Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
A very sweet Vort I heard once – not Lomdish, but I’ll write it anyway, because its got a ?????? to ??? – The ???? paskens (?? ???, I think) the a father cannot send a ???? to do ????? ??? for him. The question is asked – why not? Why is it different to ?? ????? ???? where we say ???? ?? ??? ??????
The ??? ???? says that the reason we are ???? our sons is a ??? to the fact that ???”? didn’t kill them in ?????. And the ?????? who were killed were done ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?’ ??? ???. Therefore in the ‘payback’ it also has to be done ??? ????.
Wow. I didn’t really understand what “Read at your own risk” meant until just now.
I haven’t seen the Sefer yet, but here is a link to it.
Avram in MD – I think you are working along the lines I was trying before I gave it up as a waste of time. We are designed to sense the difference between Good and Bad. Everybody has an innate sense of moral sense, and understands that moral integrity is the ‘right’ thing to do. PAA – you keep asking what Right means, and why we should care about it. Irrelevant. The fact that we have this chemical irregularity inside us distinguishing every action into either a ‘Good’ or ‘Bad’ category, our sense is obligating us not to do it. The guilt one feels is not the ???? but a ???? to something which may not make sense logically, but exists.
It is wrong. So don’t do it.
I was equating the Hardware/Software discussion with Moshe & Betzalels difference of opinion regarding building the Mishkan first or the Keilim.
Never mind.
12:04
cone
stress
dent
time
sent
tens
sleet
oven
sees
hare
hard
hardest
darn
delta
east
mete
shore
peer
peek
mens
dare
hare
stove
12:10
I took on ??????? that we don’t play with 3 letter words…
Was this not what ??? ????? and ????? discused?
Ordinarily, I wouldn’t debase myself, but I have to point out that Popa is Quirell if anything. He has quite a gift with trolls.
— Squeak.
Very well written, Sdd!!
11:13 30/03/2015
Loss
Moss
Lose
Felt
Melt
Metre
Tree
Peer
Molest
molester
lest
fest
mole/s
heel
seem
seer
leer
sole
most
these
site
shoe
shot/s
stote
store
bore
miser
deny
vote
rite
hire
tire
vibes
style/s/r
sheer
tote
dares
lone
aeon
step
steep
seep
sire
rise
riser
chose
chosen
rote
shot
thus
three
11:19 30/03/2015
I’m not sure on the rules about plural/s. Do you score as if it is a second word? Or just the score of one? Or just singular?
NeutiquamErro didn’t ask for an increase in quantity of posting; he wanted an increase on the quality of the posts.
Maybe that’s why they jump when they say ????? ???? ????? ??, just in case he’s actually on the moon.
Brilliant.
Wow. I feel privileged to make it to your Insult Collection at long last. I’ve been looking forward to this moment for ages. In fact, every time I thought of insulting you, I held it back, because I wanted my first insult quoted here to be a really good insult. I think I let this one slip by mistake… Oh well…
I don’t remember if we’ve ever discussed this here.
Rule #1 in any book: If there is a door which doesn’t open, and a valuable tool [Sirius’ knife] is destroyed attempting to open it, you can be sure that at some point, you are going to come back and enter this door. No door is created just to not open.
Why didn’t we ever get to see what happens in the Locked Room? I thought, when at the end of #5 Dumbledore explains the prophecy, that we were guaranteed a visit back there. The Power the Dark Lord Knows Not = Love. There is a Room of Love which remains a mystery. I was sure that the last battle – the climax of the series where Harry wins – would take place back in the Department of Mysteries.
Shame!
Why was it in the Order of the Phoenix, when Dumbledore’s Army attempt their supposed rescue plan, the Ministry was deserted, with no officials, no security and no Unspeakables? This is pointedly discussed on the way in, but never explained actually?
Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.
–Abraham Lincoln
I was joking, PAA. Sorry if the British sense of humour isn’t appreciated! I know you don’t take it personally, and I know that the M”M are intended to inspire debate not to destroy it. I actually have never read the Daas Torah thread, I just know that you are very actively involved in it, to say the least!
I personally enjoy the M”M. There are those, however, who cannot follow the Hebrew, and those who cannot cope with the complexity of some of the sources, who are intimidated off a little. But great job anyway!!
I think the answer is that a circle has no beginning
I could be wrong, but this is how I understood the response: Every circle, of course, starts at one point – but not inherently. It happens to have started at one point by pure coincidence, and continued round. Once it has come full circle and is continuing, the starting point is no more than a historical fact. The question of “What came first, the Chicken or the Egg” isn’t just a trivia question of fact. It is a question about the essence of a Chicken/Egg; which is the ?? and which is the ??. The same is true in any causality chain where A causes B which causes A which causes B. Wherever it started plays no role and has no significance.
You take it personally when people say that you have to listen “Daas Torah” which doesn’t make sense to you, and use the Excessive-Block-Text-Brute-Force-Method to stop anybody arguing!!
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/daas-torah-2
Which Germans alive were involved in stealing and looting – Germans which can benefit from money you spend buying a German Camera?
Quick interlude:
A close family member of mine noticed this Shabbos that there were problems with their hotplate while checking the guidelines circulated by the London NW Hatzola. By the time they managed to do something about it, it was already smoking and parts of it were glowing orange (I am not clear of the details).
Boruch Hashem everyone is safe, and because of the increased awareness they managed to notice before it was too late.
Sir: I am addressing the few people that did act that way.
That reminds me:
“Yes.”
“Yes, sir.”
“There’s no need to call me ‘sir’, Professor.”
(Shopping613 – you probably won’t understand the reference. It’s a private joke! If you want, I’m sure he’ll explain.)
I agree with Sam2. However, on occasion when I have pointed this out, I was told off by numerous people, and I actually think they have a point.
If somebody takes a news item as a springboard for chizuk in any form – whether this is immaturity, over-sensitivity, Emotive-Judaism-Sem-Girl-Approach or any other non-rational reason (which I am not accusing anybody here of; this was the story when I aired my Sam2-style view)- it is wrong to laugh it off and say there is no reason to be ???? now more than a regular Sunday morning. It is a ??? of ????? ??? ???? ??? ??????. Sometimes being right can cause damage.
Does Dumbledore not say that he didn’t actually beat Grindelwald, but he managed to hold him off for long enough until he collapsed from exhaustion?
PAA – There are two distinctly different discussions here: “What a person should do” = his duty, his obligation, what is correct. When you talk about why a person would, you are searching for an incentive which motivates him to perform the action.
Second Paragraph – I’m sorry, until you accept the truth of innate moral sensitivity, you cannot understand this.
And – I was hoping we wouldn’t get to this. Do you honestly believe you would say that the only reason why you have a problem with him killing is because he broke the law? And if he managed to pay a top notch lawyer to find him a legal loophole, then you don’t see any reason for him not to kill?! I’m afraid I don’t believe that.
I honestly can’t explain myself more than what I did already. I’ll try think about it from a different angle and present it again.
I worked out the context. But who is accused of being Eliezer Yudlowsky?
And is [??”? it] says befeirush in the book that the wand doesn’t matter so much, its all about the wizard behind it.
I’m not so sure about that, actually. Harry’s wand performs magic that he himself has not the knowledge or the skill to use, because it uses some of Voldemorts magic against himself, doesn’t it?
A quote:
through almost any instrument. The best results, however, must always come where there
is the strongest affinity between wizard and wand. These connections are complex. An
initial attraction, and then a mutual quest for experience, the wand learning from the
And HP is kishuf.
Is it? Rabbi Zeller doesn’t seem to think so. I wasn’t too impressed by his logic, but then again… Daas Torah is Daas Torah (Okay, that was deliberately intended to annoy PAA)
Good thing there is no prohibition to talk about Kishuf! And of course it’s not kishuf; it’s not real!
Can somebody explain this to me? I came across it by following a couple of links…
I guess I had this question inspired by PAA; I’m not sure why I never noticed it before.
Malfoy became the Master of the Elder Wand by disarming Dumbledore with “Expelliarmus”. So why do wands not change allegiance every time anybody used the disarming spell?
Some are easier to answer. Apparently, the spell itself isn’t enough to defeat somebody. Like when Snape killed Dumbledore, it wasn’t called defeating him, because Dumbledore wanted him to [besides for the fact that Malfoy had already disarmed him!] – In Dumbledores Army and the Duelling Club, the duels were set up willingly, and there was no harm intended. Any ‘friendly’ duel could be answered that way. But any time it was used without the ‘consent’ of the subject of the spell, why wouldn’t it win the allegiance?
There could also be a slight difference on the situation the spell is used in. If the spell is simply to disarm, but not in the context of a genuine fight (For example – when Harry uses it to get the diary from Draco Malfoy in Book 2, where he used it to try accomplish something, but not trying to ‘defeat’) then it wouldn’t ‘defeat’. It would have to be a spell that was a gamechanger in a real power struggle.
DY: We should do what’s right because that’s inherently good.
We would do what’s right because we feel that we should, and feel good doing what’s right. This type of benefit, though is not the ??? referred to in ??? ?? ??? ???? ???.
PAA: You haven’t explained why you should do something because it’s inherently good.
PAA – This more or less boils down to my confusion in your position. Shouldn’t you be using DY’s second point to prove your point? That the only reason why a person would do what’s right is for ones personal benefit. NOT because ???? ???? ???. If you accept that one should, does that answer your original problem?
PAA – I am not sure at which point you are arguing with me. Accepting my premise that there is such a thing as an innate sense of moral Right/Wrong (which is hardwired into our thinking as part of our psyche – the ultimate knowledge and perception of Right/Wrong), would one not be accountable by logical progression for performing an action that is morally categorized as Wrong?
Better yet, tell me what you would say if you where the judge in my story above. How would you answer my murderer?
It’s almost Shabbos in London, so I haven’t got much time here.
If you understood my last post the way I intended it (I haven’t read your response well enough to work it out for myself), and you still had a question, it boils down to one response:
From a logical viewpoint, there should be nothing. You are right, and you are fighting as a rationalist, and therefore you will be able to have the last word in any intellectual discussion over here. Which is why I agreed with you in the last round.
Your mistake, however, is that you don’t understand what morals are, and therefore you don’t understand how it is that it could be a ?????. Morals shouldn’t exist, but do. HKB”H placed a ‘mental blockage’ in most humans with an innate sense of Right and Wrong. What wrong means is irrelevant; you know beyond a doubt that it is wrong. That alone – understandable or not – is enough to make you accountable. I believe it is this last paragraph which is the essential argument between you and me. Are you with me?
Do you mean: You only exist in your own thoughts – or you definitely exist at least in your own thoughts?
I was wrong for putting the Rambam into Descartes. There was a touch of truth to what I meant, but it is so small it’s not worth explaining. How did you understand Shittas HaRambam?
YW: Whoa! Descartes is totally Assur (as is the existentialist meaning behind his statement, probably).
– Sam2
PAA – I think what I said makes sense, although I am not totally sure (dangerous…). Let me try bring out the point.
Imagine a murderer taken in for questioning, and is asked why he did it.
CONVICT: “Because I didn’t like his face.”
JUDGE: “Is that a justification to kill?”
CONVICT: “I didn’t say that, sir. I explained my motive. As far as justification is concerned, why shouldn’t I have killed him?”
JUDGE: “Because… because it’s just wrong!”
CONVICT: “So?”
JUDGE: “….”
How would you respond if you were the Judge?
JUDGE 1: “Well, you should want the good feeling of fulfilling your destiny and purpose in this world. Oh, you prefer to kill him? Oh well… I guess there’s nothing I can say about that…”
OR
JUDGE 2 {spluttering}: “What do you mean, ‘so’ – it’s wrong, perverse, disgusting… It’s IMMORAL!”
How would you react to such a guy?
I think it’s poshut that by definition, the very understanding that something is WRONG is a reason not to do it, and is an obligation to that effect.
Do you get me?
My previous post was submitted before PAAs was approved. Oh well.
DaasYochid – I just realised that I was talking about something very different to you. You were talking about an inherent Right and Wrong, I was discussing an innate sensitivity to which is what. I am currently not sure what PAAs position is – whether he holds nothing is essentially Right (like you understood) or that you don’t have an innate reasoning to determine what is Right and what is Wrong.
You hold the mitzvos aren’t random. Are you saying they are essentially Right even without the Mitzvos? If HKB”H wouldn’t have told us to shake Lulav, would it still be the ‘right thing to do’? Or is it only Right as a consequence of the commandment? (I haven’t got time to discuss my view, but I’d like to know what you meant)
PAA is going to ask you what motivates you to fulfill your purpose, if not good feeling or reward?
I am not answering the stirah; I am working with the way I understood the Ramba”m – that there is no answer, but ???”? in practise one must be ???? with ????? and not take ????? – however true it is – into consideration. Because inasmuch as you have two choices, you must choose; even if in essence everything is predestined and you didn’t have a choice at all.
Oh dear, I am not being very articulate.
Guilt is totally besides the point. Whether there is or not an innate moral correctness – we can debate. (Daasyochid calls it Kefira, although i’m not sure why) What I was trying to suggest that if #1 – the existence of a moral sensitivity – then #2 follows. The very fact that it is wrong is a reason not to do it. The only reason why you think not is because you are denying the existence of such morals. I believe that is where our dispute lies.
Quote:
matters. Much also depends upon the wand itself. In general,
You don’t gain the allegiance of a wand by simply capturing it. You must defeat the previous master. By besting the Master of the Wand, the wand changes its allegiance to you. It would be impossible to only gain one wand and not the others; it is a ??? in the ????, not a ??? in the ????. Taking the wands from Malfoy during a confrontation was an act of defeating the master, as is indicated by the fact that Draco’s own wand became Harry’s. Taking the wand away from him wasn’t directly how he won it’s allegiance; taking the wand away was a manner of defeating Malfoy, which therefore transferred all wands under Malfoys jurisdiction to Harry.
I think the guilt is a consequence of moral correctness. Guilt plays no role here, as far as I understand it.
Descartes cannot be interpreted as a ???? to existence if Jewish Thought [which doesn’t hold of our existence] is to be reconciled with it. A variation of that, though, can fit with our Hashkafah. We definitely do believe in Bechirha, however much it is mutually exclusive to the concept of Yediyah. And the world of Bechira is totally summed up by Descartes; I think therefore I am. It actually explains our practical solution to the stirah.
You’re right.
No. I don’t [(think I)] mean that at all. There is a reason why some things make you feel guilty and others don’t. That comes a couple of stages before the guilt. The mere sensitivity against killing people is a universal principle. I believe that is called a Moral Sense.
I am not entirely clear on the ????, but I believe that “Cogito Ergo Sum” is not supported by Torahdik Hashkafah. In fact, I think that ???? ????? say that we actually don’t exist; we cannot exist. It is a ????? to ???”?s ???? if we were our own entities not as a part of Him; we must be parts of ???”? rather than our own actuality. (Which is part of the Real Question of ????? ??????, that’s the Rambam’s ?????.) I don’t know if this is the right place to have such a sensitive discussion; if anybody wants to hear a very succinctly explained Shiur on the Inyan, you can listen to R’ Akiva Tatz “Predestination & Free Will” (Available for download on Simpletoremember.com)
???? ???? – http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/machshava#post-533010
Is that not poshut pshat in descartes? To the degree that it is possible to think about it, you must exist somewhat.
???? ?????, PAA!
My clarity of thought is unfortunately not of supreme quality that I can come up with my own ???? and stick to it; I just have confused thoughts floating around somewhere up there. So disclaimer: I reserve the right to be ???? from anything I write in this thread.
“Moral fibre” – the capacity to do what is Right in face of any circumstances seems somewhat illogical at the first glance. As the Mishna in Ovois rightly states, some form of Order must be kept for the continuity of the world. But in a world which runs smoothly, why would one keep to his morals and not do what is perceived as wrong if not for fear of retribution? If I wouldn’t believe in Hashem [?”? etc], and I was in a store and had an opportunity to steal without being caught, what would stop me doing it?
However, if you give it a little more thought, there is more to the idea of morals than what meets the eye. No man, religious or not, would stand up and say that he feels no guilt to kill a person. If you had the opportunity to stab in the back a person who was getting on your nerves, without the fear of being caught, would you do it? Nobody sane will admit to feeling it correct.
Meaning, every person has some form of an innate sense of Right and Wrong. Again, logically it makes no sense that I feel more bad to kill somebody than I do to eat grapes, but I do.
Once the establishment of a moral code of ethics exists, by definition one is accountable for that. Of course, there is nothing compelling you to or holding you up to your morals [for one who doesn’t believe in any form of -theism], but having morals as an automatic ?????. I think that makes sense. Unless somebody could justify himself that he actually has no sense of moral justice [read: Insanity], the very fact that he feels its wrong is a reason not to do it.
This doesn’t directly answer your question, but I believe the two are very much connected. Somebody with a perfect set of principles will feel a strong desire to do what is Right simply because it is Right.
The yesoid is – morals are not a logical obligation, they exist whether you like them or not.