"Fake it until you make it"
The secret to becoming a hero, if you're a coward, is to fake it. If you never fake an attribute you don't have... you'll never get it. This goes for belief, hope, and at sometimes love.
There was a great blogger once, who said that the hardest leap is from zero to one, and one to zero. In other words it is hard to try something new, and it is hard to give up something you do as a habit. We know this is somewhat relative, as it's not nearly as hard for most of us to try a new type of ice cream or dog food to feed our pooch... but when it comes to things like sky diving, matters get a little more intense. This includes things like becoming a vegetarian -- caring about things you once didn't care about, or making a silent care manifest itself in your actions. You become a hypocrite, if only for awhile...
What I am curious about is doing things your 'heart isn't into it', but doing them for other reasons, personally perceived more important reasons. Accepting a job at a Starbucks even though you oppose the cooperation because you desperately need the money - eating meat even though you detest the process which places it on your plate because you are visiting a Chinese family who spent the last day preparing a meal for you - the list could honestly go on forever. Is it wrong to do things, which makes it appear like you endorse them, even though you detest them? I am not talking terrible things, I am talking about the grey areas which lie somewhere in between right and wrong.... even the things which lie within the greater domain of 'rightness' but you have openly stood against.
What if it is in attempt to better yourself... for example the bad person who fakes a good quality in order to correct his negative actions in order to straighten out his path even though he looks like a fool to those with whom he used to relish in trouble with.
Is hypocrisy something that ought to terrify us to the point of inactivity? Should we be afraid to change for the better because of the trouble we see the effects other people face as they try to do better? A democrat turned republican, a republican turned democrat? Those who are religious, I am interested to hear what you think about the grey areas, that which your religion may not necessarily speak about.
I have heard a great Baha'ian say that every action ought to be followed by reflection which should shape our next action. I agree. But what if our actions consistently appear to be changing upon further reflection? Once we make a mistake and fix it are we no longer accountable for the initial mess up?
6 remarks:
I will comment on my blog. After typing this up I asked a few friends how they felt about the issue. They automatically turned the tables and asked me...I giggled and thought... I don't want to say, I will look like a hypocrite.
"But if you write something and ask a bunch of questions you ought to be able to ask yourself the same questions." --Fair enough.
My first response is to say look at my actions, and judge from there. My words will be misunderstood as soon as someone else speaks them.
I believe that an individual shouldn’t have to justify their actions, and they should try to the best of their ability to do what they perceive is the right thing at the time. This is problematic, I know, but it is what I believe. I think people should always do what they think is best at the moment, and pay for the consequences no matter which way the table turns the consequences are different in different places.
I like to think hypocrisy doesn't phase me, I would rather be looked down on than repeat the same mistake because my ego is too big.
This response is flawed and I know. It has always created its fair share of problems but I am accountable.
I am interested in your views, so feel free to shoot me an e-mail even if you aren’t comfortable putting it up as a comment.
Anon (each block relates to a specific paragraph):
People are allowed to change their minds on issues, and should adjust their behavior accordingly. New information should bring a change in behavior. Not changing and adapting to new informaiton and circumstances brings death, like the republican party. On a side note I think that it is only true hipocracy when one professes to believe something "good" but actually does something "bad." The reverse, saying something "bad" but doing something "good" would technically fall under the definition of hipocracy, I think when scrutinized in practice and the public eye is understood to be something altogether different.
In this paragraph I want to first touch on the issue about vegetarianism that you bring up. While you hint at them you don't explicitly mention how you value being a good, gracious guest. Where does cultural sensitivity and gratitude for what "good" a group of strangers is doing toward you. How does the risk of potentially offending a new group weight against one's reasons for not eating meat? While superficially this seems like it could be an argument about taking a life versus committing a social foux pas, I don't think I'm incorrect in understanding that meat is not always a regular part of the meal in China, so a significant portion of a family's income could have gone into preparing this meal. Even more of a reason to not eat meat I suppose, but if the deed is done, what then? On the issue of accepting a job from Starbucks. How does one's disgust for corporate tactics weigh against one's desire to be fed and house? In cases like ours, young, single, and entreprenurial, there is no need to compromise this value (said very hipocratically from me currently compromising), but for people needing to support families, I think it's very important to understand the distiction between those who are taken advantage of by corporations, and those who have the advantage. Being a barista for Starbucks is not necessarily endorsing the corporation, while the consumer buying the coffee is endorsing. But on the flip side, working one's way up the chain of command in corporations would give someone the power and ability to drive the changes they see fit. But for the most part people don't work at places like Starbucks and Wal-Mart as cashiers and baristas because they want to, they do it because they have to.
Is a good deed done with the intent of improving oneself any less good than someone who has been doing that same deed repeatedly for years? A midly crappy example: Suppose someone gives a large sum of money to charity, even though he doesn't believe that it will do any good, in fact he only gave it because of a tax break. Is that any more or less good than someone who has been giving to the same charity for years (long enough so their sums are now equal) and believes in the cause? How about a bad deed done with good intentions?
Are there universal "goods?" If one is truely trying to better oneself, will other's inherintly see it and understand? What is your definition of Hypocracy? If one is "walking the walk" as well as "talking the talk" at this point in time, what does it matter if one did something different earlier? It seems as though you think of it as being inconstinstant in one's actions historically were as I think it is being inconsistent in one's actions and thoughts currently. Actually you seem to go back and forth on that. One more quesiton/example: If we have some generic bad dude, and he want's to be a good dude. He starts doing good deeds that he doesn't believe in (ie charity) because he thinks it will make him a good dude. How is that hypocritical? He wants to be a good dude, so he does what he considers to be good things in order to make his image and deeds align.
Isn't that what it means to grow as a person, or even grow up? Much to my chargrin the world is not static. Isn't it the assumption that one does the best one can do with the currently available information, so when new information is available, one is allowed to adjust behavior and attitude?
Hi Jon,
Just a quick note to tell you how much we enjoy reading your blog. We have been following along for months now. Keep up the great entries. Love, L and C
p.s. I am afraid that the and symbol is not coming thru as an and symbol...Lynn and Chuck
No problem. It's good to hear from you both = )
Thanks for the comment
Wow! Now here is some food for thought! These are such good questions, Jon. You will wrestle with them for the rest of your life, and it is a VERY healthy wrestling match. You are doing a good job of reflecting--and I think this is a powerful truth. We MUST reflect in order to grow, and growth does bring change. If we cease to grow, we die.
It seems to me that it is always right to do the right thing. Regardless of motive. So often, our feelings follow our actions. They are not necessarily a reliable basis for decision making. But once we see the result of choosing wisely, it feels good. (Although sometimes it is accompanied by pain.)
Sometimes two right things are in conflict with one another. You must choose, based on the information and circumstances you have at the moment, which is the best of the two. Later you may have other information that would change your decision if you were faced with it again. Does this mean you made the wrong choice? This leads to all kinds of second guessing. It is important to respect the place you were in when you made the choice, and to trust that God led you in that moment to do what was indeed best in that situation. It doesn't mean you should repeat it in order to validate it.
We get in trouble when we think changing is an admission that somehow we have always done things wrong up until now. This is a major fallacy that causes discord between generations, prevents necessary change from being embraced, and simply stunts individual and corporate growth.
Universal goods: to me the Millennium Development Goals and their fulfillment/eradication certainly look to be like the shining pearls of our lives if we could solve them.
I think if one is truly trying to better ones self then it shouldn't really matter to the individual if others inherently see the changes that are undergoing or not...
Post a Comment