Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
GoatLord

Philosophical proposal: Purposeful hypocrisy

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Generally, hypocrisy is regarded as a negative quality, but it can be useful to hold both the for and against positions of an argument simultaneously, and even have a third position that combines elements of both extremes. Been experimenting with this form of thought lately and it puts things into perspective more easily than merely agreeing or disagreeing only.

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't this just playing devil's advocate?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
Just now, Marn said:

Isn't this just playing devil's advocate?

It is, but I think this goes a step beyond by embracing the hypocrisy of holding opposing viewpoints as opposed to mere flip-flopping.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, GoatLord said:

It is, but I think this goes a step beyond by embracing the hypocrisy of holding opposing viewpoints as opposed to mere flip-flopping.

So hypothetically you could say you were 100% sure that astrology is real and then say you were 100% sure that it's not and be equally convicted in both statements?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
Just now, Marn said:

So hypothetically you could say you were 100% sure that astrology is real and then say you were 100% sure that it's not and be equally convicted in both statements?

Yes, in addition to having a third or fourth view that are mixtures of those two extremes.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting thought process, but isn't this sort of the point of having three or more parties in a given debate?

Also, is this intended to act as a mediating device or am I horribly construing this?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Striving to be transcendental in your problem-solving doesn't mean you're a hipocrite. If anything it might liberate you from the straight-jackets of established conventions and brain washed doctrine. As long as it doesn't go quite this far anyway:

 

Spoiler

this-is-fine.0.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post

Do as I say, not as I do. Learn from my mistakes. * lights up a smoke * Don't start smoking.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Soundblock said:

Striving to be transcendental in your problem-solving doesn't mean you're a hypocrite. If anything it might liberate you from the straight-jackets of established conventions and brain washed doctrine.

Sir, your statement has transcended my mortal comprehension. I applaud you.

Also, minor spelling error.

 

Joking aside, that's quite an insightful statement.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Aquila Chrysaetos said:

Also, minor spelling error.

 

I live for my spelling errors, ever tending to them and making sure they're alright. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I think @GoatLord means he's trying to use it to explore both sides of an argument.

"Believe" one thing and convince yourself of it.

Then "believe" its antithesis and convince yourself of that.

Try to see the logic and merit in both?

I'm too set in my ways to try it, my brain would probably explode.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems like you are trying to use this as a means to understand both sides and find the shared ground between them, I feel like that's a very noble thing to do actually.

 

Although I feel as though it couldn't be as effectively used in heavily polarised discussions.

Share this post


Link to post

There is no lower form of life than the hypocrite. The fact that you're trying these mental gymnastics to justify not just your hypocrisy, but hypocrisy itself, is a very big clue that you would rather take the easy road and embrace your faults than take the rewarding road and overcome them.

Share this post


Link to post

Why is hypocrisy "the lowest form of life"? What is your metric for high forms of life?

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, GoatLord said:

Generally, hypocrisy is regarded as a negative quality, but it can be useful to hold both the for and against positions of an argument simultaneously, and even have a third position that combines elements of both extremes. Been experimenting with this form of thought lately and it puts things into perspective more easily than merely agreeing or disagreeing only.

Perhaps you should consider reading actual philosophy instead of trying to reinvent every wheel ever invented while tripping balls.

Share this post


Link to post

A hypocrite is someone who has abandoned all principles. He doesn't burden himself with moral code, yet he insists that everyone else should. He's the ultimate consequentialist, in that he's willing to sell out his own credibility and the well being of others, usually in exchange for some short term and meaningless benefit to himself.

 

The highest forms of life are those that live according to clear and well defined universal principles, derived from universally preferable behavior, and continually employ reason and abstraction in order to bring themselves and others around them closer to agreement on those principles in order to serve universally preferable goals.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, AndrewB said:

The highest forms of life are those that live according to clear and well defined universal principles, derived from universally preferable behavior, and continually employ reason and abstraction in order to bring themselves and others around them closer to agreement on those principles in order to serve universally preferable goals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Übermensch?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I don't know if hypocrisy is a negative or a positive quality, but I know that it's a very human quality. Every day we lie to ourselves, we do things we know are bad for us, we adjust our speech and actions depending on who is judging us at the moment, etc. EVERYONE is like that, you can't leave the club. So I agree: in my opinion the best thing you can do is to embrace the fact that you're a mess, to allow yourself to freely do and say contradicting things, and to analyze them afterwards. Only through that process you have a chance to understand at least something about yourself. And also I believe it's extremely important to realize that you change every second, and to not be afraid of these changes. If today you feel different about some subject compared to yesterday, there is no need to be embarrassed or to hide it. Just say what you currently feel because that's who you are right now. Expecting people to follow the same principles throughout their whole lives is the most ridiculous idea ever conceived.

Share this post


Link to post

Goatlord tripping and AndrewB having a manic episode in the same thread. What a time to be alive.

Share this post


Link to post

 

39 minutes ago, AndrewB said:

A hypocrite is someone who has abandoned all principles. He doesn't burden himself with moral code, yet he insists that everyone else should. He's the ultimate consequentialist, in that he's willing to sell out his own credibility and the well being of others, usually in exchange for some short term and meaningless benefit to himself.

You're describing one type of hypocrisy, not the entire thing.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Marn said:

Goatlord tripping and AndrewB having a manic episode in the same thread. What a time to be alive.

I'm not tripping. I certainly was not when I started this thread, and I'm not now.

Share this post


Link to post

Hypocrisy is neutral to any debate. If someone's arguments against something (for example killing) are strong enough it doesn't matter whether he personally does/like it. What he/she does is neither argument, nor counterargument. Using one's actions, beliefs, characteristics as arguments is known as "Argumentum ad personam" and "Argumentum ad hominem" - it is considered to be fallacious argumentative strategy.

However, using conflicting arguments is also flawed. If your arguments counter each other it makes them invalid and it also make it impossible for your opponent to answer them jointly. Some may call it hypocrisy.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, GoatLord said:

I'm not tripping. I certainly was not when I started this thread, and I'm not now.

Read books.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, 8Bit Shocker said:

If your arguments counter each other it makes them invalid

???

How is my arguments countering each other different from my and your arguments countering each other? They are still just arguments. You yourself just said that we should separate the arguments from the person. It doesn't matter where they come from, right? Discussions should be about the arguments and not the people making them.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Memfis said:

???

How is my arguments countering each other different from my and your arguments countering each other? They are still just arguments. You yourself just said that we should separate the arguments from the person. It doesn't matter where they come from, right? Discussions should be about the arguments and not the people making them.

 

What is the point of stating an argument that counter another of your arguments? 

It is either a mistake or it only complicates a debate or it is a try of manipulation.

And it is really important to remember that argumets are not just drifting rafts, they refer to thesis. One should keep the logical sequence of those arguments which refer to one selected thesis. If they are countering there is no longer a sequence of arguments, if they do not refer to thesis there is no discussion, there are just some separeted statments, ideas, thoughts. It has nothing to do with whom is speaking.

 

Using "countering arguments", while for example chatting with a friend is totally okay, sometimes it is a natural process of figuring something out, but when it comes to defending or proving thesis in a debate it is usally not welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, 8Bit Shocker said:

What is the point of stating an argument that counter another of your arguments?

That way you acknowledge you don't really know what the truth is and you invite other people to look at the problem from multiple angles. I mean, hopefully you're participating in the discussion to broaden your understanding of the subject, not because you're already 100% sure in your opinion and just want to convince everyone. I don't know, maybe it's different in some scientific discussions or these debates you mention...

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Memfis said:

That way you acknowledge you don't really know what the truth is and you invite other people to look at the problem from multiple angles.

Oh, now Your perspective is much more clear to me. Yup, it can be useful while "figuring things out", though it seems quite useless while convincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×