A Question About YOU

[Togakure]

"It's not who you are underneath; it's what you do that defines you."

Do you agree with this statement? If so, why? If not, why?

[discovery1]

Batman Begins was an excellent movie, if you ignored the fact that the weapon would kill everyone nearby. We are mostly water after all.

On topic:

Well, all that others can judge us by is our actions, words included. So as far as society as a whole is concerned, yes. Its true.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No. I would say that you don't know what is underneath you until you do. Before then you can't be sure. Of course, "do" is very vague.

[Byzantine Prince]

It's how you think that defines you.

[Zalmoxis]

It's how you think that defines you.

That actually can define everyone, as far as I'm concerned.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

It's what you eat that defines you...

wait, wait, that's not right...

It's what you put in your washer that defines you...

no, no that's not it either...

I'll get it eventually...

[Justiciar]

It's what you put in your washer that defines you...

That's why I use DAZZ. The soap you can believe in.

[Ser Clegane]

"It's not who you are underneath; it's what you do that defines you."

Do you agree with this statement? If so, why? If not, why?

For all people except - for yourself - you can only be defined by what you do. Even if other people claim to judge you by who you are underneath, they can only do so based on what you do ("doing" would include speaking).

For yourself, you will normally be defined by what's underneath.

Sometimes there might even be a good match between the two definitions

[Kanamori]

The self is defined personally, action as it is interpreted by others has nothing to do with it. When speaking of a person, one speaks of what the person has done -- that is not who they are or were though, it is simply what they have done that is observable to others. Outward action comes from the self, and although somone may guess in some correctness how that represents the self, it is impossible for any other person to know.

[Geoffrey S]

What you do shows others how you are underneath, it's the manifestation of your personality; so in the end, what you are underneath defines what you do, and makes you who you are.

Edit: so no, I don't agree.

[Rodion Romanovich]

"It's not who you are underneath; it's what you do that defines you."

Do you agree with this statement? If so, why? If not, why?

If you think "I want to kill everyone!" but wouldn't do it, even if you had the power to, then you're not a danger to others, so nobody should worry about your thoughts. So - what you do and say is what should define you in the eyes of other people. The ultimate usage of all thoughts is action like a movement or talking, so if there's no such action the thought was pointless, and not something anyone else should care about. But we can also judge others by their thoughts sometimes, thinking that some thought might be dangerous in the long run. The actual thoughts can often be seen by carefully finding patterns in actions and wordings. But these can often be inaccurate, so they're dangerous to judge after on a political level, but common to judge after on a social level. But in reality, the judgement of thoughts is the judgement of actions, because they judgement of thoughts is the judgement of future actions.

[Fragony]

"It's not who you are underneath; it's what you do that defines you."

Do you agree with this statement? If so, why? If not, why?

No I don't agree, what you do is what others see, so it is how other people define you.

[Husar]

I also don´t agree, it may be true for some people, but not in general.
Ser Clegane gave a good explanation I think.

[KukriKhan]

It's not who you are underneath; it's what you do that defines you."

I agree, generally.

My idea of myself (my self-image?) is subject to change due to circumstance, environment, chemical balance, etc. I may think it doesn't change, but that's a delusion brought on by the fact that the same "I" is thinking that thought. So I don't give much credence to an 'underneath' me.

My life is a continual effort to make what I 'do' match my high opinion of myself.

[doc_bean]

"It's not who you are underneath; it's what you do that defines you."

Do you agree with this statement? If so, why? If not, why?

For the most part, because who is this 'person' underneath me ? I might think i know him, but how ? Am I who I think I am ? Am I who I want to be ? Are they the same ? Do I even know myself ? Does anyone ? How can we know ?

Our actions often show clearer who we are than our thoughts, many people have done things they couldn't imagine themselves doing, many people have failed doing what they thought would have been easy. Our actions are just that, our actions, facts. It's possible to argue about intentions, to lie to ourself about why we do the things we do, it's not possible to undo the things we do, at most, we can deny them. But then, aren't we denying our true self ?

EDIT: KukriKhan seems to have expressed what I meant much clearer than I could.

[Drisos]

I agree. (Think so..)

I mostly think the same as LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix. It doesn't really matter with which charactere you were born.. as long as you 'are being good' (). It takes a strong mind to behave differently then you underneath are though, I think.

[Togakure]

Interesting perspectives, thanks. Here's my take:

From the perspectives of others, we are judged/defined by what we do (or by what they have heard or read about us ...). No one else can know what's "underneath." They may not be accurate in their assessment, but to them, it is who we are.

We define ourselves by our thoughts, feelings, values, and interests, as well as by our deeds, accomplishments, failures, etc.. As was pointed out, this is dynamic. How accurate are we in our assessment of ourselves?

Finally, we are what we are, despite any subjective definition--ours or someone else's--there is so much that we do not know about ourselves.

So ... it's both, and neither.

The point made, of making a constant effort to match ideals with actions--is a poignant one to me.

[Papewaio]

Integrity is matching ideals with actions.

You state and act the same.

Of course it is difficult to figure out if someone is also thinking the same as they act. But it might be true that if you act differently to they way you think and/or feel you are more likely to suffer the consequences of living out of tune with yourself.

[Csargo]

I agree

[Togakure]

Integrity is matching ideals with actions.

You state and act the same. ...

Interesting. I'd not thought of integrity in this light before. I understand what you mean. However (not being contentious), consider this: if one truly believes that Jews are vermin and should be exterminated, and acts on this ideal, does one have integrity?

I hope no one takes offense to this example. I certainly do NOT subscribe to this point of view, but used it to emphasize my question.

I'd read somewhere that "Integrity is doing the right thing--even when no one else is looking." Despite sounding like something from a campaign slogan, I like this notion.

Thanks for your comment.

[Quietus]

"It's not who you are underneath; it's what you do that defines you."

Do you agree with this statement? If so, why? If not, why?

It's all about Survival and Reproduction. Anything else is an illusion.

A story:

A closeted, gay star, a self-important judge and a slow-witted writer meet in a bar.

The star said: I hack it all the time, it's part of the job.

The judge said: I run the system and must give it a hack here and there for efficiency, or if need be as a reasonable, dirty fix.

The writer said: I just hack my material. I'm disarrayed, you know.

A lone figure stood up from the corner and said: People, if all you have are your illusions, then you deal with grief later. I DON'T, therefore I must deal with grief NOW!

And the figure sank back to the chair with head dropped to the table.

[Watchman]

People in themselves are defined by their internal thoughts and suchlike - that's what forms individual personality after all. As humans aren't a telepathic species, however, they are socially - that is to say, in the perception of and in relation to others - defined by what they do.

Or as that one saying goes, "your talk talks and your walk walks, but your walk talks more than your talk walks". I imagine most every culture has its own variation of the same chestnut proverb.

[Papewaio]

in·teg·ri·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tgr-t)
n.
Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.

Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code does not make the code correct. It only means you do as you state.

So while an SS Deathcamp guard would be a believer in his ethics and acts on it, it does not make the ethics something wonderful. He has integrity of code and deed. it does not however make his code any better.

It is like most things has to be seen in the holistic view to understand what it's value is.

[Togakure]

So a person can have integrity as defined, despite the nature of their particular brand of ethics/morality ... an interesting point of view; one that I'd not considered. Thanks again for pointing this out, and for explaining it further.

[Lemur]

Thought without action is impotent; action without thought is bestial. You need both.

[Samurai Waki]

I Do the exact opposite of whatever my mind tells me to do. Lifes been good ever since.