"Understanding one another can be hard. There is a big difference between someone snapping at you out of contempt, and calling you out for a mistake because they believe in you and know you can do better. One of these cases calls for anger, but the other for humility or even embarrassment. Or maybe they are only snapping because they're "hangry " - they might just need a Snickers bar."
"Charity in this sense isn't a matter of giving money to those who need it more. Instead, it's seeing others in a favorable light - of seeing the best in them. In my work, I think of this as seeing other people as protagonists: characters who "do their best" with the predicament in which they find themselves. Interpreting someone charitably doesn't require agreeing with them. But it does require doing our best to find merit in their point of view."
Understanding others can be difficult because similar actions can reflect different motives: snapping may signal contempt or a corrective concern rooted in belief one can do better. Anger, humility, or embarrassment can be appropriate depending on motive, and transient states like being 'hangry' can explain abruptness. Far greater challenges arise with strangers, political opponents, or people from different cultures. Charity means seeing others favorably—viewing them as protagonists who try to do their best within their circumstances. Charitable interpretation does not require agreement but requires searching for merit. Overlooking merit blocks learning and cooperation; falsely attributing merit is also an error, but worse is failing to see merit. Political conversations often devolve into hostile attributions.
Read at The Conversation
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]