Don't you think it is good to forgive and forget ?

Answer 1

One may forgive, but it is impossible to forget, really. We learn by our experiences. It would be pointless to forget the lesson we have just learned, a lesson that might save us further injury or grief in the future. That is why we are born with the capacity to learn, to judge, to discrimante. Forgive, yes, but don't fall into the same circumstance again and again because you feel obligated to forget!....?

Answer 2

Yes, it's good to forgive, it is better for your health then holding all that grudge for years and make yourself sick over that matter. Now, when it comes to the word 'forget', there is a lot of people who will NEVER FORGET, what things have been done and scarred their memory. To some, can take years to recover from it, others seek therapy, and last is memory block and move on.

Everyone is different when it comes to the term in forgetting what was done, the kind of damage, whether it was emotional, physical or mentally...Of the three mentioned, nothing is that simple when someone destroys that fragile piece, and yet it shattered to pieces.

It's up to the person how to heal, it should go with therapy, some prayers work and it goes with patience and time.

I think I said too much......

Answer 3

When it is possible.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sp/osabstra.htm

'(c) RIGHT versus WRONG
§ 496

Law (right) considered as the realisation of liberty in externals, breaks up into a multiplicity of relations to this external sphere and to other persons (§§ 491, 493 ff.). In this way there are (1) several titles or grounds at law, of which (seeing that property both on the personal and the real side is exclusively individual) only one is the right, but which, because they face each other, each and all are invested with a show of right, against which the former is defined as the intrinsically right.

§ 497.

Now so long as (compared against this show) the one intrinsically right, still presumed identical with the several titles, is affirmed, willed, and recognised, the only diversity lies in this, that the special thing is subsumed under the one law or right by the particular will of these several persons. This is naive, non-malicious wrong. Such wrong in the several claimants is a simple negative judgement, expressing the civil suit. To settle it there is required a third judgement, which, as the judgement of the intrinsically right, is disinterested, and a power of giving the one right existence as against that semblance.

§ 498.

But (2) if the semblance of right as such is willed against the right intrinsically by the particular will, which thus becomes wicked, then the external recognition of right is separated from the right's true value; and while the former only is respected, the latter is violated. This gives the wrong of fraud — the infinite judgement as identical (§173) — where the nominal relation is retained, but the sterling value is let slip.

§ 499.

(3) Finally, the particular will sets itself in opposition to the intrinsic right by negating that right itself as well as its recognition or semblance. (Here there is a negatively infinite judgement (§ 173) in which there is denied the class as a whole, and not merely the particular mode — in this case the apparent recognition.) Thus the will is violently wicked, and commits a crime.

§ 500.

As an outrage on right, such an action is essentially and actually null. In it the agent, as a volitional and intelligent being, sets up a law — a law, however, which is nominal and recognised by him only — a universal which holds good for him, and under which he has at the same time subsumed himself by his action. To display the nullity of such an act, to carry out simultaneously this nominal law and the intrinsic right, in the first instance by means of a subjective individual will, is the work of Revenge. But revenge, starting from the interest of an immediate particular personality, is at the same time only a new outrage; and so on without end. This progression, like the last, abolishes itself in a third judgement, which is disinterested — punishment.'

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sp/osabstra.htm

Answer 4

Forgive but don't forget because then you haven't learned anything and you'll have to keep forgiving people for the same thing you're trying to forget.

Answer 5

It would be good. I may forgive but I never forget when someone hurts me...actually sometimes I even have trouble with the forgiving part!!! But I should because holding grudges hurts me more than the person I'm angry with. You have to let go...

Answer 6

Forgiving and remembering is good for self-esteem.
Consider that all people make mistakes and so I know
I will make a mistake. If I forgive and forget then
I might be inclined to feel as if I do not deserve
forgiveness myself on the grounds of absence
of my acts forgiveness.

Answer 7

Certainly it's good to forgive and forget, but most of the time human emotion and memory are beyond our control. It's easier to say than done.

Answer 8

Ohh No forgive but never forget

Answer 9

Forgiveness is absolutely necessary. It is for yourself that you need to forgive, not for the person who needs the forgiving. Unforgiveness will eat you up inside. I've heard it said that unforgiveness is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die. Don't give the offending person that much power and control of your life. God Bless!!!

Answer 10

To forgive, yes... to forget, no..... him who forgets falls again... But, he who forgives is forgiven his own trespasses. And if he is wise, will not forget the things he, himself, has done.....

Your sister,
Ginger