THE CRAZY DOCTRINE: "KNOWING A PERSON BY THEIR
BEHAVIOUR IS KNOWING NOT THEM BUT A SUM OF BEHAVIOURS"
Elizabeth has written a great novel.
Some say, "Elizabeth, I love you as a writer" means you are directing your
praise to her as a person.
Some say, "Elizabeth, thank you for a great novel", is directing your praise to
her writing and not to her as a person.
This is like the notion that the sin is not the sinner in that the good is not
part of the person. If you love good deeds and not the people that do them then
you love nobody. If loving a person's deeds is not the same as loving the person
then thanking her will do no good. She is not loved.
If loving a person is not the same as loving their deeds then what should we
value most? The person or the deeds? That the question even arises shows there
is something wrong with divorcing the person and their actions.
Now take "Elizabeth, thank you for a great novel" - you are thanking her as a
person. You are asking her to be pleased as a person that you liked her for
producing the novel. Deeds speak about the kind of person she is. She will want
to be loved and thanked as a good person and not just as a person. So to ignore
her actions in order to focus on her as a person will not help either.
To tell a person they are precious does not mean much to them unless you see
their actions as part of them. Or to make it clearer, to see their actions as
expressing them as persons.
The notion of some that we must love people as people without letting what they
do or don't do influence us asks us to do the near impossible.
Also, it follows that if I should love me just because I am me and leave the
kind of person I am out of the equation, then it is my fault if I don't love
myself and I am stupid and have a moral blind spot. Those who tell me they love
me like that are going to have me trying to love me like that and it will only
fail for it's not love but delusion.
To say we must love people as separate from what they do be it good or bad is
silly. It is confusing being different with being separate. Your behaviour is
different from you but not separate from you. You cannot know anybody except
through their behaviour. They are not you.
Some deny that the only way to know somebody is through how they behave. They
will respond that if I love you because of what your behaviour says about you
and not just because you are a living person then I love only what I perceive to
be what your behaviour says about you. But that is not an response. I cannot
know you are a person but by your behaviour and it is your behaviour that tells
me what kind of person you are. The problem is, it is all about how I read your
behaviour. It's about my perception. It's a fact of life that we don't really know
other people but our perception of them. I love the sum of your behaviours and
not you. The response does a conjuring trick. It says that it is wrong to say
you only know people from their behaviour because that would fail: knowing a sum
of their behaviours is not knowing them. Therefore you know and therefore love
them as persons regardless of their behaviour. That is actually a trick for it
does not follow that if "Loving your perception of a person is not the same as
loving a person" is wrong, that you can love the person. It does not follow that
if you cannot eat a meal so huge that it nourishes you for a month that you can
drink enough water in one session to keep you going for a month. Same thing.
Some say we can be sure that though we can never know anybody completely we
learn enough about them from their behaviours. They can't fake everything. To
say their behaviours say nothing about whether they should be loved or not is
really to say they are fakes. This is true - our knowledge of them is not strict
knowledge but presumed knowledge. It is better to assume people are good when
you might be wrong than to simply say they are fakes which is what you are
saying if their good behaviour proves nothing about them.
To deny that behaviour matters means you make no difference between Hitler and
Nelson Mandela. We do not want to be seen as persons but as different kinds of
persons. We communicate what kind of persons we are through our behaviour. John
the computer whizz wants to be loved as a different kind of person to Jean the
Oscar Winning Actress.
Loving people for being people and treating their behaviours as if they don't
happen is not respectful of the people. Actions that are good should be
acknowledged. Why do good if you cannot be thanked or if those who do good and
those who do nothing will be rewarded as if they are equally good?
We want to be loved for ourselves and our actions both and - that is how we are
programmed even if it is irrational. Otherwise we cannot do anything that makes
us feel worthwhile or make us worthwhile. People telling you that you are
amazing and special and wonderful as a person and your achievements and virtues
are irrelevant will not encourage you or make you confident. You will torture
yourself over why you do not feel happy about what they said. You will torture
yourself for seeing their love as hollow as themselves.
Well-wishing can feel real when you engage in it. But only action will prove
that it is real. You feel good because of your nice wishes. But the feeling may
be lying to you. Only action makes the wishes genuine. There is no other way you
can genuinely care about another's well-being except by actions. Urging people
to love people as people and not as the good kind of people as if their
behaviour is irrelevant is implying that to care what a person does is a
hindrance to loving them or a threat to that love. To dismiss actions as if they
were a hindrance to loving the person is only encouraging people who feel good
about praying for you and wishing good for you while not lifting a finger when
they can help.
Love is working for the wellbeing of others. Ignoring the kind of people they
are is opposing their wellbeing.
Loving people for being people as if their behaviours do not happen is really
loving nobody. It is said that if you love everybody you really love nobody.
Nobody is special because if you are that liberal with your love you only dilute
it for each person so much that it is almost water and not love. It is hard to
believe in the sincerity of a person who claims to love the Holy Virgin Mary and
Satan himself equally. Practically speaking you may as well not love. But if you
start seeing love as being about the person as divorced from the kind of person
they are as shown by their actions and behaviours then you are making the
problem a million times worse. You are an extremist when it comes to the fact
that if you love everybody you really love nobody. A person who says they love
everybody must love nobody because seeing people as persons divorced from the
kind of persons they are is really loving nobody.
If loving people is not about their actions and the kind of people they are is
not even to be considered then it follows that they have no reason to worry
about personal responsibility. Even if I worry about my own why would I
encourage or ask anybody to worry about theirs? I just love them and don't care.
The motive for admitting responsibility is taken away from them. They are left
with no reason to care.
If all I care about is being loved as a person I will not care if I commit
murder and end up in jail. I will think people love me as much as if I were
Mother Teresa.
When I do good, I want the other person to be really helped by it. That means I
hope they see the love in me and are grateful. I cannot be motivated to help
others if I see loving a person as having nothing to do with loving their
behaviour. It would mean I would expect others to see that too and put it into
practice.
If a person's behaviour tells you nothing about their lovability and has nothing
to do with knowing them then you know stranger and friend equally. And why stop
with people? Why not include dogs and pet rats and worms too? Surely they are
persons in their own way. Perhaps they deserve even more love and help than
people do for their bodies and minds restrict them and endanger them. At least
we can do something to protect ourselves from some evils. They cannot. Their
situation is more serious than the human situation.
What about God then? If we are to avoid loving a sum of behaviours for it is not
loving a person then it follows that nothing God does should inspire us to love
him. We should just love him. If your love grows for your girlfriend and child
the more you get to know them then that cannot be real love. It means you are
getting better at simulating love and self-deception.
We cannot know God unless he reveals himself to us in a relationship kind of
way. Knowing the king through arguments is no substitute for knowing the king as
a friend and person. It is knowing about him not knowing him. Only God can make
God known. And it is easy for us to wrongly think we know God when we think we
know ourselves and actually do not.
A person consists of consciousness - he or she senses things. That alone is
behaviour. The intent of the person and her or his thoughts are also behaviours.
A person is a form of behaviour. To say you must love the person and forget
about behaviours makes no sense. You have failed to grasp what a person is and
thus you are showing no real respect and cannot respect the person deep down.
Loving people as if they do not express themselves in what they do is denying
them their right to be helped to express themselves. It would imply that the
person who loves his wife for her beauty and wit does not love her as a person.
If you should love yourself as a person and not as a person with qualities then
you do not love your qualities. You do not love yourself. You are simulating
love. Suppose the love is real just for the sake of argument. Then when you
suffer guilt or a lack of self-esteem you are being stupid. Believing that about
yourself will mean you are stuck with them forever. It is when you see your
guilt and self-esteem lack as understandable that you can take steps to address
them.
No wonder religion with its over the top quest to be do-gooder, really leads to
aggression and intolerance and bigotry.