I think the misanthrope disposition is more a highly personal one than really any objective inference. For me growing up as one, It was about boredom. The trifles of my peers and most people in general simply bored me. Bukowski was mostly disgusted by people, his novel Ham on Rye, is a masterpiece of the budding curmudgeon.
“I don't hate people. I just feel better when they aren't around.” ― Charles Bukowski
Misanthropy a dislike of humankind.
Is this the result of thwarted expectations or even excessively naive optimism.
For me, it's not a hatred of mankind, entirely....but a more precise definition of what is human, what I consider human...because all is a matter of degrees not absolutes, and a matter of my personal preferences.
I do not dislike all people only 90% of them, and the rest I can only tolerate being around for short periods of time, depending on their personality. I don't even like being with my son all day, every day. Custody would have been difficult for me.
---------------------
The modern types, the nihilists, as I call them....the simpletons, mistake misanthropy for nihilism, for nature hating, for life hating. Know why? Because their entire psychology, their entire awareness is boxed into human considerations.
This is feminization.
Reality has no value unless it is connected to human interests. They cannot appreciate existence, unless it is connected to humanity.
This is how the term "nihilist" becomes a description of a world void of human abstractions, feeding human needs. The world is nil, void, when it lacks a teleos, a moral universality.
The positivity of this absence alludes them emotionally. They cannot get past the horror of what this implies for them...because now they must take responsibility for creating a meaning, a purpose, a reason to be kind, because it's not in them, it's not part of their innate qualities.
For me it stems from a notion that things/people could be better, essentially resentment towards lost potentials. Meta-physical ideas if free-will, unfounded realities. Now I think agency should only be rendered to one self.
“The study of Nature makes a man at last as remorseless as Nature.”
― H.G. Wells
On the other hand the depriving the feelings can result in apathetic emptiness. Unless traped in depression, which I view as of namely physiological in reasons, then its quite possibly enjoyable and motivating.
These are good influences. And to keep on top of the physiological side try excessive amounts of caffine, coca leaves tea, nicotine, ginger, and chili pepper. The experience is quite inspiring.
reasonvemotion
Gender : Posts : 681 Join date : 2013-01-09 Location : The Female Spirit
Happy people, are naïve people........ they must be.... they go along with whatever is proposed and most times get taken advantage of by those unscrupulous people waiting for the chance to do so. I don't believe people are inherently "good", I believe they are inherently "bad" and I don't have the desire to look for good in anyone or to leave myself open to their abuse of my trust.
It is a common misconception that misanthropes are miserable, rude, introverts and although Bukowski displays this perfectly, one must also take into account, the misanthrope tends to look at humanity without those rose colored glasses.
The fact is, being withdrawn makes the misanthrope happy.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
I think, The misanthrope has an innate character which requires him to dislike most humans and/or most human relations, to function in his environment. It's not that he enjoys disliking humans, otherwise he'd not become reclusive but feel a joy when dealing with others.
It's not just the result of thwarted expectations, it's the continuous thwarting of ones' expectations because the individual cannot change those innate characteristics, those innate expectations.
reasonvemotion
Gender : Posts : 681 Join date : 2013-01-09 Location : The Female Spirit
Jerry Terry dislikes people – a lot. He doesn’t really have friends, and treats his acquaintances with barely concealed contempt. He is very much an equal opportunity despiser – he dislikes men, women, straights, gays, blacks, whites and one-legged people all with an equal intensity. He is aware that his misanthropy is a problem, so he keeps himself to himself as much as possible. Nevertheless, he is certainly a negative force in the world, subtracting rather than adding to the sum total of human happiness.
Person Y: The Racist
Oswald likes (most) people – a lot. He has many friends, and treats almost everybody he meets with respect and kindness. However, he’s a racist – he just doesn’t like black people. He is aware that his racism is a problem, so he tries to avoid black people as much as possible. Nevertheless, in his dealings with black people, he is certainly a negative force in the world, subtracting rather than adding to the sum total of human happiness.
So what is worse, Terry’s misanthrope or Oswald’s racism? Who is morally more suspect and why?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37106 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Satyr - He treats people kindly, and respectfully, and expects to be treated likewise. He never discusses controversial topics with others, unless he senses they are interested or they start a conversation. He is careful no to hurt anybody's feelings, unless they ask for it.
He gets along with most people, especially blacks.
But he cannot be dishonest with himself, even if he knows he must be dishonest with others.
When discussing philosophy or an intellectual matter with those who profess to be interested in it, he assumes that honesty is a requirement, otherwise it is nothing more than a social interaction.
Satyr does not go out looking for idiots, but when he goes to a public arena presumably full of individuals interested in reality, in honesty, in intellectual integrity, he also assumes that the other's opinions can be justified, defended, and rationalized.
When the others cannot, he is surprised they came on-line, in public, to declare a position they are not fully aware of themselves. He calls these people retards, or imbeciles, or turds, as the case may be.
When you have the arrogance to go in public to declare positions you cannot defend rationally, then you are either a hypocrite or an imbecile...a manimal, a sheeple, a parrot.
In social situations one does not assault another, even if he expresses an opinion which is unsupportable and absurd. BUT, when one goes to a philosophy forum with a position, then one should not expect politeness when he speaks like a moron.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
reasonvemotion
Gender : Posts : 681 Join date : 2013-01-09 Location : The Female Spirit
Misanthropy, is really only a combination of a low level of sociability, the person prefers to be alone and the recognition that interaction with humans is not particularly worth while or interesting, too many injustices, self deceptions and power games played out.
You claim to be a misanthropist, if this was so, then you would recognise that racism is a part and form of misanthropy.
The rest of your post is contrived and has a hidden agenda to it.
Perhaps your boss (is Jewish) and reads your posts, now and then, I am sure any connection to racism would be the death knoll for you "at the office" so to speak.
So let's keep it "nice" shall we, for your sake. What? Just saying.
dannerz
Gender : Posts : 32 Join date : 2014-02-21 Location : edmonton alberta
“I don't hate people. I just feel better when they aren't around.” ― Charles Bukowski
Misanthropy a dislike of humankind.
Is this the result of thwarted expectations or even excessively naive optimism.
Misanthropy is a healthy sign of having higher expectations and higher goals than the general masses. That is one type, one of the better types.
Misanthropy as blind hate towards the species is not very productive in most cases.
At present I have a complex of feelings and ideas on humanity. I hate them, I forgive them while still naturally hating them, I see passed them, that they are a part of a machine rolling down a hill. Humans are natural despite their attempts at domestic unnatural life. And since humans are earth elemental, they are naturally a bit chaotic, they have foundations, they will always change, and eventually they either get eaten or join a faction.
perpetualburn
Gender : Posts : 955 Join date : 2013-01-04 Location : MA
One speaks of being sick of man only when one can no longer digest him and yet has one's stomach full of him. Misanthropy comes of an all too greedy love of man and "cannibalism"; but who asked you to swallow men like oysters, Prince Hamlet?
Quote :
like misanthropy and “an all too greedy love of man,” there is here too an all-too-human oscillation between isolation and fusion. Hamlet’s “cannibalism” is an expression of his overwhelming desire to inhabit, and to be inhabited by, the other – to escape his condition of bodily solitude. We can describe him, as Nietzsche described Socrates, as one “who cut ruthlessly into his own flesh, as he did into the flesh and heart of the ‘noble,’ with a look that said clearly enough: ‘Don’t dissemble in front of me! Here – we are equal.’” “Don’t dissemble”: the stakes of acknowledgment are, for Hamlet, screwed to their highest pitch, reaching into his “inmost part,” his “heart’s core.” “The death of our capacity to acknowledge as such,” as Cavell has written, is “the turning of our hearts to stone or their bursting.” This is Hamlet’s heartbreaking choice: to shut himself off within his “too too solid flesh” – or to “burst in ignorance.” Neither alternative holds the promise of satisfying his desire to know, and to be known by, the other – hence the impasse at which Hamlet finds himself for most of the play. “We are all,” in Emerson’s words, “discontented pendulums”; Hamlet’s pendulum swings not so much between killing the king and not killing him as between the two Hamlets these would entail being. Caught between hard-hearted “misanthropy” and heart-shattering “greedy love,” he can only adopt, while simultaneously rejecting, alternating strategies of self-protection – Stoic isolation and antic aggression – until, we could say, he breaks apart – internally, where else? – “Now cracks a noble heart”
You claim to be a misanthropist, if this was so, then you would recognise that racism is a part and form of misanthropy.
The rest of your post is contrived and has a hidden agenda to it.
Perhaps your boss (is Jewish) and reads your posts, now and then, I am sure any connection to racism would be the death knoll for you "at the office" so to speak.
So let's keep it "nice" shall we, for your sake. What? Just saying.
If this is directed at Satyr's previous post, it doesn't even follow logically...It's as if you were just waiting and wanting to say this.
"Perhaps your boss (is Jewish)" where did that come from?
"So let's keep it "nice" shall we"... Just some "friendly" advice, no doubt? Almost sounds like an order, or has that authoritative, dissatisfied viper school teacher tone, but where the teacher lacks real authority over her self...Only here you don't even have the illusion of authority to "use" to your advantage (a teacher having certain actual disciplinary powers that she's always "hanging" over children)
Here, the only thing that matters is how well you can articulate/back up what you say. Throwing advice around is cheap and made even cheaper with a nasty tone.
But I'm sure you're legitimately concerned with Satyr's real world well-being.
reasonvemotion
Gender : Posts : 681 Join date : 2013-01-09 Location : The Female Spirit
This is a great place because for the most part criticism comes from a position of non-factoring emotional attachment. Not devoid of emotion based or personal content, just not these personifications of relationships. A forum resembles the act of talking to one self, only with a constant stream of original content, beyond current perceptions, which makes it so useful. So I apologise for any sort of snideness, if you've ever felt it, this was the sole cause. We would probaly communicate much better face to face(5 sisters; great with females), with others here that wouldn't be the case.
Gotta adapt to a masculine environment. The best thing you can do to me is prove me wrong. Can you genuinely say the same is your main motivation?
reasonvemotion
Gender : Posts : 681 Join date : 2013-01-09 Location : The Female Spirit
Freud said...I'm paraphrasing: "Whoever is not a misanthrope by the age of 40 has never loved humanity"
Hate is a powerful term, and I leave that to the women. I got caught up in its presupposition.
So, let me clarify: I neither hate, nor love mankind, as the concept "humanity" is an abstraction with no real meaning, to me, other than as a sexual designation. From a memetic perspective there is no uniform, unified entity known as humanity.
It's a genetic identification, based on the possibility of reproduction...and male/female are its sub-categories. Since I am one who does not deny his past, I embrace this as being a necessary part of me...but I also rise above it....I perceive nuances in the generality, in the hypothetical, all-inclusive, uniformity.
Humanity is not one single uniform mass. I see details in the supposed uniformity, which helps me become more discriminating, more clear.
Now, the first question I ask myself is what is humanity, besides this self-replicating, species? What traits define it by distinguishing this species form all others? Is mankind fast, strong, with a formidable constitution, compared to other species? What makes man dominate species who are better than him in most survival traits?
This single trait, or groping of processes, is what defines man as man. Homo sapient, as homo....It's the sapient part. Immediately I notice that not all who call themselves human are equally sapient. Almost all may be able to reproduce, but this is such a base identifier, because there are species that are more prolific in this regard. Is a rabbit superior to man because ti can give birth to dozens of offspring every year?
No. Therefore reproduction as a standard of measuring humanity is primitive, base, simplistic.
The differentiating part is this "sapient" aspect of homo...Homo sapient sapient.
If I feel superior to a rabbit does not necessarily mean I'll make a rabbit suffer. Exploitation is, of course, part of existence...we all exploit each other, in one way or another. I am a misanthrope in the sense of Nietzsche declaring "Man is to be overcome". One must want to rise above the base, distinguish nuances in the uniformity, so as to increase his choices, his options...his freedom.
For a mind to want to be other-than it must be dissatisfied - the mother of all invention is need. To hate is another way of saying "I reject"..."I refuse to be that". The emotion is not directed towards the object you reject, but it acts like a motivator, directing you away from it...upwards, onwards. The Christian mind, being repressed by an inescapable totalitarian authority figure, can only find emotion as a towards the object/objective, which is always pressing down on it. It either surrenders or is crushed. There si no escape....therefore love is this surrender to fate, and hate is directed towards what suppresses it and is inescapable. So, hate is futile, the only "real" option is surrender - Pascal's Wager reflects this either/or surrendering to the unknown.
For a Pagan, European mind, a Hellenic psychology, love is something one gives to what reminds one of self, or to what helps self become more. It's a rational self-serving, selfish, emotional attachment, and because it is lucid it is more stable, reliable, predictable, than the surrender to the ambiguous, hypothetical, presumed, unknown. Hate, has multiple options, instead of the one leading to fighting. One can reject the other, hate its nature, refuse to be like it, to surrender to it, and still not want to change it, or do damage to it.
This is why Nietzsche is an anti-anti-Semite. One does not hate a virus, for what it is. One does not hate a hyena for what it is. But neither does one embrace it, surrender to it, think it is the same as I.
But discussing this with a brain-dead christian is a useless pastime. Like trying to discuss metaphysics with an ape.
Using the talking to self metaphor, seeing it as a system, you can then determine its efficiency within achieving certain objectvies. What those objectives are, and how healthy they are, is what decides how coherent the actual system becomes. I cannot read threads in places like IPL, don't care to make it resonate, its a schizophrenia, a totally incoherent dialectic, born of sickness. This is a sort of understanding & appointed elitism/realism.
Being angry just because someone did something you did not like ?
Not a good philosophy that one.
Re-editing posts(for anything other than grammar/spelling without clarifying an edit, or in this case, completely erasing what you previously said and replacing it with this) all the time shows me that you're less interested in honesty and more interested in presenting what you think is "just the right" response to "get" someone...but without some content(attempts at understanding) or even a sufficiently clever use of language (that might indicate some wisdom) this re-editing thing you do just comes off as insecure.
Whenever I hear the word ' misanthrope', images of wrist-cutting, long haired, pale, gothics ( Marilyn Manson type ) come to mind. But these types, more often than not, become misanthropes because it seems edgy, scary. They want to intimate others with it similar to how hardcore moral-nihilists and Atheists do with their positions .
George Carlin seemed misanthropic. He was a great comedian, no doubt. But his supreme mockery of society, of mankind oozed a sense of exaggerated superiority or pride as if he enjoyed being in a higher position of consciousness from which he could verbally bully the masses. In other words, he liked to bitch.
I used to be misanthropic-ish. But that was largely due to a deluded moral-framework of which I no longer subscribe to.
“I don't hate people. I just feel better when they aren't around.” ― Charles Bukowski
Misanthropy a dislike of humankind.
Is this the result of thwarted expectations or even excessively naive optimism.
Misanthropy is a healthy sign of having higher expectations and higher goals than the general masses. That is one type, one of the better types.
Misanthropy as blind hate towards the species is not very productive in most cases.
At present I have a complex of feelings and ideas on humanity. I hate them, I forgive them while still naturally hating them, I see passed them, that they are a part of a machine rolling down a hill. Humans are natural despite their attempts at domestic unnatural life. And since humans are earth elemental, they are naturally a bit chaotic, they have foundations, they will always change, and eventually they either get eaten or join a faction.
Terse, laconic while perceptive and descriptive, like a fellow who has therein served a 10 year incarceration.
Henry Quirk
Gender : Posts : 335 Join date : 2014-06-03 Age : 61 Location : 'here'
The misanthrope hates mankind because individuals do not live up to his standards or ideals; he forgets that once he also faltered, fell, and still does. The difference may be that perhaps he has learned to get up and fix his mistakes rather than excelling, thriving in and preferring them like the people he hates. This metamorphosis should in effect rather make him more reasonable instead of passing off others immediately for not being on the same level as him. He is fixated on others, instead of looking inward on himself. He's quick to point out the shortcomings in others and in this way misses opportunities to further better himself. The misanthrope is still provisionally inferior/powerless, but maybe not as much as the inferior beings he hates, because a superior being does not hate that which is beneath him, for one does not hate that which one understands because it still serves a purpose, direction, opportunity. Rather, the Superior is grateful for the Inferior, as the atypical is nonexistent without the typical. The in toto Misanthrope will hate himself just as much as he hates others.
The daily habits of the horde consists of mindless and shameless pursuit of pleasure and hypocrasy. I do not think, as Nietzsche, a greedy love is pre-requisite for misanthropy, perhaps in the lighter sense and not what Hrob calls the "in toto Misanthrope". For some there is a need for solitude and association with those of a higher nature to cleanse the pallet from what must be digested of necessity.
OhFortunae
Gender : Posts : 2311 Join date : 2013-10-26 Age : 30 Location : Land of Dance and Song
People are just damn stupid, simple as that; shells of the past. Ugly, dumb, loud, with too many opinions they can stick up their arses. Mediocre, unthinking, tasteless.
_________________ 1. "Youth, oh, youth! | of whom then, youth, art thou born? Say whose son thou art, Who in Fafnir's blood | thy bright blade reddened, And struck thy sword to my heart."
2. "The Noble Hart | my name, and I go A motherless man abroad; Father I had not, | as others have, And lonely ever I live."
