רבנים

Not to belittle your writing in any way God forbid (oops, I mean, Whoever forbid) but to sort of balance the bias in your reportage it would be well worth mentioning that,
A)We sould hardly expect a democratic system in those days
B) See in Tanach how Shmuel was trying to persuade the people against instituting monarchy to no avail
C)Democracy is not a good system in a completely illiterate society (it would be mob rule i.e. an illiterate mob with its propensity to be swayed back an forth with just a little bit of oratorical skill [typical mob physchology])FYI that is the reason for the electoral system in the US.
D)Remember this mind boggling factoid, MOSHE DID NOT MAKE A MONARCHIAL DYNASTY FOR HIMSELF it is probably without precedent and hard to find till very much later in history (even to this very day George Bush senior tries to get his sons in high government)
But you say he did give it to his brother and to his tribe, that takes us to my next post

When you are CEO of a public company and are about to hire someone for a top position the first thing you would do is look around you, you look at the people you know, at the people you would trust, who would stand by your side when decisions need to be made and not sway from your vision etc.(yes YOUR vision, as that vision is what made this whole company what it is and you're not about to allow it to go down the drain. Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google fame wouldnt take somebody who is corporate minded, or nowadays I should say Wall street minded)
In a world where likemindness and loyalty is based along tribal line and going against your tribe is deemed traitorous it is very important to take people from you own tribe.
So it seems that when Moshe has a brother who can nicely fit the bill he should take him at once.

We in the Western culture are so repulsed by nepotism (rightfully so due to its history of abuse) that we overlook its merits

I am not so convinced if Moshe offered me the job that I would pounce on it with glee. There are some very strong strings attached namely NO LAND, the only means of livelihood in those days was denied from them and believe me my friend that in itself is enought to dampen anyones excitement for this job (to this very day someone who owns enough land in England gets the honorary title Sir [unconfirmed].

All in all it seems to me that on a "fairness test" Moshe would score very high.

as i understand it; a concept if it comes from far away, we can more apriciate its lesson.

if the concept was said by somebody in our generation the it looses its essence.

therefore it is a good idea to put our lessons in far away of time like this we dont focus on the authers themselves.

There is this famous story of a baal darshan with only one Derosha in his repertoire a derosha on parshas Korach, so he always took along his dog (?? can't help it that's how the story goes) who would start barking, the baal darshan would yell at the dog to shut up saying "shut up or you'll have a Misa Meshuna like Korach" then he would add "nu az men redt shoin fin Korach" I'll say something on that parsha.
In this case Korach was mentioned a lot here so I think it's not so out of place to paste here an interesting point I saw on that Parsha.

It strikes me a bit strange; the Egyptians didn't go for the whole show. The Amalakites neither but stranger than strange even the Israelites didn't dig it. Right after this awe inspiring event they are back to ''eleh elokecho yisroel'' they ''saw'' it and weren't convinced but 3,000 years later we are supposed to be convinced, nice try.

Oh, and you know when the rebellion finally got shelved listen to this,
Korach and Company were miraculously punished by earthquakes yet the very next day the people are back at the revolt only to be appeased by a miracle in which the evidence was safeguarded by hardly an unbiased party namely Moshe himself. Lo and behold the next day Moshe comes in to the Ohel Moad and ''finds'' the evidence in his favor [remember only he had access to the Ohel Moed] so he quickly takes it out and shows it to all, everyone is duly impressed so much so that it is to be kept as an everlasting proof to eradicate revolutionary thoughts from ever cropping up again. Human gullibility at its best.

Acher,‎

I’m here to congratulate you for being as brave and courageous as publishing this blog. ‎It is really much needed in our illiterate and confused society. I can foresee a major ‎revolution in the not-so-distant future, and your blog has a good chance of contributing ‎to its development. ‎

I must add, however, that your stuff really appeals only to the small fraction of ‎thinking/philosophically-inclined people within our cradle. The vast majority, it seems, are ‎busy with far simpler issues: their day-to-day miseries of life in our rotten, ignorant, and ‎cruel community. ‎

I wish you would add a feature in the comments section that would allow people like ‎me, who have no blog of their own, to comment non-anonymously without having to ‎sign in.‎

Regards,‎
Sapter

Hey Sapter,
I second the motion on having a "comments section" to air out more "mundane" issues although we shouldn't lose the intellectual stuff
Apikores did write someplace that he allows his blog to be used for this kind of purpose, so if you come up with a plan to make it user freindly maybe he will make it happen. (then again if we want something why are we asking him to do the work hmmm?)

About our "cruel, backward,... society" I'm not convinced, there are so many great aspects in our society that all in all I don't think we can label it cruel. To be sure I certainly agree that there is tremendous room for improvment as is the case in any society, yet even in it's current situation it's a lot better than most secular societies which have no sense of community responsibility. It's easy to heap scorn on the place and culture you grew up but the trick is to neutralize the natural tendency of rebeliousness against the constraints which that society has shackled you and look at the broad picture.

Dearest Apikores, WE WANT MORE!!!!

Dearest Commenter,‎

The decision of whether or not this blog should be used for ‘mundane’ issues lies solely in ‎Acher’s hands. I just made a remark saying that although I am personally pleased with his ‎writings, many other people in our community may find his work difficult to comprehend ‎due to their ignorance and lack of education. As Acher himself pointed out in one ‎place, his goal with this blog is to enlighten members of our society in general and ‎particularly to open them to the idea of diversity, the idea of color vs. black & white, and ‎openness vs. narrow-mindedness. For all this to happen, a milder version with simpler ‎issues may be needed. ‎

You may not be ‘convinced’ in the cruelty of our society but many others, including me, ‎are. I described our community as ‘rotten, ignorant, and cruel’. I truly believe the general ‎condition in the community to be as such, but you disagreed on only one adjective out ‎of three, thus implying your agreement on the remaining two. You defend our ‎community by pointing out its unity, concern, and responsibility for each of its members, ‎yet many in the community think of it as a rather cruel thing to be constantly observed. ‎

I would be happy to look at the ‘broad picture’, but I see none. In fact, there is no ‎picture at all. You demonstrate our community to be just another typical community, ‎and as every other community ours too has room to improve. In my opinion however, ‎ours can’t even be called a community; a communistic regime is what I would call it. A ‎people displeased and fed-up with a rotten regime are not just in a ‘natural tendency of ‎rebelliousness against the constraints which that society has shackled’. ‎

I am always open for dialogue, and would be happy to be corrected and admit to any ‎foolishness or mistake that I may have made on my part‎

Quote: “Only the extremely ignorant or the extremely intelligent can resist change” — ‎Socrates

Fondly,‎
Sapter

איך פארשטיי נישט וויאזוי ס'מעגליך צו זיין נישט-אנאנים אן זיך איינצושרייבן אויף עפעס א וועג. וואס וועט גאראנטירן אז א צווייטער זאל נישט ניצן דיין נאמען?

מ'קען זיך סתם איינשרייבן ביי בלאגער אפילו מ'שרייבט נישט א בלאג, אזוי ווי אנדערע האבן געטוהן. ס'דאערט דריי מינוט זיך איינצושרייבן (ס'איז אימזינסט) און דערנאך דאערט 15 סעקונדעס זיך אריינצושרייבן יעדעס מאל.

אז די עפענסט שוין יא אן אייגענעם אקאונט וואלט איך דיר גע'עצה'ט יא צו שרייבן אן אייגענע בלאג וואו ד'עסט קענען טוהן אסאך מער זאכן. ס'זייער פשוט, זיי האבן פארטיג אויסגעשטעלטע טעמפלעטס, די קלויבסט וועלעכע ס'געפעלט דיך די בעסטע, און קענסט זיך גראד נעמען שרייבן. (מיין אויסשטעל האב איך גענומען פארטיג פון זיי, איך האב עס נאר אביסל ארומגעטוישט.) אסאך מענטשן קוקען נישט אין די קאמענטארן, און אז איך לייג א לינק צו דיין בלאג איז עס די זעלבע נאנט צו די ליינער ווי ווען ס'איז אין א קאמענט. איך גלייב אז ס'איז טאקע דא אלע מינע מענטשן מיט פארשידענע אינטערעסן און הנאות, און אז ס'דא באזונדערע בלאגס פאר א יעדען טעמע איז עס אסאך שענער ארגאניזירט און יעדער ווייסט וואו צו גיין לויט זיין געשמאק און זיין יעצטיגע גוסטע.

ס'קאסט נישט קיין געלט צו עפענען א בלאג.

Dearest Sapter,
First off let me commend you on your writing skills, I’m truly impressed with your eloquence and style. My assumption on the schooling you had makes it all the more amazing.
As with any issue where comparing different lifestyles or cultures come into play (or comparing anything for that matter) the prudent approach is to be wary of demeaning the ones you know out of hand and favoring the glamorous unknown.
Now by “rotten, ignorant, and cruel” you surely mean it in a relative sense for you would agree that human nature being what it is you’ll always find some rotten etc. aspects in any society, so the question here is of degree, is our society more or less rotten, ignorant, and cruel than the majority of societies out there.
To answer that question intelligently we have to have a clear picture of the other societies and yes also have a clearer unbiased picture of our own society. It is human nature after all to get very cozy and comfy with the good stuff in ones life to the extent of forgetting of their existence. The only things that stand out in ones mind are the negative aspects for after all those are the outstanding issues i.e. the ones that need to be “taken care of”, the aspects that are good needn’t be thought about they’re all taken care of so why put any thought in that direction.
Let be make one point very clear, I am very far from condoning our society it’s more about playing devil’s advocate that pushes me to take the above stance.
What needs to be done is
1- Check out bloggers from other societies (modern orthodox, or totally secular ones) and see the gripes there
2- Envision an ideal society a la Plato’s Republic or More’s Utopia and see how far are we from that ideal.

BTW, Plato writes in his Republic that in order to keep society in its proper place it’s important to create myths about gods etc. so that the general populace who don’t understand the philosophical necessity behind the framework shouldn’t gripe and rebel against the order of things, they will know that this is God’s will etc.
Sorry for the long post.
Sincerely ……..

Greetings,‎

Your suggestion of envisioning ‘an ideal society à la Plato’s Republic or More’s Utopia’ is ‎a very good one. Anybody who reads ancient texts and goes through the great theories ‎presented there will slowly start perceiving the world and its populace with different eyes ‎then before. (I noticed this also in another post where you asked Acher the question if he ‎has another value-system to replace the current one) There is a slight problem, however, ‎with your suggestion, and that is that you don’t have where to begin. You first have to ‎crack down the old system and than, if you are in a position of power/leadership, you ‎can start envisioning a peculiar theory of a perfect society.‎

As to your notion on comparing our society to others through picturing both in a clear ‎and unbiased way, you again suggest something that is literally correct but materially ‎impossible. I am not comparing societies in a sense of which society deserves the ‘best ‎society of the year award’, but rather which society pleases me and my fellow friends ‎and loved ones. What determines the existence of those ‘cozy’ and ‘comfy’ things if not ‎my awareness of them? If I don’t appreciate those ‘hidden good things’ then they simply ‎don’t exist. What makes them ‘good’ if not my approval and appreciation of them? ‎

The idea of creating ‘myths of gods so that the general populace shouldn’t rebel’ is a ‎very old and known one and it was adopted by many other thinkers as well (Aristotle, St. ‎Augustine, Machiavelli, Marx). The theory basically says that in order to keep the society ‎calm and united you need to give the masses something to chew on. It doesn’t ‎necessarily need to be a myth about god. It may just as well be about Britney Spears, ‎Alfred Hitchcock, gay rights, or the war in Iraq.‎

Sorry for my late reply.‎

Regards,‎
Sapter

PS. I am currently reading Plato’s Phaedo and am going to read the Republic next. In ‎addition to the Republic and Utopia, I would recommend you to read Aristotle’s The ‎Politics, Machiavelli’s The Prince, George Orwell (anything he ever wrote), and Marx’s ‎Manifesto. ‎

Why is it that in religious circles the ''earlier ones'' Rishoninm, are put on a pedestal, are glorified, their opinions are adhered to, strongly, but in secular circles they aren't?
When I say 'religious circles' I mean all religions, Christians and Moslems too.
I don't mean to say that secular scientists don't respect previous generations of scientists, Philosophers, etc. it's just that they don't add to their respect or to the truth of their opinions simply because they happened to be born a hundred or a thousand years ago.

I think it's due to the following,
Take a young person at the time when his/her intellectual capacity starts maturing, it would be perfectly reasonable for him to listen to people who have already philosophized for many years, i.e. people older than him, and he should give more credence to their theories than to his own. So he starts out his intellectual journey with the concept that these people [those older than him] know more than him. But there should come a point in his life that he should realize that he surpassed some of them and has leveled with others.
Yet if he is in an authoritarian society where individuality of thought is frowned upon, where questioning things is a sickness of the mind, he will never reach that second step, for how will he take it upon himself to decide that this or that particular sage [i.e. somebody 30 years older than him] who a little while ago he listened to his every word (and rightfully so, after all he was just starting out) is not as deep a thinker as himself.
So, being a product of his society he will never make that gutsy move and he will continue being submissive to those ''older and smarter people''.

And if God willing he will become a lecturer/sage himself, he will always defer to his elders [who have already died by now and by them not being around he won't be confronted with all their human frailty, and he'll choose to remember only their greatness which in turn will give them an even greater authority] so that his pupils will already have a hierarchy of three levels, themselves in the lowest rung, their teacher, one above, and their teachers teacher at the highest level.
And so this cycle continues on and on.

The same goes for the aura of holiness that every generation gives to its predecessor.
If I am raised and taught that these ''great people of our generation'' are holier than me and than all my peers, [which is probably true for the first years of maturity] then I will never have the Chutzpa to question it when its truth isn't valid anymore. So a hierarchy will be born here too, and will be based very strongly on the date of birth.

In a non-authoritarian society were questioning the thoughts and dogmas that you started out with, are perfectly ok. That ''gutsy'' move will follow sooner or later, so that the whole chain reaction is nipped in the bud.

This is not to say that there are no Gedolim today or in the past to whom we should defer entirely to their holiness and opinions, its just that the general hierarchy based on D.O.B. (date of birth or date of death) clearly lacks validity.