- This topic has 80 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
PAA: It was a long Sukkos, what can I say…
Very interesting, but (as a whole) I find myself uncomfortable with it in some ways.
As far as this is concerned, I’m not sure how comfortable I am with the idea that learning about middos and self-improvement a) could ever be a bad thing or b) could ever be completely replaced by gemara learning, etc.
“As far as this is concerned, I’m not sure how comfortable I am with the idea that learning about middos and self-improvement a) could ever be a bad thing or b) could ever be completely replaced by gemara learning, etc.”
I don’t think anyone would say that learning about middos and self-improvement is inherently a bad thing. But the way in which it is done, and the extent of the focus on it, could conceivably be detrimental. As for point b), I don’t know about COMPLETELY replaced, but it must be noted that a good portion of the content of Mussar Sefarim is Ma’amarei Chazal which discuss the mussar issues. For example, the Orchos Tzadikim in Sha’ar Haga’avah lists a whole slew of terrible things which ga’ava is compared to and some of its consequences. It is taken straight from the Gemara in the beginning of Masechet Sotah. So if you just learned the Gemara, you would still get the point that the Orchos Tzadikim is trying to convey. (Obviously, it’s not exactly the same, because you’ll be missing the Orchos Tzadikim’s interpolations and interpretations, but if you learn the Gemara with mefarshim, you’ll probably get a lot of that too.) An advantage of using the actual mussar sefer is that everything about the topic is collected together, but if you master Shas that shouldn’t be such an issue either. So the question would then be whether it would be advantageous to have a separate time, singularly devoted to the study of mussar concepts with intense focus on the ingraination of them into your unconscious via emonion and repetition (which was R’ Yisrael Salanter’s main chiddush), and engaging in activities designed to overcome your nature (more representative of the Novhardak school of mussar). The proponents of the Mussar Movement obviously felt it was, while those who were against it, such as R’ Chaim, felt that it wasn’t. But as previously mentioned, the Alter of Slabodka altered the style of mussar, and perhaps many of the objections have since fallen by the wayside.
“PAA: It was a long Sukkos, what can I say…”
That is hardly an excuse. [Insert sarcasticon if desired.]
“via emonion and repetition” should be “via emotion and repetition”.
How are people supposed to find the thread if the name was completely changed?
How are people supposed to find the thread if the name was completely changed?
How are people supposed to find the thread if the name was completely changed?
Looks like you found it!
I didn’t even realize I wrote that three times. The new title is somewhat better.
Really? Somewhat? – 29
“Really? Somewhat?”
Well it’s not perfect because if someone is looking for a thread which he/she thinks is entitled “Chofetz Chaim Yeshivos”, he/she might scroll down the list merely glancing at the first word of every title, in which case seeing the word “Learning” wouldn’t mean anything.
But you bring up an interesting point. Many times people use qualifiers before the word “better” such as “somewhat better”, “a little better” etc. Presumably they do this in order to point out that the situation is not yet where they want it to be. But the word “better” just means that it’s better than it was before, so if for example someone had 106 fever one day and 105 the next day and someone asks if he/she is better it would be completely accurate for he/she to respond that indeed he/she is better.
Way was the previous thread title?
DaasYochid: Look at the URL in your address bar. The “-1” is because
there was already a thread with the same name.
Or, if you mean the second thread title, it was “Learning Mussar.”
Mod:
Shouldn’t the new title be “…Yeshiva(s?) Chofetz Chaim way” ?
PAA:
While it would be technically accurate, it would be assumed that
“better” without any qualification meant “better to the full extent possible.” Hence the common practice.
Hmmm…
I think I’d better list all the names so far:
1. Chofetz Chaim Yeshivos
2. Learning Mussar
3. Learning Mussar-the Chofetz Chaim way
4. Totally Random Thread Title Just to Confuse PAA
Just don’t go changing the title faster than I can see it, mods… 🙂
PAA:
I commend you on the triplical impressive feat...“Triplical” is not (really) a word. Wiktionary has no entry for it and any instances of its use found on Google appear to be either in error or as a proper noun in some obscure historic context.
“Triplicate,” if that is what you meant, would be incorrect in this instance – it does not refer to non-identical things or sets thereof.
“Triple” would have been the right word, even if it
isn’t sesquipedalian enough for your taste.
Also, “triple” would correctly have been after “impressive,”
not before.
That is hardly an excuse. [Insert sarcasticon if desired.]Please explain your use of sarcasm here.
Randomex:
I know triplical is not a word. I invented it, because there was no existing word that fully conveyed what I wanted to say. I was actually going to start a thread about this since I’ve done this several times, but I never got around to it.
So here are the words that I have invented:
“triplical”
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/chofetz-chaim-yeshivos-1#post-539810
“ingraination”
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/chofetz-chaim-yeshivos-1/page/2#post-540166
“sarcasticon”
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/chofetz-chaim-yeshivos-1/page/2#post-540175
“conversified”
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/response-to-lior#post-539973
They are all really just variations of existing words where I decided that the existing forms/tenses of the word would not do the job.
“Please explain your use of sarcasm here.”
The potential sarcasm was that you need an excuse to justify reading Halachic Man, but I left it up to the reader’s interpretation. Also my line contained a reference to a different thread, which you might not have gotten. I’ll give you some time to come up with it before I tell you what it was.
By the way, there are now five threads with my name in the title, one of which was my own doing, one of which was the doing of another poster, and three of which were changed by the Moderator(s):
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/chofetz-chaim-yeshivos-1
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/your-coffee-room-report-card-comments?replies=91
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/for-pulsing-flower-to-rant-about-iyun
Ok, I’ll give you a hint. The reference is to a previous discussion with writersoul.
PAA:
You didn’t provide definitions. So, what exactly is the meaning of “triplical?” [It had better not be on a Wiktionary page for “triple,” “tripartite,” “threefold,” or “triplicate” {maybe I shouldn’t mention them… but whatever].)
“Ingraining” would seem to do for whatever “ingraination” means.
“Sarcasticon” is a nice, fun neologism, and its meaning,
“an emoticon indicating sarcasm,” is readily discernible. 🙂
(It’s also, randomly enough, the the name of a short-lived Australian black metal band [2002-3], a Twitter account with a mere 75 posts [2009-2013] , and a blog with a grand total of 10 posts [2007, 2009-10], but I don’t think any of them intended your meaning.)
Because I wasn’t aware of them, here are some sarcasticons I found:
:s
(or, according to Wikipedia, this is for “grimface” [added later, PAA!]):s)
;s
[Given the previous 3, presumably ;s) ]
:-7 [Tongue-in-cheek]
(^o) [A raised eyebrow]
“conversified”
I do think that it is true that one side can honestly perceive the other side as being an economic burden and this can not necessarily be conversified.
What would have been the problem with “the converse is not necessarily so?”
>>>>
The potential sarcasm was that you need an excuse to justify reading Halachic ManSo, Writersoul downplays her achievement – reading Halakhic Man – and you respond, sarcastically, that her statement is not a valid excuse – the true, opposite meaning being that her statement does not in fact lessen her achievement – is this correct?
but I left it up to the reader's interpretation.What was the potential non-sarcastic meaning? You had just given a compliment for the achievement, making it difficult to interpret as sincere a statement about needing an excuse for it.
Also my line contained a reference to a different thread, which you might not have gotten.Or maybe I just didn’t see that thread. Contrary to what somebody seems to believe, I am not a walking index of the CR. But given how short that line is, and the hint…
That’s right, I didn’t read much of that thread, and so I didn’t see your conversation, or this:
In general I troll around in the background when it comes to CR but for this question I specifically registered to post a reply.
I think you might accept the fact that I didn’t say anything about that as proof that I didn’t see it at the time. Something tells me Dee50 hadn’t been in the background for too long… 🙂
Let’s try your ability to get references:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/lollipops#post-540672
>>>>
By the way, there are now five threads with my name in the title,[...] three of which were changed by the Moderator(s)Yes, I’d noticed the trend.
P.S. This took forever to research and write – hope you enjoy it.
Oh, for anyone who follows that last link:
If you have a question as soon as you see my post,
I’ll offer you a big hint – scroll down a bit to see it.
If only there was a markup for spoilers…
(It’s about time I put some effort into living up
to my reputation for incomprehensibility…)
[It was too late to edit this into the last post
by the time I realized I’d forgotten to write it.]
q
w
e
r
t
y
u
i
o
p
a
s
d
f
g
h
j
k
l
z
x
c
v
b
n
m
It’s the wrong question.
“Ingraining” would seem to do for whatever “ingraination” means.
Except that the tense wouldn’t work.
What would have been the problem with “the converse is not necessarily so?”
It gives the sentence a whole different feel.
So, Writersoul downplays her achievement – reading Halakhic Man – and you respond, sarcastically, that her statement is not a valid excuse – the true, opposite meaning being that her statement does not in fact lessen her achievement – is this correct?… What was the potential non-sarcastic meaning? You had just given a compliment for the achievement, making it difficult to interpret as sincere a statement about needing an excuse for it.
Think of it as someone who is very smart but doesn’t want people to view him/her in such a light because it might be construed as nerdiness or something similar. Such a person will make “excuses” for his/her intellectual achievements. My statement could have been interpreted in a number of ways:
1) There is no need to be ashamed of an intellectual achievement.
2) The achievement is indeed shameful and a petty excuse won’t change that.
3)It was just stam a joke, sort of combining 1 and 2 while accepting neither. (I don’t know if this actually makes any sense.)
Or maybe I just didn’t see that thread. Contrary to what somebody seems to believe, I am not a walking index of the CR. But given how short that line is, and the hint…
You clearly did see it, as you quoted it in this thread and in http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/creative-writing-cr-users-in-real-life#post-541042 which leads me to believe that you did get the reference, even if you think you didn’t.
Nu, my rosh yeshiva used to say that the “torah tavlin” is actually talking about mussar.
So I quite think he argued substantively with what you’re citing from Rav Chaim
Your Rosh Yeshiva was quoting the Chofetz Chaim (M”B 1-4-12).
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14170&st=&pgnum=8
NOTE: I later realized that those with a certain degree of intelligence might actually have the right question after following the link, and my hint would then send them off track. I apologize if this happened to you, readers.
PAA:
You did not provide a definition for “triplical.”
—
“Ingraining” / “ingraination” :
Except that the tense wouldn’t work.
I think “ingraining” works as a makor in English.
Let’s see:
1. The ingraination of X into one’s nature
2. The ingraining of X into one’s nature
The only difference appears to me to be that only one form is officially valid.
—
Note this in the “sarcasticon” section: “[added later, PAA!]” after a link to the thread I would later claim to have been unaware of. (You did not mention this.)
—
“Conversified”
What would have been the problem with “the converse is not necessarily so?”
It gives the sentence a whole different feel.
How does “feel” come into a logical discussion? (While we’re talking about this, I think the likelihood of the kollel community seeing working people as an economic burden on them [even following the shita, which presumably exists and might be correct for all I know, that actually, the kollel community is the cause of the wealth of the workers, just as a person’s children act as conduits of blessing rather than taking money away from him – the Aron is “no’sei es nos’ov] is a lot smaller than “not necessarily” would imply.)
—
The Writersoul issue:
I think I did miss meaning 1),
and I do agree that it could have been 3), which may or
may not make sense – Let’s just forget about this part.
—
(Me: Contrary to what somebody seems to believe, I am not a walking index of the CR.)
(That was a reference. Did you get it? Probably… )
Or maybe I just didn’t see that thread.
You clearly did see it, as you quoted it
Let’s take another look.
Or maybe I just didn’t see that thread. […] But given how short that line is, and the hint…
[empty line]
That’s right, I didn’t read much of that thread
How could I say definitively that I hadn’t read much of the
thread if I didn’t know what it was? But how could I know
what it was if I hadn’t read it?
The answer lies here: “Given how short that line is, and the hint… [empty line]”
That line, and the following ellipsis and break, meant this:
Given how small the line is, and the hint, there’s not much it could be referencing. That thread should then be easy to find – and it was. The ellipsis and line are meant to be me
going off to find the thread, and returning to announce that indeed, I had not previously seen it.
I then attempted to prove it with a quote which involves a bad misunderstanding of a word, something I am sure you are aware I am opposed to.
(Later, having followed the link to “PAA vs. PBA” to see if there was anything new there, I came across a link to the second page of that thread, where I found new information about one
of the “sarcasticons” higher up in my [still-unposted] post. I added this information, noting that it had been added later, so as not to cause the illusion that I had already read that thread when I wrote that part of the post.)
You can also note that I did not ask for the location of the discussion you had referenced – because I knew it.
You have not addressed this either:
Let’s try your ability to get references:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/lollipops#post-540672
Randomex:
You are probably correct about “ingraining”.
I’m not really sure what you are trying to say about “conversified” though I do agree that “necessarily” may not have been a strong enough term, but I didn’t want to cause any fights at that particular moment.
Now I think we are both very confused about the whole sarcasticon reference, so let me just spell it all out. In the thread “Sem and Security”, I was having a debate/discussion with writersoul in which at one point she said that she obviously agrees with me. I responded by saying: “I’m glad I’m so convincing that you would OBVIOUSLY agree with me. (I wish I could properly convey sarcasm in writing. I refuse on principle to use those smiley faces.)” Then the discussion sort of became about emoticons. So when I said over here “insert sarcasticon if desired” it was a reference to the fact that I wouldn’t put emoticons in my writing.
I only just re-found this thread where I realized that I became the subject of the “Writersoul Issue,” which has basically nothing to do with me but just sounds so cool that I absolutely had to mention it.
And speaking of Halakhic Man, I just dared my friend to use the term “ontic dualism” in a research paper.
Anyway, carry on with what you were doing.
Well if nothing else, you gave me a good way to end my story, without having to make myself win or lose.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/creative-writing-cr-users-in-real-life#post-541101
The Rambam actually makes the same point as R’ Chaim. He was discussing how one should not go to either extreme but always take the middle path, and then he mentions that some people would go to extremes but ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??
And then he says that fools would copy them and gives a mashal to explain why that is foolish:
???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???????
I.e. what is good for the sick is not good for the healthy.
I’m not saying that the Rambam would agree to R’ Chaim about mussar (though I’m also not saying that he would disagree). I’m just pointing out that he used the same analogy.
I forgot to cite my quote from the Rambam. It’s from Shemoneh Perakim chapter 4. (And no, that’s not why I recommended it in the other thread.)
I’ll correct my own mistake before someone else discovers it:
the English phraseology was not the eloquence of R’ Soloveitchik but of Professor Lawrence Kaplan, the translator of Halakhic Man.
Dr. Kaplan did not translate Halakhic Man; he translated ??? ?????.
Randomex:
As per http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/good-jokes/page/34#post-545021 I am reponding.
The only thing I didn’t address was your reference. I assume it was your way of calling “troll”, perhaps based on http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/the-troll-slaying-brigade#post-428264 but it could very well be that I’m not getting it.
Excerpt from a tribute written about R’ Yosef Eliyahu Henkin by a talmid, printed by R’ Henkin’s grandson in B’nei Banim:
????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????”? ?????? ????”? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???”? ?????. ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???
It is interesting because this is in a sense the opposite of the sentiment expressed by R’ Soloveitchik mentioned above.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.