On Love and Hate Historically, extremes in emotion and reason do not often mix. I am thus cautious of attempting to comb through love or hate with reason. My recourses are two: to (yes, using what reason I have) separate intellectual thought from emotion; and to apply as little reason as possible without ceasing to write. It seems reasonable (sorry) to assume that emotion and reason have nothing to do with each other. It also seems very likely that one cannot exist with the other.
They seem capable of cohabitation within a single person, but fall upon differing objects. Are not the things we love or hate not the things we understand? Hate: Hate is one of our reactions to a lack of understanding. We cannot hate that which we understand. Hate is our frustration at failure to comprehend. The more we understand something hated, the more our hatred becomes sadness or pity, or deepens to a hatred of that which caused whatever it was that we did not understand.
In the latter case, the hatred may increase with understanding, but the object of the hatred has shifted. We are given a wide range of paths for dealing with our hatred, from the altruistic to the reactionary. The altruists, wishing peace without societal discord, tell us to repress our hatred and replace it with love, a path bound eventually for emotive explosion and breakdown. The diametric path gives us a series of smaller explosions with promise of emotional stability as a result of constant expulsion of malefic urges. Neither of these, or combinations thereof, are terribly productive ways in which to deal with hate, as even the moderate paths deal with the hatred only superficially and inefficiently. I see the only way around hatred being understanding. Upon comprehension of the object of hatred, one is either better equipped for the constructive removal of said object, cooly and rationally; or no longer desirous of the removal. Either outcome is fully satisfying altruistically.
In the latter case, one must accept simultaneously a bit of humility for having been mistaken as well as a bit of pride for having become a bit more correct. This leaves one emotionally balanced. The hatred is not repressed, but transformed. The same emotional energy is simply working in a different direction. Upon the removal of the object, the hatred is put to work in a positive manner instead of simply lashing out half-cocked and possibly incorrectly. The process is simply that of questioning: “why does this specific situation exist?”, and “what can be done to cause this situation not to exist?”.
Realize that just as for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction; for every reaction, there is an equal and opposite cause; and that nothing is simply either cause or effect, but everything is both. Love: Ask the same questions, hope not to find answers, and don’t be disappointed when you do. If you find understanding of the object of love, it will no longer be an object of love, as love, similarly to hate, is a reaction to a lack of understanding. The faster you find answers, the more superficial the emotion. When answers come in the form of more questions, you have a true indication of the intensity and thoroughness of the emotion, and there is more likelyhood that when love finally disappears, through comprehension, it will be replaced with respect and admiration which you will find very easy to tell yourself is the same thing. I am sorry if it seems I have advised you to processes that diminish or destroy emotions; I have not. Emotions, contrary to poetic assumption, are not permanent, but transitory (although it is certainly not impossible for them to remain for durations exceeding a human lifetime).
I believe that the proper thing to do with emotions is to consummate them, not to either prolong or shorten their duration, for one is stagnation and the other repression.