«
»

what should be, what should not be, and condemning hypocrisy

what should be, what should not be, and condemning hypocrisy

Say no to bribes (probably in Chipata), Zambia

Say no to bribes (probably in Chipata), Zambia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Do you condemn hypocrisy? You may have noticed that it can

Politeness, n. The most acceptable hypocrisy....

Politeness, n. The most acceptable hypocrisy. ~Ambrose Bierce (Photo credit: Foto_di_Signorina)

be very popular to condemn hypocrisy. It seems quite natural and normal, right? Don’t you think that other people should condemn hypocrisy, too?

>
I propose something that may be unusual to you: that people should not condemn hypocrisy (at least not unless they have practiced hypocrisy themselves). Not only do I propose that the only people who should condemn hypocrisy are people who have practiced hypocrisy, but I also propose that the only people who would ever condemn hypocrisy are themselves practicing hypocrisy right in that very instant.
>
“If you show hypocrisy -- even to animals-- th...

“If you show hypocrisy — even to animals– they know, oh my owner isn’t really sincere.” – His Holiness the Great 14th Dalai Lama, Speaking on Ethics, Delhi University, India, 3/21/2012 (Photo credit: Wonderlane)

Let’s focus on something simple next. When someone asserts what should be, I am calling that a proposal. That is the proposing of what should be.
>
Here are some examples of proposals of what should be. People should be kind. Politicians should be honest. Fire should be hot. Ice should be hot.
>
We could call those proposals an assertion or a claim or a declaration. All of those words are consistent with the label of proposal.
>
I propose that how people should label a statement about what should be is to call such a statement a proposal. Of course, other people may disagree with that ro decline to do that. I can invite them to label any statement about what should be as a proposal. I can request that they label any statement about what should be as a proposal. Or, perhaps I would agree to label any statement about what should be as fundamentally only a statement.
>
There is such a thing as a statement. One kind of statement is a proposal. One kind of proposal is an invitation. One kind of invitation is a request. One kind of request is a threat. Another kind of request is a bribe.
>
So, I propose that there are various kinds of statements. If I propose “what should not be,” I am stating an exclusion. I am specifying a specific thing and then excluding it from what should be.
>
Here are some examples of exclusive proposals of what should not be. People should not be unkind. Politicians should not be dishonest. Fire should not be cold. Ice should not be cold.
>
So, there is such a thing as an exclusion. Statements of exclusion can lead to the activity of withdrawing. Withdrawing can lead to attacking the excluded pattern. One form of attacking an excluded pattern is to condemn it.
>
Consider the following statement: “People should not exclude what should not be.” It is an exclusive statement. As an exclusive statement excluding exclusive statements, it is ironic. If someone does not recognize the irony and makes an exclusive statement excluding exclusive statements, that is hypocrisy.
>
Further, if someone condemns hypocrisy, that could be another way of saying that they are making an exclusive statement that people should not make exclusive statements excluding exclusive statements. That is also ironic.
>
If someone does not recognize the irony of condemning hypocrisy and makes an exclusive statement excluding exclusive statements, that is hypocrisy. Therefore, I propose that the only people who would ever condemn hypocrisy are themselves practicing hypocrisy right in that very instant.
>
I further propose that the only people who should condemn hypocrisy are people who have practiced hypocrisy themselves.
>
People who are practicing hypocrisy by condemning hypocrisy should be doing what they are doing. People who do not condemn hypocrisy should not be excluding hypocrisy or attacking hypocrisy.
>
I propose that whatever people are doing, they should be. I further propose that whatever people are not doing, they should not be.
>
However, if someone says “people should do what people are not doing,” that is also valid. That is a proposal. That is an invitation. That is a request.
>
People should make proposals and invitations and requests whenever they do, including bribes and threats. People should also exclude exclusions and withdrawal and attacks as well as proposals and invitations and requests and bribes and threats.
>
People should practice hypocrisy. I only say that because, in my experience, sometimes people actually do practice hypocrisy. Furthermore, people should condemn the practice of hypocrisy. It is entirely natural and normal.
>
Eventually, people may recognize the irony of condemning hypocrisy, but probably not until they condemn it and attack it for a while first. I invite you to condemn irony, though I request that you do not condemn hypocrisy.
>
Furthermore, I condemn the condemning of irony. Finally, I propose that there is nothing so holy and heroic as to condemn hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy Thy Name is Obama

Hypocrisy Thy Name is Obama (Photo credit: wstera2)

Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal...

Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

Tags: , , , , ,

This entry was posted on June 15, 2012 at 6:09 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “what should be, what should not be, and condemning hypocrisy”

  1. HYPOCRISY « My Blog spiritandanimal.wordpress.com Says:
    June 16, 2012 at 10:34 am | Reply

    [...] what should be, what should not be, and condemning hypocrisy (jrfibonacci.wordpress.com) [...]

  2. Alex Nagy Says:
    June 17, 2012 at 7:39 pm | Reply

    Not sure how I’m condemning hypocrisy. Just pointed out the faalicies behind certain arguments.

    • jrfibonacci Says:
      June 17, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Reply

      This post is all about linguistic fallacies. In particular, I explore the irony (hypocrisy) which is inherent in “condemning hypocrisy.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 223 other followers

%d bloggers like this: