A misanthrope is a humanist

[Epsilon0]

I have come to a surprising conclusion: a misanthrope is a humanist. Have you ever heard such a scandalous statement? And yet, allow yourself to entertain, for a second, the notion that misanthropy is an expression of hate towards that which debases us, rendering us un-human, and that a misanthrope abhors us precisely because we have no humanity.

Misanthropy is seeing the horrendous crimes and evil nature of mankind, and turning away in revolt, disdaining to perpetuate the lie and make-belief that we are good. A misanthrope hates humanity because it lacks the most human qualities: compassion, respect, dignity and moral integrity.

A misanthrope looks you straight in the eye
and exposes you for your foolishness, your narrow-mindedness, your deceit and your selfishness. In short, all that which makes you un-human.

With a misanthrope, there is nowhere to hide, because a misanthrope sees what you should be, but are not.



"No. I'll spare no one.
My eyes are far too much offended.
The court and town alike present me nothing
But objects to provoke my spleen; I fall
Into black humours and profound disgust,
To see men treat each other as they do;
There's nowhere aught but dastard flattery,
Injustice, treachery, selfishness, deceit;
I can't endure it, I go mad —and mean
Squarely to break with all the human race."

Molière

 

[Deleted member 1465]

So being humane is more than, or morally better than being human?
Isn't this akin to trying to rise above nature, to be 'better than an animal'.

 

[Epsilon0]

Animals are always better than us.
Animals are not capable of deceit.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

And yet animals mimic other animals all the time as a means of survival. And I've definitely seen dogs deceive people. Is this any different to human deception in any way other than intelligence?

 

[Epsilon0]

And yet animals mimic other animals all the time as a means of survival. And I've definitely seen dogs deceive people. Is this any different to human deception in any way other than intelligence?

Yes, in my opinion it is. But the premises of the comparison are flawed because we compare two things which cannot really be compared.

For the sake of argument, I will say that humans can live ethical lives, yet chose not to. Animals do not have that choice, because they lack the concept of what is right and wrong.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

I'd say it's a question of degree. My sister's dog is the cleverest animal I've ever seen. He is also very cunning. I've never seen such deceptiveness in a dog. He knows what bad behaviour is and choses to do it to take the piss. If you saw the look in his eyes you'd be amazed.
The question of right and wrong is much deeper and comes back to your question of free will. If he's an animal and a slave to his habits and can't be blamed for them, then he must have no free will.
If we can be blamed for chosen wrong over right then we must have free will to make right and wrong have any value as moralistic concepts.
To extend the argument, then it's free will, that we have because we are human, that potentially makes us inhumane.
Confusing?

 

[Epsilon0]

Reading about your sister's dog made me think of Jerome K Jerome's book, Three men in a boat (to say nothing of the dog). You are English, so you probably have heard about the story and about Montmorency, the dog.

I will reply to your comment in a bit, but for now, I simply must quote Jerome:


"To look at Montmorency you would imagine that he was an angel sent upon the earth, for some reason withheld from mankind, in the shape of a small fox-terrier. There is a sort of Oh-what-a-wicked-world-this-is-and-how-I-wish-I-could-do-something-to-make-it-better-and-nobler expression about Montmorency that has been known to bring the tears into the eyes of pious old ladies and gentlemen. When first he came to live at my expense, I never thought I should be able to get him to stop long. I used to sit down and look at him, as he sat on the rug and looked up at me, and think: "Oh, that dog will never live. He will be snatched up to the bright skies in a chariot, that is what will happen to him." But, when I had paid for about a dozen chickens that he had killed; and had dragged him, growling and kicking, by the scruff of his neck, out of a hundred and fourteen street fights; and had had a dead cat brought round for my inspection by an irate female, who called me a murderer; and had been summoned by the man next door but one for having a ferocious dog at large, that had kept him pinned up in his own tool-shed, afraid to venture his nose outside the door for over two hours on a cold night; and had learned that the gardener, unknown to myself, had won thirty shillings by backing him to kill rats against time, then I began to think that maybe they'd let him remain on earth for a bit longer, after all. To hang about a stable, and collect a gang of the most disreputable dogs to be found in the town, and lead them out to march round the slums to fight other disreputable dogs, is Montmorency's idea of "life;"



@Underscore

Going back to your question, I don't think animals have either free will or the concept of right/wrong.

Free will means chosing based on desires and evaluations of how several potential outcomes might benefit you and impact your future. Free will also has a moral dimension as humans are inclined to take into consideration how their choices impact other people.

I don't think animals are capable of making advanced plans based on potential future outcomes or moral evaluations regarding their group. They are simply guided by survival instinct. (Please don't say now that squirells gather nuts for the winter and that proves they have free will )

 

[Reallyreallyreally]

If a behavior is ubiquitous amongst humans, I'd say that makes it human. By your standards, behaviors that are human only count if they're behaviors that you like. Plenty of animals have a sense of community and well-being as well. In addition, painting all humans with the same wide brush as if they're all the same seems awfully condescending and narrow minded. It fails to acknowledge context of any kind. According to one person's upbringing, what makes a person compassionate and kind can be radically different from the values of another. This point of view assumes that the misanthrope is superior to everyone else because they hold a superior point of view and assumes everyone is two dimensional and simply doesn't live up to the entirely subjective standards of the misanthrope. I usually see this attitude in people who carry a lot of anger due to being raised in an uncaring environment, who then project it onto everyone else as if they had anything to do with it. I was raised by a person tainted by this kind of narcissism and you know what? There's nothing superior about it.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Reading about your sister's dog made me think of Jerome K Jerome's book, Three men in a boat (to say nothing of the dog). You are English, so you probably have heard about the story and about Montmorency, the dog.

I will reply to your comment in a bit, but for now, I simply must quote Jerome:


"To look at Montmorency you would imagine that he was an angel sent upon the earth, for some reason withheld from mankind, in the shape of a small fox-terrier. There is a sort of Oh-what-a-wicked-world-this-is-and-how-I-wish-I-could-do-something-to-make-it-better-and-nobler expression about Montmorency that has been known to bring the tears into the eyes of pious old ladies and gentlemen. When first he came to live at my expense, I never thought I should be able to get him to stop long. I used to sit down and look at him, as he sat on the rug and looked up at me, and think: "Oh, that dog will never live. He will be snatched up to the bright skies in a chariot, that is what will happen to him." But, when I had paid for about a dozen chickens that he had killed; and had dragged him, growling and kicking, by the scruff of his neck, out of a hundred and fourteen street fights; and had had a dead cat brought round for my inspection by an irate female, who called me a murderer; and had been summoned by the man next door but one for having a ferocious dog at large, that had kept him pinned up in his own tool-shed, afraid to venture his nose outside the door for over two hours on a cold night; and had learned that the gardener, unknown to myself, had won thirty shillings by backing him to kill rats against time, then I began to think that maybe they'd let him remain on earth for a bit longer, after all. To hang about a stable, and collect a gang of the most disreputable dogs to be found in the town, and lead them out to march round the slums to fight other disreputable dogs, is Montmorency's idea of "life;"



@Underscore

Going back to your question, I don't think animals have either free will or the concept of right/wrong.

Free will means chosing based on desires and evaluations of how several potential outcomes might benefit you and impact your future. Free will also has a moral dimension as humans are inclined to take into consideration how their choices impact other people.

I don't think animals are capable of making advanced plans based on potential future outcomes or moral evaluations regarding their group. They are simply guided by survival instinct. (Please don't say now that squirells gather nuts for the winter and that proves they have free will )

I actually think you might change your mind if you met my sisters dog. I've never seen anything like it.

 

[Reallyreallyreally]

Animals are always better than us.
Animals are not capable of deceit.

Animals are absolutely capable of deceit. There are plenty of animals who employ it. Intelligent socially oriented animals use it daily. I've worked with dogs and their group dynamics are almost identical to that of humans.

 

[oopswronglife]

Animals are absolutely capable of deceit. There are plenty of animals who employ it. Intelligent socially oriented animals use it daily. I've worked with dogs and their group dynamics are almost identical to that of humans.

Semantics arguments aside...animals, as far as we know, don't have the higher reasoning to KNOW their behavior is unethical or wrong in that way. People know it and choose to ignore that for self serving reasons. To me that's why they can be "bad/evil/unethical/immoral etc" and an animal really cannot. An animal can be sick, starving, or traumatized and thus react accordingly, just like humans can on that lower brained level, but animals cannot be unethical. A cat isn't in the shower (licking itself) thinking about how it felt guilty over smacking the other cat and eating it's food. They are instinct driven. Any similar behaviors you see from being around them is anthropomorphism. They associate things with responses etc. They aren't scheming and imagining all the ways they can cheat you for another snack or not help the neighbor dog who is hungry and knowing it's wrong. People do such things all day every day by choice.

Nobody who has lived more than a minute and paid attention...doesn't live in denial for their own comfort for example...can say humans are "good" innately. Misanthropy is reality. Most people are entirely ego driven, unethical, selfish creatures. With the exception of the psychotic etc they KNOW it too, they just choose to ignore and deny it. Only a few of the whole actually resist or rise above these instincts and live well. I've been lucky to know a few, but my life was ruined by the other sort.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Semantics arguments aside...animals, as far as we know, don't have the higher reasoning to KNOW their behavior is unethical or wrong in that way. People know it and choose to ignore that for self serving reasons. To me that's why they can be "bad/evil/unethical/immoral etc" and an animal really cannot. An animal can be sick, starving, or traumatized and thus react accordingly, just like humans can on that lower brained level, but animals cannot be unethical. A cat isn't in the shower (licking itself) thinking about how it felt guilty over smacking the other cat and eating it's food. They are instinct driven. Any similar behaviors you see from being around them is anthropomorphism. They associate things with responses etc. They aren't scheming and imagining all the ways they can cheat you for another snack and knowing it's wrong.

I was hoping for that counter it's what I would have come up with myself.
if I remember I'll post you a story about my sisters dog tomorrow that would have me think otherwise. I'm tired and all thumbs on the phone.

 

[oopswronglife]

Yeah I mean I love my cat more than any person...and she does "care" about me in her way. She associate me with safety and food and knows I will play and pet her and never hurt her, but she isn't likely sitting there ruminating about how embarassing it was to trip on the step, or the bad treatment by others in the past, or trying to use me for treats and feeling guilty about it because she knows she is too cute to resist etc. She isn't manipulating me in the way humans choose to. It's not a conscious decision. It's association and patterns.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Bump this tomorrow I want to argue! just knackered

 

[TheSoulless]

Agreed.

 

[Reallyreallyreally]

Hey there. I got really irked and read you the riot act. I definitely find your point of view in poor taste but since arguing with strangers on the internet get nobody anywhere I just deleted it. Anyway I hope you beat your demons. I do actually wish you the best.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

First, briefly, I once and for all stopped hoping for -- let alone believing in -- human free will after reading The Laws of Emotion, the original paper, not the subsequent book, which can be found for free online. (@Epsilon0 and @Underscore, get ready, throwing out a sexy NSFW citation here.)

Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43(5), 349–358.

This theory was but the nail in the coffin for me after various interdisciplinary inquires into the nature and potential existence of agency and free will: from the academically philosophical; to the biological/physiological, such as endocrinology; to the psychological, such as persuasion and influence. Frijda's theory engages the latter two.



Now to ponder the intial claim of misanthropy as humanistic, a new intellectual endeavor for me. Hooray!

From vocabulary.com:

Misanthropy is a mistrust of other people and a general hatred for mankind. So people with this character trait aren't much fun at parties.

If you're full of misanthropy, then you don't care too much for other people — you're a misanthrope who basically hates everyone else in the world. Misanthropy isn't about disliking specific people, but disliking human beings in general. That makes misanthropy different from sexism or racism, which are prejudices aimed at specific types of people. If you're a fan of misanthropy, you'd better get a dog, because no one else will want to hang out with you.

Humanism, from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The philosophical term 'humanism' refers to a series of interrelated concepts about the nature, defining characteristics, powers, education and values of human persons. In one sense humanism is a coherent and recognizable philosophical system that advances substantive ontological, epistemological, anthropological, educational, aesthetic, ethical and political claims. In another sense humanism is understood more as a method and a series of loosely connected questions about the nature and character of human persons.

From the fourteenth century to the end of the nineteenth century, humanism minimally meant: (1) an educational programme founded on the classical authors and concentrating on the study of grammar, rhetoric, history, poetry and moral philosophy; (2) a commitment to the perspective, interests and centrality of human persons; (3) a belief in reason and autonomy as foundational aspects of human existence; (4) a belief that reason, scepticism and the scientific method are the only appropriate instruments for discovering truth and structuring the human community; (5) a belief that the foundations for ethics and society are to be found in autonomy and moral equality. From the end of the nineteenth century, humanism has been defined, in addition to the above, by the way in which particular aspects of core humanist belief such as human uniqueness, scientific method, reason and autonomy have been utilized in such philosophical systems as existentialism, Marxism and pragmatism.

@Epsilon0 said in the OP:

A misanthrope looks you straight in the eye
and exposes you for your foolishness, your narrow-mindedness, your deceit and your selfishness. In short, all that which makes you un-human.

Based on the Laws of Emotion, if this is how a misanthrope views you, he exposes you for exactly what makes you human and over which you have a limited amount of control (which is, theoretically, inextricably physiological and psychological).

Based on the quoted definition of misanthropy, he looks you in the eye and hates you because you're a human, but no worries, he's also human so he's gotta hate himself, too. Unfortunately, that does not inspire feelings of camaraderie in the misanthrope because, hate.

Based on the Routledge explanation of humanism, there is some support for @Epsilon0's hypothesis that the misanthrope is a humanist: In another sense humanism is understood more as a method and a series of loosely connected questions about the nature and character of human persons. This reflects @Epsilon0's assertion in the OP, a misanthrope sees what you should be, but are not. This stance is applicable to particular misanthropes like Molière as quoted in the OP, but I think not all misanthropes are necessarily misanthropic because of education, philosophy, or perspicacity; it could just as easily be rooted in sociopathy, a history or abuse, or just plain dickishness (apologies for my snobbish use of academic technical jargon here, I couldn't resist).

Moreover, based on the Routledge definition of humanism, a humanist seeks to focus on and understand what is human, while a misanthrope seeks to reject and consign humans and humanity to the rubbish pile, preferably the one destined for the incinerator and not just the dump. I acknowledge, however, that a misanthrope could have arrived at his/her stance as a result of humanistic pursuits, but they are not fundamentally required for the development of and arrival at misanthropy (cf. longitudinal studies on dickishness).



Goddamn, this was fun!

 

[Reallyreallyreally]

You're right. Humans are all pieces of shit and animals have no free will. Lovely. Thank you for speaking on behalf of the piece-of-shit-ness of t world, including everyone here. I guess everyone should go ahead and kill themselves after all so the world can be better by your reckoning, since you're clearly the authority on morality, which definitely applies in exactly the same way to every person alive.

First, briefly, I once and for all stopped hoping for -- let alone believing in -- human free will after reading The Laws of Emotion, the original paper, not the subsequent book, which can be found for free online. (@Epsilon0 and @Underscore, get ready, throwing out a sexy NSFW citation here.)

Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43(5), 349–358.

This theory was but the nail in the coffin for me after various interdisciplinary inquires into the nature and potential existence of agency and free will: from the academically philosophical; to the biological/physiological, such as endocrinology; to the psychological, such as persuasion and influence. Frijda's theory engages the latter two.



Now to ponder the intial claim of misanthropy as humanistic, a new intellectual endeavor for me. Hooray!

From vocabulary.com:

Misanthropy is a mistrust of other people and a general hatred for mankind. So people with this character trait aren't much fun at parties.

If you're full of misanthropy, then you don't care too much for other people — you're a misanthrope who basically hates everyone else in the world. Misanthropy isn't about disliking specific people, but disliking human beings in general. That makes misanthropy different from sexism or racism, which are prejudices aimed at specific types of people. If you're a fan of misanthropy, you'd better get a dog, because no one else will want to hang out with you.

Humanism, from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The philosophical term 'humanism' refers to a series of interrelated concepts about the nature, defining characteristics, powers, education and values of human persons. In one sense humanism is a coherent and recognizable philosophical system that advances substantive ontological, epistemological, anthropological, educational, aesthetic, ethical and political claims. In another sense humanism is understood more as a method and a series of loosely connected questions about the nature and character of human persons.

From the fourteenth century to the end of the nineteenth century, humanism minimally meant: (1) an educational programme founded on the classical authors and concentrating on the study of grammar, rhetoric, history, poetry and moral philosophy; (2) a commitment to the perspective, interests and centrality of human persons; (3) a belief in reason and autonomy as foundational aspects of human existence; (4) a belief that reason, scepticism and the scientific method are the only appropriate instruments for discovering truth and structuring the human community; (5) a belief that the foundations for ethics and society are to be found in autonomy and moral equality. From the end of the nineteenth century, humanism has been defined, in addition to the above, by the way in which particular aspects of core humanist belief such as human uniqueness, scientific method, reason and autonomy have been utilized in such philosophical systems as existentialism, Marxism and pragmatism.

@Epsilon0 said in the OP:

A misanthrope looks you straight in the eye
and exposes you for your foolishness, your narrow-mindedness, your deceit and your selfishness. In short, all that which makes you un-human.

Based on the Laws of Emotion, if this is how a misanthrope views you, he exposes you for exactly what makes you human and over which you have a limited amount of control (which is, theoretically, inextricably physiological and psychological).

Based on the quoted definition of misanthropy, he looks you in the eye and hates you because you're a human, but no worries, he's also human so he's gotta hate himself, too. Unfortunately, that does not inspire feelings of camaraderie in the misanthrope because, hate.

Based on the Routledge explanation of humanism, there is some support for @Epsilon0's hypothesis that the misanthrope is a humanist: In another sense humanism is understood more as a method and a series of loosely connected questions about the nature and character of human persons. This reflects @Epsilon0's assertion in the OP, a misanthrope sees what you should be, but are not. This stance is applicable to particular misanthropes like Molière as quoted in the OP, but I think not all misanthropes are necessarily misanthropic because of education, philosophy, or perspicacity; it could just as easily be rooted in sociopathy, a history or abuse, or just plain dickishness (apologies for my snobbish use of academic technical jargon here, I couldn't resist).

Moreover, based on the Routledge definition of humanism, a humanist seeks to focus on and understand what is human, while a misanthrope seeks to reject and consign humans and humanity to the rubbish pile, preferably the one destined for the incinerator and not just the dump. I acknowledge, however, that a misanthrope could have arrived at his/her stance as a result of humanistic pursuits, but they are not fundamentally required for the development of and arrival at misanthropy (cf. longitudinal studies on dickishness).



Goddamn, this was fun!

Oh man, you put it so much better than I did! Do you want to write my papers for me when I go back to school? I read this right after I deleted what I wrote. I thought I was both shooting myself in the foot as far as staying in the forum, and also potentially feeding a troll.

 

[oopswronglife]

Hey there. I got really irked and read you the riot act. I definitely find your point of view in poor taste but since arguing with strangers on the internet get nobody anywhere I just deleted it. Anyway I hope you beat your demons. I do actually wish you the best.

Was this directed at me? I got a notification you quoted me...but cannot find anything.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Oh man, you put it so much better than I did! Do you want to write my papers for me when I go back to school? I read this right after I deleted what I wrote. I thought I was both shooting myself in the foot as far as staying in the forum, and also potentially feeding a troll.

I wholeheartedly embrace the edit and delete buttons, I wish they were available irl!

I think we all have our days when we're wearing reading glasses that distort our view of another's perspective or intentions. And those reading glasses impact not only our vision but our responses. Fucking humans we are. If I were a misanthrope, I'd hate all of us!

 

[Reallyreallyreally]

I wholeheartedly embrace the edit and delete buttons, I wish they were available irl!

I think we all have our days when we're wearing reading glasses that distort our view of another's perspective or intentions. And those reading glasses impact not only our vision but our responses. Fucking humans we are. If I were a misanthrope, I'd hate all of us!

I'm so glad you're not. It's so finger pointy and gross. I think I better leave the forum for a couple days. I have a feeling I'm going to do a lot more editing and deleting if I don't

 

[Life sucks]

Yes of course, I hate how humans inherently hurt each other and being actually hypocrites that don't care about each other's lives while saying the opposite. There are many other reasons. Its not hatred for the sake of hatred but the hatred of inherent unsolvable wrongs.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

a misanthrope sees what you should be, but are not

The OP in a nutshell?

If I were a misanthrope, I'd hate all of us!

Oh lol the irony

the hatred of inherent unsolvable wrongs.

I think that's really interesting and makes me think.

Edit: I talk too much. I'm gonna try and pair it down to more concise responses. Aw who am I kidding.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Yeah I mean I love my cat more than any person...and she does "care" about me in her way. She associate me with safety and food and knows I will play and pet her and never hurt her, but she isn't likely sitting there ruminating about how embarassing it was to trip on the step, or the bad treatment by others in the past, or trying to use me for treats and feeling guilty about it because she knows she is too cute to resist etc. She isn't manipulating me in the way humans choose to. It's not a conscious decision. It's association and patterns.

A little story about my sister's dog. It may be appropriate or maybe I'm just anthropomorphizing.
He's a working sprocker spaniel and I've never met a cleverer or more cunning animal. If you tell him off and he feels it's unjustified, he gets this look in his eye. It's defiance and cunning and naughtiness all rolled into one. Then he immediately disengages because he can tell you've seen the look.
Time passes and you hear him pottering around the house. You know he's looking for trouble. Eventually he finds some way to misbehave that he knows will provoke anger. It may be half an hour later or an hour but he's clearly been planning all the time. Then he does it and stands there wagging his tail with what I can only describe as a smug expression on his face.
He knows what he's done is wrong, that's why he did it. Sure, he doesn't have a grasp of what we call ethics, but then he kinda does, except it's limited to his narrower field of understanding. If you could only see the look on his face!

 

[Majin K.]

Then we're all selfish and unhuman for having sought out this place in the first place. Suicide doesn't cure depression, it merely shifts it to your family members and friends. Making others experience unnecassary suffering, isn't that truly unhuman? I have already accepted my true selfish nature.

 

[Epsilon0]

Then we're all selfish and unhuman for having sought out this place in the first place. Suicide doesn't cure depression, it merely shifts it to your family members and friends. Making others experience unnecassary suffering, isn't that truly unhuman? I have already accepted my true selfish nature.

Since I did not ask to be born, I cannot be held morally accountable for not wanting to live. Life has been inflicted on me.

 

[Majin K.]

Since I did not ask to be born, I cannot be held morally accountable for not wanting to live. Life has been inflicted on me.

Tell that to the religious folks. They believe we'll all end up in hell for throwing away the "gift" of life.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Since I did not ask to be born, I cannot be held morally accountable for not wanting to live. Life has been inflicted on me.

And... there are those that believe in the effects of karma that works between lives. Whose to say we all of us didn't actually 'ask for this'?

Again, back to free will I suppose.

I'm in an argumentative mood recently

 

[Majin K.]

And... there are those that believe in the effects of karma that works between lives. Whose to say we all of us didn't actually 'ask for this'?

Again, back to free will I suppose.

I'm in an argumentative mood recently

I honestly hate the very concept of reincarnation from the bottom of my heart. I would rather stop existing altogether. Better than losing my memories and having to relive life over and over and over again. Thank god I don't believe in any religious or mystical hocus pocus.

 

[Epsilon0]

Ok, then, let me rephrase it:

As far as I know, I did not ask to be born.

Also

There is no evidence that I asked to be born.


I cannot base my conclusions on something I don't know and lack evidence for.