What I'm saying is that this is the false dilemma of Cartesian dualism, which divides the world into 'the physical' (res extensa) and the mental (res cogitans). But this is much larger that 'the philosophy of Descartes', as it is woven into the cultural grammar of modernity - we naturally tend to 'carve up' reality along those lines. So the implication is, if something is not physical, then it must be res cogitans - hence 'the immaterial mind'. — Wayfarer

Understanding that the mind/consciousness is the function of the structure (the brain) dispels any notion of Cartesian dualism. Function cannot be separated from operating structure, no more than the music played by a piano can be separated from the piano.

Hate and love are not opposites — BC

How about if we think of them in terms of the action/reaction they might cause?

Neither are rational. — BC

mentioned earlier in the thread - hate and love reactions are produced in the same regions of the brain, but only the hate circuit is connected to the the cerebral cortex – associated with judgement and reasoning – which become de-activated during love, whereas only a small area is deactivated in hate. So, hate retains rationality.

because hate can be harnessed to focus on individuals or groups with whom we have no personal connection. — BC

What would it take to harness love in the same way? Is it even possible?

Discomfort with outsiders can slide into hate, or be pushed into that unfriendly state, by excessive social friction or deliberate manipulation. — BC

Agreed.

according to religious preaching, supposed to welcome the stranger in our midst. That such action requires a command suggests that it doesn't just happen spontaneously. — BC

Good observation.

I think political leadership has a role to play in how a society reacts to the strangers.

Perhaps this is a pessimistic assessment. Humans have been manifesting love and hate for a long timed I don't expect any change. We are what we are. — BC

No, I thought it realistic more than pessimistic.

Why can't we be more like Finland, ranked the happiest country in the world in 2025?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world

Evil can refer to acts or to a state of being. — Ecurb

How is a state of being made evil? What is the mechanism?

God can judge. — Ecurb

But if you say someone is inherently evil, you are judging them.

Evil is a state of immorality which may or may not lead to wicked acts. Evil is a personal quality; a defect. When we say behaviors are "evil" we mean they result from this quality. — Ecurb

How does the evil enter a person born as a newborn baby?

I always like to say the only perfect thing in this existence is a newborn baby :)

Hate is the reaction of our narratively constructed world view having an immune system, rejection towards that which threaten it. Some of it is logical, much of it isn't. — Christoffer

Good analogy, and I think it is fear that cranks up the psychological “immune system” – fear of the stranger, fear of the unknown, fear of loss – sometimes to the point of an "autoimmune disease” harming the psyche – whether in an individual or in an entire group of people.

Autocrats know this and fearmonger, often with lies - propaganda

You hate a person who killed someone you love because the act of doing so needs to be stopped in order to preserve the being of your group. Naturally, it becomes a way to defend against what could destroy you and your loved ones. — Christoffer

The instinct to belong to the group, and protect the group, cannot be underestimated as a motivator of human behavior. Goes way back. But in this day and age, we hope we are more enlightened and able to go beyond the “He hates me, so I hate him” reaction. For example, posted earlier in this thread was the story of a mother who forgave the person who murdered her son, and it led to healing for all involved. The more we are able to rise above our base instincts, the more just the outcome will be.

The same fictional narratives exists everywhere; we construct narratives that define our entire sense of being and world view.

Why we see an increase of hate in the world is because social media's research found out that conflict gains more attention and interactions, so the algorithms pits two opposing views together to produce that drama, increasing hate. Two fictional narratives which collides into hateful behavior. — Christoffer

Yes, those “constructed narratives” are often fictional. This observation in fact played a part in my posting this thread. I am highly disturbed by the way hate is winning in the USA. It’s caused me to question my previously held (naïve?) belief that love always wins out. With my own eyes, I see every malignant behavior of the autocrat excused, so long as he “gets” the people his supporters hate – like the “left” and immigrants. In many instances, it seems like cruelty is the point. The power of hate has somewhat shocked me.

While shutting off these algorithms would generate a good neutralization of much of today's hate, the solution to hate in general is to find out which narratives are fictional and which are based in actual facts. — Christoffer

But in many people, fear of the stranger/unknown has taken control of their consciousness. Hate rules them and it would take massive redirection of their neural connections for them to admit they have been lied to. Hate can completely occupy a brain.

I think the hope lies in the future, but this will entirely depend on what kind of leadership the USA has in the next decade.

The narrative based on facts should be strived towards as the way of life, being and world view to dominate and we should abolish narratives based on nothing else by constructions through arbitrary experiences. — Christoffer

But what if there is a market for comforting and/or hateful lies?

And - who should abolish the offending narratives?

It is mostly through these arbitrary narratives clashing with truth that we get irrational hate. — Christoffer

Exactly.

But I see no problem with those fighting for narratives which are based on facts to hate those who operate on arbitrary ones or outright lies for the purpose of power. That form of hate is the "immune system" fighting against a destructive social construct. — Christoffer

I can’t agree with this. I don’t think hate is ever a factor in the solution to a problem.

I think the better idea is to take the infectious agent away.

Actions are never evil. They can be bad. — Ecurb

yes, this is a better use of the terminology. I was using the word evil as a substitute for bad, but without any supernatural connotations to it, just as it might be commonly used.

If the conviction was merely an honest mistake, the action is bad but there was no evil involved. — Ecurb

But we all do have some notion of what we mean, when we say, that was an evil thing to do. If it is morally reprehensible, we might say it is "evil behavior." No cosmic force involved, though.

Why can't the essence be behavior, as in only humans do X? — Hanover

Because we were talking about individuals, not humanity. My behaviors do not make me “me.” I exist in the absence of my behaviors. When I am doing nothing, I am still me. We can talk of a cause-and-effect relationship – with my self/identity as the narrative in my head, and my behavior as the performance resulting from that script.

But you do raise an interesting point – the “essence of humanity” – which brings to mind the idea of a “shared self” – like in the Hindu view of the Atman, or the claim made by Schopenhauer, that we are manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon – even though we are all living different experiences.

We’d have to look for something we all share. I understand consciousness to be an emergent property of neurological processes. The structure is the brain, and the function of that structure is to produce the mind/consciousness. But what factors distinguish my consciousness from everyone else’s? How are they all the same? Something interesting to think about.

And what is the self but the behavior, considering you went to great lengths to point out "evil" had no physical constitution? Does the self have independent constitution or is it just a placeholder for attributes. — Hanover

Behavior is an effect of the decision-making of the self. To call behavior the self, is to equate cause and effect.

Behavior is not driven by a physical constitution called evil – but by a combination of the instincts and memories guiding it.

I’m not sure about the word “placeholder” as it suggests a static condition, whereas self/consciousness is dynamic.

To the extent you're suggesting I've used evil as a thing, that's a strawman. — Hanover

I didn't mention you at all. I was only trying to explain my position.

attribute versus essence is arbitrary because determining which is which is arbitrary. — Hanover

When the essence is self, and the attribute is behavior, the distinction is not arbitrary. The self includes all of the traits who make you who you are. Your behavior is the outward, external expression - observable actions, based on the choices you make.

I can see that as a strategy. If that's the goal, just say it, as opposed to dredging up ancient problematic philosophical debates to present your position. — Hanover

Oh my, more accusations. The only thing I am trying to do is contribute to the conversation, based on my thoughts. You are free to participate, or not.

Nietzsche: "I have destroyed the distinction between good and evil, but not that between good and bad." — Ecurb

I think what he was doing was rejecting the idea of a supernatural source of evil. That evil acts don't happen because of some demonic influence. Rather, actions should be judged in the circumstances in which they happen - and yes, they can be "bad."

When I say an action is "evil" - I mean it only in the common, not supernatural, usage of the word.

Absolutely. So what, pray tell, distinguishes your bluster of words or storm of thoughts from that of another's? Why should we listen to you and not someone who speaks the opposite simply because you appeal to words and concepts that most would consider defensible despite not knowing any true depth as far as what posturing or beliefs truly entail, not only for those immediately affected but those might be negatively impacted whose fate doesn't seem to concern you? — Outlander

This presents as needlessly confrontational.

You are free to criticize the content of my posts, but not me.

But this is not accurate since a mentally ill person or someone under the influence of drugs of alcohol can do so without realizing the act they're performing, let alone such complicated after-thoughts such as remorse. This, while technically "unintentional" describes a frame of mind where such dynamics simply aren't part of the equation. It still crosses into the territory where a man who is otherwise legally sane (albeit barely) can perform intentional actions without truly understanding the long-term consequences of such. — Outlander

This is a good argument for separating the behavior from the person.

If I break into a man's house and stay there for some time, my idea of what is right and wrong shifts based on whatever it was I've happened to have performed. So if a house owner or his army attempts to evict you, this is what we call "a battle of good and evil." You have your argument (I used strength to obtain what I have) and the person has theirs (I didn't ask for conflict simply a useless vagabond with nothing left to lose threatened my life so I fled for the moment). — Outlander

I think it is important not to conflate "right and wrong" with "good and evil" - At least not in the way that we take "good and evil" to be some supernatural force acting on humans

You're distinguishing accidental properties from essences, ultimately both arbitrary categories vague at the edges, neither distinct ontologically. — Hanover

I'm distinguishing who the person is from what they do. Not arbitrary at all. It is the difference between the self and the reactions to stimuli effected by that self. I believe that the self cannot contain some strain of what we would call evil - which suggests a dark force that inhabits the self - but rather that evil acts result from dysfunctional manifestations of the survival instinct.

A red shirt can be bleached white (changing its attribute) as much as it can be made a pair of pants (changing its essence). — Hanover

This is a poor analogy, since you are describing what is done to the shirt, rather than what the shirt does.

Also, we are much more than a piece of cloth.

This is just syntax masquerading as semantics being used to justify a particular ideology that all persons are morally salvagable. — Hanover

Actually, my observation came before the belief.

What difference does it make? Will I treat evil differently if it has an independent physical referent or if it appears as a property of a physical entity? — Hanover

Well, yes it will make a difference. Calling people evil, rather than their behavior, condemns the whole person - whereas "evil behavior" may be separated from who the person is. "Separating the behavior from the person" - is actually a mainstay of both parenting and psychology. It allows you to engage from a more compassionate place. Evil behavior may be rehabilitated, an evil person not so much.

How do you address one person's diehard understanding of a word that may not only differentiate from your own, but indisputably differs from that of many others? — Outlander

I would say that people have differences of opinions and experiences.

Or is this your definition of evil? — Outlander

I would call behavior evil if it is intentionally and seriously harms others, without a speck of remorse.

Tomorrow, a new, more convincing study will be conducted that will explain it all differently, and everyone, including you, will be forced to admit it. — Astorre

Well, that would certainly upend what we understand of the human brain's evolution.

I'm telling you that biology, physics, and every other science have some universality, but also limitations. — Astorre

Of course, but science provides the best explanations for things based on the available evidence.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Biology has great explanatory power, but it can't describe all of life. My answers are essentially a critique of reductionism. In particular, describing love or hate is not biology's job. — Astorre

But neither should philosophy reject science. Philosophy without empirical restraint adds up to no more than fairy tales. I'm not saying science should be worshipped, but it is a source of knowledge that can be used to complement philosophical points-or-view. There are many philosophical questions that cannot be answered by science, especially the type of questions that begin, "Should we...?" A knowledge of evidence-backed science may help to inform answers to those types of questions.

No, science cannot explain all of life. A poem about love or hate, for example, may much better capture the essence of how those emotions really feel.

If you're questioning whether there is an identifiable referent for "evil" or "the devil" (as the quotes indicate a differentiation between the word and the thing), I can't see how that matters here. Are you suggesting you have no idea what good and bad are? — Hanover

I'm suggesting "evil" can only be used as an adjective, not a noun. We can talk about "evil behavior" but can't talk about a spirit or power that represents evil. Evil is not an entity, but a descriptor.

it seems to me, often use many more obscure words to say exactly what you refreshingly did in two: 'consciousness happens'. How does it happen exactly? is the question, — bert1

At its most fundamental, consciousness is produced by the functioning of neurons in the brain. (Structure produces/complements function is a central idea of biology)

But – a crucial element of this function is the intimate interaction between the brain and the outside world. Consciousness does not exist in isolation, but is produced through an autopoietic process – a process I hinted at when I posted earlier:

Information in > consciousness happens > information out

This represents a part of the causal cycle involved in the formation of consciousness – part of a continual loop of lived experience –

… world > body + brain > world > body + brain > world > body + brain …. and so on….

How does this happen? Short answer: By the electrochemical functioning of neurons.

And I don’t think that reduces the wonder of consciousness, but rather enlarges it. I am totally in awe that we can detect and perceive information that is not a part of us, take it in, analyze and synthesize, and then respond appropriately.

We know the source, the properties, and the characteristics, of human consciousness. Discovering the exact mechanisms is still a work in progress.

and Why there? — bert1

Well, this seems to be asking why we evolved the way we did. I can answer by saying the brain is best positioned at the top of the organism, and the major sense organs are best positioned on the head, but I don't think that is what you are asking.

It is virtuous to hate evil and evil to love evil.

Sympathy for the devil isn't a positive trait. — Hanover

What if a person does not believe in "evil" and "the devil" as entities unto themselves?

Walls are used as a weapon of force against people, and trees can be used to build them. — Sir2u

Walls and trees neither hate nor love.

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

Trumps hate of Mexicans constructed a massive wall. My love of sunlight made me chop down 2 massive almond trees. — Sir2u

I really need to be more precise. I was thinking about forces used against people, not in terms of walls and trees.

If only I'd thought of that! — bert1

Are you mocking me, sir?

Let the electrochemical activity play out, and let's see what we come up with

The linked paper provides six detailed arguments against the materialist view. — Wayfarer

I am sorry you did not chose to reply to me in your own words, but instead link a 21-page paper. Nevertheless, I did scan through it and couldn't find anything that contradicts the current scientific investigations into consciousness, and the vast amount of evidence linking consciousness to brain activity.

I’m very fond of America — Tom Storm

Me too. As a Canadian, I've made many, may trips to the USA. I love the country and its people, and it pains me to see the dysfunction they are going through now.

But if consciousness is not a “something,” it is also not a “nothing.” It is neither a useful fiction, nor a byproduct of neural processes, nor a ghostly residue awaiting physical explanation. Instead, says Bitbol, it is the self-evidential medium within which all knowledge about objects, laws, and physical reality arise (here the convergence with Kant is manifest). Any attempt to treat consciousness as derivative — as some thing that “comes from” matter — therefore reverses the real order of dependence. — Wayfarer

The function of a biological structure is not “nothing” – and consciousness may be considered as the function of neural processes arising from the material of the brain. Consciousness is an emergent property, and is created in steps:

Awareness/perception > neural integration > analysis > thought-making

Treating consciousness as “derivative” is merely recognizing this order of its production, how information goes in, consciousness happens, and thoughts go out.

I genuinely despise and hate these people. If we want a society in which we only have those who are trying the best we can, we have to eliminate those who don't care or want to. — Philosophim

I'm just not sure that hate is any kind of solution to the problem. For example, I do believe that in many cases, violent criminals can be rehabilitated. Norway's prison system is a good model of a system that focuses on the humanity of the prisoners, and rehabilitation, rather than emotion-driven revenge.

Your can read more about how prisons in Norway are run at this link.

The important statistic is this: In Norway, the recidivism rate is around 25%. In the USA, it's closer to 70%. So, a prison system that focuses on rehabilitation benefits both the offender and society.

He could have just blamed his brain. Instead he realized following his desires was melting his family. He chose to do something about it and fought to overcome his baser nature. — Philosophim

I know two brothers. They had an alcoholic father who beat them. Both brothers fell into drinking in their twenties. One brother, around the age of 30, said to himself, "This is becoming a problem. I have to do something about it." and he never had another drink in his life. The other brother is now near 70 and he never quit drinking, and continued to blame everyone else for his problems. He has no relationship with his children or grandchildren. Can it be concluded that the brother who quit drinking had some mental capacity that the other brother lacked?

Empathy is nice, but it should not be divested of respect and responsibility. — Philosophim

I agree. Understanding the behavior of others does not mean lowering expectations for respect and responsibility.

If you study war propaganda one of the most important things is to dehumanize the enemy or make them, 'the other'. You can't talk with them, you only have to kill them. You have to foster hate or blind obedience in your troop's hearts, or else they won't be able to kill who needs to be killed when the living enemy is in front of them. — Philosophim

Makes me question whether war is part of human nature or an aberration of it.

The hate of a parent towards their child's murderer does not mean the proper thing is to let them torture and then kill the murderer in revenge once apprehended. The parents might want it with all might, but its not the rational thing to do in a civilized society. — Philosophim

There are stories of parents of a murdered child forgiving their child's murderer, and by all accounts it is healing for all involved. Here is one such story:

A mother forgives her son's killer and the two forge a friendship

In particular, how useful are the categories which he raises? — Jack Cummins

As categories of thinking, sure, they are useful, but I think it's important to separate the science from the scientist. Science as a course of study is indeed limited to what can be physically observed and measured, but it does not follow that that makes up the sum total of what captures the scientist's imagination. In fact, science revealed often leads to the asking of bigger questions. In humans, these three modes of knowing are integrated, not separate from one another.

because stability and adventure rarely coexist. A "romance" can refer to either a fictional adventure story, or to a love affair. Marriage -- in a sense -- ends "romance". So romantic love is destabilizing -- it becomes stable when the "romance" (i.e. adventure) ends. — Ecurb

That wasn't my personal experience. For nearly 40 years of marriage, every day was an adventure. Every day had romance, right up until my husband died in 2021.

We dealt with serious illness, so maybe our expressions of love were counters to that.

Note that this is less a matter of biological evolution. — Astorre

I'm not sure this conclusion follows from what you wrote just before it. Yes, the time period around 40,000 - 35,000 years ago is referred to as "the great leap forward" - advances in technology, art, music - but there is evidence that our brains had changed structurally and genetically by around that time, too.

By around 40,000 years ago, our brains had reached their current shape, which involved a reorganization of brain regions, including the parietal lobes and cerebellum, contributing to increased capacities in planning, language and visuospatial integration. It was also around that time that modern humans got the gene microcephalin (MCPH1) by interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans. MCPH1 may influence brain-related traits, causing better performance. Also, a genetic mutation around that time in the NOVA1 gene produced a variant that affects how neurons connect, modifying intelligence and cortical area, especially in language-related regions.

what a person feels as a biological organism influences his behavior less than the way he perceives the world. — Astorre

But perception is a biological function? As is the interpretation of what is perceived.

Can you think of another biological being that experiences feelings solely because its actual experience does not match its ideas? — Astorre

Interesting question. I think memory needs to enter the equation here. Yes, our brains have analytical power, but the analysis is based on what we have learned before. Memory is certainly a biological function. But the precise pathway from memory to newly created thoughts is more of a mystery.

Hatred, when viewed in this way, is less a biological model and more a construct of the mind. — Astorre

Constructed from what?

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? — Astorre

Not directly, but implicitly

Your approach (biology, evolutionary theory) isn't universal for describing human behavior. — Astorre

Behavior can be learned - and it can be unlearned, too. But this necessarily involves changing neurological connections.

But both love and hate are destabilizing — Ecurb

Only in a bad romance :)

So love is a destabilizing factor — Ecurb

I was fortunate to find true love in my marriage. It was the most stabilizing thing I have ever known.

WE long to become unbalanced -- we seek adventure -- and romantic love is an adventure. — Ecurb

This is a really interesting observation. But I wonder if it is a drive to be unbalanced or to feel.

I am reminded of something Burke said in A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful - that above all humans seek passion, and there is no greater passion than that found in the sublime -

The passion caused by the great and sublime in nature, when those causes operate most powerfully, is astonishment: and astonishment is that state of the soul in which all its motions are suspended, with some degree of horror. In this case the mind is so entirely filled with its object, that it cannot entertain any other, nor by consequence reason on that object which employs it. Hence arises the great power of the sublime, that, far from being produced by them, it anticipates our reasonings, and hurries us on by an irresistible force. Astonishment, as I have said, is the effect of the sublime in its highest degree; the inferior effects are admiration, reverence, and respect. (Part II, Section I)

So, what we have is a combination of astonishment and horror. With love, I wonder if the "horror" consists in allowing yourself to be vulnerable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.