I guess I don't really follow you, Opus, but that's okay. I've always thought "motive" was that which impels one to act, i.e., that which motivates, and not a beneficial goal to be achieved. (Else, murder would hardly ever have a motive.)
Google brings up the source you are possibly referring to, but it doesn't make much sense to me. It doesn't seem to itself demonstrate that Coleridge was confusing motive and objective.
Monday, October 26, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
- Robert K S
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 5251
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio
- Contact:
- This Is Kirk!
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:35 am
- Location: Seattle
Re: Monday, October 26, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
In this case I think it is. His look was calculated.Magna wrote:It's not really his fault.JyV92 wrote:Poor guy. Maybe he'll post here.
- opusthepenguin
- The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
- Posts: 10319
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
- Location: Shawnee, KS
- Contact:
Re: Monday, October 26, 2015 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I wouldn't say he was confusing the two. I'd say he was using the word differently than we would. That happens a lot with people writing 200 years ago. It can lead to fun misunderstandings.Robert K S wrote:I guess I don't really follow you, Opus, but that's okay. I've always thought "motive" was that which impels one to act, i.e., that which motivates, and not a beneficial goal to be achieved. (Else, murder would hardly ever have a motive.)
Google brings up the source you are possibly referring to, but it doesn't make much sense to me. It doesn't seem to itself demonstrate that Coleridge was confusing motive and objective.
I did use the URL you cite as one of my sources, but only to read the quotes by Coleridge. The explanation provided on that page seems incorrect and almost nonsensical to me.