'To understand everything is to forgive everything' - Do you agree?

Rebelheart

This may be for the Philosophy board but let's work on the premise that really deep philosophical people exist in After Hours this evening ....

I got to talking philosophy with a French friend some years ago and as we went on with the discussion he sighed and commented 'Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner' ('To understand everything is to forgive everything').

The more I live the more this seems to gather greater truth for me. In particular I find myself being more benign about the people who have messed up the Irish economy as I understand more about the ideas, beliefs and views that they were working on between the years 2001 and 2008.

Do you think it is possible to really understand a deed and remain just as vociferous in your condemnation of it as you did before you knew any of the details? Even understanding a small aspect of a situation or deed moderates my view of it, even if I might still despise it wholeheartedly.

Scrambled egg

No

Biggins

My version of that is 'To understand everything, is to appreciate what you have got'

I stopped reading after the first sentence

dr.bollocko

rarnes1 wrote: »

I stopped reading after the first sentence

But then how can you forgive what you do not understand?

TheZohanS

Rebelheart wrote: »

Do you think it is possible to really understand a deed and remain just as vociferous in your condemnation of it as you did before you knew any of the details?

Yes.

Understanding something does not necesitate forgiveness.

bleg

Sometimes it's better not to understand.

PhysiologyRocks

I disagree.

For example, it's easy to understand how someone who cheats in life and/or love was tempted. It doesn't mean I'd forgive it.

Selfishness in general is easy to understand, and not all forgive selfish people.

Laziness is understandable. Small crime is sometimes understandable. Pettiness and jealousy and resulting behaviour, even in adults, are simple to comprehend.

It doesn't mean they're all forgivable.

Biggins

bleg wrote: »

Sometimes it's better not to understand.

You mean like the Lisbon Treaty?

(...Says the old fogie that read the whole damn thing. Yes - I was bored! but I understood it myself)

bleg

Biggins wrote: »

You mean like the Lisbon Treaty?

Yes and I'll never forgive the No side!

Poor Uncle Tom

Biggins wrote: »

You mean like the Lisbon Treaty?

(...Says the old fogie that read the whole damn thing. Yes - I was bored! but I understood it myself)

Theory is flawed, backwards.

I forgive Lisbon but I don't understand their Treaty.

Turd Ferguson

I dont understand the OPs post and I will never forgive him for writing it

bigeasyeah

Honestly who gives a flying fig?! Have a beer and chase some tail,you ll be long enough dead.

jumpguy

I understand why Lady Gaga writes and sings such **** songs - to make tonnes of money.

I don't forgive her.

PinkTulips

totally disagree....

i can understand why criminals commit atrocities, that doesn't mean i can, or should forgive them

i can understand why politicians behave the way they do but it only makes me angrier at them half the time

i can understand why people are rude or obnoxious but it doesn't always mean they should be forgiven for treating others badly.

understanding a persons motivation is likely to make us angrier, not gush forgiveness at them tbh

Rebelheart

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

I disagree.

For example, it's easy to understand how someone who cheats in life and/or love was tempted. It doesn't mean I'd forgive it.

Selfishness in general is easy to understand, and not all forgive selfish people.

Laziness is understandable. Small crime is sometimes understandable. Pettiness and jealousy and resulting behaviour, even in adults, are simple to comprehend.

It doesn't mean they're all forgivable.

But take the example of a jury in a legal case. They have to determine the truth of the case in front of them. However, it is invariably part of their judgement to take a range of issues - "mitigating circumstances" - into account when they arrive at their decision and sentence. Indeed, very many trials open with an admission of guilt and the trial itself is to understand why it was done as well as how it was done with the legal teams on both sides appealing to the jury to accept their understanding of the crime. Thus even in heinous cases such as child abuse the sentence is usually lighter or moderated if the jury believes that the abuser had some tragic history of being abused himself or herself. If they understand the same crime to have been motivated by sheer evil, in contrast, they will tend to levy a much harsher sentence.

To bring it closer to everybody, if your own sibling committed a crime you would be more open to forgiving him or her because you know/empathise/understand more about them. You would probably not have the same view of some stranger who had committed a similar crime that you had only read about.

Hagar

I can'r agree with the premise OP. Understanding why someone is a thief does not excuse their thievery. They are still responsible for their actions regardless of their reasons for carrying them out.

Dudess

It brings to mind the difference between an excuse and an explanation. A person who abuses their child may have been abused themselves - that's an explanation all right for what they are doing to their child... it's not an excuse though.

Turd Ferguson

Hagar wrote: »

They are still responsible for their actions regardless of their reasons for carrying them out.

What if a guy steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, is that wrong? And say his family don't like bread, they like cigarettes. Is it wrong for him to steal a truck of cigarettes?

Rebelheart

Hagar wrote: »

I can'r agree with the premise OP. Understanding why someone is a thief does not excuse their thievery. They are still responsible for their actions regardless of their reasons for carrying them out.

But to understand it in part usually leads to most people making allowances. To take a classic example, if the thief has a starving family to feed he is still a thief, but you would surely not be as hard on him as you would be on somebody who was robbing a bank for the purpose of enrichment rather than survival.

Yet both are thieves just the same. However, your knowledge of the circumstances moderates your view of the criminal.

wudangclan

an interesting premise ,op, however human emotion often overrides reason and a fuller understanding of a situation may not necessarily lead to forgiveness.
the converse opposite of this statement could read 'familiarity breeds contempt'.

PhysiologyRocks

Rebelheart wrote: »

But take the example of a jury in a legal case. They have to determine the truth of the case in front of them. However, it is invariably part of their judgement to take a range of issues - "mitigating circumstances" - into account when they arrive at their decision and sentence. Indeed, very many trials open with an admission of guilt and the trial itself is to understand why it was done as well as how it was done with the legal teams on both sides appealing to the jury to accept their understanding of the crime. Thus even in heinous cases such as child abuse the sentence is usually lighter or moderated if the jury believes that the abuser had some tragic history of being abused himself or herself. If they understand the same crime to have been motivated by sheer evil, in contrast, they will tend to levy a much harsher sentence.

To bring it closer to everybody, if your own sibling committed a crime you would be more open to forgiving him or her because you know/empathise/understand more about them. You would probably not have the same view of some stranger who had committed a similar crime that you had only read about.

Maybe, but that doesn't necessarily equal understanding leading to forgiveness.

If the jury understood the crime to have been one of evil, that would not lead to forgiveness. Even a lighter sentence is not complete forgiveness.

So I still don't believe that to understand everything is to forgive everything.

Hagar

Rebelheart wrote: »

But to understand it in part usually leads to most people making allowances. To take a classic example, if the thief has a starving family to feed he is still a thief, but you would surely not be as hard on him as you would be on somebody who was robbing a bank for the purpose of enrichment rather than survival.

Yet both are thieves just the same. However, your knowledge of the circumstances moderates your view of the criminal.

If the thief you mentioned broke into my house and stole my last loaf of bread should I still make allowances for his circumstances? You might, I wouldn't.

Bob Z

Rebelheart wrote: »

This may be for the Philosophy board but let's work on the premise that really deep philosophical people exist in After Hours this evening ....

I got to talking philosophy with a French friend some years ago and as we went on with the discussion he sighed and commented 'Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner' ('To understand everything is to forgive everything').

The more I live the more this seems to gather greater truth for me. In particular I find myself being more benign about the people who have messed up the Irish economy as I understand more about the ideas, beliefs and views that they were working on between the years 2001 and 2008.

Do you think it is possible to really understand a deed and remain just as vociferous in your condemnation of it as you did before you knew any of the details? Even understanding a small aspect of a situation or deed moderates my view of it, even if I might still despise it wholeheartedly.

Sorry i dont understand

genericguy

bleg wrote: »

Yes and I'll never forgive the No side!

+1. Declan Ganley. What. A. Cunt.

genericguy

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

What if a guy steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, is that wrong? And say his family don't like bread, they like cigarettes. Is it wrong for him to steal a truck of cigarettes?

yea, i guess...

rantyface

In some situations this does apply, but sometimes people are malicious. I understand people get roped into organised crime for example, but I think they could still be brave and reject it.

That is why judges can decide a sentence. There is a balance of mercy and punishment. They're not idiots.

I'm sometimes mean to my OH for the sake of it when I'm tired and grumpy. I think if he understood he'd be even less forgiving!