Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry? (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=132171)

Zaevod 04-17-2014 10:22 PM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
I contest the "humanity sucks as a whole", actually. The reason why people focus on bad things is because they stand out easily. If you actually make some kind of statistical research comparing good or neutral actions vs bad actions, you will find out that bad actions are an overwhelming minority.

If a person was good during their entire life, but for some reason snaps and kills someone, people won't really give a damn about anything other than this act and what directly caused it. Which is justifiable, of course, if we want to eradicate this type of thing.

Even if, 1000 years from now, crimes occur at one hundredth of the frequency they occur today, people will still say "humanity sucks". In fact, they will always complain as long as things aren't perfect, which they will never be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 4118177)
Because the only thing needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.

Doesn't this imply that everyone has enough power to stop evil acts from happening? I'd definitely do that if I could, but my influence is pretty limited.

Another reason I find misanthropy illogical is the notion that somehow evil is tied to human nature, when it's not. If any species evolved to the point where it would be nearly as smart us, it would probably do very similar mistakes or acts of stupidity/evil. Naturally, the perceived responsibility is dependent on the power and intelligence of the agent. The problem is that we are only "partially smart".

stargroup100 04-18-2014 01:13 AM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
Okay so I'm guessing you don't care about what society thinks of misanthropy and you're questioning the philosophy itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaevod (Post 4118510)
Doesn't this imply that everyone has enough power to stop evil acts from happening? I'd definitely do that if I could, but my influence is pretty limited.

He's not saying one person can stop evil. He's saying that evil will happen is nobody (good men) does anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaevod (Post 4118510)
Another reason I find misanthropy illogical is the notion that somehow evil is tied to human nature, when it's not... The problem is that we are only "partially smart".

I disagree. The notion of whether something is good or evil, whether it be an act or a person or something else, is evaluated based on the human condition, on our morals. It is not something that can be evaluated objectively, such as the length of an object or the time it takes to complete a task. Human minds determine what "evil" actually is. So to say it's not tied to human nature is kind of ridiculous in that sense.

I also don't see your point that talks about other species. We evaluate whether or not something is evil based on the amount of suffering it causes, and generally speaking all lifeforms that could develop this intelligence can sense its surroundings and react accordingly to this. I would say that in this case evil would still be tied to human nature, just not human nature exclusively, and evil between species would also vary due to biological/psychological differences.

And you have to explain what you mean by "partially smart" because I don't understand the significance of that term.

Still, this doesn't explain what all of this has to do with misanthropy. If I were to accept everything you say, and people still fall short of my expectations, how does that invalidate my view or make it illogical?

Zaevod 04-18-2014 02:04 AM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4118646)
I disagree. The notion of whether something is good or evil, whether it be an act or a person or something else, is evaluated based on the human condition, on our morals. It is not something that can be evaluated objectively, such as the length of an object or the time it takes to complete a task. Human minds determine what "evil" actually is. So to say it's not tied to human nature is kind of ridiculous in that sense.

It's ridiculous to assume that any other species of similar intelligence wouldn't have a concept of evil. Assuming such species is capable of feeling satisfaction, of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4118646)
I also don't see your point that talks about other species. We evaluate whether or not something is evil based on the amount of suffering it causes, and generally speaking all lifeforms that could develop this intelligence can sense its surroundings and react accordingly to this. I would say that in this case evil would still be tied to human nature, just not human nature exclusively, and evil between species would also vary due to biological/psychological differences.

Yes, you really missed the point. What I meant is that it makes no sense to blame evil unto the human condition.

It's also strange for one to be a misanthrope because, to perceive humanity as inherently "evil" or whatever, you need to have the moral perspective to be able to judge that. If your human mind has the capacity to have that perspective, doesn't that mean that it can avoid the immoral actions? Obviously, it can. So it really is stupid to see "human nature" as something inherently bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4118646)
And you have to explain what you mean by "partially smart" because I don't understand the significance of that term.

It was just a silly way of saying "imperfect".

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4118646)
Still, this doesn't explain what all of this has to do with misanthropy. If I were to accept everything you say, and people still fall short of my expectations, how does that invalidate my view or make it illogical?

Well, according to you "A misanthropist is generally seen as someone who criticizes humanity by bringing to light negative aspects of the human condition, something which most people interpret as just cynicism."

I was really referring to something else, in the beginning of this thread. At least, what most self-entitled misanthropes claim to believe. People who hate humanity or at least believe that humanity is inherently bad or morally inferior as a species. This kind of thinking is what I find illogical.

There's nothing particularly distinct about bringing light to negative aspects of humanity. If that is the case, pretty much everyone can be considered a "misanthrope" and the label is practically meaningless.

The examples in the wikipedia page are closer to the kind of thinking that I'm calling illogical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy

Here's one of the first examples of the page:

"My hate is general, I detest all men;
Some because they are wicked and do evil,
Others because they tolerate the wicked,
Refusing them the active vigorous scorn
Which vice should stimulate in virtuous minds."

I find this kind of thinking just infuriating. He detests ALL men because he only perceives the two groups he mentioned? What about himself? Does he also "tolerate the wicked" and is just a stupid hypocrite? I don't tolerate the wicked, but I can't just somehow stop all bad people from doing bad things.

What baffles me is that this line of thinking is seen as politically correct and a lot of people try to appear "smart" by saying this kind of bullshit.

stargroup100 04-18-2014 03:15 AM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
For the record, I'm not a misanthropist. Quite the opposite actually. While I do disagree with the notion that humans are evil, I don't agree with how you're interpreting the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaevod (Post 4118669)
What I meant is that it makes no sense to blame evil unto the human condition.

I think what you're trying to say is that humans are not innately evil. The confusion probably arises due to your wording, but the root of evil does arise from the human condition, yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaevod (Post 4118669)
It's also strange for one to be a misanthrope because, to perceive humanity as inherently "evil" or whatever, you need to have the moral perspective to be able to judge that. If your human mind has the capacity to have that perspective, doesn't that mean that it can avoid the immoral actions? Obviously, it can. So it really is stupid to see "human nature" as something inherently bad.

There's a difference in what we're saying here. I never said human nature was inherently bad or anything of the sort. What I said was that without the human condition, we wouldn't have the concept of evil at all. I agree with the notion that humans are not innately evil.

Good and evil is not black and white. There are varying degrees of evil, and even one particular case can have multiple interpretations. What is evil to you might not be evil to someone else. What is somewhat evil to you might be incredibly evil to someone else. Judging evil correctly may be a near impossible task, but that doesn't stop someone from thinking that humans are inherently evil. If in this person's mind he can justify his position, why would it be stupid?

There's also a strange gap in your logic. Suppose I perceive humanity to be evil and I have the moral perspective to be able to judge that. How does the fact that I can simply identify and avoid evil acts say anything about humans as a whole? Even if you meant all people being able to identify evil and avoid it, you're also assuming that they choose to do so. Part of the idea of evil comes from the fact that even people who identify evil don't even choose to avoid it, sometimes embracing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaevod (Post 4118669)
Well, according to you "A misanthropist is generally seen as someone who criticizes humanity by bringing to light negative aspects of the human condition, something which most people interpret as just cynicism."

Back then I was talking about society's perception of misanthropists, not what they actually are or believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaevod (Post 4118669)
He detests ALL men because he only perceives the two groups he mentioned? What about himself? Does he also "tolerate the wicked" and is just a stupid hypocrite? I don't tolerate the wicked, but I can't just somehow stop all bad people from doing bad things.

What baffles me is that this line of thinking is seen as politically correct and a lot of people try to appear "smart" by saying this kind of bullshit.

You drew a quote from a character in a play. Looking at the Wikipedia page of the play, it says "...there is much uncertainty about whether the main character Alceste is supposed to be perceived as a hero for his strong standards of honesty or whether he is supposed to be perceived as a fool for having such idealistic and unrealistic views about society." In this context it's easy to see why this could be politically correct; it is expecting high standards from society.

This is also consistent with the following description of the philosophy: "Socrates defines the misanthrope in relation to his fellow man: 'Misanthropy develops when without art one puts complete trust in somebody thinking the man absolutely true and sound and reliable and then a little later discovers him to be bad and unreliable ... and when it happens to someone often ... he ends up ... hating everyone.' Misanthropy, then, is presented as the result of thwarted expectations..."

The reason why they hate all humans is because they expect humans to be perfect or almost-perfect, and then realize that all humans have certain flaws they find difficult to find acceptable. Clearly, this tends to lead to the misanthropist believing he is "above" everyone else. Arthur Schopenhauer adds: "misanthropy does not necessarily equate with an inhumane attitude towards humanity."

I think you group all misanthropists and think their hate for humanity is simple and directly correlated with the nature of evil, and that's a mistake. In addition, even though we might use the words "all humans," hating humanity and hating every human being are still two separate concepts. Obviously I don't agree with this philosophy, as I think it's unrealistic and unnecessary in a certain sense, but at the very least I can understand how someone can reach these conclusions and believe them. There are people out there who are illogical in their hatred towards humans, of course, but to discredit misanthropy as a philosophy in that manner is not understanding what you're criticizing. You should target those with illogical hate, not misanthropy.


Ironically, you could have the potential to be a misanthropist. You have a certain expectation of people:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaevod (Post 4118669)
It's also strange for one to be a misanthrope because, to perceive humanity as inherently "evil" or whatever, you need to have the moral perspective to be able to judge that. If your human mind has the capacity to have that perspective, doesn't that mean that it can avoid the immoral actions? Obviously, it can. So it really is stupid to see "human nature" as something inherently bad.

If you believe that if a human being can identify evil and find a way to avoid it, they must do it, and then you realize that nobody is perfect, you could be sorely disappointed. You might know many good people who end up doing particular evil things in their lives, probably by mistake, and the disappointment to the fact that humans are doomed to repeat this pattern for eternity is infuriating, invoking a kind of hatred for humanity. Voila, misanthropist.

Zaevod 04-18-2014 12:10 PM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
I guess I don't expect anyone to be perfect, but I still expect most people to be decent on the majority of occasions.

Well, anyhow, the quote I picked actually reflects what I have heard in many places.

devonin 04-18-2014 12:57 PM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaevod (Post 4118669)
"My hate is general, I detest all men;
Some because they are wicked and do evil,
Others because they tolerate the wicked,
Refusing them the active vigorous scorn
Which vice should stimulate in virtuous minds."

I find this kind of thinking just infuriating. He detests ALL men because he only perceives the two groups he mentioned?


Those groups include all men. You are either wicked, or tolerate the wicked.

Because, he would likely argue, if you actually were neither wicked nor tolerated the wicked, the active and vigorous scorn he feels should be stimulated would result in an eventual lack in wicked people.

Zaevod 04-18-2014 01:58 PM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 4118779)
Those groups include all men. You are either wicked, or tolerate the wicked.

Because, he would likely argue, if you actually were neither wicked nor tolerated the wicked, the active and vigorous scorn he feels should be stimulated would result in an eventual lack in wicked people.

Explain to me again how I have the power to cease wicked people.

Also, last time I noted, psychopaths will be psychopaths regardless of society's disapproval or "vigorous scorn". Preventing any opportunity for them to manifest is far beyond my abilities. And, no, I don't tolerate evil.

Reincarnate 04-18-2014 03:11 PM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
Zaevod I literally have no clue what you're trying to argue. Can you condense it into a couple sentences?

Are you trying to argue that misanthropy is probably confirmation bias in most cases?

Zaevod 04-18-2014 05:26 PM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate (Post 4118824)
Are you trying to argue that misanthropy is probably confirmation bias in most cases?

Confirmation bias and overgeneralizations. I'm just arguing that I don't find this position logical. I already get that it's not the same as bigotry, but, still...

Crazyjayde 04-19-2014 01:54 AM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
This is a nice angle on misanthropy. However, I think a more suitable topic that could arise answers to your particular concerns is: "does misanthropy stems from ignorance, in the knowledge sense of the term (e.g. placing a blind trust on humanity and then being disappointed by it for not living up to your expectations), or could it rather consist in a lack of empathy? Can it be both?"

I'd be rather intrigued in knowing what shapes a misanthrope and how much his background weighs on the level of disdain he expresses. You seem to make the assumption that misanthropy is secluded to one mold, whereas its implications are much more intricate as a social phenomenon.

Things that might apply to particular contexts you seem to refer might not apply to the whole ideology. If the whole debate is to be defined within certain situations and not the whole scope, be sure to clarify. Otherwise it is ground for miscommunication.

Zaevod 04-19-2014 02:12 AM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
I was based on what I perceived to be the most common behavior of self-declared misanthropes.

If someone comes and claims that their "version" of misanthropy is just seeing humanity as inherently flawed, I'll obviously not have a problem with that. But if you expand the label to that point, it seems somewhat pointless for it to even exist.

Crazyjayde 04-19-2014 03:01 AM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
On the original debate, I would expand the label to determine of what nature between bigotry or sociopathy a misanthropic individual is more akin to being associated/mislabeled. Knowing how much of ignorance and/or lack of empathy is included in the shaping of the common misanthrope would significantly help in understanding its nuances.

IMO, misanthropy can either consist of the gray area between the two, in which the balance can sway lightly or heavily between either, or even the complete lack of both. The latter being closer to misology, where it's more disinterest than scorn. The ideology itself seems to be distributed organically within certain demographics, self-proclaimed or not (some base themselves on certain extent of rationality, some don't and rely on prejudice, some... etc.)* and I find it hard to pinpoint a common ground. Hence why I think the ambiguity of the misanthropic condition can set the table for a more profitable discussion.

*Following link serves as a relevant example of the diversification between misanthropic beliefs: http://www.whyihatepeople.com/forum/...php?f=7&t=2704

stargroup100 04-19-2014 03:22 AM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaevod (Post 4119432)
If someone comes and claims that their "version" of misanthropy is just seeing humanity as inherently flawed, I'll obviously not have a problem with that. But if you expand the label to that point, it seems somewhat pointless for it to even exist.

Firstly, that's not what misanthropy is. It's that and more. You're missing the very important notion that on top of humanity being flawed, the misanthropist believes that humanity does not meet the expectations they have. I believe humans are flawed but I'm not a misanthropist.

Secondly, if you're going to come into a critical thinking thread and make an argument or even ask a question, you should be clear about what it is you want. We couldn't answer your questions very well because it took about 2 pages of posts to figure out what you were even trying to ask. If you use the term "misanthropy" we're gonna assume it's the dictionary definition. If you have a different definition then you need to describe it.


EDIT: LOL

To some degree though, I understand where you're coming from. When you're talking about "misanthropy being glorified in our culture" you could be referring to cynical people (like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAmazingAtheist) who spout a lot of negativity and become very popular. I'm not a fan of this guy because I think almost everything he says is cliche criticism without any real insight. If this is what you're talking about, this isn't misanthropy.

Crazyjayde 04-19-2014 03:23 AM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaevod (Post 4119432)
If someone comes and claims that their "version" of misanthropy is just seeing humanity as inherently flawed, I'll obviously not have a problem with that. But if you expand the label to that point, it seems somewhat pointless for it to even exist.

This sole belief isn't restricted to misanthropy in any way, but it can become the basis of it. However, it's still only the morality part of the philosophy.

EDIT: okay wow

Zaevod 04-19-2014 01:34 PM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
Why the edits?

Well, anyhow, I know I shouldn't have bumped this. People had already answered the original question in the first page. The bump was because I felt the need to reply to the last post by fido123. The rest of the discussion arised from that, but some people still thought I was discussing only the things in the original post, when I really wasn't.

I should have been clear, though: my issue is not with the DISTRUST, my issue is with the HATRED. I think it's stupid and by no means "better" than what people would call bigotry. How is hatred of everyone better than hatred of a single group?

I get the thing said in the link, but the fact that it comes from a website called "why I hate people" is a bit hard to ignore. It's just so profoundly stupid that people create a whole website, based on technologies made by other people, to talk to other people about why they hate people.

stargroup100 04-19-2014 05:36 PM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaevod (Post 4119634)
I should have been clear, though: my issue is not with the DISTRUST, my issue is with the HATRED. I think it's stupid and by no means "better" than what people would call bigotry. How is hatred of everyone better than hatred of a single group?

The people you probably consider intolerant might have trouble putting themselves in another person's shoes, and ironically that might be what you're having trouble doing with these people. You hate the people who hate. Hatred of a single group can be justified just as hatred of everyone can be justified. Whether or not we feel it is right is a different matter. Different people in different environments are obviously likely to reach different conclusions.

Example to show you that in principle this is possible:

Imagine you're a black man living in oppression because of white men. You might hate white men. Not because you hate every individual white man, but because from your experiences, the large majority (or even all) of white men you meet treat you badly, leading you to come to the generalization that white men are abusive. You make this conclusion as a way to protect yourself and prepare for what you know is most likely to happen. You may not think it's right, but can you really blame this person for thinking this way?

However, suppose you have an employer here in the US that just hates black people for some petty reason. When this employer decides to reject a fantastic applicant with an impressive profile simply because he is black (or any other race), that is considered bigotry because the person who is being treated unfairly is the black man looking for the job. The root of hatred and discrimination has no reasonable basis. Where the previous case the man had a reason to hate white men (to protect himself), this employer just hates black people for a petty reason that is not reasonable.


Hate is a perfectly natural emotion that almost all humans experience, for many different possible reasons. You seem to immediately target those that hate others due to generalizations as being unreasonable, and that's not necessarily true. There could be sound basis for why a person would make such generalizations, and he has every right to feel what he feels (and from a psychological standpoint changing one's way of thinking is not easy either if it's rooted heavily in habits and personality). What you should be judging is how reasonable these generalizations are, and how they affect how this person's behavior.

I have plenty of friends who are generally very spiteful and full of hatred, but they don't treat people unfairly. The hatred is simply due to their nature and environment. One of them experienced a very abusive childhood, and even though she hates humanity, is very close to me and trusts me.

Zaevod 04-19-2014 05:40 PM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4119742)
Hatred of a single group can be justified just as hatred of everyone can be justified. Whether or not we feel it is right is a different matter. Different people in different environments are obviously likely to reach different conclusions. The people you probably consider intolerant might have trouble putting themselves in another person's shoes, and that might be what you're having trouble doing with them.

Example to show you that in principle this is possible:

Imagine you're a black man living in oppression because of white men. You might hate white men. Not because you hate every individual white man, but because from your experiences, the large majority (or even all) of white men treat you badly, leading you to come to that conclusion. You make this conclusion as a way to protect yourself and prepare for what you know is most likely to happen. You may not think it's right, but can you really blame this person for thinking this way?

However, when an employer here in the US decides to reject a fantastic applicant with an impressive profile simply because he is black (or any other race), that is considered bigotry because the person who is being treated unfairly is the black man looking for the job. The root of hatred and discrimination has no reasonable basis. Where the previous case the man had a reason to hate white men (to protect himself), this employer just hates black people for some petty reason.

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. There is no rational excuse for hating a group, because you can't blame an entire group for the action of individuals. You can be cautious based on the experiences you've had with people from a certain group, but hatred is a whole different story. Hatred is a strong dislike, usually meaning that you'd desire that the hated thing would not exist nor interact with you.

A black person who hates whites is a bigot. No more, no less. Same with a white who hates blacks.

stargroup100 04-19-2014 05:58 PM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaevod (Post 4119744)
I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. There is no rational excuse for hating a group, because you can't blame an entire group for the action of individuals. You can be cautious based on the experiences you've had with people from a certain group, but hatred is a whole different story. Hatred is a strong dislike, usually meaning that you'd desire that the hated thing would not exist or not interact with you.

A black person who hates whites is a bigot. No more, no less. Same with a white who hates blacks.

Another way to see this, with a particularly extreme case:

We have all heard of people who due to some early childhood trauma, develop a fear for something. For example, a child that originally was not afraid of snakes, but is then bitten by one, could end up being afraid of snakes the rest of his life. And this is just due to one experience.

Now imagine this trauma is caused by people of a particular group, who we know are aware of what they're doing. Then imagine this happening not just once but consistently throughout one's entire life, whenever he happens to encounter people of this group. I dare you to try and convince this person that this group of people isn't bad.

But that doesn't necessarily mean he'll never like anyone of this group. If some situation happens where a person of this group is very kind to this person and earns trust, then it's possible that hatred would subside for this individual. But that won't stop this person from hating the group.


Hating all members of a group and hating a group are two completely different things. The elements of a set is not the same as the set itself.

Why is it difficult to accept that some people can still be fair to other people while having a hateful nature?

Zaevod 04-19-2014 06:26 PM

Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stargroup100 (Post 4119755)
...

Why is it difficult to accept that some people can still be fair to other people while having a hateful nature?

I think you're confusing hatred with general cautiousness or fear. These are not the same thing. Hatred is a highly destructive feeling, whereas fear and cautiousness are more about avoidance itself.

In my experience, people who claim to hate a group want more than just distance from the group. They believe that the reduction or destruction of the group would be a positive thing. I'm unable to see a person that holds this belief as being "fair".

For example: I fear bears, snakes and spiders. I wouldn't want them to die, but I'd be pretty terrified of being in the same room as them. I hate mosquitoes. I actually wish they would cease to exist where I live.

Is this hatred of mosquitoes rational? Probably not. They happen to be one of the very few things I actually hate, besides evil, obnoxious and disgusting things in general.

I understand what trauma is, however, my point is precisely that the hatred of a group has no rational basis.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution