Let's not make this a debate thread, I just want to see what this phrase means to everybody: "Sinners make the best saints" To me: I'm not religious (as I stated in the thread I made in the Religion forum) but to me this phrase is still significant because it's such an eloquent phrase that sums up perfectly the dynamic duality that makes up the human psyche. Almost like in Full Metal Jacket with the Peace Pin and "Born to Kill" on the same helmet... or the two theater masks representing Tragedy and Comedy. Those who know the most about being able to live life to the fullest and are best suited to help troubled others do the same are those who have ridden down what most would consider to be a "dark path" of sorts and learned from their mistakes rather than let themselves be dominated by them. An ex-con or crack addict (or somebody who was both) who saw the errors of their ways and reformed themselves is going to know more about how to steer others in situations similar to theirs away from those things and actually MAKE something out of themselves than somebody who can't relate. Another aspect of that phrase for me, is that from the people you expect it the least, deeds leave a stronger impact on your person. A member of the Hells Angels holding the door for an old woman and helping her through would seem like a kinder deed than a Boyscout doing it in order to earn a badge. You expect the boyscout to do those things because that's what they do, it's part of what they are. When somebody who people typically avoid does a kind deed for another, it catches you off guard and causes you to question the social status quo. It can change the way you think, and in doing so perhaps cause others or yourself to act more kindly considering that even people who are typically feared by others are still capable of being courteous.
"Sinners make the best saints" Only those that have experienced it can understand sin well enough to avoid it. After a brief scan over your post you mentioned something about duality so I think we're on the same page here.
If the claim is that a person who has always done good is not as good a person as a person who once did bad but then turned to good, I think the saying is false. If the claim is that a person can do the most good if they've previously been bad, then that is an empirical claim, and probably a false one. If the claim is that the best people tend to be people who used to be bad people, then that is an empirical claim, and probably a false one. I'm not sure how else to think about the principle expressed by the quote, but on each of those three readings I think the quote is false. I could be misunderstanding the principle expressed by the quote, though.
Could be, but given the lack of context one can't blame you for your answers. What you've done is simply come to what you believe are the most logical conclusions based on a set of circumstances. No wrong answers in philosophy! (Ironically, one could argue that I'm wrong in saying that.)
I do not believe in "sinners" or saints" as far as that goes. I do understand who they represent because I see them as good and bad. Saying it like that I do not understand how the bad can make a better good person from what they were. At best they could become more tolerable with those around them and not do things to hurt others.
I think a different way to look at this quote and support its validity is to contemplate the ability of achieving a greater extreme of good or bad. Sinners (which incidentally describes everyone, doesn't it?) make the best saints because they gain a greater knowledge of bad and can therefore better comprehend greater good. Being able to discern right or wrong can come incrementally through academic knowledge, but seemingly more effectively through academic knowledge and experience, assuming you have the wherewithal to walk back down the dirty path you trod and just as far in the opposite direction, which requires an incredible amount of effort and therefore only those that are incredible are able to do it, and when they do we admire "how far they've come". By the way, I think the opposite is true too--Saints make the best sinners, for similar reasons.
"Sinners make the best saints"... So, somehow, a person who spent half of their life doing the "wrong" thing and the remaining half doing the "right" things is better/ more praiseworthy than the person who spent their whole life doing the "right" thing? I wonder if this works for, say, exam results. If I deliberately f*ck up my answers for 50% of the questions and get the other 50% correct will that give me a better score than someone who gets all of them correct? I think it says more about the lack of actual thought people are prepared to expend when they "make up" an aphorism. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Innumerate people make the best mathematicians. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i think its more of a when you take the test again you will know better when you know which answers you got wrong. or you can communicate which questions you got wrong so the next person will know not to answer like you did.. also.. along the lines of sinners make the best saints.. thiefs make the best security guards.. hackers make the best programmers..(yes i am ignoreing the actual definition of hacker and going with the popularized definition)
Ah, so having to take a test twice to pass it makes me smarter than I would be if I passed it the first time?
I would take it more as meaning that there are people who have explored life and made conscious choices with knowledge, and that many of these people will make better good people, than people who simply, for example, did what they were supposed to do. There are 'good' people out there, who follow whatever, the 10 commandments, greatest good for greatest number calculations, etc., and are filled with resentment and frustration. Or they are empty inside. Or they are really only half engaged with life. The sinner - not necessarily, but the ones thought of in this case - has lived a rounder, fuller life, learned the reasons in a gut way, why certain things - like cheating on spouses, say - are not good ideas. Out of the richenss of their fuller natures and experiences they are fuller saints. And probably more interesting to hang around with.
Someone with penetrating sight (a true philosopher) can often figure out the logical consequences of actions. The more experience you have, whether your actions be right or wrong, helps tune your sight - much more so than as Doreen pointed out, a person who just "does what they're supposed to do". Some people seem to be innately better at this than others which could be explained by any number of theories. In my own experience, there are thousands of mistakes for every one success... but... after you are perfect, there are no more mistakes. So we all better start getting all those mistakes out of the way Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
