sorry but I think you have stuff twisted around emotions don't directly give power they have no power on there own, only when combined with a person is power formed.
this symbiotic relationship dictates that potential of the person combined with the emotion felt equals power expressed.
if Obama is feeling the love and expresses that then he may have more potential power for good than myself from hate.
personaly in this dumbed down age we live in I see lots of people who think negative emotions and negative responces are all powerfull its a popular misconception portrayed extensively by the media.
emotions are expresions of a person my love combined with my drive and wits may well be enough to negate the effects of many a hatefull foe, my love of my family may drive me to war to protect them and motivate me beyond compare
there is an old saying that a man fighting for his family is worth ten fighting for pay
your argument for the greatness of negativity in emotion is flawed all emotions are only as potent as the person they envelope and even in two opposite and equals, the levels of drive are base on instinct , intellect and prowes.
Edit : id also like to add that when I read your cleaver and compeling arguments I note the use of a lot of asumtions
True love is too rare to compete with the droves of true hate , this is but one flawed asumtion
on the flip side one could argue that vertualy every child born has the unconditional love of two parents and that is a big number
still this is a flawed statment as well
I feel the error in your argument is and forgive me, based on a lack of comprehension of the true depth of all emotions involved and there differing styles of power expression.
my advise is don't believe the hype
You misunderstand my argument oh so much. Emotions in and of themselves are powerless, I agree. Emotions without a person is powerless, I agree. However, you are forgetting two primary things:
1. These emotions are in their truest state, thus carrying all benefits and disbenefits.
2. Each emotion, while they may share some powerful qualities, each have their distinct and unique qualities. In this case, they both have different qualities effecting drive, motivation and the power behind each.
An emotion without a person, although powerless, still embodies these potential qualities and potential powers, but simply cannot be acted upon because they lack something to effect. This effect then translates on the person when one is provided and creates drive, motivation, and (depending on how complete the emotion is) the power. Since we are dealing with the truest form, we must then assume that the power is at max. This maximum power of the emotion makes the drive and motivation just as strong (creating the emotions true drive). As this emotion is at max, the definitions apply universally. This also makes the emotions capable for analysis as far as which one has more motivational power and which one has the overall 'most powerful' title.
You say emotions and drive act independently of each other. Then what gives you the drive? Self desire would be the logical conclusion, then I ask what gives the self-desire. That then is answered by a specific emotion. Thus, drive comes from emotion and do not act independently at all.
I then compared all emotions in true form, and narrowed it down to hate due to numbers and easiness to instill. I concede that in one on one, true love wins (only if focused toward the one who hates, however, can it win against true hate one on one). However, on a global scale (which humanity is set in, so we must consider), hate wins out. I don't wish to re-argue what is in the original post. You may re-read it if you wish.
And of course I made assumptions. However, these assumptions are not all that hard to believe, as they make sense.
True love being too rare - Common sense, but if you need an explanation: For love to exist from one to another, the person that has love must deny himself. This denial is necessary for true love, as a requisite is to die for that person should that choice arise. Denial of onese;f fights every rational, irrational, instinctual, and just intelligent thing to do. The barriers are extremely hard to overcome, and most never truly do.
The 'child' argument is invalid. There was a study (I currently cannot find it) conducted on the brain and the conclusion was that love is not fully comprehended until the 20's. I see loads and drives of children and adults who disown their parents and refuse to associate with them, sometimes for arbitrary reasons. I've resented my father for years now (however my reason is not arbitrary, but lets not venture there). A child's love is not unconditional.
Assumptions must be made in almost any argument, and especially this one.
