A hypocrite is not one who fails to live up to his own ideals, but one who falsely proclaims to have such ideals in the first place.
See also “I’m not a Christian because there are too many hypocrites in the church“
April 29, 2020
Thinking to Believe
%d bloggers like this:
April 29, 2020 at 1:42 pm
Saying one thing and doing another thing is being a hypocrite Telling your kids that wearing a seatbelt is prudent and necessary when travelling in a motor vehicle is one thing and the right ideal but if the parent does not wear a seatbelt when driving that’s being a hypocrite.
Simply making the claim one is too lazy to practice does not mean the claimant is falsely claiming to have what s/he does not; it just means the claimant is too lazy to practice what he preaches and makes the claimant a hypocrite but it does not void the ideal or the the ideal the person has. Having lofty goals unfulfilled not does render the lofty goals a lie for the dreamer.
So the moral of the statement:
A hypocrite is not one who fails to live up to his own ideals, but one who falsely proclaims to have such ideals in the first place
is a nonsense statement.
LikeLike
April 29, 2020 at 9:47 pm
A hypocrite may mean more than what I have written, but not less. My point is that one is not a hypocrite for simply failing to perfectly live up to their ideals. For if that definition were true (which is how most people seem to define it), then every human being would have to be a hypocrite by definition. That alone tells you that something is wrong with the definition. In Jesus’ day, to refer to someone as a hypocrite was to call them an actor. It’s to say they are pretending. What were they pretending about? To hold to certain moral ideals. They were called hypocrites/actors because while they professed these ideals as their own, they did not actually embrace them as their own ideals. Your seat belt example would be a perfect example of what I am talking about.
LikeLike
April 29, 2020 at 10:36 pm
That’s fair enough but I am of the opinion that one can only reasonably impute the behavior; not impugn the motive behind it. Behavior is superficial and obvious; spirit not so much, at best one may speculate about its depth but speculation gives an ill conceived definition as superficial as the behaviour that elicits the commentary.
This because human motive possesses deeply within the whole potential range of emotions, urges, fears, anxieties, appetites, physical and emotional needs, instinctual drives and reactions common to all. But not cookie cutter replicas.
LikeLike
April 30, 2020 at 11:45 am
Seems simple to me. A “hypocrite” advocates FOR moral/ethical behavior and, publicly or privately, routinely acts in opposition to that advocacy: “says one thing and does another” seems a perfectly adequate description.
A person who professes to be a “Christian,” but who routinely behaves in a “non-Christian” way, is a hypocrite. A person who preaches the value of wearing a seat belt, but doesn’t him(or her)self routinely wear one, is a hypocrite. The person who openly disparages the use of alcoholic beverages, but goes home to his or her bottle of bourbon, is a hypocrite.
There may be many “explanations” for such behavior, and some of those may even change how we interpret the behavior or how we regard the person. But recognizing hypocritical behavior is the starting point. And that seems pretty straightforward to me.
We should keep in mind, I think, that “hypocrite” is not a technical term, and doesn’t require a fine-tuned, legal definition. It’s a “behavioral” term, and can be used as loosely or narrowly as one sees fit (within the bounds of common courtesy).
Amen.
LikeLike
April 30, 2020 at 12:46 pm
derekmathias, yes, I have deleted your comment twice in the past, and now three times. The topic of this post is the definition of a hypocrite. I do not want it to veer off into particular issues that you think Christians are being hypocritical about. To comment on even one of the issues you raised would immediately take this blog post off-topic and would lead to a never-ending rabbit trail.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 30, 2020 at 1:26 pm
But the best way to understand hypocrisy is by using examples. The above posts illustrate that well.
LikeLike
May 4, 2020 at 12:37 am
why can’t it be both ?
“1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion”
“2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings”
where #1 is “one who falsely proclaims to have such ideals in the first place.”
and #2 has such ideals but b/c of some reason or reasons “acts in contradiction” to these ideals.
LikeLike
May 4, 2020 at 10:04 pm
The definition of hypocrisy can only be defined by a behaviour but not all behaviours, only certain behaviours. Hypocrisy is one of those words that does not have a stand-alone definition, it needs a companion to fulfill it existence: no behaviour equals no hypocrisy. The only definition hypocrisy can have is the behaviour ascribed to it. Hypocrisy has no stand alone definition.
A man puts on a pair of man’s pants and behaves like a woman.
#1 would be accurate in describing the behaviour as:
“a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion”
The pants represents a uniform or a mask…..a false appearance….
#2 would be accurate in describing the behaviour as:
“a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings”
The pants would be a false statement of beliefs or feelings……about gender for instance.
Distinctions without a difference.
If one can find an example of a behaviour that fits the assumed definition that behaviour will not be suitable as a definition for hypocrisy because another behaviour will pop up. The definition is false because it needs a behaviour to support it but in so doing does not support the presumptive definition; it defines the behaviour, hypocrisy only defines behaviour.
This case is like putting forth a premise and then searching for a conclusion that defines the premise or that justifies the premise; or in this case, looking for a behaviour to justify the definition.
Now I must admit I do like and agree with the rationale example the writer first gave in response to my first reply to the definition of hypocrisy because it is true for another term and I’ll tell you what other term is in a moment. Here it is and I quote the writer:
WRITER: “My point is that one is not a hypocrite for simply failing to perfectly live up to their ideals. For if that definition were true (which is how most people seem to define it), then every human being would have to be a hypocrite by definition.”
That statement is true and accurate in religion, and everybody IS a hypocrite by definition because we have all failed that ideal at some time. Now change one word and tell me if there is any difference between the reasoning of one, that the writer seems to invalidate in the noted quote, over the reasoning of the other, which I believe the writer as a Christian would agree with, and that is this:
Changing only one word:
Quote: “My point is that one is not a (sinner) for simply failing to perfectly live up to their ideals. For if that definition were true (which is how most people seem to define it), then every human being would have to be a (sinner) by definition.”
But isn’t that just the case in religious circles? So if the reasoning in the quote is valid enough to invalidate the conclusion, “then everyone would have to be a hypocrite by definition” why would not the same reasoning invalidate the conclusion “then we would have to be all sinners by definition,”?
But if one holds that the reasoning is valid for the sinner scenario then it may not be unreasonable to assume that it is valid for the hypocrite argument as well. I think the same reasoning used for the two, for all intents and purposes, must reach the same conclusion or one is flawed.
.
I believe the same reasoning applies to make the writer’s point as it should apply to make the bible’s point. They cannot both be right in reason and have different outcomes which I prefer reason to be the common denominator because the reasoning is consistent therefore the outcomes must be at odds and that makes one of the outcomes false.
I would take the writer’s side on this one and defer to his favour “…that one is not a hypocrite for simply failing to perfectly live up to their ideals. For if that definition were true (which is how most people seem to define it), then every human being would have to be a hypocrite by definition.”
LikeLike