Contact Info / Websites

You'll Become What You Hate

2010-01-19 21:23:26 by Bacchanalian
Updated

You will become what you hate, given that you assume a label-defining role of someone-that-you-hate. [ Given that we share many roles with one another, you will assume the role eventually. ] And by the time you've undergone any transformation, your decision to be what you once hated is justified, and you may not even hate it anymore. Any action that you once disliked, or dislike now, may be necessary at some point. And it may be necessary for you to be the perpetrator. Of course, by then you probably won't see yourself as such.

But the relativity from past-selves to future-selves reveals that the offense committed is generally as contrived as the offense taken.

Though maybe, the critical stance is better to take, on general principles. You're no more entitled to indulgences now as you were before as you will be. Young self-interest, as contrived as it may be in this relativistic schism, and the discontent in having taken offense at least serve to highlight the indulgences of the old self-entitled.

On the bright side it's unlikely you'll become everything you hate.

You'll Become What You Hate


Comments

You must be logged in to comment on this post.


ImperatorImperator

2010-03-01 19:55:45

Should it not go on to further that what we hate is as much an aspect of content as time?

If we hate X at 0 and Y at 1, does it stand to reason we become what we hate if we hate X at 2 and become Y at 3?

Or does it only stand that if we hate X at 0, and become X at 0, then we become what we hate?

It stands that relatively, the state of being and the emotion are entwined within a temporal position.

Should that temporal position change, should the state of being and emotion not also stand to change?

Your hypothesis seems to assume an inclusive notion of hate. If we hate X at 0, then whether time changes, we must always hate X. Therefore, if we become X at any point in time, inevitable, necessary, or justified, we become what we hate.

But if we stop hating X at 3, is it presumed we will still become what we hate if we become X at 4 or 5?

Hate should seem as relative to the time as the state of being as far as I can garner.

Or maybe I just missed something. Took a couple minutes for me to wrap my head around the terminology, so I certainly won't be discounting that possibility.....

Bacchanalian responds:

Haha man. March 1st. Sorry it took so long for me to see the pending comment.

Consider the alternative tense to, "you will become what you hate," to be, "you are what you once hated." My argument is not necessarily, "you are what you hate," though that condition can fit as well. The whole thing actually revolves around change over time.

The main point is basically this: There's shit you hate when you're young, that you probably won't hate when you're older, but it's probably good not to lose sight of why you're now hate-able in the eyes of who you once were.

Don't worry about not quite getting it. I say things in weird ways. [ Abstruse... that's the word I've been trying to remember. ] I'm not all to proud of that but I do enjoy getting caught up in my own meticulousness.


LoftyDreamerLoftyDreamer

2010-04-06 15:39:01

This concept holds true based around the specific impulses. Naivety and rebellion being two such impulses that would lead to a youth hating something (someone) they perceived as unfair. Hopefully wisdom and maturity would impress different ideals with time. Which should fall appropriately within your
statements.

This hopefully does not follow such lines when the impulse is based around societal expectations or morality. I do understand there are concepts of nurture at play that help shift us towards roles that we were exposed to, but the self critical and introspective mind should be capable of opposing this lazy development of character. Especially if a peer of the impulse would denounce such behavior.

I know there are unfortunate statistics that suggest the other is true. I for one do not wish to become anything like my father figure (alcohol, coke head), but at the same time I allowed myself fall into lines that catered to his behavior (submissive, deceptive). For this I have had to over compensate, but will it be to no avail?

Or is this a general warning to be empathetic of the roles we must take in order to guide those that come after us? To understand why we had the views we had in order to help span the schism brought by time and relate to our successors. In which case, should the statement, ideally, not hold true when the impulses of our hatred are based around timeless ideals rather than selfish personal views?

Bacchanalian responds:

I think the overall message comes packaged with a lot of caveats, and I think the thing that's generally misleading about the whole idea is that it automatically seems to elicit guilt-by-association. For instance, you say, "I for one do not wish to become anything like my father figure," however, you really seem to object to several much more specific negative traits.

By your own story you've already fulfilled the minimum to qualify as having become what you hate, but that in no way means you're going to become a drug addict, or an equally terrible person (this is kind of corny but we're all alittle terrible).

***

You pretty much nailed the point of the post as a warning to be empathetic. I'll add though, that it's also a plea for honesty about one's own self-image (It's a pet peeve of mine).

***

I'm confused by your last question, but I'll try to answer it. I don't think the authority of an ideal really helps or hurts an individuals transformation against it - or - the timelessness of an ideal has a negligible effect on an individual's resolve, particularly if the unwanted transformation happens under-the-radar.


DanaversDanavers

2010-04-12 19:30:37

Keep up the ass-kicking in the Politics forum bro. It's fun to read.

Bacchanalian responds:

Haha thanks. I really need to be better informed though, so I can start branching out into less pseudo-philosophical threads.


ArmouredGRIFFONArmouredGRIFFON

2010-04-22 13:13:30

I just find it difficult to believe that an intellectual such of yourself could be a builder. At least an engineer? Your blessed with the gift of logic!


ArmouredGRIFFONArmouredGRIFFON

2010-04-22 13:11:51

What do you do for a job may I ask?

Bacchanalian responds:

Architecture. I suppose I could say 'designing' rather than 'building,' but I kinda like the silly bluntness of the latter.


MrDaemonMrDaemon

2010-04-22 04:01:37

I hate jews.

I don't see myself becoming jewish anytime soon, thus your logic is flawed.

I'm joking btw.


SouthAsianSouthAsian

2010-04-27 22:15:46

Keep this up you actually bring semblance and reality into the abrastract.


EvarkEvark

2010-05-02 09:56:11

I'm not entirely sure that one hates as you've suggested. I think when we're young we don't understand the nuances to our emotions as well as one does as one ages. So what may be considered hatred to the naively polarized may actually be a finer shade of resentment. As such, when the resentment eases, one will be confronted with the decision to acquiesce or adjust to the role they once resented so.

Fleshing out the ways and means a child goes about resenting the authority in the child's life is more of a task than this response is worth. But the point is that the 'hatred' of your past doesn't necessarily mean one must turn to empathy... the converse is the truth: that the lack of empathy begets the unjustifiable resentment in the first place.

Which, I suppose, brings the point full-circle. In order to solve the problem of lacking empathy in youth, the authority must impose it. The only way to impose it successfully is to practice such empathy; and in your so doing: instill a sense of resentment in your children.

Bacchanalian responds:

I've meditated on this response for a while and I'm still not completely sure what to make of some of it.

Regarding the first paragraph: what you describe, particularly the decision, is rather rare when most people make the transformation divorced of the relevant context. That is, the become what they hate without realizing it, and, usually, not in a binary sense.

The second and third paragraph seem to flip on the relationship between empathy and resentment, though, I'm not really sure what that relationship really is. I generally think empathy precludes resentment, unless you're resenting something you resent in yourself. I also don't understand what you mean by imposing empathy.


SensationalismSensationalism

2010-05-09 10:07:26

And if we do not hate?

Bacchanalian responds:

Well... there are at least things you dislike, right?


jamest1980jamest1980

2010-05-18 07:17:46

word.

great tunes, you've inspired. no need for redundant conversation, so just a thanks will do.


valken09valken09

2010-09-11 07:48:38

I'm quite surprise to find intellectual debates on Newgrounds.
Quote:
"On the bright side it's unlikely you'll become everything you hate."
In the end the argument became obsolete even before the 1st comment was put up.


LorkasLorkas

2010-09-18 12:58:49

On a side note, the last two pics look nothing like that younger ones