On the Pleasure of Hating.

[G.T.]

Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes.

You've never seemed to have been able to grasp that.

There are plenty of other examples of things we hate in others that we dont hate in ourselves.

Racism. Racist hate the other color, not their own.
Homophobia. They hate folks with a different disposition than the norm.
Sexism, of the opposite sex.
Partisan hatred of OPPOSITE views.


The list goes on and on, I merely gave you the most OBVIOUS example because I was talking to someone who fails basic logic on a consistent basis and even THEN you failed to grasp it.

No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.

Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.

Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.

or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??

jeeze

Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.

And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.

When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.

With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.

The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.

It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.

GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."


Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."


Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.


To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.

When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -

There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.

And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.



What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.

Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.

The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong. The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves. It's the reason they have such strong feelings. So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.

In fact, let me offer even more proof....

"...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “I'mnot terrible; you are.”

This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:

"We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."

The Psychology of Hate

Ding, Talk to someone else. I didnt ask you how men behaves or why - I simply took Jung's assertion to it's logical conclusion - that it's not an absolute.

You agreed.

We're done, there.

 

[ding]

No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.

Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.

Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.

or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??

jeeze

Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.

And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.

When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.

With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.

The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.

It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.

GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."


Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."


Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.


To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.

When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -

There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.

And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.



What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.

Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.

The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong. The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves. It's the reason they have such strong feelings. So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.

In fact, let me offer even more proof....

"...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “I'mnot terrible; you are.”

This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:

"We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."

The Psychology of Hate

Ding, Talk to someone else. I didnt ask you how men behaves or why - I simply took Jung's assertion to it's logical conclusion - that it's not an absolute.

You agreed.

We're done, there.

Thank you for that non-sequitur and tangent.

The conversation was about hating in others what we hate most in ourselves.

 

[G.T.]

Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.

Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.

or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??

jeeze

Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.

And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.

When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.

With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.

The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.

It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.

GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."


Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."


Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.


To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.

When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -

There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.

And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.



What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.

Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.

The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong. The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves. It's the reason they have such strong feelings. So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.

In fact, let me offer even more proof....

"...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “I'mnot terrible; you are.”

This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:

"We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."

The Psychology of Hate

Ding, Talk to someone else. I didnt ask you how men behaves or why - I simply took Jung's assertion to it's logical conclusion - that it's not an absolute.

You agreed.

We're done, there.

Thank you for that non-sequitur.

Any-time, King of 'um. Try some lube next time.

 

[ding]

When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.

With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.

The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.

It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.

GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."


Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."


Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.


To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.

When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -

There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.

And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.



What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.

Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.

The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong. The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves. It's the reason they have such strong feelings. So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.

In fact, let me offer even more proof....

"...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “I'mnot terrible; you are.”

This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:

"We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."

The Psychology of Hate

Ding, Talk to someone else. I didnt ask you how men behaves or why - I simply took Jung's assertion to it's logical conclusion - that it's not an absolute.

You agreed.

We're done, there.

Thank you for that non-sequitur and tangent.

The conversation was about hating in others what we hate most in ourselves.

Any-time, King of 'um. Try some lube next time.

I'm good without it. It's got to be pretty rough on you when you have no authorities you can cite and I do.

 

[G.T.]

The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.

It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.

GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."


Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."


Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.


To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.

When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -

There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.

And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.



What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.

Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.

The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong. The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves. It's the reason they have such strong feelings. So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.

In fact, let me offer even more proof....

"...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “I'mnot terrible; you are.”

This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:

"We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."

The Psychology of Hate

Ding, Talk to someone else. I didnt ask you how men behaves or why - I simply took Jung's assertion to it's logical conclusion - that it's not an absolute.

You agreed.

We're done, there.

Thank you for that non-sequitur and tangent.

The conversation was about hating in others what we hate most in ourselves.

Any-time, King of 'um. Try some lube next time.

I'm good without it. It's got to be pretty rough on you when you have no authorities you can cite and I do.

I'm going to let that Marinate in all of its glory for what it is.

 

[ding]

What do you think of this, Ding?

Wu wei (無爲) is a concept in Taoism sometimes translated as non-action or non-doing. It means aligning with the wisdom of Nature, not taking action based on self-centric thinking. Some problems are best solved simply by staying calm and allowing life to take its natural course.

I like it, up to a point. There are times when we are living in the present that action is required. The key is to be able to discern when that is, right? Too much in either direction is not necessarily good. If you take either position to an extreme (i.e. action or inaction) predictable surprises will eventually follow.

 

[Mindful]

What do you think of this, Ding?

Wu wei (無爲) is a concept in Taoism sometimes translated as non-action or non-doing. It means aligning with the wisdom of Nature, not taking action based on self-centric thinking. Some problems are best solved simply by staying calm and allowing life to take its natural course.

I like it, up to a point. There are times when we are living in the present that action is required. The key is to be able to discern when that is, right? Too much in either direction is not necessarily good. If you take either position to an extreme (i.e. action or inaction) predictable surprises will eventually follow.

Takes too much thinking about.

 

[ding]

Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.

The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong. The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves. It's the reason they have such strong feelings. So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.

In fact, let me offer even more proof....

"...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “I'mnot terrible; you are.”

This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:

"We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."

The Psychology of Hate

Ding, Talk to someone else. I didnt ask you how men behaves or why - I simply took Jung's assertion to it's logical conclusion - that it's not an absolute.

You agreed.

We're done, there.

Thank you for that non-sequitur and tangent.

The conversation was about hating in others what we hate most in ourselves.

Any-time, King of 'um. Try some lube next time.

I'm good without it. It's got to be pretty rough on you when you have no authorities you can cite and I do.

I'm going to let that Marinate in all of its glory for what it is.

You act like I am making this shit up all on my own, but I'm not. The reality is I have only accepted what the authorities on the matter have said after evaluating it. You think you are arguing with me, but you're not.

 

[ding]

What do you think of this, Ding?

Wu wei (無爲) is a concept in Taoism sometimes translated as non-action or non-doing. It means aligning with the wisdom of Nature, not taking action based on self-centric thinking. Some problems are best solved simply by staying calm and allowing life to take its natural course.

I like it, up to a point. There are times when we are living in the present that action is required. The key is to be able to discern when that is, right? Too much in either direction is not necessarily good. If you take either position to an extreme (i.e. action or inaction) predictable surprises will eventually follow.

Takes too much thinking about.

Why do you say that?

 

[G.T.]

Ding, Talk to someone else. I didnt ask you how men behaves or why - I simply took Jung's assertion to it's logical conclusion - that it's not an absolute.

You agreed.

We're done, there.

Thank you for that non-sequitur and tangent.

The conversation was about hating in others what we hate most in ourselves.

Any-time, King of 'um. Try some lube next time.

I'm good without it. It's got to be pretty rough on you when you have no authorities you can cite and I do.

I'm going to let that Marinate in all of its glory for what it is.

You act like I am making this shit up all on my own, but I'm not. The reality is I have only accepted what the authorities on the matter have said after evaluating it. You think you are arguing with me, but you're not.

The appeal to authority fallacy is not fallacious because we don't necessarily appeal to authorities...

it's when it's used in place of one's own argument that makes it a fallacy.

I asserted that his comment was not an absolute.

You later AGREED.

Now you're boasting for whatever fuckin reason about Authorities.

You're just Autistic, I honestly don't think that you can help it.

 

[Mindful]

What do you think of this, Ding?

Wu wei (無爲) is a concept in Taoism sometimes translated as non-action or non-doing. It means aligning with the wisdom of Nature, not taking action based on self-centric thinking. Some problems are best solved simply by staying calm and allowing life to take its natural course.

I like it, up to a point. There are times when we are living in the present that action is required. The key is to be able to discern when that is, right? Too much in either direction is not necessarily good. If you take either position to an extreme (i.e. action or inaction) predictable surprises will eventually follow.

Takes too much thinking about.

Why do you say that?

Seemed a logical response.

 

[OldLady]

Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes.

You've never seemed to have been able to grasp that.

There are plenty of other examples of things we hate in others that we dont hate in ourselves.

Racism. Racist hate the other color, not their own.
Homophobia. They hate folks with a different disposition than the norm.
Sexism, of the opposite sex.
Partisan hatred of OPPOSITE views.


The list goes on and on, I merely gave you the most OBVIOUS example because I was talking to someone who fails basic logic on a consistent basis and even THEN you failed to grasp it.

No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.

Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.

Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.

or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??

jeeze

Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.

And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.

When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.

With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.

The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.

It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.

GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."


Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."


Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.


To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.

When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -

There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.

And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.



What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.

Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.

The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong. The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves. It's the reason they have such strong feelings. So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.

In fact, let me offer even more proof....

"...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “I'mnot terrible; you are.”

This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:

"We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."

The Psychology of Hate

I am not a power hungry bully who gets off on making the people around her feel inferior, glories in being able to order people around. I am not cold blooded liar, either.
Jung had some immensely interesting theories, especially his dream theories and the archetypal something or others....(it's been a long time)...but that idea that EVERYTHING we hate in others is a shadow of ourselves is bullshit. Sometimes it is true, however. I had to train a woman once who was definitely my shadow self and I really couldn't stand her. I couldn't help being short with her, although I tried not to be a bitch, and fortunately she couldn't take the chill for long and left the company. I asked at least twice a day, "Is this how I come off to other people? Is this what people think of me?" It was horrible. I couldn't stand her. I know what Jung means, but it is not a 100% thing. No matter how deeply I search my soul, I am NOT that former supervisor.

 

[ding]

Thank you for that non-sequitur and tangent.

The conversation was about hating in others what we hate most in ourselves.

Any-time, King of 'um. Try some lube next time.

I'm good without it. It's got to be pretty rough on you when you have no authorities you can cite and I do.

I'm going to let that Marinate in all of its glory for what it is.

You act like I am making this shit up all on my own, but I'm not. The reality is I have only accepted what the authorities on the matter have said after evaluating it. You think you are arguing with me, but you're not.

The appeal to authority fallacy is not fallacious because we don't necessarily appeal to authorities...

it's when it's used in place of one's own argument that makes it a fallacy.

I asserted that his comment was not an absolute.

You later AGREED.

Now you're boasting for whatever fuckin reason about Authorities.

You're just Autistic, I honestly don't think that you can help it.

No. You started out with a tautology argument and nitpicking the phrase "I would argue" it degraded from there. My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves. It now seems you want to agree with that. Because everything else you are "arguing" is a non-sequitur and a tangent.

So which is it? Do you agree that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves? Or not?

That is the topic of the OP, right? Hate?

 

[Mindful]

How about changing the words around:

I love you, and I hate you.

 

[ding]

What do you think of this, Ding?

Wu wei (無爲) is a concept in Taoism sometimes translated as non-action or non-doing. It means aligning with the wisdom of Nature, not taking action based on self-centric thinking. Some problems are best solved simply by staying calm and allowing life to take its natural course.

I like it, up to a point. There are times when we are living in the present that action is required. The key is to be able to discern when that is, right? Too much in either direction is not necessarily good. If you take either position to an extreme (i.e. action or inaction) predictable surprises will eventually follow.

Takes too much thinking about.

Why do you say that?

Seemed a logical response.

OK, then why do you believe it takes too much thinking? What is there to think about?

 

[OldLady]

This is still a private conversation, I see. I'll try again tomorrow.

 

[Mindful]

What do you think of this, Ding?

Wu wei (無爲) is a concept in Taoism sometimes translated as non-action or non-doing. It means aligning with the wisdom of Nature, not taking action based on self-centric thinking. Some problems are best solved simply by staying calm and allowing life to take its natural course.

I like it, up to a point. There are times when we are living in the present that action is required. The key is to be able to discern when that is, right? Too much in either direction is not necessarily good. If you take either position to an extreme (i.e. action or inaction) predictable surprises will eventually follow.

Takes too much thinking about.

Why do you say that?

Seemed a logical response.

OK, then why do you believe it takes too much thinking? What is there to think about?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[ding]

No. Exceptions don’t mean that. And they most certainly don’t negate the rule.

Exceptions mean that something is not an absolute, Ding. Thats by definition of what it means for something to BE considered absolute. Always the case, never not = absolute.

Your own moral objectivism, believing in 1 ultimate right and 1 ultimate wrong, should have clued you into that.

or are there now exceptions to those absolutes??

jeeze

Youd THINK before you typed if you cared to learn anything.

And I would have avoided all of the other examples of hatred of things in others that we dont have in ourselves if I were you, as well.

When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes. We are free to behave any way we want but there will be consequences. So outcomes tell use there are moral laws. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. The fact that it is probalistic in nature means nothing.

With respect to Jung’s assertion that we can learn a lot about ourselves by understanding the negative feelings we get from others using extreme examples is idiotic. You have to look at the full distribution. But as I told you earlier I am more than happy for you to ignore this. You are only hurting yourself.

The problem here is that you're agreeing with me - there are no absolutes in human behavior - and wanted to argue last night that counter examples DONT make something NOT an absolute.

It's in the text, ding. And now you're agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself.

GT: "Ding, exceptions to things mean that they arent absolutes."
Ding: "No. Exceptions don’t mean that."


Newer Ding: "When it comes to human behaviors there are no absolutes."


Which agrees with what I was saying in the first place.


To Jung - the extreme example was to prove a point. It was to provide the hole in the theory as a "glaring" one.

When you said that I had to use extreme examples, I then proceeded to give you a whole list of examples where it's not the case. Racism, Homophobia, xenophobia, partisanship, sexism, sports teams resorting to combat - -

There are countless counter-examples to Jung's assertion that we hate in others what we MOST hate in ourselves.

And another counter is that we often ADMIRE in others what we hate in ourselves.



What that means, is that it's sometimes the case that Jung's hypothesis is correct, and sometimes not; therefore, there's no real philosophical utility in even saying it in the 1st place.

Just because there are no absolutes in human behavior that doesn't mean we don't hate in others what we hate most in ourselves, GT.

The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong. The reality is that many people do hate in others what they hate most about themselves. It's the reason they have such strong feelings. So, no, I'm not agreeing with you.

In fact, let me offer even more proof....

"...According to Washington, D.C., clinical psychologist Dana Harron, the things people hate about others are the things that they fear within themselves. She suggests thinking about the targeted group or person as a movie screen onto which we project unwanted parts of the self. The idea is, “I'mnot terrible; you are.”

This phenomenon is known as projection, a term coined by Freud to describe our tendency to reject what we don’t like about ourselves. Psychologist Brad Reedy further describes projection as our need to be good, which causes us to project "badness" outward and attack it:

"We developed this method to survive, for any 'badness' in us put us at risk for being rejected and alone. So we repressed the things that we thought were bad (what others told us or suggested to us that was unlovable and morally reprehensible) — and we employ hate and judgment towards others. We think that is how one rids oneself of undesirable traits, but this method only perpetuates repression which leads to many mental health issues..."

The Psychology of Hate

I am not a power hungry bully who gets off on making the people around her feel inferior, glories in being able to order people around. I am not cold blooded liar, either.
Jung had some immensely interesting theories, especially his dream theories and the archetypal something or others....(it's been a long time)...but that idea that EVERYTHING we hate in others is a shadow of ourselves is bullshit. Sometimes it is true, however. I had to train a woman once who was definitely my shadow self and I really couldn't stand her. I couldn't help being short with her, although I tried not to be a bitch, and fortunately she couldn't take the chill for long and left the company. I asked at least twice a day, "Is this how I come off to other people? Is this what people think of me?" It was horrible. I couldn't stand her. I know what Jung means, but it is not a 100% thing. No matter how deeply I search my soul, I am NOT that former supervisor.

I don't believe he said everything, OL. You are taking it to extremes.

It seems to me that it is entirely logical that we would lash out on others for the things we see wrong in us. It's an easier path.

 

[ding]

This is still a private conversation, I see. I'll try again tomorrow.

No. It's not. I'm not sitting at my computer all the time. I'm at home doing other stuff too. I see posts when I see them.

 

[G.T.]

Any-time, King of 'um. Try some lube next time.

I'm good without it. It's got to be pretty rough on you when you have no authorities you can cite and I do.

I'm going to let that Marinate in all of its glory for what it is.

You act like I am making this shit up all on my own, but I'm not. The reality is I have only accepted what the authorities on the matter have said after evaluating it. You think you are arguing with me, but you're not.

The appeal to authority fallacy is not fallacious because we don't necessarily appeal to authorities...

it's when it's used in place of one's own argument that makes it a fallacy.

I asserted that his comment was not an absolute.

You later AGREED.

Now you're boasting for whatever fuckin reason about Authorities.

You're just Autistic, I honestly don't think that you can help it.

No. You started out with a tautology argument and nitpicking the phrase "I would argue" it degraded from there. My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves. It now seems you want to agree with that. Because everything else you are "arguing" is a non-sequitur and a tangent.

So which is it? Do you agree that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves? Or not?

That is the topic of the OP, right? Hate?

Just curious, but do you know how to qualify a statement? & why it's done?

Because when you use sloppy as fuck language, you can expect the repercussions. If you weren't autistic, this time would have all been saved.

When you say, "My original assertion was that we hate in others what we hate most in ourselves." - and fail to mention that you DONT consider it an absolute - and in virtue of providing no qualifying language someone challenges the assertion on the basis that it's not an absolute - - - it's because of your own sloppy fucking Language, Ding. We qualify these things for clarity, to avoid these time wasting exercises based on your Autism, Ding.

You're veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy terrible with easyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy things - which is what makes you a Cancerous Interlocutor.