are you saying if you are judged to be week you then hate those whom juged you.

or simply that if you are week you hate the strong

hatred is a waste of energy could be why the week are week.

it's spelled weak...

a week consists of 7 days

but why consider hatred as a waste of energy? revenge is centered around hate, and it certainly isn't a waste of energy

sorry sweet heart had a fever when i wrote that thanks for the correction though.

so to seek revenge you have to hate the person on which you plan revenge? I dont think revenge is in any way centered around hate its a reaction to an action. you may hate the person but that is not why you seek to avenge yourself.

hate is a waste of energy because it typically involves avodiance. In other words you are expending a great deal energy to maintain your hatred but nothing is resovled.

first off, don't call me sweetheart...we haven't known each other long enough for such pet-names...not to mention you're a nubbie and don't seem to realize that i'm a guy and Dogwitch is a comic book...but ho-hum

secondly, as the official philosophizing asshole, allow me to say welcomes and all that...

Indeed, revenge is a reaction to an action, but that does not mean that an emotional context is anyway stripped from the scenario. To say that actions involve no emotional contexts whatsoever is...well, i think that would have to be justified through some intense psychological profile backed up by an absurdist approach. BLAH! In short, almost any and every action involves some type of emotional context--whether it be as profound as hatred or love, or as simplistic as happiness or sadness (if indeed such emotions can be considered more simplistic than the prior).

Anywho, as emotions are indeed found in almost any and every action (not to mention reactions to things [i.e. a paintings]), let's not declare revenge as being void of any emotion, especially one as strong as hatred. It can, in the long run, prove to be a very powerful ally.

Also, [b]"hate is a waste of energy because it typically involves avoidance [. . .] expending a great deal of energy to maintain your hatred, but nothing is resolved," is an interesting concept. But you make it sound as if hatred is the only emotion which goes unresolved. What about love? There are many cases where love goes unresolved. And I would think that unresolved love would be more damaging to one's self than unresolved hatred. Suicide is sometimes a big factor in unresolved love...you don't hear too many cases of suicide being a factor in unresolved hatred.

if a person truly loves somthing they will do anything to get it. This implies action, action must have an outcome sooner or later. Although suicide is of course a very negative outcome it still is an outcome. Hatred typically provides no resolution it continues to suck energy like a black hole theirfor it is a waste of energy.

revenge has many emotions attached to it but they are not the motivating factors behind revenge.

I dont know if i want to get to far into talking about hatred as an allay. I think very logically and look at situations with no emotions attached, that can be dangerous when people attach their own moral compass or emotions to what I am simply trying to discuss logically. I will say this indivdualy it is not an ally as a herd it can be a powerful unifier and motivator kinda like religion. oooopss

sorry about the sweet heart bit

thanks for the welcome

I too think logically, looking at all angles, at every subject, is how one truly identifies the object. Most times, however, the object is never completely justified (Hume was a big player in that field...but that's beside the point).

Anyway, "if a person truly loves somthing they will do anything to get it" seems highly illogical. Although you might be able to justify it, doesn't mean the justification is both sound and valid. Are you telling me that there's never been someone out there who's been so in love, but never reacted to it? Or rather, never reacted positively to it? For someone to love another, but never speak of their feelings, only to bottle them up and go on with life is a constant theme in many stories and many lives. Sure, it's a negative reaction, and hence a reaction, but what was the action? The person they were in love with, or the love itself?

Same thing with revenge. What is the action? The "wrongness" or one's own feelings/perception of said "wrongness"? If one were to take the philosophies of perception, or maybe even Nietzsche's concepts on morality, what really is the motivation for a persons actions? An outside experience, or one's outlook on said experience? Sure, both play a role, but which one really plays the largest contributing factor? Or perhaps, just perhaps, it's different for everyone? Maybe, for some it is the outside experience, while for another it's their feelings on the matter.

love:

in general if you truly love some"thing" you will do any thing to get it.

you are complicating the issue a little bit by adding another indivdual into the mix whom we are assuming has free will. Because each person truly loves themselves most of all we as humans make rationlizations all the time to protect what we truly love the most. things like "this can only end in tragedy so because I love the other person so much I gotta walk away now to protect them" really the the individual is protecting itself. dont mention stories they are typically set up to try and guide people to unrealistic behavior. I would also say if someone was "truly" in love there would be some action.

perception:

I agree with you. However your perception of the action may cause you to hate but hate does not cause you to seek revenge.

Why not? Justify it...

why do you hate them in the first place?

No, that's not what I'm aiming for. Your justification seems to fall into theories of Behaviorism (a highly sound theory, but not valid, and thereby illogical). If I may, an example: You fight me and kick my ass, I don't like you; you then fuck my girlfriend, now I hate you; I get a gun and kill you. END EXAMPLE. I know the "revenge" aspect is a bit inane, but what I'm trying to show is that yes, in accordance to Behaviorism, cause and effect, action/reaction. But what causes that reaction? Is it simply A then B, or A+1 then B....meaning, +1 would be how the action effected me. Why A effects me so. Now, if you take the same example, but change it: You fight Bob and kick his ass, Bob doesn't like you; you then fuck Bob's girlfriend, now Bob hates you; Bob does nothing and goes on hating you and wallows in that feeling until, with time, hopefully, Bob gets over it, or simply deals with it. It's still the same cause and effect, action/reaction, A then B, but his +1 aspect isn't the same as mine. Is this in anyway, is it merely possible, that in fact one's perception, one's emotional context, does indeed play a role in one's actions?

under your example i would say that you percivied my action(s) as those that required a reaction (interesting side note why in your example did it take two actions to provoke a reaction I would think that you personnally percieve an ass kicking as something you do not need to react to but if I were to have relations with your girl friend that requires some reaction? Interesting also the whole protecting the egg thing anyways back to the topic on hand) Bob however did not percieve my actions as requiring a reaction. Your example shows that perception can dictate what subsequent actions an indivdual might take but it flys in the face of the point you are trying to make. If emotion did play a part in ones actions you would expect that because both you and Bob hate me in this example you would both be taking some action. Bob however takes no action. A logical conclusion drawn from this example would be that hate does not play a role in choosing to take subsequent action "revenge" (for the topic of the thread thus far).

There you go, nice counter-argument. However:

I do not entirely agree with this logic. A. you proved my point that perception/emotion does indeed play a role in the reaction; B. Bob does indeed take action, his non-agressive behavior is still an action, based on his perception/emotion.

Now, let me just say straight out that I am not trying to declare that my theory is anyway 100% sound and valid, I'm merely arguing (that's what I do), mostly because "emotional philosophy" hasn't really developed in the world of philosophy yet, although there does seem to be some trend that might suggest it might become a key aspect in the world of philosophy. But that's another discussion for another time. Nevertheless, I've enjoyed this immensely, been awhile since there's been a good discussion here. And by all means, let's talk some more...whether on this subject or on another subject.

A. couldnt agree more with this statement
B. In the context of the conversation (revenge) doing nothing is not taking action it does not lead to vengence it maybe that bob did not percieve my actions as requireing a reaction which demonstrates my point it is the orginal action that causes a reaction emotion is secondary you know why someone stabs a guy 10 times or 50.

I look forward to future discussions and your respnse to this post perhaps more people will get involved so we are not just trying to convince each other

Both Of you BIG WIGS are forgeting to take into account BOB's Wirein some ppl get TOO mad to react ,thus too much Emotion to do anything ,maybe the ass kicking broke the poor bastard and he just came to acept the taking of his woman as the way things are and thus did nothing , hell he probly hates himself more for NOT acting or his inability to act ..more than you even if you were the cause of the whole dissruption ...Or maybe he figures why dirty his Karma by reacting in a negitive maner to your stimuli and simple blows it all off as LIFE figureing it will come back to you in otherways thus he dosent have to do anything about it ,an in fact will be rewarded in some priritual way by passing the test you pesented him with when you did his world harm ...

Me personaly ...ya better kill me ..kick my ass, im ok with that rape my woman I'll see you Farggin Dead ! SO dead it will be an example to all shuch doing scum ..It might even make me go Vigilantanty Punisher/Batman style ..Im Super Hero Wired and Psychotic enough that if my BUBBLE was ever busted too bad that would be the excuse to use my mind in such a way as to devote myself to becoming a hunter of the hunters ...If I hadent become a family guy I woulda tryed Bounty Hunting ! etc.

10 or 50 times depends on the knife !! 10 if its a crappy one thats hard to use 50 if its a good one that goes in and out easy !

Hatred is a waste of energy because while it does lead to revenge, revenge, as well, is a waste of energy. Truly i have never felt better after getting my o so desired revenge upon someone, because what happened is still in existence, still remembered. All hatred does is blind the person, and once again bring it back to him/herself. Also your argument sic is that because hatred leads to revenge, it makes it worth something. However, if revenge was not possible or not there, then would hatred still be a wisely spent amount of energy?

Later

Haha post numero uno

First off, you counter-argued yourself by saying "yes hatred DOES LEAD to revenge, but it's a WASTE of energy"....sorta a contradiction in itself don't you think? To BECOME something or to LEAD somewhere, and yet, being a waste.

I didn't know motion was a waste...

Secondly, And yet, what is perhaps hatred polar-opposite, LOVE, is also been known to "blind" a person. And I'm sure the same thing can be applied to other emotional states as well. For example, sadness also seems to take a strong hold on someone's life, so much so they prescribe medications for it.

Now this point is just utterly ridiculous and worthless. Playing the "if" game. It's one thing to attribute an "if" to theories seeking (BIG-T) Truth, that still follow principles of logic: "IF" there were a Necessary Being (i.e. a God)...but to apply an "IF" to something that is readily recognizeable and scientifically (well, psychologically) proven to exist as a (small-t) truth...??? See the problem.

Oh and, welcomes.

LOL ! Im most cases Stimuli causes an effect !

I friend of mine wrote this and it intrigued me.

"Drifting thru the waking hours,
Seeing a dream open-eyed.
The darkness ia always near,
waiting silently to take control.

Your conscience ripples like liquid flame,
just stalling the inevitable coldness.
Your mind is not your own,
nothing can stop it from falling appart.

Longing for that companion,
to walk with into beautiful darkness.
Oblivious to everything around you,
You travel into the essence.

Felling the touch of your darker side,
desperately wanting it to dominate you entirely.
It lurks just beyond your grasp,
waiting for your surrender."

It got me to think about some things. so I let you read it and think about it.