A Broad Accusation
Every single one of us is a hypocrite. This is not just an opinion, but also a logical deduction based on the definition of the word itself. It goes like this: as vocal animals, our only way to communicate effectively in contemporary society is through speech, be it spoken or written. In that arena we express our ideas and beliefs. Problem is, speech is inherently meaningless. I can say the sky is purple, and no matter how vigorously you refute that statement, and no matter how right you may be, I can deny anything you say in response. Any statement I choose can be denied, recanted, and opposed, even my own. So language is a pretty flimsy domain for proclaiming our beliefs, especially when considering how often we change our minds. The nexus between weak speech and inevitable hypocrisy is the representative nature of words themselves. Meaning and truth are derived through action, either taken or not taken, by a mass or instance of energy going from potential to kinetic existence, and possibly back again. Language is used to represent our understanding or interpretation of those events, but the words are not events themselves. We can use words to complicate actions and speculate on motivations to a near infinite degree, but that does not give them inherent validity. Words in those cases are still only representative of the connections we notice, meaning we impose, or results we predict.
When someone calls me a hypocrite, I agree with them. I am a hypocrite, in the sense that I have said things in the past, allied myself with beliefs or ideological systems, and then acted in ways that run counter to them (Please see: posts on this blog for the first year or two). So what does this mean? I liked the words used to frame the idea at one point in my life, but those likes changed, so my alliance with the the idea changed. Does that make me a hypocrite? Absolutely. Does that make hypocrisy inherently bad? Not at all. I understand that hypocrisy usually has a moral element to it, but this too can be understood as meaningless. Morals, from a very basic standpoint, establish a pattern of "good" behavior. If my understanding of good shifts, my behavior is going to shift along with it. Now, for me as an individual, I am still engaged in an uninterrupted pattern of behavior. I am moving in line with what I conceive as good, but from an outsider's perspective, especially someone who is aligned with my previous belief, I am a hypocrite. I call that a technicality.
Absolution is a funny thing
To avoid being deemed hypocrites, we must hold fast to any idea we align ourselves with, no matter how banal or dangerous those ideas may be, for the rest of our lives. Who is even capable of doing this? The only "group" that springs to my mind is suicide bombers, and they only qualify because they tend to rather abruptly truncate the likelihood of ever reevaluating their own ideas. Absolution is a big element in what makes fanaticism so dangerous. I am distrustful of anyone who is so wholly lacking in imagination that they can't conceive of a situation which would risk compromising their most closely held beliefs. Absolution ignores or negates all the adjustments and compromises that we all have to make every day, but that's where most of the fun of life is. A world without compromise is a world without challenge.
Every single one of us is a hypocrite. This is not just an opinion, but also a logical deduction based on the definition of the word itself. It goes like this: as vocal animals, our only way to communicate effectively in contemporary society is through speech, be it spoken or written. In that arena we express our ideas and beliefs. Problem is, speech is inherently meaningless. I can say the sky is purple, and no matter how vigorously you refute that statement, and no matter how right you may be, I can deny anything you say in response. Any statement I choose can be denied, recanted, and opposed, even my own. So language is a pretty flimsy domain for proclaiming our beliefs, especially when considering how often we change our minds. The nexus between weak speech and inevitable hypocrisy is the representative nature of words themselves. Meaning and truth are derived through action, either taken or not taken, by a mass or instance of energy going from potential to kinetic existence, and possibly back again. Language is used to represent our understanding or interpretation of those events, but the words are not events themselves. We can use words to complicate actions and speculate on motivations to a near infinite degree, but that does not give them inherent validity. Words in those cases are still only representative of the connections we notice, meaning we impose, or results we predict.
When someone calls me a hypocrite, I agree with them. I am a hypocrite, in the sense that I have said things in the past, allied myself with beliefs or ideological systems, and then acted in ways that run counter to them (Please see: posts on this blog for the first year or two). So what does this mean? I liked the words used to frame the idea at one point in my life, but those likes changed, so my alliance with the the idea changed. Does that make me a hypocrite? Absolutely. Does that make hypocrisy inherently bad? Not at all. I understand that hypocrisy usually has a moral element to it, but this too can be understood as meaningless. Morals, from a very basic standpoint, establish a pattern of "good" behavior. If my understanding of good shifts, my behavior is going to shift along with it. Now, for me as an individual, I am still engaged in an uninterrupted pattern of behavior. I am moving in line with what I conceive as good, but from an outsider's perspective, especially someone who is aligned with my previous belief, I am a hypocrite. I call that a technicality.
Absolution is a funny thing
To avoid being deemed hypocrites, we must hold fast to any idea we align ourselves with, no matter how banal or dangerous those ideas may be, for the rest of our lives. Who is even capable of doing this? The only "group" that springs to my mind is suicide bombers, and they only qualify because they tend to rather abruptly truncate the likelihood of ever reevaluating their own ideas. Absolution is a big element in what makes fanaticism so dangerous. I am distrustful of anyone who is so wholly lacking in imagination that they can't conceive of a situation which would risk compromising their most closely held beliefs. Absolution ignores or negates all the adjustments and compromises that we all have to make every day, but that's where most of the fun of life is. A world without compromise is a world without challenge.
And that just sounds boring as hell.
Posts
