Um obe that is really taken out of context.
Kris: how can we hate something where the context is within the chalice? It's a stretch, but still, it fits . A coveat : love your enemies, even if that enemy is yourself.
I am not disagreeing , I meant that quote is out of context. And not applicable to realunoriginal’s premise.
" If you hate yourself, then you despise those most like yourself". This comment is so subtly illogical, and hard to argue against, although it is not the premise, it cries out for any correction. Christ has inverted logic, and He is the only authority I could point to augment a revulsion, since your self includes that of your neighbor. So if you hate yourself, you seek out the likes of you, a self hater. But if two self haters get drawn in hate can not draw them in. Only something like "misery likes company. (Note the like).
The above is not original, and was mentioned somewhere above in the text. I’d din’t go unnoticed.
Ok, The aaaaahs have it. Now I get it 
I don’t know what you’re talking about, but it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with this thread.
It does because according to you I have to hate myself. Since I don’t you are incorrect.
Oh yeah? How is that?
Prove that I’m incorrect, make an argument.
Rununder: here is the argument. Admittedly, there is a difference between common sense and the logical structure of language. Your argument makes perfect sense logically. People that hate themselves can not only be proven to want to gravitate toward each other, but there is a common sense cliche, which best describes this : birds of a feather flock together.
However this is only. An inter alia descriptive cliche.
There is another cliche which pertains more to a per se state of affairs : misery loves company.
The meaning of this common sense cliche is based on the following structure:
Misery affiliates those with similar traits - other’s who have this trait.
To hate one’s self is misery (as opposed to it’s opposite)
The self hating one’s self. Is in misery. -according to the most viable and widely understood definition.
Self hating persons prefer the company of other self hating persons, because of the existence of the same trait (of self hating)
But, misery loves company. Now this is where common usage trumps the logical syntax of language. If two people love each other’s company, in the projectivelly identified way You described, yet, love each others company by the same token, there is a hidden contradiction there between common usage, and logical structure.
Those very same self hating people , by loving each others’ company, really love themselves,because they are introjective the love (of each other’s company based on the same traits of hate) and are really un admittedly loving themselves
There is a semantic inconsistency, and psychology reinforces this logical inconsistency.
If logic, common sense, and psychology is not enough, there may be social factors too that induce people to affiliate by virtue of hate, without an adequate description of what hate is. Such a. Hate bonding, hate mongering, uses lrationalisations and hypes with undercurrents of logical inconsistency, to recruit like people. Not understanding the senselessness of their arguments.
Let’s use an analogy to make this topic more practical.
Tallness and height. Let’s say there’s a tall person, 7 feet tall, and this person loves this aspect of himself. He adores his height, relishes in it, thinks it makes him attractive, is confident about it, doesn’t want to be any other way. His height is perfect. Perfect.
Doesn’t he want to be around other tall people? What does his behavior demonstrate if he hates being around short people? What does his behavior say if he hates being around tall people?
What does this lesson demonstrate in terms of likeness, in either appearance or behavior?
Why does a person prefer to be around somebody with a similar, or dissimilar, trait? If there is a preference for likeness, then this should demonstrate self-love. If there is a preference for unlikeness, then this should demonstrate self-hate.
For example, a misanthrope, a hater of humanity, mostly wants to be around pets, animals, and doesn’t want to be around other humans. This seems to demonstrate and typify the point most obviously.
Rundunder: that’s exactly the point: practicality and sense are only appearant. Hate is not. You can look at a person, and have no idea of his state of mind. His state of mind cannot be connected to his appearance, the same analogical way, as his hate of himself cannot connect his like (or wanting to be around) like minded people.
Love/hate: like/dislike of the self may not be apparent
Why a person hates himself may too, be an apparent hate, as per knowledge, but what is that knowledge?
Ultimately, he can say to himself that he hates himself for hating himself, or for being evil, but what is evil?
Certainly hating yourself is not evil in itself, but fear is.
Hate is Caused! By the fear of the Being of evil. And unless you belong to a coven, you will never know that evil, only it’s manifestation.
It’s manifestation is fear. And what is fear afraid of?
Fear is afraid of good, fear is the knowledge of the
Inherent possibility of good, and evil is it’s denial.
We can never know good, because it’s inherent, or evil because evil is the fear of good.
Hate is the result of this realization. Your argument can be extended to the example of the tall man’s predicament. He despises short people because it’s a reversal of a literal perspectivism which he can never overcome.
Psychology and logic can’t ever trump biology and evolution. The fruit of knowledge is really a bitter fruit, indeed.
But people can say, “I hate myself for being short” you may object. Most people would imply by that, that they dislike that attribute about themselves. The ones who base their very self on their lack of adequate height, can be pointed out to be not very sensible.
As far as the misanthrope is concerned his not wanting not to be around other humans can’t casually be related to his hating them. But if he really hates them, it doesn’t mean doesn’t mean his hatefulness is intrinsic. In otherwords, he would hate himself. Because he would hate humanity not for them Being human, but because he hates some attribute that he doesn’t accept in himself.
That fact destroys the logic, because in fact, you can talk of despising one’s self for having others having a low opinion of yourself, and seeing attributes that contribute to that opinion, You can never have your self Being, it simply makes no sense.
I feel your reversal was ironic, perhaps not advertantly , but if so, well, you have succeeded in lessening my belief in psychological interpretations. Others in my repression as a way out of morality post have used to social/psychological way out.
My point is to try to formulate ideas either way, that prevent such obvious leakages. Dasain is, after all not a complacent totality, but a way of being in the world which we have to strive for, with absolute trust, and self confidence. It is through the lack of these, that we develop a fear that can only be compensated with an over valuation, as in a superman. Perhaps I am putting your OP in jeopardy of being moved to mundane babble, but I don’t think there is any risk in that.
Everyone around me is different than me, some vastly different. I love and am loved. I have little to no similarity in politics, religion, upbringing, looks. I am surrounded by differences and am quite happy. My husband and I are day and night different, 30 yrs and still loving each other.
When you surround yourself with only likeness, you cannot possibly like yourself because you fear being challenged or criticism.
You love difference, not similarity. You seem to hate similarity, thereby, proving my point. Why do you prefer difference, have you ever even asked yourself the question?
If you place it in the purely reductive logic of qualifying people in terms of similarity and dissimilarity, you run into the strategic problem , of qualifying people in terms of properties (tallness, fatness) versus qualities (goodness, hateful). N I see no problem with qualifying people over 7 ft., but. How can you measure goodness and hate? Besides it is hard to know the hateful person,because they usually cover that up.
Surrounding one’s self with people who are alike tells that that kind of person seeks out people who are easy to qualify or disqualify , because they get compared to some ideal, whereas the person who prefers variety in people, has a more lax attitude toward accepting people, as long as they resemble people she likes to have around.,
Keep in mind that these metaphysical presumptions are mostly sub conscious.
A person who routinely seeks out likeness in others, by height, occupation, gender, hobbies, etc, probably won’t realize what he or she is doing. That doesn’t matter. What matters is, applying these metaphysical laws of consciousness.
This is arguable on grounds that subconscious ideas come from conscious ones, which have been actively pondered and worked for. People don't gravitate toward persons of a certain like kind because of propensities, qualities, attributes, likes dislikes from not ever having thought about them consciously, and consciously working toward attaining goals, and ideals that dealt with those thoughts.
Runaround: it's possible there were inter generational thoughts supplanted very early on, and the person get's the idea that way, but with time, these traits and qualities get modified and reworked consciously and sub consciously.
I hope you don't see this as psychological washout, ridding the ideal logical world from a pre pondering position, and in fact, it is breaking my heart to see the world of ideals as unsupportable, un affordable architectural relics, but sadly, that is the case. Along with you, can never give this up, so my consciousness is split figuratively between the classic and modern notions.
Either/or is atypical for me to sustain come hell and highwater, and I do it,mindful of my preoccupation of art, even for it’s own sake. Kierkegaard,held this view, and I would be dishonest in saying I am attacking your view, except to point out the hidden dangers laying there. This is why, for a while I thought you are using inverted logic, to bring a point across an almost impenetrable barrier.
Ru, I don’t hate any part of me, What I am is perfect me. I love who and what I am. And frankly there just are not that many short skinny cantankerous left handed 50 yr old redheaded atheists that has no political party and that is hired right and left for their abilities with animals.
There are other things I could list about me that is different but, you get the idea. If I were to do things by your logic I would be on the road searching and never finding me cuz I love me and want only to be with me. What a waste that would be. Sounds fearful of difference to me. That is not love, that is fear.
Well, you know how I feel about redheads, but…aren’t you fighting for uniqueness here?
But that doesn’t allow for emotion, intent, or circumstance, so how can you solely base your premise on Physics? Many love themselves but not their family, and where does the Physics come into the equation exactly?
Because there ought to be a mechanism, or many, that cause a child to reject his or her family.
And there are mechanisms for this, both pathologically and genetically. Because gene functions are often random. Not every baby is born healthy. Sex is a risk. There’s no guarantee that people are going to procreate a child with a conducive biology to the overall health of a larger society.
You have to put the individual in perspective with society. Societies reject some individuals, the question is why. Is it a necessary rejection, or unnecessary?
For example, let’s assume for a moment that murder is genetic. No amount of nurturing will prevent a certain amount of murders within society. So what should be done? We already do it. We lock up murderers, call them criminals, and separate them from society.
This can be construed as “self hate” of an intrinsic compulsion to murder. Don’t humans “hate” murders, and murderers? Think about a victim of murder, wouldn’t the victim hate to be murdered? Obviously, yes.