ellauri014.html on line 213: Diderot later described Rousseau as being "false, vain as Satan, ungrateful, cruel, hypocritical, and wicked... He sucked ideas from me, used them himself, and then affected to despise me".
ellauri034.html on line 545: Achebe´s critics argue that he fails to distinguish Marlow's view from Conrad's, which results in very clumsy interpretations of the novella. Jeffrey Meyers notes that Conrad, like his back door acquaintance Roger Casement, "was one of the first men to question the Western notion of progress, a dominant idea in Europe from the Renaissance to the Great War, to attack the hypocritical justification of colonialism and to reveal... the savage degradation of the white man in Africa."
ellauri063.html on line 72: Is it hypocritical for George Orwell to write an anti-tyrannic book when he himself was a socialist?
ellauri096.html on line 779: The word akrasia occurs twice in the Koine Greek New Testament. In Matthew 23:25 Jesus uses it to describe hypocritical religious leaders, translated "self-indulgence" in several translations, including the English Standard version. Paul the Apostle also gives the threat of temptation through akrasia as a reason for a husband and wife to not deprive each other of sex (1 Corinthians 7:5). In another passage (Rom. 7:15–25) Paul, without actually using the term akrasia, seems to reference the same psychological phenomenon in discussing the internal conflict between, on the one hand, "the law of God," which he equates with "the law of my mind"; and "another law in my members," identified with "the flesh, the law of sin." "For the good that I would do, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do." (v.19)
ellauri115.html on line 387: Wounded feelings gave rise to a bitter three-way quarrel between Rousseau and Madame d'Épinay; her lover, the journalist Grimm; and their mutual friend, Diderot, who took their side against Rousseau. Diderot later described Rousseau as being "false, vain as Satan, ungrateful, cruel, hypocritical, and wicked... He sucked ideas from me, used them himself, and then affected to despise me".
ellauri156.html on line 558: This the reason for Joab's careful instructions to the messenger. He is to report the attack on the city of Rabbah to David, and then tell of the Israelite losses which result. Joab knows that David will react (perhaps hypocritically) to the report of the attack and the resulting losses. It is at this point, Joab instructs the messenger, that he is to inform David of the death of Uriah. This will certainly end any protest or criticism on David's part.
ellauri156.html on line 562: Now why does this messenger not wait for David to respond in anger, as Joab instructed? Why does he inform David that Uriah has been killed, before he even utters a word of criticism or protest? I believe the messenger gives the report in this way because he understands what is really going on here. I think he may know about David and Bathsheba, and perhaps even of her pregnancy. He certainly knows that Uriah was summoned to Jerusalem. I think he also figures out that David wants to get rid of Uriah, and that Joab has accomplished this by this miserable excuse for an offensive against the enemy. I think the messenger figures out that if David knows Uriah has been killed, he will not raise any objections to this needless slaughter. And so, rather than wait for David to hypocritically rant and rave about the stupidity of such a move, he just goes on and tells him first, so that he will not receive any reaction from David.
ellauri156.html on line 641: Bathsheba's response to the death of her husband is as we would expect, as we would also hope. From what the text tells us, she has absolutely no part in David's plot to deceive her husband, let alone to put him to death. Undoubtedly, she learns of Uriah's death in much the same way every war widow does, then or now. When she is officially informed of Uriah's death in battle, she mourns for her husband. We cannot be certain just how long this period of mourning is. We know, for example, that if a virgin of some distant (i.e., not Canaanite) nation was captured by an Israelite during a raid on her town, the Israelite could take her for a wife after she had mourned for her parents (who would have been killed in the raid) for a full month (Deuteronomy 21:10-13). As I will seek to show in a moment, I believe Bathsheba's mourning is genuine, and not hypocritical. I believe she mourns her husband's death because she loves him.
ellauri156.html on line 643: David, on the other hand, does not even bother to go through the pretense of mourning. He does not even try to be hypocritical. When other mighty men of Israel died, David led the nation in mourning their loss. David mourned for Saul and his sons, killed in the battle with the Philistines (2 Samuel 1). David mourned the death of Abner, wickedly put to death by Joab (2 Samuel 3:28ff.). He even sent a delegation to officially mourn the death of Nahash, king of the Ammonites (2 Samuel 10). But when Uriah is killed “in battle,” not a word of mourning comes from David's lips. He is not sorry; he is relieved. Instead of instructing others to mourn for Uriah, he sends word to Joab not to take his death too seriously.
ellauri219.html on line 815: You’re hearing it even now, in the tedious whataboutism from the Global South (the new enemy, now that Global North is practically ours) about Ukraine. People expect Putin’s Russia to elbow neighbours aside in pursuit of security. That’s what imperial Athens did to Melos. They don’t expect any better. But America? America said it was better. So what? Who in their right mind would believe them? They are a nation of used car salesmen. It still does, with its advocacy of human rights. That’s why the non-stop whataboutist refrain from them is that America is hypocritical. Which it is, to a fault.
ellauri223.html on line 60: They say that all private property is acquired and improved for the reason that each one of us by himself has his own home and wife and children. From this, self-love springs. For when we raise a son to riches and dignities, and leave an heir to much wealth, we become either ready to grasp at the property of the State, if in any case fear should be removed from the power which belongs to riches and rank; or avaricious, crafty, and hypocritical, if anyone is of slender purse, little strength, and mean ancestry. But when we have taken away self-love, there remains only love for the State.
ellauri408.html on line 382: Speaking of hypocrisy, it’s ironic that the Christian religion turned Jesus, who saved all his sternest criticism for religious hypocrites, into the greatest HYPOCRITE of them all! The Good Samaritan was a man who put aside religious differences to help a man of another faith who was unable to help himself. But Jesus, who was able to save the thief on the cross with a mere nod of his head, will hypocritically not deign to nod his head at billions of people who are unable to save themselves, according to Christians who blaspheme Jesus’s name from sunup to sundown. What will Jesus say when they have to stand before him on the Day of Judgment and explain why they accused him of such evil?
ellauri408.html on line 418: There is no contemporary evidence outside the Bible that Jesus was a real person, and certainly not a person of any consequence. But there are parts of the gospels that sound like a real person. If I had to guess, I would say that Jesus was an unconventional rabbi who had table fellowship with prostitutes and rogues (a “sin” in the eyes of the hypocritical Pharisees), and went around ministering to the sick and the poor. When he died there may have been an empty grave and some sort of NDE (which are not uncommon) in which he saw something like heaven. That could account for the genesis of the Christian religion. Paul might have communicated with Jesus, or sincerely thought he did, such things are not all that uncommon. But the virgin birth, the massacre of the innocents, walking on water, the transfiguration and ascension, were all obviously made up and added later, since Paul knew nothing about such things and the four gospels and Acts do not agree on such “super miracles.”
xxx/ellauri193.html on line 404: In addition to those disagreements, Roberts criticises Gordimer's post-apartheid advocacy on behalf of black South Africans, in particular her opposition to the government's handling of the AIDS crisis, as paternalistic and hypocritical white liberalism. The biography also stated that Gordimer's 1954 New Yorker essay, "A South African Childhood", was not wholly biographical and contained some fabricated events.
xxx/ellauri199.html on line 1049: In The War on the West, Douglas Murray shows how many well-meaning people have been fooled by hypocritical and inconsistent anti-West rhetoric. After all, if we must discard the ideas of Kant, Hume, and Mill for their opinions on race, shouldn’t we discard Marx (Karl, Groucho´s OK), the Jew whose work is peppered with racial slurs and anti-Semitism? Embers of racism remain to be stamped out in America, but what about the raging racist inferno in the Middle East and Asia? What about Israel? Nigeria?
xxx/ellauri400.html on line 217: He considered the most important criteria used to judge the value of a poem were "high truth" and "high seriousness". By this standard, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales did not merit Arnold's approval. According to Arnold, Homer is the best model of a simple grand style, while Milton is the best model of severe grand style. Dante, however, is an example of both. Even Chaucer, in Arnold's view, in spite of his virtues such as benignity, largeness, and spontaneity, lacks seriousness. Burns too lacks sufficient seriousness, because he was hypocritical in that while he adopted a moral stance in some of his poems, in his private life he flouted morality. Arnold believed that a modern writer should be aware that contemporary literature is built on the foundations of the past, and should contribute to the future by continuing a firm tradition. Quoting Goethe and Kuckuksuhr in support of his view, he asserts that his age suffers from spiritual weakness because it thrives on self-interest and scientific materialism, and therefore cannot provide noble characters such as those found in Classical literature.
16