Well love and hate appear to both be cocktails of emotions, rather than individual ones, hence the endless variations of both that exist. That's going by how the terms are generally used, but since they are both on the vaguer side of emotional concepts, there'll be other ways they are used that don't fit.
Hate can have anger and fear in the cocktail, which are the two strongest individual human emotions that are clearly defined (as far as emotions can be anyway). Not to say that any moment of hate will overpower any moment of love, but that hate has the higher potential for intensity.
It's rather like how it's much easier to cause intense pain than it is to cause intense pleasure. Maybe love can reach the heights of hate, like pleasure can reach the heights of pain, but it's a lot rarer.
Aside from intensity, there's how common they both are in comparison to one another. I have nothing to go on there.
Aside from that, there's how often people base their actions on each. I actually think people tend to focus on what they want to happen more so than what they want not to happen. So if I had to guess, love wins that one.
Then there's how dramatically each one has shaped humanity. I really just have no idea here either.
Love definitely. Love can abolish hate, but hate can't abolish love.
Love can abolish hate?
- No: give love to something that can only hate you and it will only take all your love from you, without ever returning the favor.
Hate can't abolish love?
- True, kind of, love and hate are just opposites, one can never abolish the other one.
- Love is when you help someone
- Hate is when you oppose someone
Love for everybody doesnt work, you can't help everybody, you'll end up helping the wrong ones too if you do that.
Technically I'd say Giggly's right on this one. Apathy is lack of any emotion (nothing in this instance) and that is the opposite of love and hate, which are something.
It's presences vs absence. Of course apathy is not just the opposite of love it's the opposite of emotion itself.
Originally Posted by SkyWalker
no apathy is the middle
love < apathy/indifference/neutral > hate
hate = take yourself down to take the other down
love = take yourself down to bring the other up
indifference = dont even waste time on it (dont take yourself down)
Because I don't feel my earlier post was understandable, I shall try this again. Saying A's assumption is incorrect and stating your own assumption of your perception of an idea does not validate or invalidate either assumption. Assumption A has not yet been found to be logically incompatible with itself, even if it is logically incompatible with your own Assumption B.
People have chosen to define how this relationship between ideas of love, hate and apathy according to their own worldviews and philosophy. There are multiple ways of viewing the world that are not logically inconsistent within themselves, so how can anyone 'prove' that idea incorrect? There may be only one Truth, but without knowing which assumptions are the correct assumptions we cannot solve for it.
My own personal philosophy tends slightly to be closer to that apathy is the opposite of emotion simply because while I have hated and loved the same essence at the same point in time, whereas I have never loved and apathied an essence at the same time. However, I do see this idea
and have thought of love and hate using this definition of the relationship. There are multiple ways to define it, such as dividing it into an X Y relationship with quality of emotion on the Y and intensity of emotion on the X.
This may be all be about how one looks at it.
Love wouldn't exist without loneliness to inspire it.
Peach yogurt is made of love. And gnome kidneys. - Domino
I can cope and will cope without polluting my lungs. - Saslou