Connor Hall

Word Count: 1478

23 September 2019

Hazlitt Rhetorical Analysis

“On the Pleasure of Hating”, by William Hazlitt, is an essay written in 1823 during a

critical point in his life. Hazlitt had just concluded a divorce with his wife and his previous work

was being heavily criticized. Disgusted by romantic novels, which was the predominant form of

literature at the time, and frustrated with his personal life, Hazlitt wrote “On the Pleasure of

Hating”. Hazlitt would go on to make a career of writing critical pieces. While surrendering the

idea that humans can love, Hazlitt ultimately argues that hate is immortal and the primary feeling

humans feel is indeed hate as it is easier to hate and a necessity to life because it keeps people

from hating themselves. Hazlitt is effective in making his argument using relatable metaphors in

addition to modern day examples, establishing credibility through personal examples, and

logical, cause and effect observations.

Hazlitt immediately establishes pathos with a metaphor as he recalls a night when he

encountered a spider trying to escape his home. Hazlitt claims to have “bear[ed] the creature no

ill-will”, yet still felt “hate [at] the very sight of it” (2). Hazlitt had never seen this very spider

before, and still his primary feeling towards it was hate. This metaphor is an example of pathos

because the reader has more than likely had a similar encounter with not only a spider, but more

importantly for the sake of the essay, with other people. People were, are, and always will be

evolving, yet continue to carry with them this innate feeling of hate. This unwavering

assumption of bad in the unknown causes people to make judgements and place labels on those
unknown things and people without understanding their background or intentions. This example

is effective in supporting Hazlitt’s argument that hate is immortal because even without a basis

to make judgments, people will hate first and possibly be convinced to love at some later point in

time, but even then, that love will only be temporary.

Although written in 1826, the argument presented by Hazlitt is still relevant in modern

day global developments. Hazlitt very disturbingly states, “the pleasure of hating, like a

poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen bigotry” (6).

Organized religion inspires love into millions towards its God or gods while urging its followers

to love whether or not they too follow the same principles, believe the same beliefs, and worship

the same way, yet there is still an abundance of hate pertaining to religious differences. War has

been raging on in the Middle East for years exclusively because of religious differences. This

example again supports Hazlitt’s argument that hate is immortal because every religion

advocates acceptance and love, yet the result is once again hate. He also states, “the pleasure of

hating…makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands”

(6). At the time Hazlitt wrote this essay, land west of the Mississippi was extremely cheap and

fertile. As a result, thousands of Americans moved west and in doing so, displaced thousands of

Native Americans which would oftentimes result in their death. Americans viewed the Natives

and referred to them as “savages” because they did not understand their customs or traditions and

viewed them as inhumane. This hate was disguised as Manifest Destiny. This same kind of hate

is continued today as imperialism and the belief that the customs and traditions of one’s country

are superior to another. Throughout the 1900’s, America took territory after territory because the

leaders at the time believed the American government could govern and provide for the people

there better than their native governments. As Hazlitt explains, patriotism was used as an excuse
for this pestilence. This example also establishes pathos because hate from both religious wars

and imperialism occur today and are covered frequently in the news making it easy for the reader

to relate making his argument effective. Making his argument increasingly effective, Hazlitt

goes on to establish credibility.

Just because Hazlitt refers to events that happened during his time period does not make

him a credible source, but because he also includes personal examples in which he took a part in

and experienced firsthand, he can be considered a credible source. In “On the Pleasure of

Hating”, Hazlitt surrenders the fact that people do indeed love a couple things throughout their

love, but this love is only temporary. The first thing Hazlitt surrenders that people love is their

friends. He claims to “have been acquainted with two or three knots of inseparable companions,

who saw each other ‘six days in the week” (6). He uses ethos in this personal example to

establish credibility because he has personally experienced this situation, and pathos because

everyone at some point in their life has had someone whom they consider their best friend. This

friendship, the majority of the time, is only temporary as they “break up and are dispersed” (6).

What once was love fizzles out and turns into hate as “old friendships are like meats served up

repeatedly, cold, comfortless, and distasteful” (7). If someone were to be served cold meat at a

restaurant, they would be disgusted which is why Hazlitt uses this example because old friends

are eventually all looked upon the same way because hate is immortal and will consume what

little love there is in the world.

Hazlitt makes the same point later on, but this time using books. As a kid, everyone had

that one book, or maybe nowadays a movie, that they watched on repeat because it was their

favorite. As people grow older, however, “we take a dislike to our favorite books, after a time,

for the same reason. We can not read the same works for ever” (9). This argument is true most
of the time, but not nearly as effective as the same point made about friends. Many people do

not read the same books or watch the same movies for the entirety of their life, but they often

replace their old favorites with new favorites that perhaps were not created at the time or too

complex for their younger selves to understand. People meet new people all the time, but unlike

books or movies, people are irreplaceable as the feelings for another human being are not the

same as feelings towards an inanimate object such as a book making this argument less effective,

but still somewhat effect nevertheless as he establishes credibility with his personal example and

relatability with the majority of readers. Having already established pathos and ethos, Hazlitt

lastly appeals to the logic of his audience using logos.

Hazlitt uses logos to appeal to the logical sense of readers by using realist examples and

cause and effect observations to again reinforce his thesis that hate is a primary feeling. Hazlitt

asks, “Do we not see this principle at work everywhere? Animals torment and worry one

another without mercy: children kill flies for sport everyone reads the accidents and offences in

the newspaper as the cream of the jest: a whole town runs to be present at a fire, and the

spectator by no means exults to see it extinguished” (3) and “men gather in crowds to see a

tragedy” (3). A realist is defined as a person who recognizes what is real or possible in a

particular situation: one who accepts and deals with things as they really are. It is embarrassing

to hear this as a human race because these are realist examples as people used to and still do all

those things and do not even realize it because hate is a primary feeling, and because it is simply

human nature. It is logical for people, and animals, to behave in this manner, making Hazlitt’s

argument effective because at some point in their lives, everyone has witnessed one of these

cause and effect situations or taken part in it. People are more happy it isn’t them taking part in

the tragedy or fire because they would hate themselves for it.
 In “On the Pleasure of Hating”, William Hazlitt argues that hate is immortal and the

primary feeling humans feel is indeed hate as it is easier to hate and a necessity to life because it

keeps people from hating themselves. Hazlitt is effective in making his argument using relatable

metaphors in addition to modern day examples, establishing credibility through personal

examples, and logical, cause and effect observations. In the end, Hazlitt proves one last time that

hate is immortal as he concludes that he hates himself. Everyone has some sort of love for

themselves, but he has lost the love for himself as he hates himself for not hating enough.
 Works Cited

Hazlitt, William. “‘On the Pleasure of Hating.’” Wm. Hazlitt - "On the Pleasure Of Hating"

(C.1826)., www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Hazlitt/Hating.htm.