popa_bar_abba

Great idea! Let’s make this thread about kaballah that we will make up and will be CR specific.

But let’s make it Harry Potter theme so as not to make fun of real kaballah.

Joseph is Voldermort. When you engage his trolls, it creates dark power. When we troll him, it makes red sparks which come from harry’s wand.

You did? Turning it into a shidduch thread is answering seriously?

Anyway, I like squeak’s answer best.

Don’t worry about Columbia/NYU until you have your 170 LSAT score.

Who said anything about means?

Regular BBQ or Hot Stuff?

Not Krunchers?

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/what-not-to-share-with-your-spouse#post-474911

Yes, I do

As for law schools differentiating which Beis Medrash is better than another, I doubt that they do that, mostly because it is hard to measure.

Why? They could have a professor in the school who learned in yeshiva and knows the difference. Why would they not ask him to look at the transcripts and see if he can stereotype what kind of learner you are?

She obviously did not attend Beis Yaakov Sdom, or she wouldn’t have this problem.

Excellent googling.

And now you can easily notice how your application to our discussion didn’t make any sense.

PopabarAbba: I did not pursue the pedantic discussion whether opposition to Slifkin was political or not, because ,indeed , it was pedantic and not substantial. I said clearly that Slifkin’s attackers believe in what they say but that it has a political purpose too. As I wrote, if you can discredit any non-talmudic and non-traditional sources, then all that leaves you is a life of kollel, which is blatantly political as it pertains to jobs, positions,etc.

I don’t think you know what political means…

And you’re the one who started the discussion, so it rings a little hollow that you recuse yourself from it when challenged, by calling it “pedantic”.

Also, I don’t think you know what pedantic means…

PBA: You may have a point but we are not discussing Slifkin as an individual (at least, we shouldn’t be). We are discussing the Hashkafic movement that he epitomizes. Thus, defects in his formulation of the Hashkafa do not delegitimize what super-rationalism actually is.

Actually, I was discussing him as a person. That certainly could explain our differences. I’m not precisely sure how this discussion started, and it’s hard to track it due to some moderator moving it, but I think it had to do with Slifkin speaking at HIR despite his not being a Baptist singer. Then, ROB said that the opposition to Slifkin was political, but ultimately seems to have backed down from that since he couldn’t explain what side benefits there were besides for discrediting the ideas in question which is the per se definition of apolitical. But meanwhile, Ben Levi started hitting at Slifkin directly to show that there are good reasons to be opposed to his ideas. Thus, the question at hand was Slifkin’s own ideas, rather than those of others in his “camp”.

But as it happens, your recent characterization is not how I read the rest of the rationalists either. They seem to quite conclusively determine that singular rishonim are correct based on their understanding of the world. It seems the height of arrogance to machria between rishonim, on the assumption that everything they observe about the world is correct.

And my point was that Ikkarei Emunah are not the place for glib points to be made.

Ok. I’m not sure I agree, but I’ll consider it.

PBA: Because, once again, you are misrepresenting his opinion. He does not say that only his rationalists are right and that the others are wrong. He accepts the mystical Shittos as a valid and important part of our Mesorah. He just doesn’t think that they are Pashut P’shat. There is a huge difference there. You see it when you learn any Sugya. Some Rishonim have Dachuk Shittos. We don’t treat them with any less respect or dismiss them. But when discussing the Sugya we have to point out the Kashyas and why we think they are Kashyas. And sometimes we are forced to say that we cannot, in good faith, figure out how this Rishon read the Gemaras. It’s the same thing here.

Look, Slifkin is certainly not bound by your characterizations of him, but what you are saying here is very different from what you were saying before. And more importantly, that isn’t how I read slifkin (and yes, yes, of course I have read him).

To your first paragraph, you know that you are just being glib. You really find it entirely untenable to believe that Slifkin’s super-rationalism isn’t Kefira.

No, of course I don’t. And of course I couldn’t possibly.

But would it really be any more surprising if I did, than Slifkin’s deciding based on what he observes about the world which rishonim are right and which are wrong? And him finding it impossible to believe that there may be things about the world which he doesn’t understand?

That’s the whole point I was trying to make. Glibly.