Reason and Hypocrisy

One of the fundamental Principles of many Logics is the Law of Contradiction--assertions A and not-A cannot both be True. A main application of this Law is to assertions that imply both some assertion and its negation--if P implies both Q and not-Q, then P is False. So, a prominent way of proving that some assertion is True is to show that its negation leads to a Contradiction, a technique often known as a 'reduction ad absurdum' argument. Kant's ambition in developing a notion of Pure Practican Reason is based on his application of the Law of Contradiction to Conduct--if in a behavorial maxim, i. e. in 'in order to accomplish Q, do P', the means P would lead to not only Q, but to not-Q as well, then one is Morally obligated to not act on that maxim. For example, in the maxim, 'Lie about repayment, in order to secure a loan', repeated lying about repayment will eventually lead to loans being refused, so one is Morally obligated to not make false promises, according to the Kantian analysis. Such Practical Contradiction is not to be confused with either physical impossibility or Logical impossibility. Moving simultaneously to one's right and to one's left is physically impossible. On Spinoza's thesis that all behavior is self-preservative, suicide is Logically impossible, i. e. it can only be some outside destructive force that impels the hand to stab, shoot, take pills, etc. Furthermore, since Kant's analysis applies only to impersonal formulas, such as maxims, it has difficulty accommodating such intrapersonal conflicts as that between what one says and one does, between e. g. preaching marital fidelity and committing adultery. But in Evolvementalism, such behavioral inconsistencies violate the Principle of Idionomic integrity that is entailed by Individuality. In other words, Hypocrisy is a type of Irrational behavior, and, as undermining Individuality, has no Phronetic value in Evolvementalism.