An Idea

[Prom_STar]

It is impossible to correctly judge an action without the knowledge of the intentions behind it.

Along the same lines: The key to really knowing someone is not who he/she is, but who he/she wants to become.

**note: I realize these are both generalizations (especially the first) and thus, there are scores of variables to consider. My hope is to remain in a more generalized scope, realizing that every generalization must be translated to fit the situation when used in actual practice.

Also, both of these are not phrased exactly how I'd like them to be yet. The first especially is in a very rough form.

[wayfriend]

I've always thought that the key to knowing someone was watching how they treated people that they didn't need anything from.

[The Laughing Man]

good one WF.....kinda like you can only judge a person by how they act when they think no-one is watching.....and how they act when they know someone is watching too, now that I think about it...posers...

It is impossible to correctly judge an action without the knowledge of the intentions behind it.


OK. That sounds like standard trial law, common social practice, and why we always at least ask why someone did what they did, not that we always accept the answer....

Along the same lines: The key to really knowing someone is not who he/she is, but who he/she wants to become.

isn't who they want to become who they really are, like who the person really is, is a person who wants to become.....

beyond that, not too sure where you want to go with this?

[Avatar]

Is it impossible to judge an action without knowing the intent? Are the results of an action not visible?

The results remain the same, regardless of what was intended, don't they? Is something less bad because the person who did it didn't mean for it to happen?

I agree with WayFriend. People's actions toward others are a good indicator of their character.

As for people being who they want to become...I'm not so sure.

People are who they are. If they become somebody else, then that's who they are. If a thief wan't to become a law-abiding citizen, but just can't stop stealing, does their desire make them law-abiding? Or do their actions make them a thief?

I agree that it gives an insight into a person, but until they become the person they want to be, they're not.

--A

[lucimay]

Is it impossible to judge an action without knowing the intent? Are the results of an action not visible?

sometimes yes, sometimes not. open to interpretation every action is.

The results remain the same, regardless of what was intended, don't they?

yes but what we think of the action is open to interpretation based on what we judge as the intention behind the act.

Is something less bad because the person who did it didn't mean for it to happen?

no but what we what we think of the person is contingent on how we interpret the intention that motivated the action.

I agree with WayFriend. People's actions toward others are a good indicator of their character.

i would say they are the only indicators of their character.

As for people being who they want to become...I'm not so sure.

Along the same lines: The key to really knowing someone is not who he/she is, but who he/she wants to become.

isn't who they want to become who they really are, like who the person really is, is a person who wants to become.....

i sort of get it. i sort of agree too. then again, what did Ted Bundy want to become?


People are who they are. If they become somebody else, then that's who they are. If a thief wan't to become a law-abiding citizen, but just can't stop stealing, does their desire make them law-abiding? Or do their actions make them a thief?

they are theives who wish they weren't? but is a thief all a thief is?

I agree that it gives an insight into a person, but until they become the person they want to be, they're not.

unless of course, they are and they don't know it.

[Prom_STar]

I knew that wasn't the best way to phrase that. Let me see if I can explain where I was trying to go.

People tend to judge a person's actions (and that person) before they really know what's going on. I don't mean they judge whether the action is right or wrong, but they decide what it shows about the person doing it.

I don't why, but I cannot think up a good example (which is sad: this whole "theory" started in my head today when some friends did this exact sort of thing).

In general, my point is to say we are too quick to judge people and we judge before we really have enough info to make that call.

More specifically, i'm trying to say we an isolated incident (one thing someone says, for example) and using that, make a full judgment about the person involved. (Someone uses "snobbish" language and we label him/her pretentious).

I apologize for my lack of clarity. I'm trying to formulate this idea. When I get in a somewhat intelligible form, I'll be sure to pass it along.

[Avatar]

In general, my point is to say we are too quick to judge people and we judge before we really have enough info to make that call.

More specifically, i'm trying to say we an isolated incident (one thing someone says, for example) and using that, make a full judgment about the person involved. (Someone uses "snobbish" language and we label him/her pretentious).

Ah, OK, I see where you're going withthe first one, and I certainly agree with you there. An isolated incident, with insufficient data, is by no means enough to judge anybody in. I was thinking more along the lines of murder and stuff.

but is a thief all a thief is?

Not at all LuciMay. But a thief couldn't call themselves a law-abiding citizen either.

--A

[lucimay]

then again, what did Ted Bundy want to become?

i liked this one better.

[The Laughing Man]

Hannibal Lecter: First principles, Clarice. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?

Clarice Starling: He kills women...

Hannibal Lecter: No! That is incidental. What is the first and principal thing he does, what need does he serve by killing?

Clarice Starling: Anger, social resentment, sexual frustration...

Hannibal Lecter: No, he covets. That's his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer.

Clarice Starling: No. We just...

Hannibal Lecter: No. Precisely. We begin by coveting what we see every day. Don't you feel eyes moving over your body, Clarice? And don't your eyes move over the things you want?

I like this one better.....

[lucimay]

yes...that's a good one alright.