Is hate more irrational or logical? — Questioner

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.

Is hate an emotion, or is it more of an attitude, or a judgement? — Questioner

I think what we call hate is mostly anger, resentment, and judgment.

Is hate more irrational or logical? — Questioner

It’s definitely not logical. Is it irrational? I would say it certainly non-rational and destructive. Does that make it irrational?

Does hate serve a purpose? — Questioner

I suppose it serves an emotional purpose, but I also think it leads to ineffective actions.

Do love and hate always express themselves? — Questioner

Well, they affect things. Cause things. Even if they’re not recognized.

Why is it that both love and hate can result in both heroic and evil actions? — 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.

Which one has the wider radius of effect? — Questioner

I’m not sure what this means.

Is hate what happens when someone is not loved? — Questioner

I don’t think this question makes any sense.

Is hate a stronger force than love? — Questioner

I don’t think either love or hate is a force.

Are destruction and construction two sides of the same coin? — Questioner

I’m not sure what this means, especially in the context of the rest of this post

Is hate ever positive? Is love ever negative? — 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 retired high school biology teacher, and one of the many things that I told my students is that everything about us survived in us because it gave us some kind of advantage in the environment in which we were living. — Questioner

I am a semi retired sociology and psychology introductory course high school teacher and I tried to teach basically the same thing.

Is hate an emotion, or is it more of an attitude, or a judgement? — Questioner

All three.

Does hate serve a purpose? — Questioner

It can keep you safe.

Why is it that both love and hate can result in both heroic and evil actions? — Questioner

I don't think that they can result in either. Heroics and evil actions mostly come from circumstance.

Are destruction and construction two sides of the same coin? — Questioner

Neither are relevant to the topic.

Is hate ever positive? Is love ever negative? — Questioner

Depends on whether you are applying the words to food or the person next door.

Is hate an emotion, or is it more of an attitude, or a judgement? — Questioner

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.

Is hate more irrational or logical? — Questioner

Who knows? I think reason is arrived at through affective preferences, so there's that.

Does hate serve a purpose? — Questioner

Almost everything serves a purpose, the question is, is this purpose useful or warranted?

Do love and hate always express themselves? — Questioner

Not sure what you mean by express. If you mean do people suppress thier feelings and are they sometimes in denial, then yes.

Why is it that both love and hate can result in both heroic and evil actions? — 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.

Which one has the wider radius of effect? — Questioner

Depends what you mean. Hitler's hate had a much bigger radius of effect than my parent's love. Etc.

Is hate what happens when someone is not loved? — Questioner

Sometimes. I generally think hate is often an aspect of fear and a failure to make sense of something.

Is hate a stronger force than love? — Questioner

Unanswerable except by romantics. It depends on the example. In most cases, love is contained and intimate, while hate is often externalised.

Are destruction and construction two sides of the same coin? — 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.

Is hate ever positive? Is love ever negative? — 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?

The evolutionary advantage of love seems obvious, considering we are a social species. Attachment to our kith and kin better ensured we all survived. — 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.

Thank you for your question; I'm interested in this topic. Since this question is being asked on a philosophy forum, I'll be answering philosophically, which may not quite meet your expectations.

I am a retired high school biology teacher, and one of the many things that I told my students is that everything about us survived in us because it gave us some kind of advantage in the environment in which we were living. — 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.

I am a retired high school biology teacher, and one of the many things that I told my students is that everything about us survived in us because it gave us some kind of advantage in the environment in which we were living. — Questioner

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.

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 — Ecurb

I’m mostly in agreement with your post, although I am a strong believer in a biological, genetic, neurological, psychological, sociological human nature.

I think what we call hate is mostly anger, resentment, and judgment. — T Clark

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.

It’s definitely not logical. Is it irrational? I would say it certainly non-rational and destructive. Does that make it irrational? — 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?

I suppose it serves an emotional purpose, but I also think it leads to ineffective actions. — 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?

Which one has the wider radius of effect?
— Questioner

I’m not sure what this means. — 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.

Is hate what happens when someone is not loved?
— Questioner

I don’t think this question makes any sense. — 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?

Is hate a stronger force than love?
— Questioner

I don’t think either love or hate is a force. — T Clark

But they can provide impetus to action

Are destruction and construction two sides of the same coin?
— Questioner

I’m not sure what this means, especially in the context of the rest of this post — T Clark

i was thinking of love as a constructive force, and hate as a destructive force

Our natural love is not the opposite of hate, it’s the opposite of indifference. — 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.

Does hate serve a purpose?
— Questioner

It can keep you safe. — Sir2u

I do wonder, though, how often the threat is real and how often it is made up in the head.

Are destruction and construction two sides of the same coin?
— Questioner

Neither are relevant to the topic. — Sir2u

I was thinking of love as a constructive force and hate as a destructive force

Is hate ever positive? Is love ever negative?
— Questioner

Depends on whether you are applying the words to food or the person next door. — Sir2u

Good point. I was thinking only in terms of interpersonal or intergroup relationships

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. — Tom Storm

I agree. I would add to that list one's self-image

Almost everything serves a purpose, the question is, is this purpose useful or warranted? — 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 ...

Which one has the wider radius of effect?
— Questioner

Depends what you mean. Hitler's hate had a much bigger radius of effect than my parent's love. Etc. — Tom Storm

yes, I was thinking along these lines.

Is hate what happens when someone is not loved?
— Questioner

Sometimes. I generally think hate is often an aspect of fear and a failure to make sense of something. — Tom Storm

I like this description very much.

In most cases, love is contained and intimate, while hate is often externalised. — Tom Storm

Relevant to the question I raised about proximity

So what do we have? Are you trying to integrate an understanding hatred into your world view? — 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.

From a grubby, scientistic and evolutionary perspective, there is every reason to see why hatred might be regarded as having advantages. — 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.

Since this question is being asked on a philosophy forum, I'll be answering philosophically, which may not quite meet your expectations. — Astorre

Sounds good. Thank you for replying.

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.) — 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.

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.) — 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.

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. — Ecurb

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.

We cannot assume that because wars, witch burnings, pograms, and inquisitions have often "survived", they must have been evolutionarily advantageous. — 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.

But the premise of my statement - we are products of natural selection - holds true. — Questioner

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.

I'm merely asking that you refine my opening sentence so that it can be delivered in defense of your life's work. — Astorre

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:

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. — Questioner

Love and hate are less obvious. — Ecurb

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.

If these emotions confer selective advantages for humans in general, wouldn't we expect our attitudes toward them to be similar cross-culturally? — 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.

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 — Questioner

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.

It's a lens, but not the essence itself. — Astorre

I suppose it is the essence I'd like to get a better understanding of

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. — 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?

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. — Ecurb

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!

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. — Questioner

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.

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 — Questioner

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.

Fantastic post.

Is hate an emotion, or is it more of an attitude, or a judgement? — 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.

Is hate more irrational or logical? — 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.

Why is it that both love and hate can result in both heroic and evil actions?...Is hate ever positive? Is love ever negative? — 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.

Is hate what happens when someone is not loved? — 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.

Is hate a stronger force than love? — 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.

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? — 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.

But it seems like it's being misused or misapplied in the context of the present day world. — Questioner

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.

The evolutionary advantage of love seems obvious, considering we are a social species. Attachment to our kith and kin better ensured we all survived. — Questioner

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.

Evolutionary biology is many things, but a philosophical epistemology it is not. — Wayfarer

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.

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. — 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.

we diverge from them in ways much more significant than the biological. — 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.

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. — 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.

‘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. — 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.

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. — 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?

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. — 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.

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. — Joshs

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.

Hatred is a desire to eliminate something no matter what value it may have to others. — Philosophim

I like this definition very much. I, too, think that hate involves a desire to get rid of the thing you hate.

You're trying to prevent something horrific from occurring. — 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.

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. — Philosophim

Interesting observation. Why are some people able to break the cycle, and others aren't?

Hate is what punishes criminals. — Philosophim

But wouldn't a justice system better operate with objectivity?

Hate is what allows us to kill your fellow man when they are trying to kill you. — Philosophim

Are you talking about personal self-defense, or war?

I do wonder whether hate needs to be involved in either one.

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. — Philosophim

But if subjectivity trumps objectivity, sometimes innocents end up getting hurt.

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. — Philosophim

No, I would not vilify the hater. But I also can't see any practical application of hate.

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. — Tom Storm

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.