What do you think?
Rate this book
In Defense of Hatred
In this book, Robertson defends the morality of the emotion called "hatred," which has been defined as an intrinsically evil motivation and emotion over the last century. In Defense of Hatred argues that hatred is intrinsically and inextricably bound up with love, and that the eradication of one eventually means the erasure of the other. After defining and defending the emotion, Robertson advances a theory of "just hatred," which attempts to alleviate some of the dangers that people have rightly identified in the emotion. In this way, this book defends passion and love from the nihilistic attack on hatred. An attack which is - almost without exception - launched in a cynical, hypocritical, and vicious manner, by those who have no intention of abandoning their own hatred.
- GenresPhilosophy
141 pages, Kindle Edition
Published February 6, 2017
8 people are currently reading
87 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
October 28, 2017
The argument summarised:
Hatred is a response to threats to things we love. To not hate that which threatens to destroy what we love makes the concept of committed and sacrificial love cheap, if not incoherent. If we love God, we hate the devil. If we love our wives and families, we hate their potential destroyers.
'Anti-hate' is just hatred directed at certain defined (quis custodiet ipsos custodes?) ideas, individuals, or groups which is enforced by a third party which often also defines the acceptable targets for hatred.
Instantiated: the man who hates 'haters' so much he becomes more of a hater in turn; the idealist who will slaughter millions or reduce them to modern serfs (see: the Gulag Archipelago) in an attempt to gain (world) peace, which he values more than the people who would benefit by it.
So to give up hatred (which Robertson defines as 'disgust at mind' in recognition of irreconcilable enmity, e.g. Islamism v Western liberal democracy) is to give up love.
Thus argues the author.
Hatred is a response to threats to things we love. To not hate that which threatens to destroy what we love makes the concept of committed and sacrificial love cheap, if not incoherent. If we love God, we hate the devil. If we love our wives and families, we hate their potential destroyers.
'Anti-hate' is just hatred directed at certain defined (quis custodiet ipsos custodes?) ideas, individuals, or groups which is enforced by a third party which often also defines the acceptable targets for hatred.
Instantiated: the man who hates 'haters' so much he becomes more of a hater in turn; the idealist who will slaughter millions or reduce them to modern serfs (see: the Gulag Archipelago) in an attempt to gain (world) peace, which he values more than the people who would benefit by it.
So to give up hatred (which Robertson defines as 'disgust at mind' in recognition of irreconcilable enmity, e.g. Islamism v Western liberal democracy) is to give up love.
Thus argues the author.
January 4, 2023
The message of this book is that love cannot exist without hate, because if you love something you must hate the things that threaten it. That's it. I agree.
But the book is a muddled mess. It feels like lots of different thoughts have been brainstormed and then put together in this book at random, with no coherence or structure. The only thought that is worthwhile is how our society hypocritically pretends to reject "hate", but the book doesn't really explore why. I don't feel the book added anything to my understanding of the topic.
The book attempts to give some historical examples but fails miserably. It brings up the "Nazis" (wow, who would have expected that?) showing his complete ignorance of history. Clearly the author has never heard of the Haavara agreement, which shows how Hitler tried to solve the conflict with the Jews peacefully and amicably (i.e. without hate). I understand that some people still believe in the holocaust, but even according to the Jewish version of events Jews were put in camps only during and as part of total war. Was Tory Britain's bombing of Dresden any less hateful than Nazi Germany's atrocities? Was Labour Britain invading Iraq in 2003 hateful?
The author is out of his depth, so I really wish he left history alone.
He also brings up Vlad the Impaler, but the author doesn't have a clue of what the mental state of Vlad was when he decided to impale thousands of Turks. Was Vlad a sadist driven by blind hatred? Or was he emotionlessly employing a military strategy? Could it be that Vlad started crying when he reluctantly gave the order? We don't know. That's why it's pointless for the book to try to give historical examples.
The author also doesn't seem to understand the difference between the Old and the New Testament; for example he tries to interpret Jesus's words with passages from the Old Testament, when Jesus is explicitely contradicting them.
It's 2 stars from me. I generally agree with the basic premise, but for me this book was basically useless to read. Maybe you get accidentally redpilled about the Jews being behind communism, but honestly I don't think there's much, if anything, to learn from this book.
But the book is a muddled mess. It feels like lots of different thoughts have been brainstormed and then put together in this book at random, with no coherence or structure. The only thought that is worthwhile is how our society hypocritically pretends to reject "hate", but the book doesn't really explore why. I don't feel the book added anything to my understanding of the topic.
The book attempts to give some historical examples but fails miserably. It brings up the "Nazis" (wow, who would have expected that?) showing his complete ignorance of history. Clearly the author has never heard of the Haavara agreement, which shows how Hitler tried to solve the conflict with the Jews peacefully and amicably (i.e. without hate). I understand that some people still believe in the holocaust, but even according to the Jewish version of events Jews were put in camps only during and as part of total war. Was Tory Britain's bombing of Dresden any less hateful than Nazi Germany's atrocities? Was Labour Britain invading Iraq in 2003 hateful?
The author is out of his depth, so I really wish he left history alone.
He also brings up Vlad the Impaler, but the author doesn't have a clue of what the mental state of Vlad was when he decided to impale thousands of Turks. Was Vlad a sadist driven by blind hatred? Or was he emotionlessly employing a military strategy? Could it be that Vlad started crying when he reluctantly gave the order? We don't know. That's why it's pointless for the book to try to give historical examples.
The author also doesn't seem to understand the difference between the Old and the New Testament; for example he tries to interpret Jesus's words with passages from the Old Testament, when Jesus is explicitely contradicting them.
It's 2 stars from me. I generally agree with the basic premise, but for me this book was basically useless to read. Maybe you get accidentally redpilled about the Jews being behind communism, but honestly I don't think there's much, if anything, to learn from this book.
December 1, 2022
This is a great idea for a book
Reviewed in the United States on September 26, 2019
The author has a great topic for discussion. The unfortunate thing about this text is that, rather than look into the history of the idea he is discussing, rather than see how people or peoples have expressed hatred and contempt and rage towards others (or even themselves), the author used his platform to express his frustrations towards those he is frustrated with and those who he sees himself as superior to. Rather than analyze passages from other authors and see how their arguments fit into a larger framework situated within a larger context, the author simply name drops and citation drops (very large dense passages that need exploring and examining rather than dropping for the reader to grapple with) instead of seeking to situate himself in a discussion of ideas that may or may not have been going on for decades or centuries before him.
The author very much sees this as a battle to be won. And that is where I lost interest in the writing, which I had hope would have explored the idea of hatred. The author does not wish to explore an idea; the author wishes to defend how he feels about an idea and prove that the way he feels about an idea is right. He does point to plenty of examples (quality examples at that), using those examples as bullets to shoot down enemy arguments. That in itself is not wrong; it is ambiguous however. The author consistently points to democrats and liberals and republicans and conservatives and even to bigots and social justice warriors talking about proper and improper hatred and haters and anti-haters. The author does not point to any specific examples of who any of the above people might be in real life. The author talks about “the types of people” and “the things these types of people say about each other,” but does not point to concrete examples of “these types of people” nor does he provide concrete instances of “these types of people saying these types of things.” As a result the author doesn’t provide any concrete examination of real things real people have really said, thus leaving an ambiguous hole where the reader can fill in the gap with whomever they like that broadly fits the categories listed—fictional characters included. Most likely being filled by whomever the reader finds to be politically annoying, inferior, or evil.
What I was hoping for when I bought this book was an examination of the idea of hatred, how it has been defined, how it has been evaluated, and how it has been historically used by others in order to achieve some goal or achieve some kind of interaction with others. Instead what I received for my purchase was “these people say this about hatred and they are wrong; here is how I feel about hatred, and here is why I am right.” This is not so much an intellect project in thought so much as it is an individual turning his frustrations into writing in order to process the feelings he is having.
I feel like anyone could have written this book. Or at least anyone who considers themself a reader of intellectual caliber and enjoys the act of arguing with others. I feel like the research was used to uphold ideas and thoughts the author already had rather than the research leading the author to find certain patterns and accept certain conclusions. I get that kind of feeling when the author uses very general statements like “People have always . . .” and “Psychologists have found . . .” What people? What psychologists? When is always? Where are these people from? And how have these people done the things all these people always do? Do all psychologists agree with the findings? Why or why not? When did the psychologists find what they found? How were those findings relevant to the day and age? Why did the psychologists think that such and such a topic was useful or interesting enough to warrant study? Were they paid to do it? Was it a passion project? Was there a recurring problem or conflict they encountered? Statements like these are so opaque that upon encountering them all I can do is say “Yeah, ok; that’s generally believable.” But it doesn’t say anything specific that can be falsified or challenged. It’s not a challenging read, nor an interesting one; I would include it in my book shelves more as a piece of polemicized moral persuasion than as a piece of philosophy or intellectual history.
It’s kind of a useless book because it does not provide anything I couldn’t already find in a college debate course giving pros and cons on topics like abortion or affirmative action that all got way to out of hand.
Reviewed in the United States on September 26, 2019
The author has a great topic for discussion. The unfortunate thing about this text is that, rather than look into the history of the idea he is discussing, rather than see how people or peoples have expressed hatred and contempt and rage towards others (or even themselves), the author used his platform to express his frustrations towards those he is frustrated with and those who he sees himself as superior to. Rather than analyze passages from other authors and see how their arguments fit into a larger framework situated within a larger context, the author simply name drops and citation drops (very large dense passages that need exploring and examining rather than dropping for the reader to grapple with) instead of seeking to situate himself in a discussion of ideas that may or may not have been going on for decades or centuries before him.
The author very much sees this as a battle to be won. And that is where I lost interest in the writing, which I had hope would have explored the idea of hatred. The author does not wish to explore an idea; the author wishes to defend how he feels about an idea and prove that the way he feels about an idea is right. He does point to plenty of examples (quality examples at that), using those examples as bullets to shoot down enemy arguments. That in itself is not wrong; it is ambiguous however. The author consistently points to democrats and liberals and republicans and conservatives and even to bigots and social justice warriors talking about proper and improper hatred and haters and anti-haters. The author does not point to any specific examples of who any of the above people might be in real life. The author talks about “the types of people” and “the things these types of people say about each other,” but does not point to concrete examples of “these types of people” nor does he provide concrete instances of “these types of people saying these types of things.” As a result the author doesn’t provide any concrete examination of real things real people have really said, thus leaving an ambiguous hole where the reader can fill in the gap with whomever they like that broadly fits the categories listed—fictional characters included. Most likely being filled by whomever the reader finds to be politically annoying, inferior, or evil.
What I was hoping for when I bought this book was an examination of the idea of hatred, how it has been defined, how it has been evaluated, and how it has been historically used by others in order to achieve some goal or achieve some kind of interaction with others. Instead what I received for my purchase was “these people say this about hatred and they are wrong; here is how I feel about hatred, and here is why I am right.” This is not so much an intellect project in thought so much as it is an individual turning his frustrations into writing in order to process the feelings he is having.
I feel like anyone could have written this book. Or at least anyone who considers themself a reader of intellectual caliber and enjoys the act of arguing with others. I feel like the research was used to uphold ideas and thoughts the author already had rather than the research leading the author to find certain patterns and accept certain conclusions. I get that kind of feeling when the author uses very general statements like “People have always . . .” and “Psychologists have found . . .” What people? What psychologists? When is always? Where are these people from? And how have these people done the things all these people always do? Do all psychologists agree with the findings? Why or why not? When did the psychologists find what they found? How were those findings relevant to the day and age? Why did the psychologists think that such and such a topic was useful or interesting enough to warrant study? Were they paid to do it? Was it a passion project? Was there a recurring problem or conflict they encountered? Statements like these are so opaque that upon encountering them all I can do is say “Yeah, ok; that’s generally believable.” But it doesn’t say anything specific that can be falsified or challenged. It’s not a challenging read, nor an interesting one; I would include it in my book shelves more as a piece of polemicized moral persuasion than as a piece of philosophy or intellectual history.
It’s kind of a useless book because it does not provide anything I couldn’t already find in a college debate course giving pros and cons on topics like abortion or affirmative action that all got way to out of hand.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 25, 2020
An honest and compelling argument that makes an essential point about social and culture discourse in our present climate. Hatred is not the antithesis of love, but a vital and required component.
The author describes hate as "an expression of love" and cautions of the dangers of a culture that stigmatizes or removes justified hatred, as one that approaches social nihilism and hopelessness.
Well written and rich with examples from classical and contemporary literature paints an elegant picture of the presented argument and makes for a fast and enjoyable read. Highly recommended.
The author describes hate as "an expression of love" and cautions of the dangers of a culture that stigmatizes or removes justified hatred, as one that approaches social nihilism and hopelessness.
Well written and rich with examples from classical and contemporary literature paints an elegant picture of the presented argument and makes for a fast and enjoyable read. Highly recommended.
October 30, 2019
الكتاب يقدم مفهوم اوسع و مفصل للكراهيه ، توضيح لماذا علينا ك بشر ان لا ننبذ الكراهيه لأنها مفيده لنا في نواحي اخري.
انصح به ، وقت القراءه : ٢-٣ ساعه
انصح به ، وقت القراءه : ٢-٣ ساعه
May 16, 2020
Great look into the necessity of hatred. Terribly misunderstood, or outright ignored by many. Definitely reccomend for anyone seriously looking to understand the concept of love.
July 21, 2020
كتاب غني بالأمثلة يوضح الكاتب من خلالهم بان الكره ليس عكس الحب، بل في بعض الأحيان الكره يكون تعبير عن الحب.
November 6, 2020
It’s hard to put down but I felt that I had to and fully digest every word. It’s a great piece of literature and in my top 5 recommendations for those with an open mind.
August 31, 2020
I read this for a reading challenge. While I do agree hatred is a universal feeling, I don't find the author's argument that his definition is correct while dictionaries are wrong compelling.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews