Emotions come and go and can't be controlled so there's no reason to worry about them. That in the end, people should be judged by their actions since in the end it was actions that defined everyone.

The saying contrasts the volatility of inner feeling with the relative solidity of outward conduct. It suggests that emotions are transient and only partly within our power, so moral evaluation should not hinge on what someone happens to feel in a given moment. Instead, it argues for an ethics of responsibility: character is revealed by choices enacted—how one treats others, what one does under pressure, and whether one follows through on commitments. The implication is both consoling and demanding: consoling because it reduces shame or anxiety about involuntary feelings, demanding because it places accountability on behavior. In a romantic-fiction context, it also frames love as something proven through deeds rather than declarations or moods.