The Ignorance Equation

Fear = Being weak
Being weak = Being less
Being less = Lack of something someone else has
Lack of something someone else has = Inability to understand it
Inability to understand it = Inability to do something about it
Inability to do something about it = Being weak
Being weak = Fear

So, Fear = Weakness, Inability To Understand And Inability To Change

Which leaves the person to nothing but to ignore.
so, Ignorance = Fear.

Application On The Equation :
Why Special People Get Ignored ?

Being Special = Having Something Others Don't Have
Having Something Others Don't Have = Others Lacking It
Lacking Of Something Someone else have = inability to understand it
Inability to understand it = Inability to do something about it
Inability to do something about it = Being weak
Being weak = FearFear = Ignorance
So, Being Special = Others' Ignorance Towards You

Note : Special people may include the stupid 

Stupid being ignored by wise 'cuz the stupid got something the wise doesn't which is " Stupidity " .. and who isn't weak towards a stupid person !

Another Application :Most people fear ghosts , why ? because we don't understand them , inability to understand mostly leads to fear ! and when you are in your bed hearing some voices outside your room and you can do nothing about it, you just put your head under the pillow , trying to " Ignore " .. inability to understand mostly leads to fear .. fear mostly leads to ignorance !

The Art Of Misanthropy ( Part Two )

Okay, the second part i wanted to talk about is regarding my failure to believe on the past two years that there's such thing as "purity" in humans, specifically on "being good and kind", and that when some one cares, he does so 'cause he's kind or 'cause he's caring, instead, i actually believe, that no human does 'nything except by motive of a self-interest and for a personal benefit to obtain or expect to obtain in a direct or an indirect way, and thus following the pleasure principle that i discussed before " hence all personal benefits result in pleasure ".In a rephrased form, i believe that all the human actions, specifically the good ones, are always motivated by self-interests, and whenever we have options, we tend to choose the ones which fulfill our interests the most, even when its apparently good and kind and of no self-interest, its eventually because of a personal benefit on a way or another, consciously or unconsciously.

a child is born all selfish by nature, then he starts doing what his parents teaches him to get appreciation " shater ya ... bravo 3aleik, that's what i mean " , then he goes to school, he get friends to emphasize the feeling of being accepted, he talks to them to fulfill his social needs, he listen to their problems because it makes him feel good about himself " 'cause with his friends telling him it means some sort of appreciation " and with solving the problem he increases his self-esteem, he grows up to become creative, draw sing or whatever either to impress others, or to prove his presence, then he meets the girl which he will care about her to get her " which will fulfill many needs " , he grows up to be a father, he loves his kids and raise them 'cause by that he's following an image he has been built by the society all this years in his mind, which results in feeling better about one's self " succeeding ? ", he cares about the society because in making notable changes in the environment he feels powerful, he helps the poor 'cause it unconsciously makes him feel powerful, or makes him feel better about himself, he prays for the expectation of a reward in the afterlife.

all those acts are considered selfish, because the real motives of them is to bring some benefit to the person accomplishing them, This "something" is generally referred to as " good feeling ", and those acts are quite applicable on every human being of us, and with that i mean : Behind every single good act, there's a hidden self-interest either consciously or unconsciously, and by that, the meaning of " Pure " can never be valid, 'cause its called pure 'cause its pure of self-interest, which can not happen.

A friend who cares, cares for a reason, either to get to something " most of boy-girl relations for example " , or either 'cause he's motivated by proving one's self, or motivated by fulfilling he's social needs, or 'cause with his help to you he feels better at some sort of way, or plainly 'cause it makes him feels good about himself 'cause he's being good, and when i talk about motives i mean consciously and unconsciously, so he might not even know it yet he feels like doing it.
A mother cares about her children 'cause she has been raised to know that that's what's supposed to be happening, so she's following an image in her mind she was programmed to feel like she's supposed to follow, and by succeeding in that she feels better about herself.
Most people feels helpless infront of babies, because being a baby means he's harmless to your own needs, he won't steal your girlfriend or your job, he makes you feel higher and powerful, so why wouldn't you love him ? on the other hand, a young child may hate his younger baby brother 'cause he sees his parents giving him more care.

the two cases that wouldn't follow this are, either a dumb / naive person, which in that case isn't kind 'cause he can't do the opposite, meaning, if a weak person didn't hit you, this doesn't make him peaceful, 'cause he can't hit you in the first place even if he wanted to, and the other case is the divine causes, and God-sent people.

And to end this topic, i don't actually consider this as BAD, 'cause that's the nature, that's how things God wanted us to be, i can't say that fan is bad 'cause it doesn't fly, i was never supposed to be flying, same with humans, that's how God intended us to be like, and if all our motives are self-interest, its because God knows that nothing motivates us like the something that benefits us, for that reason he set the punishment and the reward, so i'm not saying in 'nyway that these ugly sides of the human nature are bad, that's how we are like,
and when i say i hate humans, i don't mean i hate their nature, i hate how helplessly weak they stand before their nature.

The Art Of Misanthropy ( Part One )

" If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." ~Herman Hesse.

" For that the true art of hate is to know who you're hating just like how you know yourself." ~Anonymous.

Okay, It starts like this ;Regarding the human nature, on some sort of aspect, I got to see three opinions / theories which are :-

• - Human nature is inherently good and humans are basically good.
• - Human nature is inherently bad and humans are basically evil and need to be controlled and disciplined to keep them from killing each others.
• - Human nature is not good OR bad, its good AND bad, both working at the same time to create some sort of balance, and to ask if its good OR evil, is like asking if electronics are powered by the positive or negative side of the battery.

Personally, I'd go with the 2nd theory, Though I'm pretty sure who go with the other two got their own reasons to do so, on the other hand, i got mine as well.

Logically speaking, from the religious point of view, if humans were born all good by nature, God wouldn't have imposed laws that repress human nature and sent us prophets and books for us to follow and change from ourselves, being good in nature means if we're left unchanged, we'd still turn up good by time, which is not the case, most religious concepts are based on " Man is destined to hell, unless he does something to alter that course " meaning that without following the religion he's to go to hell,in other form, if we said X is a man in a plain form, and Y is religion, X + Y = Heaven, and with no religion , X = Hell, So X, A Man in the plain form " Nature form " is to go to hell if left unchanged, so if we were all good by nature, meaning that we'd still turn good if we didn't change " follow " , such concept wouldn't have been there, and there would have been no need for us to be sent prophets and books to ask us to change, and angels wouldn't have asked God why would he send those who kill and shed the blood, and also the definite mistrust from the religious views toward the human nature if left unchecked / changed is definitely for a logical reason.

Psychologically Speaking " Which you can skip if you're not that fond of scientific stuff " , from the psychoanalytical approach, the two main principles to affect one's acts, are the Pleasure principle and the Reality principle, the pleasure one is the tendency of the person to seek pleasure " with its causes " and avoid pain, it only seeks fulfilling of the person's own needs, and seeks their immediate gratification. on the other hand, the reality principle is about enduring pain and postponing pleasure due to the obstacles found in life.

It also states that the personality is composed of three interacting systems which are the Id, Ego and Super Ego, revising the basic definitions in brief ;

• - Id is the inner desire, the part of our personality responsible for our basic drives and instincts " sex, food, ect . ", It is amoral, egocentric and selfish, ruled by the pleasure principle, it is without a sense of time, completely illogical, primarily sexual, and takes " no " for an answer
• .- Super Ego, which stands in the opposite direction of the Id, acts as the conscience, maintaining our sense of morality.
• - Ego, its task is to find a balance between primitive drives, morals, and reality while satisfying the id and superego.

According to the psychoanalytical approach, The mind of a newborn child is regarded to be completely controlled by the Id, meaning it would be following the pleasure principle and having the characteristics of the Id, after that, through discipline " parents, society and religion for example ", the super ego part starts to rise versus the Id, and the Ego starts to maintain a responsible person with moralities and respect " the reality principle ", which means, if no discipline occurred " means to be left as his nature ", one would grow up to be Id-ridden, meaning ; amoral, egocentric and selfish.

Biologically speaking, " Which you can also skip " , one's brain is composed of the brain stem, the mid brain, and the two brain hemispheres which are divided into lobes, in the development of the neutral system, the first to develop in the brain is the brain stem and the mid brain, which are responsible for the same things as the Id " survivability, sex, food, basic instincts, etc .. " , then follow them the brain hemispheres which are " mainly the frontal lobe " responsible for thinking, logic and reason and controlling one's behavior when one grows mature and disciplined.

" …a man may make an error in many ways (for evil, belongs to the infinite, while goodness belongs to the finite), but he may succeed in one way only; and in view of this, one of them is easy but the other hard. It is easy to miss the mark but hard to hit it. So it is because of these, too, that excess and deficiency belong to vice, but moderation to virtue. For men are good in one way, bad in many. " ~The Nicomachean Ethics

To summarize what i wanna say ; I'd consider the human nature as a fertile land, if left alone " uncultivated ", it would tend to grow thorns, but when taken good care of, you cut the thorn to unveil the fertile land and it'd be a perfect place to plant the good seeds, meaning the human nature tends to be bad, 'cause a part of being natural is keeping something alone and unchanged, yet its still perfect to grow good one when changed. Aristotle summarize that in : "virtues arise in us neither by nature nor contrary to nature; but by our nature we can receive them and perfect them by habituation ". And for that reason, God replied the angels with that he knows what they don't, and yet he said " فالهما فجورها و تقواها ", and mentioned the bad part first and followed it with the good, which pretty much applies to the psychological and biological parts that i've mentioned " The Id existed before the super ego, and the mid brain's maturity before the frontal lobe's ".