Imagine a World Without Hate

Batman

Which one?

Which one?

The one where his parents were killed

The one where his parents were killed

Not very philosophical imo.

Not very philosophical imo.

http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/07/24...of-batman/

http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/07/24...of-batman/

Well for the Joker movie, that wasn't really the Prisoner's Dilemma because if both parties tried to cooperate, they would receive the worst possibility which is that they would both die. In the real prisoner's dilemma, cooperation on both parties not to snitch on the other results in being a safe option and the best option for both parties, although a middle-ground for each party individually. Regardless, there is a stark difference between a movie being philosophical versus a movie featuring adapted popular philosophical dilemmas to make it more interesting. What we're detracting from is the fact that you felt some compulsion to involve philosophical movies for no reason. Lol. "... and in like other philosophical movies is never ending retardation." Yes, like all those philosophical movies like Batman, that give humanity a greater understanding of how hatred manifests itself as revenge in contemporary society, truly representative of "never ending retardation." The most immediate movie that comes to mind isn't really a philosophical movie, but its about a dying guy who tries to find meaning in his life before he dies. And hatred is by far the last thing that occurs in the book/movie. I'm just joshing your chops because there aren't really any "philosophical" movies imo, I find the idea of feeling the compulsion to mention movies to be a bad decision, and the concept of "never ending retardation" is one of the more colorful descriptions I've seen recently.

Well for the Joker movie, that wasn't really the Prisoner's Dilemma because if both parties tried to cooperate, they would receive the worst possibility which is that they would both die. In the real prisoner's dilemma, cooperation on both parties not to snitch on the other results in being a safe option and the best option for both parties, although a middle-ground for each party individually. Regardless, there is a stark difference between a movie being philosophical versus a movie featuring adapted popular philosophical dilemmas to make it more interesting. What we're detracting from is the fact that you felt some compulsion to involve philosophical movies for no reason. Lol. "... and in like other philosophical movies is never ending retardation." Yes, like all those philosophical movies like Batman, that give humanity a greater understanding of how hatred manifests itself as revenge in contemporary society, truly representative of "never ending retardation." The most immediate movie that comes to mind isn't really a philosophical movie, but its about a dying guy who tries to find meaning in his life before he dies. And hatred is by far the last thing that occurs in the book/movie. I'm just joshing your chops because there aren't really any "philosophical" movies imo, I find the idea of feeling the compulsion to mention movies to be a bad decision, and the concept of "never ending retardation" is one of the more colorful descriptions I've seen recently.

I was joking with the batman thing The point I was trying to make is that "revenge" is a never ending circle, which some movies make a point out of.

Batman

I was thinking more along the lines of Equilibrium.

Same lead actor even.

How can you tell what's love (baby don't hurt me~) without hate?
How can you see dark without light?
There's no up if there's no down.

All of those things can exist without the other.

You CAN love without knowing what hate is; you CAN ''see'' darkness without light; you CAN go up without a ''down'' existing (Though you would just be constantly going up until you died). There aren't any actually opposing forces that are inherently present to balance out the other in any of those examples. They're considered opposites, but that isn't remotely the same as balance.

Unfortunately you can't totally get rid of hate without being able to fully control the minds of every single human that exists and will ever exist. The fact that we're free thinkers means you will have different thoughts. Some will be good and some will be vile. You can show the people the right path, but as long as they have the ability to choose, some will choose the other one instead - heck, maybe even out of pure curiosity.

True peace has never and will never exist. The world was without peace before mankind set foot on it, and it will remain that way until it ends. It's good to try and rid the world of things like hate as much as possible, but as long as it CAN be there it WILL be there.

All of those things can exist without the other.

You CAN love without knowing what hate is; you CAN ''see'' darkness without light; you CAN go up without a ''down'' existing (Though you would just be constantly going up until you died). There aren't any actually opposing forces that are inherently present to balance out the other in any of those examples. They're considered opposites, but that isn't remotely the same as balance.

Unfortunately you can't totally get rid of hate without being able to fully control the minds of every single human that exists and will ever exist. The fact that we're free thinkers means you will have different thoughts. Some will be good and some will be vile. You can show the people the right path, but as long as they have the ability to choose, some will choose the other one instead - heck, maybe even out of pure curiosity.

True peace has never and will never exist. The world was without peace before mankind set foot on it, and it will remain that way until it ends. It's good to try and rid the world of things like hate as much as possible, but as long as it CAN be there it WILL be there.

Well we could slowly but surely wash away that specific behavior. But people use ugly words like "Genocide" "Murder" "Immoral", just silly things like that

To an approximation, love is the opposite of hate.

If there is no hate, then there is no love to be defined. Therefore, in a world with no hate, there is no love.

Hope you know what I'm getting at.

edit: just being liquid CO2 here - I don't see how saving somebody from a fire has anything to do with hate.

Hadriel

I though the opposite of love of pathy. Or that word that means you don't care what happens to someone else. Hate is quite similar to love in that you do care what happens to them. Just in a negative way. But OT: You shouldn't even think about getting ride of hate because how else will you bring people together? lol its more like Get rid of the "hate without sensibly reason"

When newspeak confuses things.

This should have been named "Imagine a World Without Prejudice." Would have saved us a long philosophical discussion on whether love can exist without hate and so on.

The clip is not talking about personal hate - hating a specific person for (a) specific wrong(s) they've done you - at all. For example, "I hate that peach who stole my boyfriend."

It's talking about prejudice - hating (or fearing, or despising; or, for that matter, admiring) a group of people for impersonal reasons. For example, "I hate Gypsies because they steal children."

For reasons I don't understand, crimes with a motive of prejudice are called "hate crimes". I guess "prejudice" is too long of a word? That name just confuses things. Personally, if I didn't know otherwise, I would tend to associate the term "hate crime" with things like a teen murdering his abusive father - again, a case of personal hatred.

So: Can you imagine a world without prejudice?

So: Can you imagine a world without prejudice?

I would imagine that also be a world without fear, or god-like understanding of everything essentially

I would imagine that also be a world without fear, or god-like understanding of everything essentially

Why? Fear can have logical reasons. Or illogical reasons that have nothing to do with prejudice, or with people at all (e.g., fear of heights).
Even in the case of fear of people, it can be reasonable. For example, you can be afraid that someone you didn't give a tax break to will find you and beat you up, but you should not assume only Italians would do that.

Why? Fear can have logical reasons. Or illogical reasons that have nothing to do with prejudice, or with people at all (e.g., fear of heights).
Even in the case of fear of people, it can be reasonable. For example, you can be afraid that someone you didn't give a tax break to will find you and beat you up, but you should not assume only Italians would do that.

I feel as though majority of prejudice or racism result from fear based on stereotypes. But stereotypes aren't developed from prejudice but from observation, which may lead to fear depending on the specifics. Although fear can exist without prejudism I honestly think that prejudism cannot exist without fear.