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?
Imperator
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
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.