Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
 Originally Posted By: Faldage
 Originally Posted By: The Pook
 Originally Posted By: BranShea
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"?


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.")

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
> 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 : -))

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
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).


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
Thank you! Welcome to go with the weekend reading.

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

Last edited by BranShea; 04/19/08 02:11 PM.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
 Originally Posted By: BranShea
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.

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.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
 Quote:
"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."

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)

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
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.


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,295
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.

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
 Originally Posted By: BranShea
 Quote:
"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."

This looks not exactly like good intentions to me, the Pook.
Burning coals on his head ,
do I misunderstand this ...?


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.

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
 Originally Posted By: BranShea
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.


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."

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,344
Members9,182
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
Ineffable, ddrinnan, TRIALNERRA, befuddledmind, KILL_YOUR_SUV
9,182 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 782 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
wofahulicodoc 10,546
tsuwm 10,542
LukeJavan8 9,918
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5