Ecclesiastes (ch. 3) lists many opposing attributes and states that each is legitimate at times. In verse 8 he says: 'A time to love and a time to hate'. This could be interpreted as suggesting that: a) hate is the opposite of love and b) love is not always virtuous!
If we view love as the ultimate all encompassing virtue that shall prevail to unite all, how could there be place for hate? On the other hand, aren't we supposed to paradoxically love hate too?
There may be no contradiction here if we differentiate between the unlimited 'omni' level and limited partial levels. All 'wholes' are composed of many parts that differ in value and appreciation. We may appreciate many attributes of a person and therefore even accept some attributes which are not so appreciated. On the other hand, we may hate some parts of a human character like unnecessary violence. This hate of violence indeed opposes a love of violence, but it serves a higher level of love - peace. Thus, while we do not value any opposite of love at the 'omni' level, we still could tolerate hate at a partial level that does disservice to a more ultimate level of love. Thus, such hate actually serves love!
Now to the question; understanding that there is a place for hate and accordingly for the act of repelling since it also serves love, would there be any kind of thought, attitude, feeling or emotion that never serves love and thus should totally be done away with?
Disgust for example; can we fathom an instance in which disgust serves a higher level of love, or does it stem from a lack of general love and we should therefore work on totally doing away with it?
Here is a quote: Disgust and love are opposites. If disgust is about closing-off borders, love is about dissolving walls - Jonathan Heidt (13:20). Is it always so, or does disgust sometimes serve love by helping to ward off a factor destructive of love? In other words; is there place to love disgust?