There are times when we are perplexed by outcomes that differ from our original intentions. It is a bitter experience when words spoken with good intentions are distorted or misunderstood by others; it can even provoke anger. Why is it that my benevolent intentions are conveyed differently? The fundamental reason lies in the distinction between ‘will’ and ‘action.’
‘Will’ is the act of ‘intending to do’ something. It is an internal stance—a resolve—to carry out a course of action after rationally assessing objects and situations. It is the state of meaning to act, the internal commitment to do something; it is the stage immediately preceding the actual execution.
The philosopher Kant explained that if reason acts like a compass, pointing toward the moral law inherent in human nature, then the internal resolve to follow that direction is the ‘will.’ In other words, once reason illuminates the path, the engine known as the ‘will’ begins to operate.
The problem arises when the car begins to move, powered by that revving engine. The realm of ‘intending to do’ something is vastly different from the realm of ‘actually doing’ it—a difference far greater than that between a stationary car and one in motion.
Whether through words or deeds, the act of ‘actually doing’ something proceeds along paths that cannot be foreseen. It branches out in various directions, creating infinite ripples. Once spoken or performed, words and actions leave the realm of the ‘will’ and are conveyed through relationships with others—individuals who exist in different environments. Events unfold in ways that branch out far beyond what one might imagine. My "intention to act" encounters "you"—someone distinct from me—and together we forge a completely different path.
Consider this scenario: A priest, during his homily, quotes the movie "Demon Hunters" and speaks favorably about the primal religious nature of Korean shamanism. Among the parishioners, reactions vary: some view the message positively, others feel uneasy, and some remain indifferent. A parishioner who found the homily compelling might discuss shamanism with acquaintances after Mass; this conversation could evolve into a debate about the essence of "Koreanness"—specifically, whether something being "Korean" is inherently good or not.
Meanwhile, a parishioner who reacted negatively might later spread their discomfort and criticism, asking, "Why is he talking about shamans during the homily?" An acquaintance might stoke the fire by asking, "Isn't that parish a bit dangerous?" Consequently, some reflect on the positive aspects of shamanism, others go out of their way to get a fortune-telling reading, and still others become even more wary of shamanic practices.
Negative narratives, in particular, tend to branch out and amplify. This amplification is driven by the illusion that by rejecting someone else, one validates oneself. Regardless of the specifics, once an inner thought is outwardly expressed, it becomes entangled with a multitude of individual stories and judgments, leading to a complex situation.
Such is the nature of the "intention to act" versus the "act" itself. There is an immense gap between a priest’s internal resolve to deliver a certain homily and the actual, external expression of it. This principle applies not only to priests but to everyone.
As an internal intention is expressed outwardly, a chain of events unfolds—events that differ markedly from the individual's original intent—and the situation develops in complex, multi-layered ways. This is because everyone listens based on their own experiences and hears only what they want to hear; furthermore, when conveying information, they often exaggerate details to justify their own views.
The crucial point is the intention behind one’s words or actions: are they driven by a desire to acknowledge the other person or to save lives? Even then, such actions do not always yield results that align with an individual's good intentions. One cannot predict the outcome, nor is it within an individual's power to determine it. How much more, then, must we consider the immeasurable negative repercussions of hate speech disguised as "freedom of expression"?
What matters is not the act of reproaching or criticizing others, but the act of trying to preserve life whenever possible. If a situation becomes complicated as inner good intentions are expressed outwardly, that outcome belongs to God. Humans can only harbor good thoughts, strive to speak kindly, and endeavor to live accordingly. That is the human task.
No comments:
Post a Comment