I’ve always seen a distinction between someone who does NOT mean what they preach and those who fail to live up to their ideals. But I’ve never known appropriate terms.
There's certainly ambiguity here. Many people use "hypocrite" extremely broadly to point to almost any discrepancy between espoused standards and actions taken.
If you just say nothing and fall short of your internally-held standard, no one's the wiser and you can't be accused of hypocrisy.
My take is that people don't like being preached to generally, and they hate it when the preacher can't swallow their own medicine.
I believe this is definitely not a binary categorization, but many shades of gray dependent upon the eyes of the observer. Some people that lack character are intentionally hypocritical to play a game for gain. Some may truly believe they are not hypocritical because of a certain level of biased ignorance. And some of us simply lack the moral strength to some degree.
Thanks Andrew. Really enjoyed this - and it underscores a core belief I’ve always held….just because we sometimes fall short of the ideals and standards we set, it does not make them any less worthy…and certainly does not mean they should be lowered to make our fall more bearable. Being a hypocrite is something everyone must wrestle with.
As usual, your essays are thought-provoking. This particular one is well timed as I recently started an audiobook Breakfast with Seneca. Although I have enjoyed Seneca’s writing, I’ve always been a bit, put off due to my judgement and limited knowledge of his life and his entanglement with Nero. However, the author has softened my opinion from a number of vantage points. I am glad as his words are incredibly inspiring and believe I was letting my own holier than thou attitude, tarnish my opinion.
What's your take on Graeber & Wengrow's argument that it was the american philosopher-stateman Kandiaronk who inspired such ideas on men like Rousseau, precisely because he came from a society that did live up to such higer standards?
I loved "The Dawn of Everything." There are at least some aspects of the Native Americans = radically egalitarian argument that are certainly true, but I feel unqualified to judge the historical line of influence.
It's certainly defying in that sence, but the proposal that critics of the accepted social order came from outside observers -whom didn't have that experience of sociality- instead of the imagination of great thinkers, really stuck with me. It's so compelling!
I’ve always seen a distinction between someone who does NOT mean what they preach and those who fail to live up to their ideals. But I’ve never known appropriate terms.
There's certainly ambiguity here. Many people use "hypocrite" extremely broadly to point to almost any discrepancy between espoused standards and actions taken.
If you just say nothing and fall short of your internally-held standard, no one's the wiser and you can't be accused of hypocrisy.
My take is that people don't like being preached to generally, and they hate it when the preacher can't swallow their own medicine.
None the less, the medicine might be valuable.
I believe this is definitely not a binary categorization, but many shades of gray dependent upon the eyes of the observer. Some people that lack character are intentionally hypocritical to play a game for gain. Some may truly believe they are not hypocritical because of a certain level of biased ignorance. And some of us simply lack the moral strength to some degree.
Thanks Andrew. Really enjoyed this - and it underscores a core belief I’ve always held….just because we sometimes fall short of the ideals and standards we set, it does not make them any less worthy…and certainly does not mean they should be lowered to make our fall more bearable. Being a hypocrite is something everyone must wrestle with.
As usual, your essays are thought-provoking. This particular one is well timed as I recently started an audiobook Breakfast with Seneca. Although I have enjoyed Seneca’s writing, I’ve always been a bit, put off due to my judgement and limited knowledge of his life and his entanglement with Nero. However, the author has softened my opinion from a number of vantage points. I am glad as his words are incredibly inspiring and believe I was letting my own holier than thou attitude, tarnish my opinion.
Thanks! Glad you got something out of it.
Yep, I'm having a similarity good experience reading Breakfast with Seneca. A relaxed and insightful take on his work.
Scratch the surface of any cynic and youll uncover broken idealist.
The difference being that the hypocrite still believes in the ideals, even if they cant live them.
Very interesting perspective.
Yes, hurray for hypocrisy !
You continuously change the way I view certain words or concepts. Thank you
So glad to hear it. Thanks!
What's your take on Graeber & Wengrow's argument that it was the american philosopher-stateman Kandiaronk who inspired such ideas on men like Rousseau, precisely because he came from a society that did live up to such higer standards?
I loved "The Dawn of Everything." There are at least some aspects of the Native Americans = radically egalitarian argument that are certainly true, but I feel unqualified to judge the historical line of influence.
It's certainly defying in that sence, but the proposal that critics of the accepted social order came from outside observers -whom didn't have that experience of sociality- instead of the imagination of great thinkers, really stuck with me. It's so compelling!
Please excuse me if there are a few misspelled words, english is not my first language and the auto-correct always gets in the way 🙄