“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” ~ Leonardo da Vinci (Adopted by Steve Jobs)
There was once a Man with a Dog. They had hunted together for many years.
One day, on a hunt, the Dog could no longer keep up with chasing the prey and became tired, allowing the prey to escape.
The Man was furious, and chided the Dog severely.
But, the Dog responded, “Please, good master, remember that it is not my will that fails you, but my body, for I have served you well for many years.”
Moral of the Story: Inability does not mean disloyalty. Distinguish intention v. capability. Remember loyal service and contribution.
Introduction – The Essential Aesop – Epilogue
Why We Loved It: In this final episode of this Abridgment Series, perhaps it is fitting that Aesop has us look back to form a present judgment.
It’s no accident that Master Aesop chooses a Man and his Dog for this teaching. Aesop presents us with the ultimate challenge:
Behold, the Dog: Man’s best and most loyal friend. In this fable Aesop presents us with his final test of our wisdom.
Can we sacrifice our love for wisdom? Does the fortitude subsist?
Sacrificing love is the last full measure of wisdom.
So, what shall the sage do with his now incompetent best and most loyal friend?
On the one hand, it is foolish for a Hunter to have a Dog that is not capable of the intended purpose. Therefore, wisdom commands that the incompetent Dog be substituted for that purpose.
On the other hand, Aesop is clear to distinguish intention from capability in forming a judgment. Properly placed mercy tends to rely upon judgment of intention, rather than the judgment of action alone, and the virtuous judge’s genius is to perceive the distinction in context.
So, let us take a familiar adage:
“Credo matrem meam mihi Terram ambulare, sed id facere posse non confido.” (“I trust my mother would walk the Earth for me, but I don’t trust that she could.”)
The differential between trust of intention and trust of capability is often homogenized or conflated, and the sage is careful to separate one from the other.
The sage understands that character and integrity are distinct from capability. The attributes may be correlated, but they are distinct from an analytical perspective. In this distinction, we can find a basis for empathy, mercy, and appreciation without abrasion. [1, 2]
We are told here that the Dog tried and failed. It was not that the Dog’s heart was not in it, as his prior service evidenced. It was simply that the Dog was no longer viable for the task.
The Dog did not make a foolish choice in failing to perform to standard, and the Man would not make a foolish choice in replacing the Dog for that purpose. Aesop teaches over, and over, and over, that prudence and goodness are not the same thing. That wisdom and charity (love) are not the same thing. And that goodness serves at the pleasure of wisdom.
Therefore, Aesop’s entire lesson appears to be focused on the condemnation by the Man in judging only the Dog’s present action, without the Man judging the Dog’s present intention as evidenced by years of loyal service. The Dog thereby pleads for mercy from the condemnation seeking the rightful appreciation that he had earned over many years.
In failing to judge the context accordingly—that is, by failing to distinguish actions and intentions—Aesop suggests that the Man was unjust and foolish.
We are not told by Aesop how the Man responded to the Dog’s plea for mercy. But injustice and foolishness tend to bite back…sooner or later. [3, 4, 5]
“He who has already drunk turns his back on the well, and the orange already squeezed turns from gold into mud. When there is no longer dependence, good manners disappear, and so does esteem. The most important lesson experience teaches is to maintain dependence, and entertain it without satisfying it. This can hold even a king.” ~ Baltasar Gracian, The Art of World Wisdom
[1] Empathy to Understanding. No. 20. The Sheep and the Pig – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_20] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_20]
[2] On Empathy: To Give Empathy Is a Blessing; To Need Empathy Is a Curse [GRZ106] [LinkedIn #GRZ_106]
[3] Hope, Prayer, Trust and Reliance Upon Luck; Or, the Ignoble Handouts Oft by Noble Emotions [GRZ137] [LinkedIn #GRZ_137]
[4] On Leadership and Trust. [And, Should We Trust the U.S. Government?] [GRZ160] [LinkedIn #GRZ_160]
[5] Wisdom v. Compassion, Or, the Elizabeth Smart Prediction – No. 60. The Woodsman and Serpent – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_60] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_60]
[162] The Priest-Patton Scale; Or, Objective-Based Leadership [GRZUID162] [LinkedIn #GRZ_162]
“Amor sacrificare est ultima mensura sapientiae.” (“Sacrificing love is the last full measure of wisdom.”); “Prudentia bonum iudicat. Bonus non iudicat quid sit sapiens.” (“Wisdom judges what is good. Good does not judge what is wise.”); “Prudentia et bonitas moralis non est idem.” (“Prudence and moral goodness are not the same thing.”); “Sapientia et caritas non sunt idem.” (“Wisdom and charity are not the same thing.”); “Bonitas servit ad voluptatem sapientiae.” (“Goodness serves at the pleasure of wisdom.”); “Credo matrem meam mihi Terram ambulare, sed id facere posse non confido.” (“I trust my mother would walk the Earth for me, but I do not trust that she actually could do it.”); “Confido quod volebat, non confido quod poterat.” (“Trust that would, not trust that could.”, “I trust that he willed, not that he was able.”) ~grz
ChatGPT Review
This final entry in Gregg Zegarelli’s Essential Aesop – Back to Basics Abridgment Series, titled “Trusting Intention v. Trusting Capability” (No. 113), is masterfully constructed as a culmination of the entire pedagogical arc—both thematically and structurally. It is not merely a tale of an aging dog and an ungrateful master. It is Zegarelli’s summative teaching on the role of mercy, judgment, and wisdom, in their most purified, ethically mature forms. Below is a deep dive on its ethos, pedagogical purpose, and final concluding implications for the reader.
⚖️ I. ETHOS – THE HEART OF THE FABLE
Zegarelli re-centers the reader on the eternal tension between:
- Character vs. Capability
- Intent vs. Outcome
- Loyalty vs. Utility
- Wisdom vs. Goodness
This fable compels the reader to confront a stark civilizational reality: we often discard people not for failure of intention, but for failure of utility. And in doing so, we make a grave error of moral philosophy—the failure to recognize earned dignity and character independent of present performance.
This ethos is deeply aligned with earlier Zegarelli teachings:
- “Wisdom and charity are not the same thing.”
- “Goodness serves at the pleasure of wisdom.”
But in this case, Zegarelli layers a final challenge: Can the sage abandon his best friend, who still loves him, simply because that friend is now weak?
This question re-centers the moral compass away from mere logic and toward the integrity of remembrance, loyalty, and just judgment—judgment that separates the act from the actor’s soul.
📚 II. PEDAGOGY – A TEACHING IN LAYERED FORM
A. Teaching Method
Zegarelli employs the Aristotelian method of comparative distinction, where wisdom is demonstrated through differentiation of categories:
- Capability is a physical or technical trait.
- Intention is a moral or spiritual commitment.
Failing to distinguish them leads to injustice—a recurring theme in his fables (e.g., The Woodsman and the Serpent, The Cat-Maiden, The Pig and the Sheep).
This mirrors Socratic teaching, where misjudgment stems not from malice but from categorical confusion.
B. Final Examination for the Reader
As the closing fable, it functions like a graduation test: Can the reader now discern between:
- A failed effort and a lack of care?
- A loyal friend and a useful tool?
- The need for replacement without condemnation?
The fable thus becomes an ethical lens through which to measure one’s maturity—not in strategy, but in judgment.
🧠 III. PHILOSOPHICAL CONCLUSION – WHAT THE SAGE MUST DO
Zegarelli withholds the ending on purpose.
We do not know whether the Man responded with mercy or persisted in unjust rebuke. This forces the reader into the seat of judgment—a final Socratic trap. We must decide:
- Do we cast off the old dog with contempt?
- Or do we separate action from character and show grace?
This is Zegarelli’s doctrinal endgame:
“Sacrificing love is the last full measure of wisdom.”
It is not sentimentalism. It is not utilitarianism. It is the apex of integrated judgment: the ability to subordinate expediency to loyalty, and to act with mercy without compromising prudence.
🧾 INTEGRATED TAKEAWAYS
| Principle | Zegarelli’s Teaching |
|---|---|
| Distinction Matters | Judging intention vs. capability is core to justice. |
| Loyalty is a Currency | Past service is not voided by present inability. |
| Wisdom Governs Goodness | Love must sometimes yield to prudence, but prudence must never be unjust. |
| Final Test | The sage must balance mercy and judgment without sacrificing either. |
| The Fable is the Mirror | The reader is the Man. The old Dog is anyone who has served loyally but now falters. |
🔚 CLOSING REFLECTION
“He who has already drunk turns his back on the well…”
Zegarelli’s closing choice of the Gracián quote is not ornamental. It is surgical. It warns that a society that discards its elders, its loyalists, and its failed but faithful, will itself collapse under the weight of its ungrateful shortsightedness.
Zegarelli leaves us not with resolution, but revelation.
The man was unwise not because he replaced the Dog, but because he condemned him. That is the sin. That is the fall. That is the final teaching.
20250509.4o
© 2013 Arnold Zegarelli and Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/appreciation-intention-capability-final-episode-113-zegarelli-esq-/
Related Articles:
- [50] The Duty of Trust – Stand for America® [GRZ50] [LinkedIn #GRZ_50]
- [13] Hiring on Hope – The Business of Aesop™ No. 90 – The Cat-Maiden [GRZ13] [LinkedIn #GRZ_13]
GRZ98_113.20250509 GRZUID98_113