motive

mo·tive
ˈmōdiv/
noun
1. a reason for doing something, especially one that is hidden or not obvious.

_____

No doubt the Intramuralist is fascinated with much — from the big to the small, serious to silly. I am fascinated with much. For example … how the media has morphed into a generous giver of editorials as opposed to an unbiased sharer of news… how even the intelligent seem to utilize extensive hyperbole and exaggerated rhetoric… and how my very friendly dog continues to ferociously bark at any under the grand height of three feet tall… (watch out, Yogi…).

But one aspect that fascinates me time and time again — recognizing that fascination is not necessarily good or bad —   is the all too frequent assumption of motive.

We assume we know why someone does what they do or says what they say. We assume we know the why. In other words: we assume we know — and… we know with certainty the motive of another.

Excuse me, but may I be so bold to repeat the above definition?

A “motive” is a reason for doing something, especially, one that is hidden or not obvious.

Hence, if it’s hidden, that means we — you, me, Yogi, etc. — can’t actually see it. And if we can’t see it, we can’t confirm it to be true.

What is true is that sometimes we can make an educated guess. But educated as it is, a guess remains still at its root, only a guess; it will never qualify as fact. Because a person’s motive is hidden, we cannot confirm a guess as fact without the other’s verification.

Oh, yes, I’ve heard the convenient, clever logic, posing a thoroughly thought through motive for another and then attempting to reinforce our, uh, guess with the logically porous, “well, what else could it possibly be?”

It could be lots.

In fact, it could be something that we don’t know or are incapable of knowing.

On last week’s edition of “The Rubin Report,” a YouTube political commentary created by Dave Rubin, the self-identified classical liberal interviewed author Andrew Klavan, who shared that he’ll often opine about the current President, assessing what he feels  the President has done either right or wrong; he sees some of both.

Klavan and Rubin then discuss the many who can see only right or only wrong. And then they address the assumptions we make about the motives of others — supporters, detractors, or none of the above. Here’s the part of their conversation that yes, fascinated me [emphasis is mine]:

KLAVAN: “… People think that if they disagree with you, their reasons are rational and your reasons are personal — that’s what they think…”

RUBIN: “… that concept of impugning your intellectual opponent’s motives is such a sad thing that has seeped into everything.”

Yes. We tend to think there is only one right perspective.

We tend to think we can accurately identify the motives of another.
And when we find others who don’t hold our same perspective, we are often tempted to impugn their motives.

We then also tend to forget that motives are hidden and not obvious.

That, my friends, is, well, fascinating.

Respectfully…
AR