rowyn

You're viewing

rowyn's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

"It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not." --Andre Gide

Is it, do you think?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

ex-strangess744.livejournal.com

to be neither. frankly, both options are less than optimal. But if it's one or the other, give me hatred, please.

It's actually not too complex a reason....someone who loves me for what I am not will eventually realize I am not what they thought. Then, they will leave. And that will hurt. Also, it would have been wrong to be accepting their love under false pretenses.

Moreover receiving that love will make me lazy, in thinking I am presenting myself clearly, when odds are it is a lack of coherence which has led to the misunderanding.

Whereas to be hated for what I am...this helps highlight struggle. Either it is warranted hate, in which case it is good to have the people who must by their nature stand against me exposed. They are easier to deal with in the open. If it is unwarranted hate, it might be dispellable, or turned into coherent, warrantable hate.

Also, the implication (which is irrational but I agree with in my gut) is that people tend to love by delusion but hate with accuracy. So I'd assume I'm doing something right if I'm hated. CBecause there are so many people with the values antithetical to mine, that if I am true to MY values, I should be commonly hated.

I'd rather not be hated but I accept it is likely; I'd rather be loved, but I accept it mostly won't be real love....

Kendra

From:

rowyn

You were right about this. I just thought I'd let you know that. *hug*

From:

telnar.livejournal.com

I would also prefer to be hated for what I am. I like to be myself almost all of the time, and being loved for something I am not would encourage me to maintain the illusion which was causing that love. Perhaps at first the illusion could be passively maintained, but I would expect that over time I would have to distort my behavior to allow it to persist.

Beyond the dishonesty of even failing to correct someone else's self delusion, I wouldn't like the effect that not breaking the spell would probably have on what I could say and do (and the greater dishonesty that this could lead to).

The world is a diverse place, and not everyone who knows what I am will want to hate me. I'd rather spend my time with those who don't than deceiving those who should.

As God said onto Moses (Exodus 3:14), or as Popeye said onto Bluto: "I am what I am." I have no desire to pretend to be something else.

Telnar

From:

level-head.livejournal.com

I would differ with Strangess and Telnar here. I have experienced both in abundance. There is a certain ... utility, perhaps, in the hater exposing himself, as Strangess suggested -- but they do not always do so.

On the other hand, to be loved for something you are not can mean to be loved for the potential you have to be something you almost are -- and this can inspire you to struggle to be that which you can be, in order to live up to the love that you have been given.

That is no burden, and no falsity; instead, it is a powerful motivator.

===|==============/ Level Head

From:

rowyn

"Loved for what you want to be" is, perhaps, not the same as "loved for what you are not". I think Strangess's observation captures the one of the main thrusts of the quote: "people tend to love by delusion but hate with accuracy".

That said ... I can't say I agree with that point. I think most if not all emotions are based on imperfect, if not grossly flawed, understandings. If anything, hate tends to be more irrational than love, based on single incidents, misunderstood intentions, things done by accident. Love, on the other hand, is more likely inspired by things done intentionally -- if not things one does often enough. ;)

Being loved for what you aspire to be -- yes, I daresay that's a pleasant enough position. Better than being hated, regardless of the hater's level of insight. >:)

Still, there is that flip side to the quote, which is "It's better to be honest". And it is better to make enemies by being who you want to be, than to make friends by pretending to be something you have no will or desire to become.

From:

level-head.livejournal.com

With those refinements, I'd agree. But I don't like the implication that it is only one or the other.

===|==============/ Level Head

From:

rowyn

I'll freely admit that I feel a lot of ambivalence about the quote -- hence my original question on it. :) It's the sort of thing that I'm glad doesn't have any more authoritorial weight behind it. The best way to take it is the way Strangess looked at it -- better that she should stay true to her values and alienate those who disagreed with them, then to abandon what she thinks is right in order to conform. (After all, if they don't like what you value, you shouldn't want them on your side, anyway.)

But the worst way to take it would be as a justification for any sort of bad behavior, because "You should love me for who I am! And I just happen to be the sort of person who beats up his girlfriend, okay? It'd be wrong for me to change merely to please someone else." O.o No, really, sometimes it's OK to change.