Love and Hate and the Human Heart: A Philosophical Miscellany
In contemporary political discourse, love and hate have been turned into instruments of power and rhetorical manipulation. We need to do better. Let's try.
1. Love and Hate in the Twenty-First Century
In our contemporary milieu the rhetorical force of the couplet “love” and “hate”1 can hardly be doubted. These terms are conceptualized as antinomies, with the former being pure goodness and kindness, and the latter pure evil. Once a party or group is successfully depicted as hateful its ultimate demise seems inevitable.
The attribution of “hate” follows a well-worn playbook. The supposedly hateful faction is usually associated with racism, exploitation, and abuse, whereas the loving faction reveals itself through open acceptance and affirmation of everyone (well, except the “hateful,” who the “loving” are allowed to hate and demonize). This couplet is most often employed by left wing subversives and deconstructionists against those on the right who espouse traditional standards. (In this context “hate” means traditional family, religious norms, God, etc.)
Those who wish to restrict immigration or uphold traditional marriage and Western values are said to be “hateful.” Indeed, any criticisms of today’s victim groups are construed as hate. In the context of sexuality, love is characterized as unrestricted support and affirmation; by contrast, traditional sexual norms are said to be hateful because they are restrictive and focused on the natural family. The upshot is this: “love” means unrestricted blind affirmation and support; hate equates to restrictive or traditional norm.
Now it only takes a few moments of reflection to recognize that this is all nonsense.
Love does not always say yes. Love sometimes says no. It sometimes affirms, but also denies. Surely, we all know that this is so. Even the romantic lover may deny something to his beloved out of conscious or some higher duty. Is it “loving” to affirm your friend in a lifestyle that is self-defeating or undercuts human flourishing? Indeed to always affirm is neither possible nor wise — every father and mother knows that this is so. This is so obvious that those who invoke the love-hate couplet are surely blameworthy of linguistic manipulation or voluntary foolishness.
The real purpose of this usage is political. Those labeled as “hateful” are meant to be shamed into silence and placed outside of the community of discourse — they have not place at the table. Thus it is possible for leftists to say: hate speech is not free speech. Practically this means that free expression is allowed except to orthodox Christians and other traditionalists. In addition, the labeling others as hateful, gives the labelers a smug-moral self-assurance. This is an abuse of language and rhetoric not because it is political in nature, but because it is not rooted in truth.
Politics is multifaceted in nature. There is a place for action, passion, and rhetoric, but the virtuous man exercises the art of rhetoric in obedience to truth and real goodness.
2. Whether “hate” is always wrong?”
But perhaps the complete rejection of hate is wrongheaded in the first place? To be sure this is probably a shocking question raise. What is more repugnant that hate?
In common usage hate means something like, unjustified malice, and, as such, hate is indeed blameworthy. Nevertheless, a case can be made for hate — secundum quid.
According to Thomas Aquinas, “hatred,” rightly understood, is a passion of the soul. Unfortunately, it is not well known by non-specialists, but Thomas developed a deep and profound analysis of human passion as part of his inquiry into human action. Of course, Thomas insists that will and reason are the chief factors in human action properly so-called, but he also recognizes that passion plays a powerful role in all that we do.
Briefly, passions are passive movements of the affections in response to perceived goods and evils. Love is an affective movement towards that which is perceived to be good and desirable. Hate is the opposite. It is a forceful antipathy towards that which is perceived to be evil, undesirable, and destructive. In this perspective, there is nothing inherently wrong with hate. It is reasonable to hate death, unnecessary pain, injustice, and a murderous uncle who has designs on your inheritance. Hate energizes opposition towards that which is contrary to our good, including the good of our friends, family, and fellow citizens. When our country is wrongly attacked and its citizens killed, it is not wrong to feel opposition and the ardent desire to remove source of destruction. Of course, as with any passion, hate must ruled by reason, justice, and temperance. Too often, hate can overrun the guardrails of virtue and become the source of new injustices. This is something we must remember! Nevertheless, hate — properly understood — should be included both in the life of the virtuous man and the body politic (but regulated by just laws and wise statesmen).
In sum, the proximate cause of hate is the perception of some undue evil. But the remote cause of hate is actually love. We have antipathy towards that which threatens something that we love — our own nature and the good of those we hold dear. When regulated by virtue, there is nothing wrong with this kind of hate.
Thoughts for contemplation: the real enemy of authentic love is indifference; real love is dangerous; love is not always opposed to the application of lethal force and just punishment.
3. Rejoicing in the Truth
Having spoken on behalf of the hate, it is just for me to say something on behalf of love. Two statements from the New Testament are helpful.
In the Second Letter of John we read that “this is love, that we walk according to his commandments,” and clearly in context we are talking about the commandments of Christ. (2 John v. 6). But an even more helpful is the passage from 1 Corinthians 13:4-8. This text is usually read at weddings and this is fine, but in truth it applies to all of the disciples of Christ. The passage is well-known and well-loved, but one feature is often overlooked: real Christian love is not a blanket affirmation — it is not a blank check. Rather Christian love “does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.” The true lover will withhold his affection and affirmation from that which is wrong, not because of a lack of love but because he loves. He will not endorse a friend in a wrongful lifestyle because he loves his friend. Rather true Christian love rejoices in the truth. True goodness is the object of Christian love and has nothing to do with those progressive forms of Christianity that cannot distinguish good from evil. It feels good to say that we welcome all (and rightly understood we do welcome all to repentance), but law and objective right are indispensable guideposts for love.
4. The Realism of Real Love
According to Thomas Aquinas — and really the entire European tradition — true human love is rational. This is difficult for us to hear because we associate love so closely with its most romantic, emotional, or dramatic expressions. In saying that true human love is rational, I do not intend anything cold or robotic, but rather this: the vital root of real love is truth and truth is the accomplishment of reason. We cannot really love others without understanding — at some level or another — what is really desirable (good) and what is not.
Love is intending and choosing the good for a person. Obviously, we do not love someone by bringing harm, destruction, and evil into her life. We love others truly (and even ourselves) when we become sources of truth, joy, and growth, and if you think about it, to become a real lover is the accomplishment of a lifetime.
Examples: a father intends and choses a good education for his sons; he choses to spend time and money on this project; he is involved in their projects and homework; encourages and guides their reading, and so on. A man’s country is wrongly harmed and the only remedy is military action; for the good of his country he enlists; he trains, prepares, and sacrifices; in pursuit of this love he is ordered to the front and commanded to defend the line; he encourages his comrades, aids the wounded, and kills the enemy. Eventually he dies in combat. Such a soldier has loved his country by giving it his strength, resolve, and martial prowess — and ultimately the good of his life. Examples could be multiplied without end.
In the European tradition, real love presupposes an order of real goods: friendship, justice, provision, beauty, etc. This sort of love is guided by reason and effected by the will more than affective desire. Ultimately, the dutiful soldier who loves his country acts by intellect and decision more than feeling. Of course, feelings of affection and anger may initiate the process of becoming a solider, but these quickly give way in the face of the cold realities of pain, fear, and death. Real love brings about goodness even with an environment of sensible evil and emotional turmoil. In saying, this I do not mean to disparage the passion of desire (passionate love) in the least. Life would be hard and barren with the warmth and even heat of passion, and, all things considered it is right and highly desirable that true love be adorned with passion.
Nevertheless, genuine love is not itself identical to the passion of love; it is rooted in truth, soul, and intellect. Love such as this makes a man out of boy, inspires greatness, shapes character, and in one case, even saved the world. Indeed, it is not amiss to see something divine in true love.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. (1 John 13-17)
Image: https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.104243.html. Cloud Study: Stormy Sunset. John Constable.