Well, I wouldn't say that love and hate were virtues, so really, I'm saying that the potential is there for them not to be infinite. I agree with what you've just said now, about hate not being infinite. It could be desire for personal gain, unreasonably thought as good? It could also be a reasonable desire that can change bad experiences into a universal good? This is where egotism gone wild mixes it all up. See future musings about emotional and reasonable balance.
*I've got Ari Up's lyric in my head, now. "Don't take it personal, I choose my own fate, I follow love and I follow hate."
(I think love and hate are both, in essence, desire. At either ends of the spectrum. I have to mention here, Digital, that this conversation is not about light and dark, good and bad. Love, like hate, is not infinitely good, or bad, it just is desire. Of course, the desire can be for light or dark, good or bad, but to pre-empt my next paragraphs, that depends perhaps on experience? Plus, sometimes hating something can spark a change for the better, yet in the throes of change, can appear as bad?)
*I'm sweeping. I don't think love and hate are virtues, because they're changeable, depending on emotional 'stability'. What I mean by that is, if emotions are not 'kept in place' by reason, and if reason is not 'kept in place' with emotions, there is a great possibility for error.
Who or what can prove that there is an 'outside' God that dispenses personal Justice? Morals and beliefs are changeable too. I'm currently looking more into absurdist thoughts...borne alongside the philosophy of existentialism. Now, I'm not knowlegable to discuss it properly yet, but it points to interpretation of works (see 'reception theory'), sparked by the concept of phenomenology. Briefly, all that explores the idea of having to forge our own ideals from phenomena. (Unfortunately, not everybody is exposed to truthful patterns. To follow the point of my 'poem', this is where moral courage to stand up against these untruths comes in, so that everybody, equally, has all the natural truths before building on their belief-systems.)
I'm not quite sure yet, of where I stand on all this (tee-hee), but I do believe that the theories above work beautifully within literature. It's all about reader interpretation...from the bible to the quoran, throughout the history books and biography's, poems, fiction, non-fictional prose, and newspapers, to name a few writings. Meanings are forged by reception.
As for your point about Hitler. Hmmm. If a 'race' sets themselves apart as superior, when in fact it is not true, then they have chosen inequality. There is no good form of inequality, no virtue within that. If we were to convert this within our conversation about interpretation, the term 'intentional fallacy' springs to mind. Someone like Hitler cannot decide how his work will be taken, unless the population have forged their morals from his experienced then enforced interpretation of phenomena...called propaganda? !!! Ping
Committed art. What does it all mean? A drive through shooting down da's propaganda? Commited art could be our found virtue? That would keep the 'crazy' geniuses involved, while omitting over-egotistical despots enforcing their opinions...for it is the unchangeable virtue, Knowledge, that cuts through untruths.
[This message has been edited by kif kif (08-10-2006 08:57 AM).]