what is the expiration date on hypocrisy?
to practice hypocrisy, in the strictest sense, is to blatantly preach one set of moral values in a public forum, and to then practice or believe in the opposite. in a more colloquial sense, a hypocrite is simply a person who contradicts themselves in some combination of speech and/or action. and to that end, i'd have to declare myself guilty of hypocrisy...or at least guilty of changing my opinion from time to time.
it's always disorienting when things we've said in the past come back to haunt us. sometimes, it is our subconscious that reminds us when our feelings or beliefs have changed. other times, our friends and associates will be so kind as to throw them in our faces, which leads me to my question of the day--at which point are we allowed to simply change our minds?
whether political, moral, or inconsequential, our thoughts, beliefs and opinions have a habit of evolving over time as they are influenced by the diversity of our acquaintances and experiences. we may grow to believe the extreme opposite, or we may simply learn to appreciate another angle of the same issue we were incapable of seeing before. and, for the most part, this evolution is healthy. to be inflexible and unyielding on every issue is not only unhealthy, it can be dangerous. no one person has all of the answers, and certainly not all of the right ones.
but in many instances, public debate is little more than a game, especially when the participants are polarized. the object, of course, is to prove oneself right, and the opponent(s) wrong. thus, given the chance to regurgitate the past as ammunition for argument may be simply irresistible.
so, how long exactly must we wait before we are allowed to speak in a public forum without ridicule and accusation on issues where we have perhaps changed our minds somewhere along the way? a month, a year, five years? i suppose one could say that depends on the persons that make up that public forum, but given the nature of humanity, it's unlikely that the words and actions in our pasts will ever truly expire.
it's always disorienting when things we've said in the past come back to haunt us. sometimes, it is our subconscious that reminds us when our feelings or beliefs have changed. other times, our friends and associates will be so kind as to throw them in our faces, which leads me to my question of the day--at which point are we allowed to simply change our minds?
whether political, moral, or inconsequential, our thoughts, beliefs and opinions have a habit of evolving over time as they are influenced by the diversity of our acquaintances and experiences. we may grow to believe the extreme opposite, or we may simply learn to appreciate another angle of the same issue we were incapable of seeing before. and, for the most part, this evolution is healthy. to be inflexible and unyielding on every issue is not only unhealthy, it can be dangerous. no one person has all of the answers, and certainly not all of the right ones.
but in many instances, public debate is little more than a game, especially when the participants are polarized. the object, of course, is to prove oneself right, and the opponent(s) wrong. thus, given the chance to regurgitate the past as ammunition for argument may be simply irresistible.
so, how long exactly must we wait before we are allowed to speak in a public forum without ridicule and accusation on issues where we have perhaps changed our minds somewhere along the way? a month, a year, five years? i suppose one could say that depends on the persons that make up that public forum, but given the nature of humanity, it's unlikely that the words and actions in our pasts will ever truly expire.
posted by mark at 12:25 PM
1 Comments:
ooh this is good! quite thought provoking. i'd say that, in my mind, the most staunch hypocrites are those that are indeed rigid and inflexible in their opinions and view the world in terms of their opinions and others opinions. especially if the individual is not open to discourse or other points of view. naturally, if the contrary statement is made, and the person doesn't acknowledge his/ her previous stance and just then preaches the new gospel, it is hypocritical, instead of just a change of mind/ heart/ evolution.
Post a Comment
<< Home