From The Blog

E-mail Print PDF

I spend too little time on Facebook to really care, but Frank Bruni’s reaction to the debate on the algorithm that determines popular trends is instructive.  Facebook representatives claim that the lead stories are determined by popularity alone and popularity is determined by numbers.  The more Facebook users click on a topic, the higher that topic will rank.  However, critics claim that a cavil of Facebook staff actually manipulate the system so that what they consider trend-worthy (read: liberal political views) is ranked higher than numbers alone demand.  Frank Bruni, however, sees this entire debate as a red herring.  What Facebook users are most interested in is not how trends are ranked but in ensuring that only their cherished views are shared.  To Bruni, despite Western civilization’s technological advances, we still remain a tribal society.  We want to exclude others we don’t “Like.”

Social psychologist and New York University professor Jonathan Haidt describes this kind of tribalism is his 2012 best selling book entitled The Righteous Mind.  Culturally, people want to spend more time with people like themselves and less time with people who are different.  On his view, Facebook amplifies a tendency that already exists.  Bruni goes further.  His take on the Internet in general is that people gravitate towards views they prefer and seek to have them validated – not questioned – by others.  Rather than a source for contrary information that would help refine our views and test our opinions, people are using social media to confirm their views and immediately condemn those who stray from the accepted truth.  A similar pattern has emerged in the hallowed halls of universities where in the name of micro-aggression students can censor contrarian ideas.  Those who fail to conform to the dogma of the left-wing political agenda are open to condemnation or worse.  Our tribalism has generated a program of “illiberal arts” on our college campuses.

So rather than spend time on Facebook, I prefer to spend time studying Talmud where the most outlandish opinions are voiced and not just tolerated but seriously discussed.  The give and take of Talmudic passage demonstrates that no opinion is sacrosanct and the most compelling opinion is that which stands up to the most intense scrutiny.  The purpose of studying Talmud is not to find confirmation for what you hold to be true but to examine whether that which is thought to be correct actually is.  Almost ironically, Talmud study that is held to be so parochial is actually more pluralistic than Facebook.

  

E-mail Print PDF

During the course of Moses’ final discourse to the people Israel, he admonishes them to “remember the whole way” (Deuteronomy 8:2).  The inclusion of the Hebrew word “kol” (all) serves to emphasize the importance of total recall and not just selective memory.  In April 1991 the Mirer Yeshivah exemplified precisely this superior kind of memory.

Read more...
E-mail Print PDF

Commenting on Deuteronomy 6:18, Nahmanides (1194 – 1270) writes that doing “that which is right and good refers to compromise and going beyond the requirement of the letter of the law.  The intent of this is as follows: At first [Moses] stated that you are to keep Hid statutes and His testimonies which He commanded you, and now he is stating that even where He has not commanded you, give thought, as well to do what is right and good in His eyes, for He loves the good and the right.  Now this is a great principle, for it is impossible to mention in the Torah all aspects of man’s conduct with his neighbors and friends, and all his various transactions, and the ordinances of all societies and countries.  But since He mentioned many of them…he reverted to state in a general way that, in all matters, one should do what is good and right, including even compromise and, going beyond the letter of the law…Thus [a person must seek to refine his behavior] in every form of activity until he is worthy of being called ‘good and upright.’”

Read more...
E-mail Print PDF

Unlike land-based animals and sea creatures, the Torah (Deuteronomy 14:11-18) does not give any physical signs for determining which birds are suitable for Jews to eat.  While the Talmud infers that from the list of kosher birds all predatory and scavenging birds are forbidden and all domesticated birds are permitted, the question of why birds alone are not categorized by common physical characteristics still remains.   Perhaps an answer may be found from what we can learn from one particular bird: the parrot.

Read more...

Words to live by

 

If your dreams do not scare you, they are not big enough.

-  Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President of Liberia