I read google quots to try make my English better. Today i read one very confusing:

The road to hell is paved with adverbs. Stephen King

What does this mean?

Stephen King is an outrageously successful writer, who has some debatable advice to give about writing: link.

but as advice goes, this one about adverbs isn't too bad, as long as you don't take it as a rule. it simply says, avoid overuse of adverbs.

I'm always tempted to make a Tom Swifty out of it:
"The road to hell is paved with adverbs," Tom preached hotly.

Samuel Johnson Said "Hell is paved with good intentions." This got changed in the popular memory to "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." There have been various plays on this popular misquote: adverbs, truffles, ethics resolutions, and happy plans, just to mention those found on the first page of Google hits on "the road to hell is paved" -intentions.

Interesting, Faldage. Is there a difference in meaning? One would think so, as the misquote is a way of saying that people who do not follow through with intended good deeds in life are headed for hell, or more simply, "Thanks for nothing...". What hell being paved with good intentions means I'm not quite sure. I suppose the citizens of hell must have done the paving, therefore indicating the quality of the citizenry, and at the same time, the seriousness of the sin (good intentions without deeds). I think I like the road better, because at least you can take a detour and avoid hell before it's too late! :0)

Thanks to all peoples for your answers.

What hell being paved with good intentions means I'm not quite sure.
The way I see it: good intentions are so plentiful (and therefore cheap) among the inhabitants of hell, that the floor is covered of them. i.e. good intentions on their own will not save anybody.

Further more; many good intentions when held on to and when executed may have contrary effects.
Harm is often done with the best of intentions while it also is done on evil purpose.
The floor is covered with the mix of them.
Therefore it is safer to have no intentions at all.
Only try to be as good as one can.

Is that intentionally or only accidentally ironic? Isn't that the ultimate "good intention"?

Neither. Just plain serious. No intention at all.

I got just one question:

Huh?

I meant, surely having the intention to try to be as good as one can is a good intention isn't it? So doesn't the saying in question apply equally to that as well? (["the road to] hell is paved with good intentions.")

> Only try to be as good as one can.

Yes,well, I think of an intention as having a specific purpose. A specific direction.
Maybe I should have added this : in general. Though looking at it closer, trying to be as good as one can gives also only limited guarantee. I should have left it out completely.

I'm still musing on Socrates' steadfast principle not to do harm or evil to anyone purposely. For that time a new point of vieuw, where one was supposed to repay evil with evil.

Superficially, his' seems a good principle and doing no harm if you can prevent it is, of course, good. But in a narrower sense, from person to person, you cannot always know what harms or hurts someone else (beyond the very evident) unless this person lets you know.(mostly, if at all, after the harm is done).

Which makes me believe doing harm in one way or another is at times inevitable. Unconciously, unintentionally, but still.

(one thought a day : -))

intention

There is a long line of studies done on intentionality in the West under the rubrics of the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of language (link).

Thank you! Welcome to go with the weekend reading.

(I see this pretty tough stuff , but I intend to give it a good try)

Actually it wasn't entirely a new point of view in the ancient world, though it may have been new in the Greek city states. Although the idea of doing evil for evil was very prevalent among polytheistic societies, perhaps because that's the example set by their gods, it was not the prevailing Semitic/Jewish idea, at least in their religious literature, though no doubt it was true at a popular level. The Old Testament book of Proverbs, written between 1000BC and about 450-500BC, certainly before Socrates, anyway, says "If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you." (Prov 25:21-22) That sentiment goes even further than Socrates, not just saying don't do evil to anyone, but do good to everyone, even your enemy. There are also examples of people in the Old Testament who are commended for loving their enemies and sparing their lives, etc. However, since the Law of Moses provided things like cities of haven for those who were fleeing from avenging relatives of someone killed accidentally, it's obvious that the average Israelite was just as likely as the average Greek to want to get even and repay evil with evil.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were also similar expressions to that of Socrates in Eastern religious writings also, but I'm no expert on that.

This looks not exactly like good intentions to me, the Pook.
Burning coals on his head ,
do I misunderstand this or is this psychological torture?
(under disguise of doing good)

This looks not exactly like good intentions to me, the Pook.

I think it's a metaphor. Killing an enemy with kindnesses is bound to cause cognitive dissonances.

Yes, it's a methaphor obviously, but it certainly is not 'good intentions'. It is a refined way to humiliate your enemy.
Yes , killing with kindness maybe.

Yes I think so. Though it's not entirely clear to me exactly what it does mean, it probably has something to do either with invoking shame in them or with with making them even more culpable. In any case, it is stated as the possible result of the action, not given as the reason for doing it.

Even if it is a way to humiliate your enemy (and I don't think it is in the sense of a deliberate desire to inflict psychological harm), that would still be better than the prevailing ancient custom of lopping off his head! The obvious alternatives are let your enemy starve and die of thirst - surely not a better option? And the humiliation in the context of the general ethos of the book of Proverbs would be designed to elicit a change of heart in them - as another Proverb says "sometimes it takes a painful experience to make us change our ways."

>as another Proverb says "sometimes it takes a painful experience to make us change our ways."

Much and many and far too often