Writing in a TIME editorial re the international conference on Hate, held in Oslo Norway with many notables (Elie Wiesel, Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela) in attendance, Lance Morrow wondered why Hate is not named as one of the seven deadly sins, since there's so much of it around, and reported it was found difficult to discuss by "virtue's choir" i.e. the good.
It occurred to me that much as these good people would try to get into the mechanics of hate, it is something that is really defined in the mind of the hatee, he or she who experiences its effects, thus has a much better idea of what it produces. After all, none of the haters, even the Hitlers and Saddams, get up and look in the mirror and says "Well, who shall I hate today?" No, their actions have logic, peculiar to be sure, nevertheless they feel they are actually doing good by actions appropriate to achieve their particular goals. Hate, that notorious detribute, doesn't really enter into it. Unless you're the object; then hate looms large.
Now love, on the other hand, is defined by the lover because he can feel the emotion and the resultant joy or disappointment. Hopefully more of us know love than hate, and there are more ardent suitors than helpless victims, but one wonders, when looking over the situation in the entire world just who would win in a tug of war.
Vaclav Havel, another attendee at the conference, stated: "The hater longs for the object of his hatred." I doubt it; what the hater really wants is to be rid of the object and to go on to his own idyllic existence without the problems he feels the hated object represents. The sooner we rid ourselves of this simple concept that people do things simply out of unreasonable hatred, the sooner we can deal with the real problems -- by education, so that we know each other, thus love one another more, or at least hate one another less.
But then, doesn't that mean we will have to get rid of our minted idea of love too? Let's think about it.
Henry Francisco, Special to
No comments:
Post a Comment