Is misanthropy unavoidable?

Many philosophical questions are based on the “subject/object”-problem. So also in this case. The question “Is misanthropy unavoidable?” assumes that misanthropy exists. But does “misanthropy” obejctively exist? Or is “misanthropy” merely a subjective interpretation? Or is it both? And if it is both: Do we have to Interpret “misanthropy” more objectively or more subjectively? Is "misanthropy"a malicious assumption of those who are really “misanthropes” or even “misanthropists”, whereby “misanthropy” would be proven? Or is “misanthropy” something like “pessimism”? But does “pessimism” obejctively exist? Or is “pessimism” merely a subjective interpretation? Or is it both? And if it is both: Do we have to interpret “pessimism” more objectively or more subjectively?

If it is true that “existence is that which has affect” (James S. Saint), then we can determine that misanthropy exists, because misanthropy has affect, regardless whether it is more obejectively or more subjectively interpreted. But this does not answer the question whether humans are misanthropes or even misanthropists or not. The Ancient Greek said that their gods are like humans and that some of them are misanthropes. What if merely the gods are misanthropes, so that we - the humans - are merely the victims? What if merely we - the humans - are misanthropes, so that the gods are the victims? If it is true that we can experience misanthropy (because it has affect), then we can say, that we experience it either by our doing (active) or by our suffering (passive). Children are less powerful than adults. What can they do, if they want to become powerful? They can love, believe, and hope that they will be powerful in the future. And what can adults do, if they are not powerful (enough) and wnat to become (more) powerful? They can love, believe, and hope that they will be (more) powerful in the future; but in addition they can something what children do not can: the adults can try to overthrow the rulers. But therefor they have to be angry, furious, irate, revengeful, eveil (from the viewpoint of the rulers), and misanthropic, often while they project the misanthropy on the rulers, regardless whether it is right (true) or worng (false). They can say that the rulers are misanthropes, because e.g. they let the other humans suffer, and now the rulers have to be those who suffer. But the question is: Is it right to think and do this? And the main question is: Does this lead to more misanthropy or not?

So if one human or even the whole humanity becomes older, this can but does not have to mean more misanthropy. Schopenhauer - as one example amongst many others - was probably a pessimist, a misanthrope, or even a misanthropist, and when he lived the humanity was already very old, and when he was old there was prabbaly more misanthropy in him than ever before. But how should we value it? Is an optimist a better human? I say: No, because it depends on. And please do not forget: Most “optimists” are no real optimists. So the question of “optimism vs. pessimism” has mainly become a rhetorical one. And the question of “misanthropy vs. philanthropy” too!

So my answer to the question whether misanthropy is unavoidable is: Probably yes, but there are many lies involved when it comes to answer the question: Who is misanthropic?