Anyone read this?

Sounds nice in theory to get rid of all hate, but, not so sure it's practical. Seems like it's using the perspective of a spiritual afterlife. I think we are evolving as humans and must live within a social structure. If someone is doing something that society does not allow, even if he thinks it's ok, I think that person is still liable for punishment, even death, for the greater good of the society. It's a lofty goal to not hate anyone, but, that hate, or anger is what helps us to determine what is acceptable within a society. Any thoughts on this?




'Men hate, condemn, resist and inflict suffering upon each other, not because they are intrinsically evil, not because they are deliberately “wicked” and are doing, in the full light of truth, what they know to be wrong, but because they regard such conduct as necessary and right. All men are intrinsically good, but some are wiser than others, are
older in experience than others. I recently heard, in substance, the following conversation between two men whom I will call D- and E-. The third person referred to as X is a prominent politician:-

E. Every man reaps the result of his own thoughts and deeds, and suffers for his own wrong.
D. If that is so, and if no man can escape from the penalty of his evil deeds, what an inferno some of our men in power must be preparing for themselves.
E. Whether a man is in power or not, so long as he lives in ignorance and sin, he will reap sorrow and suffering.
D. Look, for instance, at X-, a man totally evil, given up entirely to selfishness and ambition; surely great torments are reserved for so unprincipled a man.
E. But how do you know he is so evil.
D. By his works, his fruits. When I see a man doing evil I know that he is evil; and I cannot even think of X- but I burn with righteous indignation. I am sometimes inclined to doubt that there is an overruling power for good when I see such a man in a position where he can do so much harm to others.
E. What evil is he committing?
D. His whole policy is evil. He will ruin the country if he remains in power.
E. But while there are large numbers of people who think of X- as you do there are also large numbers, equally intelligent, who look on him as good and able, who admire him for his excellent qualities, and regard his policy as beneficent and making for national progress. He owes his position to these people; are they also evil?
D. They are deceived and mislead. And this only makes - X’s evil all the greater, in that he can so successfully employ his talents in deceiving others in order to gain his own selfish ends. I hate the man.
E. May it not be possible that you are deceived?
D. In what way?
E. Hatred is self-deception; love is self-enlightenment. No man can see either himself or others clearly until he ceases from hatred and practices love.
D. That sounds very beautiful, but it is impracticable. When I see a man doing evil to others, and deceiving and misleading them, I must hate him. It is right that I should do so. X- is without a spark of conscience.
E. X- may or may not be all you believe to be, but, even if he is, according to your own words, he should be pitied and not condemned.
D. How so?
E. You say he is without a conscience.
D. Entirely so.
E. Then he is a mental cripple. Do you hate the blind because they cannot see, that dumb because they cannot speak, or the deaf because they cannot hear? When a captain has lost his rudder or broken his compass do you condemn him because he did not keep his ship off the rocks? Do you hold him responsible for the loss of life? If a man is totally devoid of conscience he is without the means of moral guidance, and all his selfishness must, perforce, appear to him good and right and proper. X- may appear evil to you, but is he evil to himself? Does he regard his own conduct as evil?
D. Whether he regards himself as evil or not he is evil.
E. If I were to regard you as evil because of your hatred for X- should I be right?
D. No.
E. Why not?
D. Because in such a case hatred is necessary, justifiable and righteous. There is such a thing as righteous anger, righteous hatred.
E. Is there such a thing as righteous selfishness, righteous ambition, righteous evil? I should be quite wrong in regarding you as evil, because you are doing what you are convinced is right, because you regard your hatred for X- as part of your duty as a man and a citizen; nevertheless, there is a better way that that of hatred, and it is the knowledge of this better way that prevents me from hating X- as you do, because however wrong his conduct might appear to me, it is not wrong to him nor to his
supporters; moreover, all men reap as they sow.
D. What, then, is that better way?
E. It is the way of Love; the ceasing to regard others as evil. It is a blessed and peaceful state of heart.
D. Do you mean that there is a state which a man can reach wherein he will grow angry when he sees people doing evil?
E. No, I do not mean that, for while a man regards others as evil he will continue to grow angry with them; but I mean that a man can reach a state of calm insight and spotless love wherein he sees no evil to grow angry with, wherein he understands the various natures of men - how they are prompted to act, and how they reap, as the harvest of their own
thoughts and deeds, the tares of sufferings and the corn of bliss. To reach that state is to regard all men with compassion and love.
D. The state that you picture is a very high one- it is, no doubt, a very holy and beautiful one- but it is a state that I should be sorry to reach; and I should pray to be preserved from a state of mind were I could not hate a man like X- with an intense hatred.

Thus by this conversation it will be seen that D- regarded his hatred as good. Even so all men regard that which they do as necessary to be done. The things which men habitually practice those things they believe in. When faith in a thing wholly ceases it ceases to be practiced. D-’s individual liberty is equal to that of other men, and he has a right to hate another if he so wishes, nor will he abandon his hatred until he discovers, by the sorrow and unrest which it entails, how wrong and foolish and blind it is, and how, by its practice, he is injuring himself.' - James Allen, Byways to Blessedness

'Men hate, condemn, resist and inflict suffering upon each other,
not because they are intrinsically evil, not because they are deliberately “wicked”
,....ALL men are intrinsically good,..." (my emphasis)

Unfortunately, not "ALL men are intrinsically good,..."
As human knowledge advances we are finding that a person's genetics
plays a major role in a person's personality, character, etc.
On a scale of 1 to 10 people are genetically predisposed
to being anywhere from a sociopath to a saint.

Notwithstanding this generally accepted fact,
other factors come into play
such as the person's culture, upbringing, associations, etc.
By the time a person reaches their teens, for better or worse,
a person's makeup has, for the most part, been determined.

TSCC realizes these facts and does everything in their power
to condition/brainwash (many times with the parent's aide)
young members to become lifelong slaves to their cult.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2013 12:49PM by heretic.

I think the most recent studies show that humans are very malleable and adaptable, even late in life, and that genetics, while they form a rough scaffold, do not dictate who we are.

The Harvard Study is one good resource that records the variables in life that occur long after the teenage years.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674059825

I would say that humans are intrinsically social creatures (as are bees and wolves), and that because being sociable requires some degree of conformity which can be understood to be "good," all humans are therefore intrinsically good. The emotion of hate may have played a role in preserving smaller social units, but it stands in the way of forming larger (and more successful) social units.

I'm not so sure all humans are intrinsically good. There are people I would say are definately not good, those that delight in the pain/suffering of others comes to mind. The hate of those people may be an evolutionary trait designed to perpetuate the social nature we have developed.

It seems to me this author is basing his world view on a religious perspective that entails good and evil. Perhaps some of what we call morality is based on evolutionary experience, such as the fear of snakes. How can a social group allow those that would seek to destroy them?

I caught a little of this over the weekend. Very interesting, especially the review of the Milgram experiment. There is the common understanding of it, but this discussion covers the broader variations of the experiment that Milgram ran. One possible conclusion is that people are often petty and mean, but to be really cruel, they need to feel their badness is in the service of a greater good. Does that mean that they are bad people? Mormonism goes both ways on this - the killing of Laban by Nephi in which Nephi uses the same logic that was behind killing Jesus as a heretic - "better that one man should perish than generations suffer in unbelief."

Anyway, complicated issues. I do think, however, that nearly all humans are programmed to be sociable (good) from birth, and that in most cases, parenting, environment, and personal choices create deviant, anti-social behavior.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/180092-the-bad-show/

Byways to Blessedness

Even the title makes me retch.

I know what you mean...but, I thought it was an interesting argument he makes with himself, just not sure I agree with it.