The alleviating of one’s existential angst with other people’s money phenom is a wondrous thing …

“By the way, do you know Molié¨re’s Misanthrope? There is in the first act a monologue by Alceste on how he loathes all of humanity — not entirely unlike some things you wrote — and then there is a response by Philinte which, far from presenting thoughtless optimism (of the “I want joy!” kind), allows for a phlegmatic, almost condescending acceptance of the way men are. A completely off-topic remark, but for some reason your post reminded me of that exchange and prompted me to reread it.

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/moliere/misanthrope/act1.html (English — the translation does not do it justice, but it is the only I could find)
http://www.toutmoliere.net/acte-1,405469.html (French)”

Kind of funny. Yes I had some vague recollection of the Misanthrope but it dated back to high school or some first year college humanities or history class.

If you had asked me on the spot, I would have missed by a century and mumbled something about Voltaire and wondered if he didn’t appear as some kind of Dr Pangloss in reverse in a play.

That said I almost didn’t write that last paragraph not only because it was a bit over the top, but also because I could not figure out how to limit the comment to the collectivist-minded without verbal acrobatics.

It’s easier to do in conversation.

You meet Joe Blow from Kokomo the local Demo party operative at a gathering and he becomes indignant when “one” says in response to any of their always fulminating claims:

“It’s not my moral obligation to haul so and so’s water.”

“What, do you hate people?” he shrieks.

“Not at all.”

“Don’t you care about people and their suffering?!” he demands, while waving his arm around the room.

“Sure I care about people. Some of them anyway.”

“What?”

“Yes, I care about the suffering of some people: like her, and her, and him. You, however, not so much. In fact, not at all.”

Effes them up every time.

I wonder how the ancestors of such hapless and dependent and cowardly people ever got across the Atlantic Ocean in the first place.

The world is full of good and decent people who make great associates and companions.

It’s just that the collectivist kind are so obnoxiously and unrelenting in their quest for attention and benefits.

“Pressing” as the English would have said in Moliere’s time.

Which goes to this:

Abraham and Sarah, the first Jewish couple

This need to be discussed?

I agree, the distinctions you bring up are important, which is why my analogy was imperfect.

My studies of Judaism were generalist, out of curiosity, and rather short-lived. For some reason I was more interested to learn about the legal technicalities than to explore the spirituality. I know little of the Talmdic discussions, and nothing of the criteria for which opinions and practices are ultimately binding and why, so I cannot comment on that (you brought that up in the other thread). Overall, I found Judaism to be a fascinating scholarly edifice, but there are only so many hours in a day, and many fascinating things to study in this world, so I gave it up – with a massive respect for the Jewish intellectual tradition, but also with a clear understanding that I do not belong there (regardless of any ancestresses that may “qualify” me), perhaps even with a greater understanding of some aspects Christianity, by contrast.

By the way, do you know Molié¨re’s Misanthrope? There is in the first act a monologue by Alceste on how he loathes all of humanity – not entirely unlike some things you wrote – and then there is a response by Philinte which, far from presenting thoughtless optimism (of the “I want joy!” kind), allows for a phlegmatic, almost condescending acceptance of the way men are. A completely off-topic remark, but for some reason your post reminded me of that exchange and prompted me to reread it.

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/moliere/misanthrope/act1.html (English – the translation does not do it justice, but it is the only I could find)
http://www.toutmoliere.net/acte-1,405469.html (French)

” waltj Says:
February 9th, 2015 at 12:16 pm

To get away from politics for a bit, another Jew-Not Jew was the composer Felix Mendelssohn, whose father renounced Judaism and had Felix and his siblings baptized as children into Reformed Christianity, i.e., Calvinism. Felix wasn’t especially religious at any time during his short life, but he remained both outwardly Christian, and proud of his rich Jewish heritage. He seemed to balance the contradictions of who he was better than many scholars, who continue to argue today about whether Mendelssohn should be considered a Christian or a Jew. To which I would say, “Yes. Now, sit back, relax, stop bickering, and enjoy his music”.”

I agree. Especially when the case is such that the so-called “identity” of any given “X” lays no unshakeable and unconditional, obligations of solidarity, or rules of recognition on someone else sharing that same supposed categorial identity.

japan Says:
February 9th, 2015 at 2:29 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/opinion/luhrmann-belief-is-the-least-part-of-faith.html

The link leads to:

“And that was not really what I saw after my years spending time in evangelical churches. I saw that people went to church to experience joy and to learn how to have more of it. These days I find that it is more helpful to think about faith as the questions people choose to focus on, rather than the propositions observers think they must hold. “

I’m sorry I brought this up. It is no mystery to me now how Obama got elected … twice.

I feel like saying something obscenely contemptuous about a fair portion of the human species, but I will refrain, and limit myself to confirming the author’s take on the fact situation, while vehemently disagreeing with her positive assessment of it.

As I think I have already mentioned here before, some years ago, while employed by others, I allowed myself to drift into an office conversation somehow involving religion. The women participants, were church going types, much older but socially aware and politically progressive types: Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Unitarians, whatever …

So, whatever the original subject might have been, they were also talking about church doctrines: and evaluating from the broad minded perspective.

I made an abstract reference to “truth” as the critical element upon which everything else should hinge.

That elicited a feminine snort or two.

I replied by saying something the effect of:

“What in the universe could possibly be more important than knowing what is true and what is not, and to understand reality as near to it really is as possible? It’s the only thing that gives anything else any meaning, moral or otherwise, at all. Why bother with an untrue religion”

Barb, replied,

“I don’t care about that. That isn’t what I want”

I was literally stupefied for a moment.

“What do you want more than to know the truth?”

“Joy! I want Joy!”

It probably occurred to me to say something about Socrates and the pig, but I hope I didn’t. They were near-elderly, and I don’t like the historical Socrates anyway, and it’s bad form to harrow polite old ladies with your philosophy education during an office chit chat session. So. I let it drop.

But I haven’t forgotten. Though I try to; because I hate what it tells me about the people you rub elbows with every day. As long as they are part of some effen thing, and feel inside and secure, they are happy. No matter what that thing is.

What a race … monkeys huddling in a pack picking ticks and slobbering in each others’ faces … when they are not secretly killing the young of the same others.

no stereotype there …