The Idealism of Hate
Gender, race, religion are contentious issues within the hive mind of human networking at the moment, with the
conversation reaching critical mass in a pile of hashtags and opinions. Feminists want rights for women, men’s rights groups want rights for men,
justice for those of this race killed by those of that race, and what have you. In my opinion, this “discussion” is an obscenity, which merely
serves to assume an individuals worth before it can be proven. What’s worse, it is not a discussion at all, but a breeding ground of hate.
In the gender debate for instance, what is rarely discussed is actual gender, that being the biological, hormonal, natural differences between the
two, where the focus is usually on the psychology or behavior of purely logical entities and mental constructs
a priori and independent of
facts—Plato’s forms—namely, “man” and “woman”. The ideas regarding “man” and “woman”, as soon as we leave out biology, are
purely mental constructions insofar as we are left to imagine and generalize “men” and “women” rather than experience them. It would be
impossible to meet every instance of each gender, and we must therefor refer to the limited experience of men and women we actually do have. Within
this discussion, biology, the concrete man and the concrete woman, the individual, or in philosophical terms, the particular, is rarely touched upon,
and this discussion on “gender” is really a discussion on preconceived societal roles and customs imagined in the mind—the result of confusing
abstract thought with concrete entities in the spirit of idealism.
I suggest that it is impossible to actually hate a biological being, a race, a gender, a religion, and that one actually hates the idea of them that
he holds in his mind. What the racist hates is not a biological or material race, that being the entirety of individuals who might fall under that
specific category, or a specific variation of melanin, for that would be impossible, but what he hates is the categorical race, which was conceived,
devised, and implemented by himself. He does not hate the skin of other people as such, but really his own convictions about the category, the
universal, the abstract platonic form, he holds on to in his imagination. He does not hate the members whom fall under a certain label, but how he
attempts to generalize them. He can not hate an entire culture, but only his own reactions, experiences, and relationship with it. In other words, he
hates himself.
As you might notice in current affairs, the moment idealism tries to make itself material, we are privy to the finest stupidity of the idealist
philosophy—hate.
edit on 23-11-2014 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)