“1st, Anger rises out of something personal to ourselves; Hatred is independent of this. We may hate a man merely because we conceive him to be of a certain description. 2d, Anger is invariably against individuals; Hatred may embrace whole classes. 3d, Anger is to be remedied by time; Hatred is incurable. 4th, Anger wishes to inflict pain, so that its operation may be felt and acknowledged, and thus satisfaction obtained; Hatred wishes nothing of this kind—it merely wishes that a mischief may be done, without caring that the source of it be known. 5th, Anger is a painful feeling; but Hatred not. 6th, Anger, when a certain amount of pain has been inflicted upon its object, may easily turn into pity; Hatred, under all circumstances, is incapable of this,—it desires nothing less than the absolute destruction and non-existence of its object.”
With all his subtlety and knowledge of the world, Aristotle does not exhibit any of the cynicism of Hobbes or Rochefoucauld. He is far from denying the existence of disinterested and noble feelings. Thus, for instance, he defines friendly feeling to consist in “the wishing a person what we think good, for his sake and not for our own, and as far as is in our power, the exerting ourselves to procure it.” Pity he defines to be “a sort of pain occasioned by the appearance of a hurtful or destructive ill (such as one’s self or one’s connections might possibly have to endure) happening to one who does not deserve it.” Here fellow-feeling is mentioned as necessary for realising the ills which
