rules of evidence handed down by the more rigorous sciences, the paradigm for which is physics. Physics in Aristotle is the science of movement, and it makes sense to ask "how does the mind move?" Leaving aside the mapping of transmissions of neural stimulation and assuming that mind-movement is not identical to brain-movement,* it can be stipulated that the mind moves towards where it is (or wants to be), and away from where it isn't (or where it is moved to get away from). Love considered as a verb is associated with the former, and hate so considered is associated with the latter. Derived from your first point above, that hatred does not arise from "who they are", but from "what they do", this then could be the first part of your primer: Hatred arises from observation of who one doesn't know, and love from knowledge of who one already does. One can only preserve what one already knows to exist, changing one's own condition to accommodate its esteemed characteristics, and by contrast it is always possible to observe what one doesn't know to exist, or a phenomenon with unknown causal determination. Love pre-serves, not waiting around to see what the beloved does; and hate ob-serves, pushing something away regardless of what it does, as listed in the proposed primer.
Preservation and observation are therefore perfectly compatible in the same mind, which can ostensibly move in two different directions at the same time. This compatibility seems to entail though some serious social consequences, which should be included in the primer:
1) Fullness and emptiness of known contents correspond the the distinction between preservation and observation, in turn related to the distinction between one's own self-identified social group, whatever form that might take, and the mere observation of another group observed to be similarly self-identified without understanding its basis. This latter avails itself as an empty bucket of sorts, into which can be put anything stipulated as threatening to the preservation of the known group.
2) The situation described in (1) gives rise to a cottage industry-apologetics where anything other members of the known group do to each other can be put into the empty-bucket of consideration of the other group, preserving their love for one another by the pharmacological use of the empty bucket for causal attributions, placing adverse effects of one's own group's members' actions into it. An example of this can be found in the failure of the so called "libertarian right" (for want of a better term) in the U.S. to distinguish between corporate liberty and the liberty of individuals. Negative infringement of the latter's liberty by the former can be translated within the given group as caused instead by the hated group, and placed in the empty knowledge-bucket.
3) From this your primer could furnish a general rule: Hatred as a product of ignorance or uninformedness constitutes a tool for population-management insofar as it can be paired with intra-mereological love which preserves its beloved by putting the effects of the beloved's assaults against it in the basket of false-causal attribution. As these assaults turn out to be a determining economic factor in general demographic impoverishment, one could summarize by saying that hatred is (in the given example) used by the state to preserve a predatory economic system by the enlistment of particular love-specialties, such as "patriotism", et al.
Does this amount to the kind of thing you're talking about for a Primer in the Philosophy of Psychology: filling up an empty hate-bucket with all the strikes which bruised your lover? If so, it would have to be prefaced by the recommendation of an axiological presupposition of a radical distinction between two kinds of members of cited group of lovers: a minority which has more than it needs, and a majority which has less.
_________
* When Mark Antony sailed to Egypt, for example, he still loved Cleopatra, even though his brain had moved across the Mediterranean.
Harold G. Neuman
Saturday, May 1, 2021 -- 6:56 AM
Or, in fewer words, we tendOr, in fewer words, we tend to hate people and things foreign to us; those we don't understand. Hate then, at bottom, springs from fear. Blind, unreasoning, irrational fear...
Daniel
Sunday, January 15, 2023 -- 3:37 PM
The ontology of hate is aThe ontology of hate is a relatively simple matter and known since ancient times, as reaction to compelled accommodation of an intrinsic incompatibility. Usually characterized as an emotion, it's better or more accurately described in de-subjectivized form as an epiphenomenon caused by an unwanted yet unremovable existence. What makes it special is that the persistence of its object is exactly calibrated with the desire for its non-existence. And this makes hatred a special relationship between two existing things, the reacting hater and the persisting hated. So called "hate groups", then, would not belong in this class, since the hatred there is described in abstract and general terms, --not applying directly to a hated object, but indirectly through something shared by a community of subjects. One might even go so far as to say that love for each other figures more fundamentally in such groups than does the hatred for their stated targets. The Delian League headed up by ancient Athens, for example, constitutes by this criterion an anti-Persian hate group. How might this compare to participant Neuman's view that hate springs from fear? Certainly the Persian army was feared, but in addition to the fear of invasion, had not a common hatred contributed to Greek solidarity prior to the Persian wars?
Daniel
Tuesday, February 7, 2023 -- 10:38 AM
In relation to the essentialIn relation to the essential predicate of undesired object-persistence, it's frequent to observe the reference to this persistence used as an apology for failing to use one's own capability of removing it. This occurs for example in the North American slave-reparations case. Because some suppose it impossible to do while nevertheless justified if it were, a shared negative view of those who continue to demand it induces a group commitment to remove the persisting demand rather than to exercise the potential for fulfilling it.
In such cases hatred is a product of failure to perform a duty prior to any effort to undertake it. The persisting object becomes a constant reminder of their moral failure, and as such, object-removal efforts are transferred from the unfulfilled duty to its reminder. Part of the problem in the stated case seem to emerge from the elevated complexity and magnitude of required considerations. If one assumes for example the fundamental distinction between compensation (the obligation for which is generated by wrongs suffered by the living) and reparation (whose demand is produced by transgressions committed against those now deceased), it is apparent that any legitimacy of obligations which arise from them can not dispense with an historical description of considerable complexity. Two such descriptions are of effects of discrete causes, one concerning whether or not stolen property should or can be returned, and another raising the issue of structural advantage which one group or demographic has in comparison to another as a verifiable effect of previous crimes, even if many occurred under authority of legality. A third description is based by contrast on a continuous causality extending back to the original perpetrators, not as contributing to their deliberate actions which initiated the respective series of undesirable effects, but rather as subject to the increasing set of unfulfilled duties which began at the time the crimes were originally discovered to have been committed.*
Obligation-quantity of generated duty-failure which is implied by these considerations, then, is likely to appear to override any potential of correcting the imbalance. But this might not be the case if one does not limit obligation-demand to those who own stolen property, are unjustifiably advantaged, or are participating in injustice-permission. Rather, duty fulfillment-obligation here need not exclude traditional victims of historic injustice, but on the contrary should include determination-demand of amounts and manner of reparative distribution and subsequently be the central component of any corrective measures.
Perhaps paradoxically, responsibility on the side of the historically disadvantaged and expropriated constitutes by the above a principle of parsimony in determining approaches to reparative justice, which reduces its foreboding complexity. I say "paradoxically" because it's the immensity of the duty-failure of those to blame for it which causes many to coalesce into groups committed to its denial.
_________
* No current obligation arises however from any failure to prevent such crimes from happening by those with knowledge that they were going to occur, since the responsibility to prevent or impede them disappears once they are committed.
Tim Smith
Wednesday, March 15, 2023 -- 8:46 PM
Hey Daniel,Hey Daniel,
Let's move discussion of reparations to the "Are we all to blame?" show ==> https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/are-we-all-blame Reparations are not about hate so much, and that show fits it well.
If that works - my reply is there ==> https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/are-we-all-blame#comment-8540
Tim
Tim Smith
Tuesday, March 14, 2023 -- 10:08 PM
The role of societal normsThe role of societal norms and cultural conditioning in shaping hate is sneaky. As Daniel and Harold have discussed the ontology of hate and the relationship between hater and hated, what about society's expectations, values, and norms and their contribution to developing and perpetuating hatred?
Moreover, the impact of social media and technology on hate is worth examining. Platforms that facilitate the spread of misinformation and hateful ideologies should be called out, as they significantly exacerbate or even create hate groups. This waxing will only worsen as AI tweaks the conversation.
The influence of leadership and authority figures on shaping public opinion and attitudes towards hate is likely our most pressing concern with elections starting to kindle. Leaders have the power either to promote or mitigate hostility, and both actions can have far-reaching consequences. The debates will get dicey, sharp, and informative (at least to those who ask the right questions.)
In addition to understanding the nature of hate, let's explore strategies for addressing and reducing it. The salve could include education, promoting empathy, fostering intergroup dialogue, or implementing policy changes that challenge existing biases and discriminatory practices.
The relationship between hate and other negative emotions, such as anger, resentment, or frustration, should also be investigated. As Harold has mentioned, fear plays a role in the development of hate, but other emotions may also contribute to the formation and perpetuation of hate. Funding emotion research, both constructionist and natural models, will pay huge returns in future battles and, if done well, resolutions.
It is crucial to address hate's psychological and emotional toll on individuals. The impact of experiencing or witnessing animus toward one's mental health, self-esteem, overall well-being, and the potential for hate, can, are, and will lead to acts of violence or self-harm. Here I'm thinking about generational injury calling out race, gender and, I'm going to say it, class.
Incorporating these aspects into the ongoing conversation about hate will provide a more comprehensive understanding and facilitate the development of effective strategies to address and mitigate hate within society.
Daniel
Saturday, March 18, 2023 -- 4:06 PM
Are you here speaking ofAre you here speaking of something empirically observed in others, or does your expertise in what your calling "hate" arise from internal self-reflection? It's an interesting fact that you haven't told your readers what this term refers to. Why keep it a secret? How does hate differ from fear, for example? Until you reveal what you're talking about, the recommendations you've made on how to get rid of it can be accommodated only with considerable difficulty.
Tim Smith
Sunday, March 19, 2023 -- 4:34 AM
Hey Daniel,Hey Daniel,
My expertise is my own opinion based on empirical observations, reading, and reflection. Some of that is necessarily self-reflection, as hate is a defining trait for most people, myself included. The fact that I did not mention what the term refers to is due to the complexity of the emotion and a desire to be inclusive and open. Emotions are poorly understood, especially if they do not have a correlative expression in animals outside of human experience.
Let's do this, though. Definitions are challenging and helpful if done with some thought and respect for others.
Hatred is a multifaceted emotion encompassing cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. It is a response to perceived threats to one's sense of identity, autonomy, or well-being, often directed towards groups, individuals, or ideas, any or all of which are perceived as different or threatening and may be motivated by social, political, or ideological factors. However, hatred can have negative consequences for individuals and society, leading to discrimination, violence, and conflict. To mitigate the harmful effects of hatred, it is essential to understand its underlying causes as well as nature, such as fear, insecurity, or trauma, and develop strategies to address them in their root.
Any one example of hate could not only be misconstrued but could be poorly understood. As Berit's work points out, hate itself is not well studied – philosophically or scientifically.
Regarding your concern about fear here and above in your exchange with Harold:
Fear and hate are fundamentally different. Fear generally arises from a perceived threat, often resulting in defensive or avoidant behaviors. On the other hand, hatred is rooted in a more profound sense of aversion and can lead to aggression or harm directed toward the object of hate.
Turn around is fair play - What do you base your expertise on? What do you think hate refers to? You've already expressed some ideas on fear. Can you elaborate on fear and hatred beyond what you have already said?
Best,
Tim
Daniel
Monday, March 20, 2023 -- 4:38 PM
So hatred is by your accountSo hatred is by your account an emotion with harmful effects both for those who have it and those to whom it is directed. Further, you say that fear is a topical occurrence in the individual whereas hatred is more pervasive and/or central, the understanding of which has for you been gotten in part from your own inner experience. Is that accurate? This means that it's much more likely that you'd come across someone who hates continuously, rather than one who is always fearful. Your analysis is deficient however by limiting it to an emotion occurring in individuals. This is because the emotion of hatred is always unpleasant, and therefore does not explain the evident pleasure it can produce in group-contexts. If understood on the other hand as a means to the end of group-cohesion, the pleasure can be explained as deriving from belonging to the group, rather than undergoing the emotion.
Tim Smith
Tuesday, March 21, 2023 -- 10:42 PM
Daniel,Daniel,
These are good questions, and my definition does imply a concern for group dynamics… but first...
To clarify, I would ask you to answer your concern - What do you base your expertise on? What do you think hate refers to? Fairplay is fair.
"Groups require individuals" is true, and the inverse, "Groups do not require individuals." is false. This much we agree upon. It's the converse where we differ "Individuals require groups." Yes, this is true, but not Hate-groups. Hate groups are composed of people who are not necessarily hateful. Think of the boy Danny from the movie American History X, mentioned in the Roving Reporter segment.
Sometimes people join these as a matter of identity, with little real thought, even without hate. Just as people should not be considered mere means, so groups should not be viewed as a means to hate. They aren't.
Groups are to hate, as are toasters, as is Josh's soccer nemesis. Using hate to describe entities outside people is wedded to the objects of scorn and their features. Hate is housed in brains and is a complex and constructed emotion. As such, it is easily used to express adjectival meaning. Hate groups don't hate. People do. Leaders can influence, as can groups; however, hate is in the individual.
The same can be said of pleasure, and though I may imply I never explicitly state hate harms the haters, it can reassure one of their identity and even secure economic gain. But the effects of hate are not hate.
But you disagree. Make your argument, and let's be off; this could help.
Regards,
Tim
Daniel
Thursday, March 23, 2023 -- 1:57 PM
What about a group ofWhat about a group of individuals which is itself a member of the group which it is? In relation to the first part of your third paragraph, are there any groups of groups, each of which is an individual? Take your point about brains in the third paragraph from the end. Could there be a set of all brains which is itself a brain? And if not, what about the set of all brain cells being itself a brain cell of another brain, and so on ad infinitum? If your radical distinction between the group and the individual can not exclude that possibility, then the premise should be disregarded.
You've argued here that your knowledge of hatred derives from your own emotional experience. This however fails to account for hatred as a social phenomenon, which can be observed in aggregate form independently of any requirement to suffer the attitude or mental state associated with the term in one's common index of emotions. When this is done, it becomes clear that its most frequent outward expressions are statements of group membership, as occurs for example in some sectors of the North American political establishment. This in turn implies that it's both possible and probable that there could be individuals who produce these expressions who have never suffered the emotions readily associable with them, even while producing them for the purpose of arousing them in others. For this reason the conclusion you reach in the third to last paragraph has to be false, and hatred is primarily produced by groups whose members are emotionally independent.
Tim Smith
Thursday, March 23, 2023 -- 8:25 PM
Daniel,Daniel,
You have more questions than answers here. Why are you not addressing your primary concern, expertise, and what exactly hate refers to in your view? Let's not lose sight of my initial post in this thread, where I speak to the concern of group dynamics and societal influence on hate – re-shared below.
"The role of societal norms and cultural conditioning in shaping hate is sneaky. As Daniel and Harold have discussed the ontology of hate and the relationship between hater and hated, what about society's expectations, values, and norms and their contribution to developing and perpetuating hatred?"
Group dynamics, social norms, and cultural bias all impact the expression of hate, even as the feeling is a personal and human emotion. I go on to mention technology and leadership (a subset of a group set – if you will) as concerns in propagating hate as well. That propagation happens in human brains, which may or may not identify as group members. Groups can magnify and suppress emotions but can't "feel" them. But no matter, groups and social networks affect the expression of hate.
Two or more brains making up one larger brain, or parceling out certain sections of the brain, ad infinitum or infinitesimally is a form of equivocation, not unlike set theory. There is fine hard science fiction of networked brains, but these are still conjectural. Conjoined twins are interesting, and split-brain patients are an excellent example of the latter case, but identity is not split in these cases, only modified. None of the models modulate hate in uniform ways except the extreme cases of lobotomy or frontotemporal degeneration, neither of which are arguments for normativity.
If you have specific examples, let's go at it. Your recent interest in collectivity surprises me, given your previous posts. Suppose you are right, and hate can reside in groups. What does this describe that my definitions and concerns do not?
Regards,
Tim
Daniel
Sunday, March 26, 2023 -- 5:23 PM
It shows that the phenomenonIt shows that the phenomenon of hatred is not primarily caused by emotional distress, but by its use in achieving the end of group cohesion where a design prevails of one part oppressing all the others. Take the distinction between the Right wing and the Left wing of North American politics. Almost all interests are shared by those associated with one side or the other, but by exploiting the remaining interests which are different frustration of all the others becomes possible. Deliberate production of emotional aversion between them is therefore its primary cause, not the unpleasant result designed to cripple popular self-assertion.
On the expertise question I claim none, analyzing only that which is commonly available. With respect to empirical observation however it seems to me that it should be obvious that a great deal is gotten from reading your thoughtful commentary, which constitutes my primary source of the emotion's observable occurrence.
Tim Smith
Sunday, March 26, 2023 -- 8:54 PM
Daniel,Daniel,
Thanks for this. I get a ton out of your thoughts, which are at times laser focused and always push me to question my positions, tone, and fundamental values. You have accused me of seeking agreement too much in other threads, and I will do the same here.
We agree on the effect of group dynamics in the propagation of hate. The only difference is that I don't extend the definition of hate to the dynamics but rather to our brains reacting to them and other inputs. These dynamics you discuss both inform and deceive us confronting real-world problems. These problems are technical and specific to each occurrence of hate in our brains and society. They can correlate with what we ate for breakfast, or more likely didn't, what others say or do, and what we allow ourselves to think. There's more to it than that even.
I follow Lisa Feldman Barrett on matters of emotion, especially the complex ones that are undoubtedly constructed and without correlation in animals. As the lead into this show states, no one is born hating anyone, it is learned behavior, and I suggest not a natural but a highly adaptive evolutionary force. Barrett doesn't make that argument – that I recall, but everything must be thought of in terms of evolution at some point, and I am sure she would agree that hate has some value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS-9lrDDzuU (a concise intro to her work – not the best, but short)
Emotion is very controversial at the moment in science, and philosophically we are removed for the most part from this debate as there is growing evidence revolving mostly around whether emotions have biological origins in our brain stem or are a product of our design, unconscious design for the most part. In either case, philosophically, we can modify our thoughts around a better understanding of our brains.
I am a registered republican, though I do admit to jumping parties when elections of interest require it, yet I am far from the extreme right-wing voices in our media. I've given up listening to extreme podcasts and radio that teach hatred and have given up on late-night television, as those jokes are just as hateful, even more so for their subtlety. But to answer your question, there is little difference between our political spectrum's Right and Left wings; both play with hate.
Emotional distress isn't always dire. Watching George Floyd die changed my view of race and raised my awareness of my privilege. But for the most part, distress has adverse effects that feed 'us vs. them' ideas, cognitive distortions that displace onto others, dehumanizing effects stripping us of empathy and compassion, and synergistic effects that raise our susceptibility to social influence in groups.
For all the villainy associated with groups and false leadership, groups can have the opposite effect. This is why we listen to sermons, meet in book groups, and share the occasional beverage with close friends. You are in a circle with me here, and I am thankful for you and your time.
Regards,
Tim
Daniel
Monday, March 27, 2023 -- 11:23 AM
Poppycock. Perception ofPoppycock. Perception of circularity by one participant in a public forum related to another is highly myopic. Your Regards must therefore be seen as reflexive by self-hypostatization, and can not genuinely regard another. But perhaps there is a topic-related question. If two brains go out on a date, what would they think about? Could one brain say to another, "I want your body"? If that's a contradiction, then the effects of hatred which do not damage the brain must be value-neutral.
Tim Smith
Monday, March 27, 2023 -- 12:37 PM
Daniel,Daniel,
I'll leave you to that thought.
Best to you,
Tim
Daniel
Tuesday, March 28, 2023 -- 2:42 PM
Didn't you want toDidn't you want to distinguish between the brain and the (rest of the(?)) body? Has that become untenable?
Tim Smith
Tuesday, March 28, 2023 -- 7:18 PM
Hey Daniel,Hey Daniel,
Any goodness you get from my thoughts is channeled from experts I have appreciated in my reading. I've done no original research here, and I don't have the backing of colleagues like academicians, the guests, and Josh and Ray have to check their thought.
I would defer to Berit and Lisa Feldman Barrett. Lisa's book 'How Emotions are Made' changed my life view. There are about 20 of this caliber in my library, which is high praise. Your concern about expertise is valid, and I would point you in that direction.
Take care,
Tim
Daniel
Wednesday, March 29, 2023 -- 4:56 PM
So what if one of theseSo what if one of these scholars who gives you your opinions made the discovery that human thought is caused by electro-chemical correspondence between the gall bladder and lumbar vertebrae, and its former association with the brain was a mistake. You'd want to examine evidence for it that you can judge for yourself, wouldn't you? It couldn't be the case that you would have to find another scholar to explain what the first scholar discovered, because then you'd need another to explain what the second scholar explained, and so on. At some point you'd have to take responsibility for your own opinions. Therefore, what you're saying can't be true, and you actually know what you're saying when you make the astonishing statement that 'hate occurs in the brain' (post of 2/26/23 8:54 pm, 2nd paragraph). Do I understand you correctly, then, if it is assumed from this statement that it couldn't occur anywhere else? Could there be any truth to the ancient view that passions, hatred included, existed outside of the body and occasionally entered it only to leave again at some point?
Tim Smith
Wednesday, March 29, 2023 -- 7:11 PM
Daniel,Daniel,
I'm not suggesting you blindly follow the opinions of scholars. Rather that you read and engage with the ideas presented by experts, then make informed decisions about what resonates with you and your personal experience based on evidence, logic, and your understanding. Interlocution, especially with non-experts, isn't going to do it. Why did you question my expertise to begin this thread unless you think to take advantage, which is looking more likely? That isn't happening here.
Your hypothetical discovery about the gall bladder and lumbar vertebrae would warrant a look, but not without healthy skepticism, a willingness to question, and a readiness to revise our understanding based on new evidence. (The spinal cord is part of the brain, so you got that going for you here.)
The brain is embodied, and the endocrine system especially, and bodily sensation in general, influences the brain. However, the idea that emotions reside outside the brain is preposterous to my understanding and personal experience unless I question data I know to be repeatably true.
The most straightforward thought experiment will show that
• Person x exhibits hate.
• Lesion the brain of person x ==> no more hate.
• Lesion other parts of the body (and again, the endocrine system is unique but not a repositor of experience) ==> hate persists with very few unexplainable exceptions.
These crude experiments have been done, unfortunately.
Ralph Adolphs is another good resource here. His work is top-notch, and though I don't agree with all his interpretations, a quick survey of his work is enough to show - emotion resides in the brain.
https://breakthrough.caltech.edu/story/ralph-adolphs-brain-mind/
If you were to read his book "The Neuroscience of Emotion: A New Synthesis" it might stop this line of inquiry==>https://www.brilliant-books.net/search/site/The%2520Neuroscience%2520of%...
If this needs to be more helpful, you need to seek out sources you trust. You have claimed no expertise, and that is required for me to question fundamental concepts like the ones you are broaching. You can't derive reality soley from logical argument or even understand single topics like these without years of study. Humans must rely on others, preferably experts, to build their intuition and fundamental beliefs.
That said, I am always open to exploring new ideas, and our understanding of the nature of emotions, consciousness, and the brain is still incomplete. It is crucial to remain curious and open to new perspectives while maintaining a solid foundation in evidence-based reasoning.
Best to you as always – but this is all I have on this one,
Tim
Daniel
Thursday, March 30, 2023 -- 4:40 PM
Not indubitably, surmisedNot indubitably, surmised though it be. Take the analogous situation where one impresses a coin with the word "hate" embossed upon it into a lump of clay. The clay retains the impression and one can say without inaccuracy that the image is "in" the clay. And it is similarly true that the clay could retain a great number of other impressions as well, depending on what is embossed on the coin. This latter however, which carries the printed image, exists outside the clay and is not identical with it. It therefore would be of no help if one claims, that because removal of the part of the lump where the clay is pliable enough to retain the image would make any such impression impossible, that therefore the clay and the coin are identical, as you suggest in the fourth paragraph above. The coin still exists outside of it, and therefore so does the image which it bears.
Tim Smith
Thursday, March 30, 2023 -- 8:42 PM
Daniel,Daniel,
Please take this up with a person whom you trust. I can't convince you to look to experts even though I tagged you with two of the best who have many books and papers. You can believe whatever you want, but your analogies are vapid and oversimplify the complexity of how emotions arise and are processed.
While you present an alternative view, you don't give me with expert opinion, which, as I have stated, I require. You don't provide concrete examples or evidence to support the idea that emotions might reside outside the brain. In contrast, I do this, and you don't address them. Specifically, you don't go into the lesion experiments. Imaging is another basis for centering emotion in the brain. I'd offer specifics, but you don't care about those.
Your analogy presents a counterargument but needs to engage with specific evidence. By analogy, it is a story you are free to invest with belief, and people have believed your account for many millennia.
It will help if you read Bruno Snell's 'The Discovery of the Mind.' This describes the first documented account of self-awareness in Greek culture. Since then, we have taken that concept to model a body and soul, and more recently, many people have discarded the idea of souls altogether. Many people still believe in souls. We are in a moment of philosophical change in this view. There are alternative theories on how this played out, but no scientific evidence exists to posit emotion anywhere but within the body and consciousness within the brain. We can dicker about the endocrine system, but the bottom line is that the brain is embodied, and emotion is 'felt' there.
I appreciate the thought-provoking exchange we've had over the past two weeks. However, as our conversation continues, I feel it's best for me to take a step back and reflect on the points we've both raised. I wish you well in your exploration of this complex topic and hope our discussion has provided valuable insights for both of us.
Good day sir,
Tim
Daniel
Friday, March 31, 2023 -- 5:32 PM
How could it not? ButHow could it not? But perhaps there's something we might have missed. I interpret you to be saying that without a brain, no one could undergo an emotion. As hatred is described by you as an emotion, hatred can not exist unless there's a brain doing it. That still doesn't explain how non-hating brains can as a group cause some to become hating brains. If we accept your claim that intra-encephalic effects can not have extra-encephalic causes, how could one ever share the experience of this emotion without having the same brain?
Tim Smith
Friday, March 31, 2023 -- 9:31 PM
Daniel,Daniel,
Hate is felt in the brain but not necessarily caused there. You and I need to read more and write less, and I need to see more understanding going on to continue.
I'm excited about the Andy Clark show on the power of prediction. While reading up for that, I came across a short (colossal plus) paper on the topic we have been going back and forth on – entitled "The Extended Mind."
Both authors argue for ''Active Externalism'', and I don't disagree with a word in that paper. Why don't we both agree to read this and return in one week and discuss it? David Chalmers has made this paper freely available at the link below.
http://consc.net/papers/extended.html
We can give this two weeks if you are too busy, but let's do a one-week pause, at least, to take a minute and reconsider all the angles. I think you will be satisfied.
Maurice Merleau-Ponty speaks to your points as well, I think, in his ''Phenomenology of Perception' - https://ia601000.us.archive.org/11/items/G.BachelardThePoeticsOfSpace/Ph...
I have yet to read this, but I would like to. It is on my list and would be excellent prep for Andy Clark. Note it's nearly 500 pages, so don't tell me you will then leave me in the lurch. Nobody likes book circles that turn out square. It would take me two weeks, at least, and I'm skipping parts.
In any case, Andy Clark's paper is speedy but also very deep. Let's at least agree to read that.
It would probably behoove me to leave it at that, but let me get back on your points, and by all means, reply if you need, but I will take a week starting now to reconsider all that we have already said, and "The Extended Mind" in particular. If you want to do Merleau-Ponty and the Clark-Chalmers, I need 3 ½ weeks and sleep.
OK… now to your points.
The brain houses emotions like hate, and each person's experience is unique. However, that does not mean that external factors, such as the actions, words, or behavior of others, cannot influence feelings. It is important to remember that humans are social creatures, and interactions with others and the environment influence our emotions. Sociality means that a group of non-hating individuals can, through their actions or words, contribute to the development of hatred in others, even if they do not experience that emotion.
As for sharing the experience of an emotion without having the same brain, we cannot directly share the same experience of another person's emotions. However, we can empathize with others, try to understand their feelings, and learn from their experiences through communication, observation, and shared experiences. Empathy and compassion allow us to connect and better understand the emotions we all experience, even though our brains are unique.
If this explanation is sufficient, we are done (and that would be the best possible outcome.) If you want to go forward together, the only path I am offering is through the paper and book I referenced above. Paper is a must-read, though, book is something people talk about, and I would like to understand what they mean.
Think about it... we need to move on.
There is more to discuss in this world and on this site. I'm good either way.
Tim
Daniel
Sunday, April 2, 2023 -- 2:48 PM
That's a relief. This forumThat's a relief. This forum could not afford losing so bright a guiding light. Still, it sounds a little funny to say that hatred understood as an emotional state is all in one's head, even as its object or topical cause exists outside of it. So here's a question. What's the difference between undergoing the specific emotional state under discussion and having a theory about it? Can one's perception of the object which causes it be considered itself a theory, or is it part of the emotional state itself about which there can be one?
Tim Smith
Sunday, April 2, 2023 -- 4:22 PM
Hey Daniel,Hey Daniel,
I appreciate your sarcasm. I too am relieved not to have to read Maurice Merleau-Ponty at this point, and you could have had me read it and then let me know. Thanks for that. I've done nothing but take you seriously in this discussion and offer you resources to check my views. This last offer was my final one, to run a self-check of yours, if you will.
All this aside, your externalism and possibility of a hate externality are bounded by the Chalmers/Clark paper and Maurice's book (or so I think - reading section 5 of Clark's article.) It would sharpen your saw and mine to have gone over it together, as my arguments are not penetrating, and I have missed something here quite profoundly.
Best to you,
Tim
Daniel
Monday, April 3, 2023 -- 2:50 PM
Then let's make a contract.Then let's make a contract. If you can provide an account of this section 5 of which you speak, I shall endeavor to summarize my argument that hatred as an emotional state constitutes a superficial derivation from its non-emotional stimulus contiguous with its productive source in group cohesion-serviceability, and adapt it to your findings.
Tim Smith
Monday, April 10, 2023 -- 3:39 PM
Hi Daniel,Hi Daniel,
I read this back thru and elsewhere to understand our failure to come to terms, much less agreement.
You began here by calling out my expertise, which I do not claim. Despite a similar lack of knowledge, you push back when I appeal to experts to address your concerns. In recent threads, I see a like response when the expertise is the work of guest philosophers and on topic, if not "the" topic. In one line of discussion, you even refer to me as a fetishist.
When I offer classic accounts of externalism to explore, not my own, but rather your ideas, and allow us to come to terms in well-vetted thought experiments, you refuse to review a two-page account and, instead, request me to summarize to enable you to respond. I don't see a benefit to doing that, nor can we agree to disagree, which I have offered several times.
I decline your contract, and not without regret. Retrospectively, I wish I had not taken this discussion as seriously as I did; instead, you seem content to bicker. I prefer warmer discourse. There is a canon to come to terms with, or else every discussion will require us to re-create the wheel.
The feedback here is only relevant to some threads, but now I look back and wonder where you found your motivation in others. If I am a party to that process, I don't want to be.
I wish you all the best in your future posting,
Tim
Daniel
Wednesday, April 12, 2023 -- 4:00 PM
Your wish is respected below.Your wish is respected below.
Daniel
Wednesday, April 12, 2023 -- 3:55 PM
No contract confirmation needNo contract confirmation need be provided, as the above response is judged sufficient. Missed the externalism reference mentioned in the third paragraph, unless you're talking the Clark/Chalmers article, which does not directly address emotion. Is it Snell? It might help if you could be a little more specific in your tirade. Also was unable to find the "well-vetted thought experiments" you've offered. Perhaps you'd like to repeat them. And can't take full credit for the coin-impression-in-clay analogy, described as "vapid" in your delightful post of 3/30/23 8:42 pm, since it's based on an article by Damasio* which contains an account of a study using macaques where a shape occurring in the field of vision is regenerated in a deep layer of the visual cortex.
Your reference to Adolphs in the post of 3/29/23 4:56 pm however is informative but supports my thesis, that hatred is explainable primarily as a group behavior from which is derived the phenomenon of the respective emotion as an object of study, far more than weakens it. The problem with the conclusion you draw from his view, speaking about the referenced text in particular,** is that the researcher must make an inference concerning particular behaviors and a physiological mechanism. Without understanding this relation as persisting across diverse species, a separate domain of study would have to be set up for each one, and thus destroy the possibility of a unified theory of emotional response. Hatred, as with the other emotions, must be understood then as obtaining certain essential properties so that its relation to diverse biological systems can be observed. And such properties are only found in a direct sense in our own experience of undergoing what one understands the emotion to be, making the basis of emotion-science phenomenological in origin and neurological only in confirmation. Now since human beings are a social animals, hatred must therefore originate in its productive source in social institutions, and can not be limited in a scientific sense to observable intracranial neuropathy.
_________
* Antonio R. Damasio, "How the Brain Creates the Mind"; (Scientific American Special, Volume 12, No 1, 2002).
** Ralph Adolphs/David J. Anderson, The Neuroscience of Emotion; (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. 2018).
Daniel
Wednesday, April 12, 2023 -- 3:58 PM
No contract confirmation need(extra post, deletion requested).