PortadaGruposCharlasMásPanorama actual
Buscar en el sitio
Este sitio utiliza cookies para ofrecer nuestros servicios, mejorar el rendimiento, análisis y (si no estás registrado) publicidad. Al usar LibraryThing reconoces que has leído y comprendido nuestros términos de servicio y política de privacidad. El uso del sitio y de los servicios está sujeto a estas políticas y términos.

Resultados de Google Books

Pulse en una miniatura para ir a Google Books.

Cargando...

On the Emancipation of Hatred

por A.S. Milevsky

MiembrosReseñasPopularidadValoración promediaConversaciones
413,410,100 (4)Ninguno
Añadido recientemente porcns1000, EarlyReviewers, Milevsky
Ninguno
Cargando...

Inscríbete en LibraryThing para averiguar si este libro te gustará.

Actualmente no hay Conversaciones sobre este libro.

Esta reseña ha sido escrita por los Primeros Reseñadores de LibraryThing.
This is a peculiar and trying book, but it would certainly be churlish to be dismissive of something into which so much of the author's heart's blood has so obviously been poured.

From page one it is puzzling and begins to read as a sort of collection of disjunct maxims and aphorisms, not dissimilar to something that might have been composed by the author's bête noire, Nietzsche. Before long, one finds oneself amidst a series of reflections, some just a few paragraphs and some several pages in length, all of them impassioned, circling relentlessly around the theme of hatred, though, perhaps, not getting much closer to an understanding of it.

What it comes down to is that hatred should be understood, ethically, as partaking of what the author calls a "dense" value, which means simply that it is not white or black but often a mixture of the two, depending on the source and origin, the character of the person experiencing it, and what it is directed again. There is such a thing as righteous anger, and hatred can sometimes be a purifying and purgative force: "Under specific moral circumstances, hatred is a driving force for virtuous conduct in an active struggle against evil" (p. 239)

As one progresses through the text, one might find oneself in the midst of a disquisition on Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Adam Smith or Aristotle, and then suddenly leap to Trump and Margaret Thatcher, Leni Riefenstahl, David Irving, or sometimes one with a bit of the other mixed in. The unpredictability and scattershot quality is charming if sometimes disconcerting. Sometimes the author launches into a sequence of unanswered and unanswerable questions, the effect being somewhat like being grabbed by the throat and bombarded with Zen koans.

Though not abstruse and technical, it is sometimes tough going just because there is no clear thread of argument and much circling and repetition. It is accessible but also deadly serious, ending with a photo of dead bodies in a concentration camp, presumably as an object lesson in where hatred can take us to.

As far as Nietzsche is concerned: I remember there was a period, when I was about eighteen or so, that I was attracted to his ideas, but it did not last long. Particularly when I learned a bit about his own life and what a mess it was. At that time I was beginning to understand that if one sets oneself up as a teacher, and creates guideposts, then it is a reasonable sign of the depth of the teaching if one’s life is, at least to some degree, a reflection of one’s ideals. I still find that his liberating iconoclasm can be salutary, in a limited degree. The author, here, I think, finds Nietzsche’s approach to be (if I may put words in his mouth) facile and one-dimensional, and there is truth in that.

It is not until well more than halfway through that one begins to get an inkling of why it is that the author is so thoroughly engrossed in the subject of hatred: "If honesty is indeed the best policy, it is time to introduce the origin of my well-intentioned book on the ill-will… Once I hated so much, I contemplated killing" (p. 247).

And he continues to explain: "Someone I knew and cared about was wrongfully accused and sued for a ferociously high sum of money by a man, who – through a combination of sheer luck, cunning, malice, and swindle – for many years lived rent-free on the premises the owner would visit on brief occasions" (p. 248) . As a result of the manipulations and deceptions of this individual, so we are told, the author found such intense hatred developing in himself that he began to seriously consider plans and means for doing harm to this other.

I can see how this would be scary. Looking into myself: well, I call to mind at least one such deceptive and manipulative individual, very lacking, I would think, in self-knowledge and prone to ignore the negative consequences of their actions on others. I became actively involved in a legal campaign aimed at redressing some of the wrongs caused and limiting this person's influence. Did I hate them ? Hard to say, but I think not. By aiming to curtail their professional practice and therefore their income, I did in that sense aim to do them harm. But to physically pursue them, outside of the law ? That is hard for me to conceive.

Possibly I am too aware of how it is all too easy to go down the path toward becoming such a person: the reasoning is something like this: "Well, the world is so corrupt generally. Everyone is out for their own interests. Why should I be so much more self-sacrificing and ethical than the next person ? Is what I am doing so much worse then the general run of behaviour ?" Manipulative spiritual, political and corporate leaders can all go down this path. Eventually it can lead to actual criminality, or, when given the opportunity, to the development of an authoritarian dictator.

What is the lesson ultimately to be learned ? "Emancipate your hate from the life-threatening component you carry inside you and turn it into the pure unadulterated elixir that fortifies you, heals you, and liberates you from its toxic potential. Transform it and feed on it as the Hatred of Lies and you will know the Truth – you will perhaps Know Thyself better." (p. 312)

The author is no friend to organized religion of any stripe, tarring all of them equally with the same brush, indiscriminately and at times in an overly generalized fashion: "Monotheism is by its nature suicidal – it is impossible without the notion of the ultimate self-sacrifice. The crucifixion is not the gesture of brotherly love, but a visualized despair of sacrificial self-hatred" (p. 302). Provocative but dubious.

Given the approach, which involves an opening to what one might call the darker side, or the Jungian shadow, and given how that darker side -- the demonic, let us say -- has been anathematized and ostracized in much of the West, with its deeply-embedded dualism, it is a bit disappointing that the author has not, apparently, made much of an acquaintance with the concept of wrathful deities in Hindu and Buddhist thought. Through these envisioned embodiments of the combined divine and demonic, evil and hatred are tamed and integrated, and it is made clear how anger and hatred can be positive and purifying forces.

Little is said here about Eastern traditions. One of the rare mentions of Buddhism is in the context of the injustices perpetrated by some branches of the monastic orders in Myanmar. Yes, there are fanatics in all religions; but I do think, personally, that some traditions, Buddhism most prominently, have more of a record and history of embracing tolerance and open-mindedness than do others.

There are some other concerns I would raise. On the one hand, the author makes all the right noises about how diverse we are, and the need for true dialogue, and so on and so forth. But at the same time there is a bit of a glib acceptance that all right-thinking people should share certain beliefs, provided they have cleared themselves of damaging religious dogma and other such negative influences.

Yes, we can generally agree on being against Nazis and racists, and that mass murderers are bad. But it is always the grey areas that are the test, and can we accept that there are areas that are genuinely grey? Abortion is a good example of an issue of that kind. I can see how some individuals and tendencies might see abortion as an unmitigated evil, and be concerned that its practice should be eliminated so far as possible, by whatever means, short of criminalizing the women and doctors involved. There is a great gulf between that opinion and the view that a fetus counts for nothing, and that women should be able to do whatever they please with their own bodies. Says the author:

"Banning all cases of abortion (rape and serious health risks endangering the mother’s life among them) as murder is NOT the way forward. It is anger brought by evolution to highlight the backwardness of our fellow men, women and otherwise, the shortcomings of their presumed evolution." (p. 46)

Again, perhaps, a bit presumptuous ? Is dialogue possible ? What productive role can mutual hatred and the consequent anger play in this dichotomy ?

The role of nuclear energy in helping to mitigate climate change; the benefits of alternative medicine; the costs and benefits of corporate capitalism: these are also areas where there is much scope for dialogue. "Thou shall not place yourselves above thy moral foes, for, subject to the moral density of our values, we have much more in common than previously assumed", says the author, correctly (p. 19)

On the other hand, he asks, a bit later, this rhetorical question: “Is it not obvious that to begin with, philosophy should be categorically secular, sceptical and pragmatic?" Well, no, and especially depending on how each of those three terms might be defined. To begin a discussion one must clear away the groundwork; if one is starting with blind spots, there should be no reason to wonder that one ends with recriminations and misunderstandings, instead of rising to a higher level of agreement.

"Could a dense system of moral values be more egalitarian than the hierarchical systems of the past, present, and future?", the author asks (p. 19), and it would be difficult to deny that the prospect is attractive. But it does require thoughtful consideration and charity toward others. In conclusion, as he puts it: "The crossing between hatred and empathy is a long and dangerous one, but once we get there, once we recognize the other as a kindred spirit lost in the ill perception, we may finally learn how constructive a difference can be.” (p. 358) ( )
  cns1000 | Oct 6, 2022 |
sin reseñas | añadir una reseña
Debes iniciar sesión para editar los datos de Conocimiento Común.
Para más ayuda, consulta la página de ayuda de Conocimiento Común.
Título canónico
Título original
Títulos alternativos
Fecha de publicación original
Personas/Personajes
Lugares importantes
Acontecimientos importantes
Películas relacionadas
Epígrafe
Dedicatoria
Primeras palabras
Citas
Últimas palabras
Aviso de desambiguación
Editores de la editorial
Blurbistas
Idioma original
DDC/MDS Canónico
LCC canónico

Referencias a esta obra en fuentes externas.

Wikipedia en inglés

Ninguno

No se han encontrado descripciones de biblioteca.

Descripción del libro
Resumen Haiku

Antiguo miembro de Primeros reseñadores de LibraryThing

El libro On the Emancipation of Hatred de A.S. Milevsky estaba disponible desde LibraryThing Early Reviewers.

Debates activos

Ninguno

Cubiertas populares

Enlaces rápidos

Géneros

Sin géneros

Valoración

Promedio: (4)
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3 1
3.5
4
4.5
5 1

¿Eres tú?

Conviértete en un Autor de LibraryThing.

 

Acerca de | Contactar | LibraryThing.com | Privacidad/Condiciones | Ayuda/Preguntas frecuentes | Blog | Tienda | APIs | TinyCat | Bibliotecas heredadas | Primeros reseñadores | Conocimiento común | 203,238,972 libros! | Barra superior: Siempre visible