The concept of universal love

[frogwoman]

this is something i've thought on and off about for a very long time, but i wanted to post a thread about it. recently as some of you will know i've been involved in a project to campaign against some fucking horrific animal cruelty stuff, and ive been involved in other stuff of a similar sort of nature over the years as ive become an activist and started campaigning around various issues. During that time I've often felt intense loathing, if not actual hate for the people who do these things and certainly fucking have done recently and did at other times too.

i was wondering two things. Is the concept of the sort of universal love of humanity, as preached by some religions such as Christianity, a good concept to follow? im aware that nietzsche said that it devalued the concept of love, because one cannot possibly love all people in the world, even if they were all good, and it devalues the real love that one feels for your family and friends. I've never read any of his work apart from various quotes here and there and I'd be really interested in finding more about his argument. Is it actually a good idea to aim for though? I'm coming to the conclusion that it actually isn't.

Secondly, is hatred always bad? Obviously if you think about the person or thing you hate all the time, it's quite self destructive, but we all have the capacity for hatred, so is it always a bad thing to feel as an emotion? I mean actually HATING someone or something, not just feeling angry. Could it in fact be turned into something positive, or for a good use? So when religions or anyone else tell you not to hate, could they be wrong, or could they only be right in the sense of that sort of all consuming hatred that eats you up? There are one or two people in the world I've known personally who I do hate and I'd like to see dead, I don't spend all my time thinking about it, yeah it's wrong, but is it necessarily any better than an abstract "loving" of everyone and "forgiving" that isn't really forgiving at all?

Sorry if this is a really daft thread but I'm hungover on a sunday afternoon

 

[Herbsman.]

I think it's good to hate racism. I tried to hate a racist but I can only manage to despise him and slightly feel sorry for him.

Probably good to hate bad people, who are genuinely bad. Otherwise where would be the motivation to stop them doing what they do?

 

[frogwoman]

I think it's good to hate racism. I tried to hate a racist but I can only manage to despise him and slightly feel sorry for him.

Probably good to hate bad people, who are genuinely bad. Otherwise where would be the motivation to stop them doing what they do?

Yep good to hate racism.
Yeah, I don't think just being racist's necessarily (NECESSARILY) a good enough reason to hate someone though. Depends what they do.
good answer though

 

[gorski]

"Universal" love? Only for God. [Maybe... Who knows... Me not Gawd... ]

And mother for her child, but that's different, methinks...

 

[frogwoman]

I'm thinking more of the Judaeo-Christian idea (mostly Christian tbf) of the whole concept that to be a good person you must "love" everyone in the world in some kind of diluted abstract way, or at least respect them, and that hatred or even anger is always bad in and of itself because we're all "made in God's image".

 

[Wolveryeti]

I personally don't think it makes sense to conceive of love in a universal sense, because your attentions are a finite resource. If you really love something/someone, you tend to forget about everything else!

 

[gorski]

Maybe you could get hold of Erich Fromm's "The Art of Loving" and maybe... I really warmly recommend it to anyone with any Reason...

 

[Yossarian]

I mean actually HATING someone or something, not just feeling angry. Could it in fact be turned into something positive, or for a good use? So when religions or anyone else tell you not to hate, could they be wrong, or could they only be right in the sense of that sort of all consuming hatred that eats you up?

I don't think there's anything wrong with hating cruelty, poverty, racism, injustice etc.

It's been a long time since I was in a church, but as far as I understand the concept of 'universal love,' it means a belief that humanity is essentially good and redeemable, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I think it means a belief that there's no saints and no monsters, just people, which I guess is the concept that underlies my Guardian-reading liberal view of the world.

 

[CJohn]

Is the concept of the sort of universal love of humanity, as preached by some religions such as Christianity, a good concept to follow?

I get the sense that 'universal love' is more of an attitude that one takes in relation to others. I'm not sure I particularly like that term, but if at its most elementary it means seeking to see other people as people, and not as objects or things, then thats something I see much value in. Obviously this isn't an attitude that one just adopts, its something to be worked at. And I don't see how this is in any sense opposed to or precludes actively engaging with other people or the world to confront injustices etc, but rather I think it helps us from becoming the very thing that we are opposed to.

As has been said - eric fromms 'art of loving' (despite the dodgey name) is a fantastic book.

 

[Knotted]

I've got no problem with hate. If somebody commited an act of gross cruelty to someone I loved I'd want them to suffer. I'm quite comfortable with bloody revenge. It seems prudish to feel otherwise. Hate is part of our makeup. Nothing wrong with it.

 

[bhamgeezer]

I'm all for the concept of universal love, a view that is often mocked. Love to many people means picking out one thing and focusing on it immensely to the exclusion of other things, I don't buy into that view one little bit, on that view love borders on obsession. That's fine but call it what it is, for me obsession and love seem to be to some degree at odds with each other. Love doesn't have to have intentionality.

I'm also for the concept of unconditional love, again which gets taken the piss out of. For me love is about the essense of a thing as opposed to anything it happens to be doing at the time, although some would surely claim I am wrong to even make this distinction.

 

[Yossarian]

I've got no problem with hate. If somebody commited an act of gross cruelty to someone I loved I'd want them to suffer. I'm quite comfortable with bloody revenge. It seems prudish to feel otherwise. Hate is part of our makeup. Nothing wrong with it.

Do you think it's a coincidence that Albania is the poorest country in Europe and also the one that takes blood feuds the most seriously?

 

[gorski]

That's why he hates me, as an alleged kulak. He is an Albanian feudal lord who is NOT recognised as one by me.... He feels I ought to give him his authority, show some deference - and I am taking that away from him... uuuuhhhh....

 

[DotCommunist]

Do you think it's a coincidence that Albania, the poorest country in Europe, also happens to be the one that takes blood feuds the most seriously?

many cultures take blood fueds seriously far despite wealth or not wealth- it isn't about money it is about 'honour' and how seriously your culture takes the concept, or indeed how it articulates the satisfaction of honour.

In answer to the OP, I don't believe in universal love. I don't believe in turning the other cheek or universal forgiveness either- some of these pussy concepts are central to my rejection of my childhood christian upbringing. Redemption (in this life)-yes. Renunciation of past evils and attempts at restitution- yes. Universal love-no. My enemy is my enemy and unless we make peace I will crush him into the dust and enjoy the lamentation of his women (good old Conan-a barbarian with a good script)

 

[Yossarian]

That's why he hates me, as an alleged kulak. He is an Albanian feudal lord who is NOT recognised as one by me.... He feels I ought to give him his authority, show some deference - and I am taking that away from him... uuuuhhhh....

Who's 'he?'

 

[DotCommunist]

That's why he hates me, as an alleged kulak. He is an Albanian feudal lord who is NOT recognised as one by me.... He feels I ought to give him his authority, show some deference - and I am taking that away from him... uuuuhhhh....

you are cunting off an aristo? fair play gorski- give him some disdain from me as well then.

 

[Yossarian]

many cultures take blood fueds seriously far despite wealth or not wealth- it isn't about money it is about 'honour' and how seriously your culture takes the concept, or indeed how it articulates the satisfaction of honour.

Lots of cultures take blood feuds seriously - Albania seems to be the one in Europe where blood feuds are likeliest to result in actual blood being spilt, that may be a by-product instead of a cause of it being an awful place few people want to live in, but I don't think it's a coincidence.

In answer to the OP, I don't believe in universal love. I don't believe in turning the other cheek or universal forgiveness either- some of these pussy concepts are central to my rejection of my childhood christian upbringing. Redemption (in this life)-yes. Renunciation of past evils and attempts at restitution- yes. Universal love-no. My enemy is my enemy and unless we make peace I will crush him into the dust and enjoy the lamentation of his women (good old Conan-a barbarian with a good script)

I think abstract concepts like "universal love" are a good way to interpret history and the state of the world today etc. - in everyday life, do you get many chances to crush your enemies into dust and enjoy the lamentation of their women?

 

[DotCommunist]

not as many as I should like, no.

 

[Knotted]

Do you think it's a coincidence that Albania is the poorest country in Europe and also the one that takes blood feuds the most seriously?

I suspect the causal relation goes in the opposite direction. I might suggest that the continuation of the clan system is a consequence of Albania's failure to modernise.

I'm not opposed to the rule of law and of universal rights. I think there are good reasons to reign in the victims instincts in the name of justice. But that's a political/legal question not a moral question. I'd want to string 'em up even if I knew there are good reasons not to.

 

[frogwoman]

I don't think there's anything wrong with hating cruelty, poverty, racism, injustice etc.

It's been a long time since I was in a church, but as far as I understand the concept of 'universal love,' it means a belief that humanity is essentially good and redeemable, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I think it means a belief that there's no saints and no monsters, just people, which I guess is the concept that underlies my Guardian-reading liberal view of the world.

Well I suppose it's more of the treat people how you like to be treated thing, which I tend to go along with, and I also think there's the capacity for good and evil in everyone (for want of better terms), I don't believe in monsters etc. But what I'm asking is that why you might say that people and humanity as a whole are redeemable (which i agree with, but it's not the same as believing that everyone is good, i think "human nature" is neither good nor bad), is that the same as believing that every single person is deserving of love or even respect? And I don't think that it is, I think there are some people who don't deserve respect, and by denying them that it might be the way to change their ways even.

I tend to go along with what Knotted said. I mean, hatred is one of the emotions, and so it's obviously there for a reason. Obviously it's a pretty strong word and I'm not saying that you view a whole lot of people as "sinners" or "monsters" in some stupid unthinking sense, but is it always a bad thing? Could it not be turned sometimes into something good and channelled into something positive?

 

[frogwoman]

many cultures take blood fueds seriously far despite wealth or not wealth- it isn't about money it is about 'honour' and how seriously your culture takes the concept, or indeed how it articulates the satisfaction of honour.

In answer to the OP, I don't believe in universal love. I don't believe in turning the other cheek or universal forgiveness either- some of these pussy concepts are central to my rejection of my childhood christian upbringing. Redemption (in this life)-yes. Renunciation of past evils and attempts at restitution- yes. Universal love-no. My enemy is my enemy and unless we make peace I will crush him into the dust and enjoy the lamentation of his women (good old Conan-a barbarian with a good script)

Good post, that summs up my feelings too. x

 

[frogwoman]

I'm all for the concept of universal love, a view that is often mocked. Love to many people means picking out one thing and focusing on it immensely to the exclusion of other things, I don't buy into that view one little bit, on that view love borders on obsession. That's fine but call it what it is, for me obsession and love seem to be to some degree at odds with each other. Love doesn't have to have intentionality.

I'm also for the concept of unconditional love, again which gets taken the piss out of. For me love is about the essense of a thing as opposed to anything it happens to be doing at the time, although some would surely claim I am wrong to even make this distinction.

If it's the "essence of a thing" rather than the thing itself then that's essentially meaningless no? Do you love everyone in the world? If you do that then whats the difference between some guy in the street or someone you have some connection with emotionally?

Even in a religious sense, I don't.

 

[frogwoman]

I suspect the causal relation goes in the opposite direction. I might suggest that the continuation of the clan system is a consequence of Albania's failure to modernise.

I'm not opposed to the rule of law and of universal rights. I think there are good reasons to reign in the victims instincts in the name of justice. But that's a political/legal question not a moral question. I'd want to string 'em up even if I knew there are good reasons not to.

I have the same conflict with the death penalty to be honest. I hate the idea of the death penalty if I'm honest but when I hear about some things, especially stuff involving kids, I actually change my mind, emotioanlly if not intellectually.

 

[little_legs]

Lots of cultures take blood feuds seriously - Albania seems to be the one in Europe where blood feuds are likeliest to result in actual blood being spilt, that may be a by-product instead of a cause of it being an awful place few people want to live in, but I don't think it's a coincidence.

dagestan and ingushetia are in europe too, they take blood feuds pretty seriously. i am not convinced the blood feuds only happen in the 'awful places'. what about calabria?

there is a chapter in solzhenitsyn's the gulag archipelago in which he describes the futility of the soviet authorities when it came to a blood killing in one of the villages where solzhenitsyn was exiled to following the release from prison. the authorities knew about a killing which was about to take place and did nothing because they knew they can't interfere. i remember thinking, fucking hell, i have a lot of respect for these blood feuding guys, one of the sublime chapters in the book.

 

[frogwoman]

calabria/sicily/sardinia may not be as bad as chechnya, but they are pretty "awful" in terms of poverty and the infiltration of the mob/corruption intio peoples lives going by what ive been told by people from italy.

 

[little_legs]

calabria/sicily/sardinia may not be as bad as chechnya, but they are pretty "awful" in terms of poverty and the infiltration of the mob/corruption intio peoples lives going by what ive been told by people from italy.

that's most of russia and it's not awful imo

 

[frogwoman]

moldova too, not "awful" but hasn't stopped 1/4 of the population leaving has it now.

 

[little_legs]

new york and chicago have feuding clans too, in other words i don't think blood feuding is directly related to poverty or law enforcement, it's a concept by which some people prefer to live by and i have no problem with that.

oh yeah, i did not answer the original question. the answer is i don't know, but my gut feeling is there no universal love.

 

[frogwoman]

aye i agree but what about in terms of an ideal to aspire to?

 

[little_legs]

i've just taken my diazepam pill and would like to be excused. x