#Ethics of the Fathers

[wisdom-and-such]

“Who is wise? He who learns from every person, as is stated: ‘From all those who have taught me, I have gained wisdom.’

Who is valiant? He who subdued his [natural] inclination, as it is stated: ‘A patient person is better than a mighty man, and he who masters his spirit is better than one who conquers a city.’

Who is rich? He who is happy with his portion, as it is stated: ‘When you eat of the labor of your hands, you will be happy, and it will be good for you.’ ‘You will be happy’— in this world;’it will be good for you’ - in the World to Come.

Who is honored? He who honors others, as is stated: ‘I will honor those who honor me…’ — Ben Zoma The Ethics of the Fathers

[intrepid-travels]

[rubia-peregrinart]

one more that wouldn't leave my mind, sorry

[grimalditeuthis]

oh the tragedy of a podcast character with a daughter..............

[sneepity-snoop-snorpity-sneep]

me after watching the arcane update

also me:

[deborahdeshoftim5779]

Wise words

In our walks of life, a profound question often bubbles up, shaking our innate sense of knowing. "Who am I to judge another when I myself walk imperfectly?" This question is not just a philosophical inquiry, but a whisper of humility, a humbling echo of our shared humanity that compels us to reassess our perspectives.

In the divine wisdom of the Torah, we learn, "Do not judge your fellow until you have stood in his place." (Pirkei Avot 2:4) The surface meaning of this teaching appears quite straightforward. Let’s try to inpack it a bit, though.

What does it mean to 'stand in his place'? Is it possible to fully grasp the countless complexities that shape another person's life—their joys and their trials, their dreams and their fears, their strengths and their weaknesses?

We can never wholly perceive the intricate matrix of experiences that constitute another's life. Yet, this should not engender a sense of hopelessness, but rather a profound reverence for the unfathomable depth of each person's existence. This is an invitation to embrace empathy, to open our hearts to the understanding that every soul carries a unique story written in the divine language of life's trials and triumphs.

Now, let's turn our gaze inward. "I myself walk imperfectly." Our own imperfections can feel like burdens, like shadows that chase us on our journey. Yet, the Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Hasidism, taught us that our perceived imperfections are, in fact, divine sparks concealed in the materiality of our existence. These sparks are not stumbling blocks but stepping stones on our path to growth, self-discovery, and ultimately, to our Creator.

Thus, our own imperfections remind us of our shared human condition - an existence marked by growth, struggle, triumph, and learning. The Torah doesn't demand perfection from us, but growth. When we see our own imperfections not as flaws but as opportunities for growth, we develop a compassionate lens towards others' imperfections as well.

Judgment, then, transforms from a weapon to a tool - not to belittle or shame, but to empathize and understand, to connect and uplift. Judgment can become a bridge connecting our souls, a conduit for love and understanding in the tapestry of our shared humanity.

So, I leave you with this thought today: In the theater of life, we are all actors, each playing our unique roles, wrestling with our scripts, often improvising, making mistakes, and learning. When we shift from being critics in the audience to fellow actors on the stage, we trade judgment for empathy, isolation for connection, and self-righteousness for humility.

So, as we step into the new week, let's strive to replace judgment with understanding, compassion, and respect for our shared, beautiful, imperfect journey.

Shavua Tov. May it be a week of empathy, connection, and shared growth.

Rabbi Yisroel Bernath

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

[bitchapalooza]

Thinking about how Zoro may have mixed and complicated feelings about Koushirou because on one hand that’s his sensei and he was taught to respect his sensei, but on the other hand he caused his own daughter, Zoro’s best friend, so much pain and constantly berated her to her face about how she’ll never be strong like the boys nor will she ever inherit the dojo. Like. Zoro cannot have one straight forward opinion on this man, he HAS to have some back and forth opinions on this guy I mean come on!

[local-redhead-bookworm]

If you somehow managed to watch any of Mobile Suit Gundam and think it was apolitical, I am going to tape your eyes open and force you to rewatch it

[boyfridged]

i’ve been thinking a lot about what is so unique and appealing about 80s robin jay’s moral standing that got completely lost in plot later on. and i think a huge part of it is that in a genre so focused on crime-fighting, his motivations and approach don’t focus on the category of crime at all. in fact, he doesn’t seem to believe in any moral dogma; and it’s not motivated by nihilism, but rather his open-heartedness and relational ethical outlook.

we first meet (post-crisis) jay when he is stealing. when confronted about his actions by bruce he’s confident that he didn’t do anything wrong – he’s not apologetic, he doesn’t seem to think that he has morally failed on any account. later on, when confronted by batman again, jay says that he’s no “crook.” at this point, the reader might assume that jay has no concept of wrong-doing, or that stealing is just not one of the deeds that he considers wrong-doing. yet, later on we see jay so intent on stopping ma gunn and her students, refusing to be implicit in their actions. there are, of course, lots of reasons for which we can assume he was against stealing in this specific instance (an authority figure being involved, the target, the motivations, the school itself being an abusive environment etc.), but what we gather is that jay has an extremely strong sense of justice and is committed to moral duty. that's all typical for characters in superhero comics, isn't it? however, what remains distinctive is that this moral duty is not dictated by any dogma – he trusts his moral instincts. this attitude – his distrust toward power structures, confidence in his moral compass, and situational approach, is something that is maintained throughout his robin run. it is also evident in how he evaluates other people – we never see him condemning his parents, for example, and that includes willis, who was a petty criminal. i think from there arises the potential for a rift between bruce and jay that could be, have jay lived, far more utilised in batman comics than it was within his short robin run.

after all, while bruce’s approach is often called a ‘philosophy of love and care,’ he doesn’t ascribe to the ethics of care [eoc] (as defined in modern scholarship btw) in the same way that jay does. ethics of care ‘deny that morality consists in obedience to a universal law’ and focus on the ideals of caring for other people and non-institutionalized justice. bruce, while obviously caring, is still bound by his belief in the legal system and deontological norms. he is benevolent, but he is also ultimately morally committed to the idea of a legal system and thus frames criminals as failing to meet these moral (legal-adjacent) standards (even when he recognizes it is a result of their circumstances). in other words, he might think that a criminal is a good person despite leading a life of crime. meanwhile, for jay there is no despite; jay doesn't think that engaging in crime says anything about a person's moral personality at all. morality, for him, is more of an emotional practice, grounded in empathy and the question of what he can do for people ‘here and now.’ he doesn’t ascribe to maxims nor utilitarian calculations. for jay, in morality, there’s no place for impartiality that bruce believes in; moral decisions are embedded within a net of interpersonal relationships and social structures that cannot be generalised like the law or even a “moral code” does it. it’s all about responsiveness. 

to sum up, jay's moral compass is relative and passionate in a way that doesn't fit batman's philosophy. this is mostly because bruce wants to avoid the sort of arbitrariness that seems to guide eoc. also, both for vigilantism, and jay, eoc poses a challenge in the sense that it doesn't create a certain 'intellectualised' distance from both the victims and the perpetrators; there's no proximity in the judgment; it's emotional.

all of this is of course hardly relevant post-2004. there might be minimal space for accommodating some of it within the canon progression (for example, the fact that eoc typically emphasises the responsibility that comes with pre-existing familial relationships and allows for prioritizing them, as well as the flexibility regarding moral deliberations), but the utilitarian framework and the question of stopping the crime vs controlling the underworld is not something that can be easily reconciled with jay’s previous lack of interest in labeling crime. 

[athousandmorningss]

Met bf's family for the second time last night. It includes more extended family members; a houseful of dogs; a rousing game of Cornhole in which his father kept encouraging me over and over to put more arch in it, put more arch in it! It's a family, and so there are fucked up dynamics abound (particularly between my man and his mother), but I still feel this overwhelmed feeling of yearning, of sadness, that I do not have my own. It all kinda spilled over after one of the dogs bit me on the face (I believe it was largely in part my fault), which prompted me to cry in front of the family and all the way home.

I'm nursing the ache of being an orphan. I forget what my parent's voices sound like. I have two sisters but must carry on as if they don't exist, for my own sanity. I am without family and most days I am able to move through that with a sense of resiliency. Last night encouraged me to look at the wound.

[bitchthefuck1]

The thing is that Kendall is Logan but Roman is Logan except Roman is also Rose but Shiv is Rose except Shiv is also Ewan but Kendall is Ewan. Hope this helps.

[onlymollygibson]

I'm not saying Katniss Everdeen (The Hunger Games) and John Thornton (North and South) are the same person, but I'm also not not saying it, ya know?

[ehh-is-the-name]

It's past 11 on a school night and I'm fucking crying over robot sentience.

I could never understand what it would feel like to be created with the intent to kill and maim. Maybe, the intent to work and be worked, but not kill and maim.

I will never understand what it's like to be created with the intention of being a product for the masses, either. I think, I hope, I beg, no one does.

I will never ever be able to fully comprehend why hours of people's work, time, and money would be put into formulating my sentience only for me to be seen as disposable. Even if I could be improved, even if I were "defective", there is no reasonable justification for giving me emotions only to dismiss them by pushing me as a product for a year before starting anew.

It's... It's cruel, to the machines. Sentient or not, it's cruel. Though, I guess we are cruel.

[ink-wells-and-feathers]

Nick waits and waits for something he knows is pointless

[russell-crowe]

And I know if I come up with an idea in the moment when the cameras are rolling, he's watching me and he will see where I'm going and he will get on that radio and say: [imitates Ridley] "Camera four, right, move right, get that, get back, get that. Push in, push in, push in. Right, thank you." And I know he'll do that because he's on it all the time. So there's that sort of thing which is just simply a trust. But he hasn't asked me to do any other movies after this one. So it may well be five it is and five it stays.

Russell Crowe on working together with Ridley Scott