>is a man defined by his actions?
The first question is who is doing the defining? If it is God, he sees all and can define a man based on everything that comprises him. (God sees the heart.)
If it is man, then we must regress to a subjective evaluation, that is, each person has their own set of standards/rules/beliefs, and each individual looks upon another individual through those standards/rules/beliefs. We are fundamentally unable to take off our perspective glasses; ie: we cannot see clearly anyone.
>sartre used to say that a man is what he does
Batman said this recently too. (--: The premise of Sartre's statement, I believe, is the presupposition that man acts in accordance with himself at all times under all conditions. This is simply not true, in my estimation. Man is a layered creature with various components:physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, psychological, social, ethical, etc.
With so many aspects to his personality, there is bound to be conflict between levels and between components. This is why I always say "Everyone is a hypocrite to a greater or lesser extent."
You are who you are; your behavior is simply a manifestation of some core component in your personality.
For example, there are many people in society who act altruisitcally but for the wrong reasons. A wealthy man may donate a large sum of money to a charity, but the reason behind the donation may have nothing to do with his good-will and everything to do with his status in the community, or support for his own endeavors. Do you consider him a "good man"? I do not. It is called marketing - he is a skilled businessman with good salesmanship skills, but internally he thinks only of himself.
So, he is a hypocrite to a great extent.
Countess

