Lindaland
  Lindaland Central 2.0
  What Is Hypocrisy? (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   What Is Hypocrisy?
Valus
Knowflake

Posts: 1836
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 09, 2009 03:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Valus     Edit/Delete Message

There are two quotes from Abba Poemen (who may be one of the early Christian hermits, or merely an invented name under which many of their sayings were collected; "poemen" comes from a Greek word meaning "shepherd"), which I wish to call attention to here, concerning the matter of hypocrisy. The first shows deep sympathy for the hypocrite himself, while the second makes a very important distinction in defining hypocrisy. Both, I believe, may alter our view of what it means to be hypocritical.

"Someone who teaches without doing what one teaches resembles a spring, which cleanses and gives drink to everyone else, but is not able to purify itself."


Here we see that a hypocrite may yet be a formidable teacher, capable of inspiring the hearts and souls of others, though unable to inspire himself to true devotion. Looked upon in this way, we may conclude that it is better to be a hypocrite, and to speak the truth without practicing it, than to neither speak nor practice. Nevertheless, we may turn some people away from the truth if we cannot exhibit it by our actions, as well as our words. They will disbelieve the teaching, and not merely the teacher, when they see that it has not been fully embraced by the very one who presumes to teach it. Nevertheless, this may still be more commendable than the effect of a man who neither speaks nor enacts true wisdom. For even the words of such men are crooked, and the truth is already compromised by their speech, to say nothing of their actions.


"A hypocrite is one who teaches one's neighbor to do something without making any effort to do it oneself."


The key word here is "any". We tend to think of a hypocrite as one who does not live up to the bar he has set for himself and for others. But, in truth, a hypocrite is one who does not practice what he preaches, and to practice a teaching is not the same as to fulfill it. We practice in order that we may fulfill.

Moreover, it is supremely difficult to judge whether or not a man is practicing virtue, just as it is difficult to tell if a person who plays the trumpet terribly is in fact practicing or merely fooling around. If he is capable of a great deal more, then it is clear that he is just making noise. But if he is truly a beginner, then, for all we know, the noise we hear may be a sincere effort on his part, and a real improvement on his last "performance". For this reason, and for other reasons as well, we ought to refrain, as much as possible, from judging, and leave the matter to God, who can see the things which we cannot, and who alone is fit to judge the spiritual state of another. For the Christian teaching assures us that the true virtue of a man is not evidenced in the virtue he possesses, but in the virtue he endeavors to possess. It is not the height to which you have ascended on the ladder of virtue, which indicates your true stature, but, rather, the effort you are making in order to ascend. And, as stated above, this is not something which human eyes can ascertain. The most we can do is to try our best, wherever we find ourselves. And remember that (what Tolstoy called) "the stationary righteousness of the Pharisees" is more deplorable in the eyes of God than the confession of a repentant sinner.

IP: Logged

Yin
Knowflake

Posts: 931
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 09, 2009 09:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Yin     Edit/Delete Message

IP: Logged

GypseeWind
Knowflake

Posts: 1931
From: Dayton,Ohio USA
Registered: May 2009

posted December 09, 2009 10:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for GypseeWind     Edit/Delete Message
....is talking the talk, but not walking the walk.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 1890
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 09, 2009 11:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message
...is a necessary obstacle for the proud, or the most elementary tool of humility.

IP: Logged

Valus
Knowflake

Posts: 1836
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 10, 2009 05:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Valus     Edit/Delete Message

Gypsee,

In that case,
we are all hypocrites.


AG,

How would you define it, though?

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 1890
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 10, 2009 05:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

2. An act or instance of such falseness.

IP: Logged

GypseeWind
Knowflake

Posts: 1931
From: Dayton,Ohio USA
Registered: May 2009

posted December 11, 2009 12:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for GypseeWind     Edit/Delete Message
Yes, we are all hyprocrates at one point or another, about one thing or another. One of those especiallly irritating things about being human. (:

IP: Logged

pire
Knowflake

Posts: 1043
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 11, 2009 03:29 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for pire     Edit/Delete Message
no, i'm not!

IP: Logged

Valus
Knowflake

Posts: 1836
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 11, 2009 11:54 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Valus     Edit/Delete Message
quote:

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Okay. So, for you, it has nothing to do with what is or is not put into action, or with what is or is not attempted to be enacted, but, strictly with what is professed in relation to what is actually believed, felt, or possessed? But what exactly do you mean by profess? We often profess things that we sincerely want to believe, feel, or possess -- or which we want to believe, feel, and possess to a greater degree, and more consistently, than we presently do. According to almost all the teachers I've studied, the only way to attain to those things is to attend to them and assert them in some form or another. It's not exactly an instance of "fake it till you make it", but its close. I think it has a lot to do with recognizing the contradictory parts of ourselves, and trying to shepherd them in one direction. Only the souls of saints are entirely focused in one direction. The rest of us are full of contradictions, though we may be more or less conscious of this fact. I think what often happens is that, we recognize something fundamental or essential in our soul, -- something we wish to champion. And then we attempt to focus and enlarge upon this, and to make it the center around which our entire soul may revolve. The only way to do that is to consciously "deny" the other parts of ourselves. Not that they will instantly cease to arise, or cease to take hold and get the better of us, from time to time, but, that we sincerely mean to persist in our attempts to bring them into alignment with something within us which we have recognized as fundamental and worthy of continued development. Often, the divisions within us are not such as may be reconciled in compromise, -- often, they are at war, and only one of them may be victorious. For this reason, we may appear to go from one extreme to the other; fully entering into the various parts of our soul, as if testing the waters, or "trying them on for size". If indeed a compromise is possible and necessary, the only way to reach it may be through experiencing the alternate extremes. I think the assumption we tend to make is that people already know who they are, where they are going, and what they most deeply believe. And then, when they do not behave consistently, or when the orientation of their feelings is inconsistent, or when they profess inconsistent beliefs, we see them as misrepresenting themselves. In fact, these may be the people who are most sincerely aware of their inner conflicts and contradictions, and who are genuinely struggling to either reconcile or choose between them. But most people just putter along, never really acknowledging the contradictions within themselves, let alone attempting to consciously enter into, "try on", or champion, one or another of these aspects of themselves. Most of us don't recognize that our psyches and personalities are not solid or static things, but, that we are essentially fragmented beings. What appears to the casual observor as "falseness" may be the most authentic form of honesty.

What do you think about the things I just said?

IP: Logged

Valus
Knowflake

Posts: 1836
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 11, 2009 12:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Valus     Edit/Delete Message

I agree, Gypsee.

IP: Logged

wheels of cheese
Knowflake

Posts: 1106
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted December 14, 2009 08:20 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for wheels of cheese     Edit/Delete Message
quote:
So, for you, it has nothing to do with what is or is not put into action, or with what is or is not attempted to be enacted, but, strictly with what is professed in relation to what is actually believed, felt, or possessed?

I didn't take AG's meaning to be entirely this as his second point referred to action.

quote:
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

IP: Logged

Valus
Knowflake

Posts: 1836
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 14, 2009 12:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Valus     Edit/Delete Message

hi wheels,

Let me clarify:

Clearly, according to his definition, actions and/or efforts are not central, although, yes, they may be a component of what constitutes hypocrisy. Generally, people tend to define it as having everything to do with the relation between what is believed, or professed, and what is enacted, or attempted; but AG seems to see it as primarily having to do with the difference between a person inner life and what they profess outwardly. I found that curious. Particularly, considering that we are not in a very good position to "judge" people's inner experience (and how it differs from whatever they have represented themselves to us as). Generally, the only way we can approximate such things is by looking at how their actions differ from their words. I've said that it is hard to tell whether or not people are making efforts -- and I think it is even harder still to tell what it going on inside them. All we really have to go on are their words and actions.

IP: Logged

Yin
Knowflake

Posts: 931
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 14, 2009 12:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Yin     Edit/Delete Message
A thought on hypocrisy by Samuel Johnson:
quote:
Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.

ETA: AG, this is not a dig at you. I am always curious about Valus' statements and how they compare to other philosophers' writings. (They measure up quite well, I find.) So, naturally, I did a little research and found the above quote.

IP: Logged

Valus
Knowflake

Posts: 1836
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 14, 2009 12:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Valus     Edit/Delete Message

"Lord, I believe;
help thou mine unbelief."


~ Mark 9:24

IP: Logged

Valus
Knowflake

Posts: 1836
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 14, 2009 12:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Valus     Edit/Delete Message

Exactly. Thank you, Yin.

IP: Logged

Valus
Knowflake

Posts: 1836
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 14, 2009 12:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Valus     Edit/Delete Message

"With people of limited ability, modesty is mere honesty.
But with those who possess great talent, it is hypocrisy."

~ Arthur Schopenhauer

IP: Logged

shura
Knowflake

Posts: 142
From:
Registered: Jun 2009

posted December 14, 2009 01:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for shura     Edit/Delete Message
quote:
Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.

That's a fine sentiment, but I don't think it hits on the real issue here.

If I were to make a post regarding what I feel to be the dangers of watching television, would anyone here take offence? The television watchers among us might disagree, but would they take offense? Probably not. If I made a post directly criticising those who watch tv, making fun of this mindless form of entertainment, making comments about their brains leaking out of their ears, accusing them of contributing to the downfall of our culture etc I might recieve a different response, yes?
Now let's pretend, to add fuel to the fire, that juni logged on and informed everyone that she knows for a fact that I'm addicted to tv, watching many many hours per day. Oh the flame war that would ensue!

Rightfully so, I think. The "put up or shut up" instinct is deep-seated and most necessary. I'll go so far as to say it's God given. It protects us. At best from those who don't really know what the hell they're talking about and at worst from those false prophets who would purposefully lead us astray.

By definition a false prophet is a hypocrite.

Schopenhauer ... ugg ... sniveling, pessimistic, tiresome little man.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 1890
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 14, 2009 02:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message
I'm torn with this bit. A historical account of people justifying hypocrisy doesn't really rationalize it for them or for us, does it?

IP: Logged

Yin
Knowflake

Posts: 931
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 14, 2009 02:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Yin     Edit/Delete Message
Downgrade your digital cable TV package to a basic one without a menu. Now, try to find your channel.
The reason why I stopped watching TV at home. Sad, I know. How lazy is that?

IP: Logged

Yin
Knowflake

Posts: 931
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 14, 2009 02:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Yin     Edit/Delete Message
quote:
I'm torn with this bit. A historical account of people justifying hypocrisy doesn't really rationalize it for them or for us, does it?

Rationalize? - No. Make me re-examine my p.o.v. on hypocrisy? - Yes.

IP: Logged

shura
Knowflake

Posts: 142
From:
Registered: Jun 2009

posted December 14, 2009 02:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for shura     Edit/Delete Message
yin oddly enough, downgrading to basic was my answer to the problem, as well.

I still miss the Food Network sometimes.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 1890
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 14, 2009 02:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message
Yin, your view of hypocrisy probably didn't require examining in the first place.

IP: Logged

Valus
Knowflake

Posts: 1836
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 14, 2009 02:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Valus     Edit/Delete Message

We all know that the best thing is to be Christlike. Talking the talk is not walking the walk, and nobody here is arguing otherwise. What we are suggesting, though, is that lacking perfection in virtue is not something that needs to be condemned or defended, and that a person who lacks perfection in all the virtues (as we all do) should not be discouraged or criticized for praising them.

IP: Logged

Valus
Knowflake

Posts: 1836
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 14, 2009 03:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Valus     Edit/Delete Message

shura,

Schopenhauer had his moments, of light and of dark. He was many things. Like all of us, he was a sinner. And many of his arguments are plainly designed to make those qualities which he possesses, or thinks he does, appear to be the most noble and exalted faculties in all of Creation, and to devalue a great many qualities which he does not himself possess. His misanthropy is frequently disguised as good taste, but, still, we have to admit the cleverness of much of his reasoning. He was one of the first Western thinkers to read and promote the spiritual classics of the East. He had a profound sympathy to the suffering in the world, though this vulnerability ultimately embittered and hardened his heart. He had a tremendous sensitivity, for better and for worse, to everything, in fact, which is evident in almost everything he has to say. And he is admirable for the many times when he does not pervert his thinking in order to justify himself, but courageously admits the ideal, even in spite of his lower leanings.

And I think plenty of people take issue with anything nasty you say about television, or watching television, or the people who watch a lot of television. I think its a little snobbish myself, and condescending. I mean, not from the standpoint of an ascetic. But if we are talking about a less than ascetic strictness, I dont see t.v. as particularly harmful. "It's not what you look at, but what you see." (~Thoreau) Unless I am in a really impressionable state (in which case just about anything can be a "bad influence" on me), the television can't really hurt me. I have sufficient confidence in my own independence of mind to trust myself to watch television and not be negatively influenced. But if you're especially impressionable, and not especially practiced in thinking for yourself, and guarding your thoughts, then, television probably isn't a good thing for you.

IP: Logged

shura
Knowflake

Posts: 142
From:
Registered: Jun 2009

posted December 14, 2009 03:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for shura     Edit/Delete Message
We all know that the best thing is to be Christlike. Talking the talk is not walking the walk, and nobody here is arguing otherwise. What we are suggesting, though, is that lacking perfection in virtue is not something that needs to be condemned or defended, and that a person who lacks perfection in all the virtues (as we all do) should not be discouraged or criticized for praising them.

Yes, of course. But again, that's not the issue here. Praising a virtue isn't going to get you into trouble. Berating someone else for lacking a virtue you yourself do not yet possess is what gets us into hot water.

And I think plenty of people take issue with anything nasty you say about television, or watching television, or the people who watch a lot of television. I think its a little snobbish myself, and condescending.

That's exactly my point. Being mean and snobbish and condescending will almost invariably inspire a negative and ultimately unproductive response.


And thank you for the continued advice, but it wasn't me with the 'problem'. However, in the spirit of full disclosure, I will admit to a netflix membership.

Hypothetical examples aside, possibly we should first agree on what these virtues might be?

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2008

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a