I was trying to explain to a foreigner when to use "ser" or "estar" when translating "to be" and I tried to explain that one conveys essence and the other state, but that didn't seem to clarify things in his mind. He just kept saying it was all arbitrary which frankly doesn't make much sense in my head.
So I wonder if this linguistical difference provokes dramatical differences in inner thinking and culture as well. For instance, does the message of the aforementioned aphorism still works in English, I just have to find a better translation? Or do English natives will naturally have a stronger sense of a person being tainted by their actions?