honetly answer this question. and just straight forward answering please, keep to the question no asking me questions about the question, and if it is valid blah blah blah you understand it so answer it if you dont like the question dont post in the thread simple.




"i beleieve that i infact dont know anything atall"

Quote by EmptyForceOfChi.

Hell no. I practice what suits me and preaches that which I want. Whether or not it agrees only matters if people catch on AND care enough to make something of it.

i usually avoid preaching.

"i beleieve that i infact dont know anything atall"
big bang theory proven wrong by me.
Hmmm, I guess we know where YOU stand on that question. ;)

I TRY to, but I have yet to meet a person that does not live life with some degree of hypocrisy.
Whether or not you recognize and acknowledge those hypocrisies and whether or not you wield them as a weapon to condemn others while you do not live up to them yourself is what matters most.

yeah it is best to avoid preaching, sometimes i find myself preaching about alot of things but i do try to practise what i preach but damn ofcoure i tell people one thing and do another like any human. id like to hear some things people usually say to others then do the complete opposite funny ones prefered,

i do tell people to get healthy every day of the week usually but i smoke on a weekly basis (not all the time like an addicted smoker if thats any merit probably not)

hey leave the big bang disussion where its at please my good sir :)
but yeah i agree with what you said there.

Let me rephrase the question into a proper one for U,

Do U Preach by self Example ?

who is U?

I TRY to, but I have yet to meet a person that does not live life with some degree of hypocrisy.
Whether or not you recognize and acknowledge those hypocrisies and whether or not you wield them as a weapon to condemn others while you do not live up to them yourself is what matters most.
Such a wise Raven...
A sure way to know is to ask one's children! Even if we are in massive denial, the kids are always watching and taking notes.

I don't preach, but I do try to live as authentically and honestly as possible. I still find myself refraining from ripping the face from some schmuck who dearly needs it long enough for my 'compassionate self' to gain ascendency in the matter. Exhibiting the 'compassion' while refraining from 'killing' might seem hypocritical, in a way, to an observer, but as each moment requires its own behavior, has it's own 'Truth'; perhaps 'consistency' just might = 'death', 'petrification'.
Rules can and do change.
'Hypocrisy' seems a very judgementally laden term for 'doing the right thing at the right time'. Yesterday be damned. Growing in knowledge, wisdom, understanding.. requires 'apparent inconsistencies' to the 'casual observer'.

There are all the many 'faces of god' within each of us.. is it 'hypocritical' for Kali not to behave like Quan Yin when Kali is ascendent 'in the moment'? Or for Quan Yin not to 'behave' like Kali in the next moment?

I think the whole nature of 'hypocrisy' aught to be 'revisited' with fresh analysis as to the usefulness and parameters of the concept.
Is not "Consistency the hobgoblin of small minds"?

"Let me rephrase the question into a proper one for U,

Do U Preach by self Example ? "

no you can leave the question as it were thankyou, i dont see any confusion here lets move along please.

At one time in Western culture, "do unto others" was the most widely preached (and well known) scriptures from the Christian Bible. Some decades later; the paradigm (and scriptural equivolent is, "Judge not lest ye be judged"... essentially practice what you preach!

Neither is completely possible, but both are a great litmus to test one's own morality and expectations of others.

I have concluded that, I will strive, as far as it is within my power (mystical, religious or concious effort) to follow those litmi, but must also understand my human limitations to meet such stringent goals.

The Apostle Paul spent some time discussing the separation of action and intention. He made some statements about desiring to do well, while he fails to do so, no matter how strong his desire was to do so.

"I do, as I do not want to do", is the very rough paraphrase.

I have also concluded that it is just fine to say, and speak truth regardless of my ability to perform it (act it out) because truth has much less to do with my actions than it does with the facts of truth.

I do not affect truth. Truth is ambiguous to my actions; therefore truth should be told, regardless of my commitment to act it out. Speaking truth is equal, but different, to acting out truth within a given set.

If you doubt what I am saying... try and be committed to acting out any truth, evolution... might be an example. Actions will never paint the whole picture, no matter how 'selfish' genetically speaking you wish to be. There will still be found in you, the occasional, and inexplicable, act of kindness.

That's what I think, whether I act like it all the time or not!

I do, and at times more so, find important to see action where there is 'preaching', but it is not at all the only virtue.

Go ahead Prince!!!

If one wonders about the discrepancies between that which one preaches and that which one practices, then one preaches what one practices, and one practices what one preaches, but one might not be in the clear what exactly it is that one preaches and practices.

If one wonders about the discrepancies between that which one preaches and that which one practices, then one preaches what one practices, and one practices what one preaches, but one might not be in the clear what exactly it is that one preaches and practices.

Man that sounds like a Donald Rumsfeld quote :D

Scott Myers:

You know me far, far too well.

To all:

There is nothing more odious then to say "Do as I say, not as I do". Hypocrisy is the ultimate means whereby one invalidates one's belief system. If not even those who preach the "truth" follow it, who is then to say it is true? Whilst this is in no way a sanctioning of philosophical pragmitism, if the truth cannot be practiced then one must seriously question whether or not it is truth. Moreover, whilst we are fallible humans, to slavishly lament one's incapacity to do something (as St. Paul did) is to become sub-human, to become worse than the lowliest beast, and to spit on one's conception of truth. In essence: To not practice what one preaches is loathesome and base.

To further elaborate on my point of truth requiring possibility: Imagine if chess had the same rules as it did now, but also had other rules which were impossible under the prior rules, but one could not invalidate the prior rules to fullfill them, and one could not win if one does not fullfill the new rules. Say, one had to move the queen as a knight, but one cannot invalidate the rule that a queen cannot move a knight. Would that make sense? Would the "truth" of the illogical and incapable rule really exist?

In essence: To not practice what one preaches is loathesome and base.
Can you honestly say you have never been hypocritical in your life and never act in a way that is not 100% truthful and faithful to your ideals?

One_Raven:

I've done things which have been hypocritical, yes, but I fully recognize that such things were loathesome and base. I make a conscious effort, specifically after I coming to this belief, to never act in a manner which is hypocritical.

" Yes, as I have no contradiction between my actions and my beliefs. "

if this is true then you have my respect. unless your beleifs are like wanting to ethnicly clense the earth on some kinda rampage or something of that nature.

The more I know, the more I don't know.

only the dead have no contradiction between their philosophy and their actions.
and liars.
and those in massive denial.
philosophies tend to run in 'idealistic' terms.
life does not.

cosmictraveler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

The more I don't know, the more I know.

i have formulated my philosophy in a manner that, as prince has suggested, is possible. i will never hold myself to a standard which cannot be achieved--that is utterly absurd. imagine that i promised my friend that i would climb mount everest to the summit, today. from my vantage point thousands of miles away, this is impossible. apart from fitness requirements, i would need to travel there.

is that not a ridiculous promise to make, then?

hypocrisy does not necessarily invalidate anything about a man's beliefs--this is called the 'ad hominem, tu quoque' fallacy. but, it is telling of a man's character if he cannot stand by his own standards.

even with my own standards remaining achievable, hypocrisy happens--and when it does, i will not allow it to break my stride. it is terribly unfortunate, but i have better things to do than lament my mistakes. rather, i can learn and move on. one goes farther that way.

What was it that Nietzsche said?
Ideals, by their definition, can not be achieved. For onec you acheive them, you have transcended them.

Along the same lines, I believe that ideals SHOULD be beyond your reach, that's how they differ from goals.
Ideals should be stars off in the distance guiding your way. You should aim TOWARDS your ideals, not FOR them.
I don't have the time to get into my reasoning behind this at the moment. Perhaps I can get into it soon.

i did not once use the word 'ideal'.

i did not once use the word 'ideal'.
Sorry for the confusion.
That wasn't aimed directly at you.
Just a general statement.