History, biographies and our perceptions.

I give no shyte to anyone's dark sides..i take the good from people and leave their bad for God to judge.

As for rulers/politicians etc. I do care about the good/bad things they do on their people..for example Gaddafi. I will voice my opinion that I disagree with him at the moment. But whether he sleeps with his female bodyguards or nurses..well I give no shyte at all..

What they do behind close doors in their own privacy are none of my business.

I have my dark sides as well. Good thing is I am not famous...not just yet..lol.

I agree with Tinker.

Just because we admire a person for some particular reason, it does not mean that that same person does not have features or behaviors which we would not approve or embrace!

As for Gandhi's case, it doesn't make much sense to question intime aspects of a dead person. Even if he was alive, it’s his private life, not his public mission!

Some people here thing that "heroes" are perfect to their eyes! That is their mistake!

Rest assured, if those “heroes” are humans, they will not be perfect and most certainly there are great chances that they hold some private secret that would scandalize their most righteous admirers!

I meant to post on this interesting thread before – but been busy.

I get the point you were trying to make.

We all look to people for spiritual guidance in our life and we stick to it – then we hear negatives about that person we admire; does it change our perceptions – I think it does.

Here is my list of people that I thought good but then decided I was neutral about – Yes; I was influenced by the press etc.

Princess Diana – Saint then became a sinner – then a Saint after she died. I still think she was ‘married off’ – still a fantastic mother though and she helped so many charities – she was a mare to live with though I think.

Michael Jackson – fantastic artist – flawed person who was presumed to be a ‘child abuser’. I happen to think he was very naive and framed.

Ghandi (apologies for the spelling) – great man but again a flawed man. He gave India and the Indians what they wanted. I happen to think/believe there is a dark side to him – but hey he got results.

Bob Geldof – he was and still is a 8*at in my eyes – he did the business on Midge Ure good style.

Nelson Mandela – I know he is a hero of yours – I think he fought for the right reasons but actually did South Africa and it’s people a massive disservice. It has not got better with the changes he fought for.

Winston Churchill – great in War when he got his own way! Bully the rest of the time.

Margaret Thatcher – old boot that actually started this sh***e in the UK.

Just goes to show that when we are young we are very much influenced and then age and knowledge takes over.

Exactly tinker, and some more than others!

Tinker, I think it has to do with being human, emotional.

And I have to admit, in some cases I form my opinion through different aspects than in other cases. Not fair maybe, but that's how it is for me.

I think you have proven my point in a way.. :o)

It is clear that you admire Gandhi. so , you are unwilling / unlikely to accept something negative. Similarly, you admire MJ, but don't want to tarnish that image with possible child abuse, drugs stories etc.

the same goes for moost of us. we idolize and have a certain perception - which we don't really want to change.

i believe that it does make a difference. we are talking perceptions here. many of these people including Mj, Gandhi and Heath ledger are held up as icons and role models.

Tinker, see this is where people are different. I dispise MJ, have no idea why people idolize him. Don't like the "man" nor his music....maybe, I would have tolerated his music had i not known about the man.

That amused me a lot. When Heath Ledger died, everyone was talking of him as if he should have been declared a saint. Nobody bothered to mention that it was a drug overdose.

lets not focus on gandhi, but i think it does make a difference because it shows him in a different, perhaps even a darker, sinister light.

Let us instead look at Heath ledger.. portrayed lately as a great actor and person. Yet, he died of drugs.

He was an interesting character. I am not the biggest fan of Gandhi Ji but I never came across anything that gave any hint to his bisexual tendencies. I am surprised by that.

Tinks, that's perfectly fine, everybody has to do what feels right for them :)

tinker, I don't know for sure, as I do not know that much about him, neither relate to him in any way. BUT, If I did, I would look at things in a different way if I were to find out he did some unsavoury things.

sticking to the example of politicians..

If a politician was portrayed to be Mr. Clean by the media or your friends, but was perhaps in reality a gambler or womaniser. Then wouldn't that information (if made available) change your perception of him ?

tinker, can't say about "celebrities" as I am in no way interested in their lives whatsoever.

I am more talking about Gandhi or Mandela, for example.

tinker, see, if somebody is lauded by press and public, I think it is then only natural to want to know if this person is indeed as great as described.

What if one, for some reason, has to trust this person, or wants to adhere to the teachings of this person? Wouldn't it be favourable to know more about this person?

Sorry, did not follow The John Edwards case.

Have to say though, I find people like Nelson Mandela much more interesting, simply because he has worldwide admiration as well as dislike.

Brit, Bill Clinton was "forgiven" by his wife, but certainly not by the public.

OK.. I've cast the first stone.. Now what ????

Nomerci: You make a valid point, but it is not so simple. Bill clinton was forgiven his tresspasses, yet others, like John Edwards was not ... So, why is that ??

concept of SIN is bogus.........

tinker, I do not think it is about "sins". I think it is simply about weighing what the person has accomplished.

For example, a politician. Has he done well or even extra ordiray things for his citizens? As it is his job to take care of them.

To judge him because he has, for example, cheated on his wife, should in this case not come into the eqation, as it has nothing to do with his job.

Now, if said politician is said to be a good person morally, then of course we must consider his infidelity.

tinkerbell10,

even the concept of sin itself, is subjective ;)

..and some are even worst than animals too.....even animals follow nature's rule....!

Moreover Gandhi openly mentioned about his social imperfections and his experineces/failures with truth/untruth etc, so what is the issue here?

problem is not with Gandhi, problem is with person (reader) who seeks God'ism in him...

Most are not. They are more like animals!

we are human beings, with positives & negatives and with loads of stupidity ..:)-

the biggest stupidity of us (human beings) is , while being imperfect, seek/expect ‘perfection’ in others……

My say on this-

We must perceive a person due to his/her ‘virtues, merits, abilities’ not by his/her ‘imperfections’. Because virtues are his own while imperfections are routine deficiencies of the society.

I assume it clears the doubt, need more illustrations???

In general, yes, that is what happens. In the end, to form an opinion, we must carefully look at what is presented, and, if we are serious about forming an opinion,maybe dig a little deeper. It may also help to look at the person as a whole, not only on some of the person's actions.

As an example, Nelson Mandela. Yes, he has stopped Apartheid in SA, but look at SA now, it is a shambles.

So, obviously there was no follow up plan.

To form an opinion the situation as a whole has to be looked at.

IMHO

Even an autobiography is as subjective as can be. Why do you expect a third person to "know" what goes on in a person? Biographies all serve a purpose. And telling the truth certainly is NOT the purpose!

humans are intending not to see the dark side of someone if they liked him/her, and they are intending to judje some ppl which they don't like in a bad way.

The sour fact is that the emotions gives the first impression not the logic

No one can possibly know accurately a public figure.

All we know is illustrative snapshots of his/her character which represent the acts for which they are known.

Rest assured that all those public figures were/are human beings and therefore all of them have qualities and defects that the public may or not know about it.

It is rather naive to assume that a public figure is solely how they are pictured (marketed) in the media or history books!

"We have an image of the man and then the media goes crazy"

But that initial image is built from the media or stories heard.

My point was. Are we unwilling to see the bad, because it conflicts with our perceptions.

An example could be Marilyn Monroe.. I picture her as a leggy blonde with amazing body and sultry voice. Yet, I tend to forget about her dark side..