The Left in the U.S. today has sought to justify its increasing extremism by calling whatever it disagrees with “hate speech.”
The terrifying lack of logic (the Left drips with hate for Trump—so is it censoring itself?) is easily parried.
Hate is a right.
There is no loving without hating.
Feelings of disgust (hatred) contribute, directly, or indirectly, to all valid aesthetic responses.
This aesthetic truth—that feelings of hate and disgust are requirements for appreciating art—is self-evident.
Aesthetics is based on liking certain things—and to dislike certain things belongs to the same coin.
Truth in art (since everything we mean by the word “art” is what is practiced by human beings) easily translates into truths of other social activities—such as politics.
Art influencing politics (and science) does not happen often, these days—the general public doesn’t trust art since Modern Art’s inscrutability became the rule.
The condescending platitudes of the 20th century art professor (think of John Dewey telling us “convention” gets in the way of “experience”) don’t help.
Poets (Milton) once contributed to statecraft.
Painters (da Vinci) were once scientists, and understood the connection between astronomy, geometry, and painterly perspective.
Artists and poets these days profess freedom, and that’s it—pleasant enough, but good for neither science nor statecraft.
Aesthetics cannot exist without disgust.
Love needs hate.
Hate is never a danger in itself. Violence and specific threats, yes. Hate speech is protected (by the Constitution) and should never be seen as dangerous. The free expression of hate is healthy.
If we give in to the temptation to hate hate, then hate becomes bad, and since hatred of bad things is in everyone’s heart, hate itself should never be seen as bad.
