thezohar:

aimmyarrowshigh:

alex51324:

closet-keys:

the thing I really like about The Good Place is that it thematically revolves around ethics and what makes a person good or bad (both in the sense of– how do we define good and bad, and in the sense of–what aspects of someone’s formative environment and social group influence how they will treat other people). 

and the conclusion that the show comes to over and over is both that it is possible to become a better person, and because it’s possible we owe it to each other to keep trying to be better– for all eternity if we must

there’s no end to it, and (should I make a prediction) no real “good place” where you’ve gotten to the finish line and “won” at being a good person. it’s an eternal commitment to other people. 

you create your own good place, because whether you’re in a good place or a bad place is defined by how people treat each other. when your community has collectively learned to respect, value, and help each other, you experience the peace and support that you might have once imagined in the abstract being awarded to the truly “good” 

Sartre famously said that the Bad Place is other people.  The Good Place argues that the Good Place is, too.  

That’s because Mike Schur is Jewish.

The underlying theme of all of his shows is essentially chesed (חֶסֶד), which basically translates to loving-kindness. But not just like, loving kindness? But a DUTY to loving-kindness, a duty to tikkun olam, or repairing the world through acts of genuine chesed.

Tahani was committed to good works, but not out of a commitment to loving-kindness. Not for others and, tbh, not for herself, since she spent her whole life feeling “less” than Kamilah. To love others as yourself, you have to love yourself.

Similarly, Chidi was desperately unkind and unloving to himself, and thus denied the *whole world* loving-kindness. TGP shows this in the way Chidi’s thought- and behavior patterns that hurt him throughout his life were also inherently harming the people around him who loved him.

Eleanor purposely acted against loving-kindness, to the point where seeing others engaged in it made her angry.

Jason, honestly, had a very kind and loving soul, but his actions caused harm to others (whether that was his intention or not, and honestly it seems like he mostly just didn’t understand the impact of his choices a lot of the time… but harm is harm).

“You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist from it,” “learn to do good,” etc. I’m not saying that TGP ~is Jewish, because it’s not, but I AM saying that you can see Schur’s ethical framework in his art, and trying to look at any of his shows through a Christian lens is going to skew them.

Also the whole thing where there’s not really a heaven nor a hell, and that it seems like in The Good Place’s eschatology, actions are ultimately judged solely by the impact they have on others – which I feel like was also one of the main themes of Parks & Rec, and is wrestled with in B99. The highest ethical order is chesed.

Ok now I’m struck by the fact that there’s 4 main humans in this show and for some reason my brain immediately went to the 4 children from the Passover Seder and it fits so well?

Like obvs Chidi seems the choice for the wise and Eleanor fits the wicked, and it’s tempting to say Jason is the ignorant child, but then I realized he spent much of S1 in silence and is the child who cannot ask. Which leaves Tahani as the ignorant child which imo fits as well.

The dissertation is here!

grevgrev:

allthingslinguistic:

tumblinguistics:

I finally managed to get hold of a copy of my dissertation! You can read it on Google Docs HERE. Please feel free to download and cite the work if it helps you with your own studies. 🙂

You guys, this is 70 pages of analysis of tumblr language and you should probably read it. I know I’m going to.

I’m sold on the strength of the table of contents alone

flowland-180:

emoyouth:

entanglingbriars:

List of sins that God will damn you for in the Hebrew Bible

  • none
  • literally none
  • damnation is not a concept in the Hebrew Scriptures

»Judaism has no word for sin. […] Judaism has the concept of חטא chet. Although it is sometimes conveniently but incorrectly translated as sin, chet means to ›miss the mark‹ – to be heading for the ›bull’s-eye‹ of moral and ethical behavior but to veer off course, to make a mistake. The Jewish ›bull’s-eye‹ is the proper observance of the mitzvot – the ethical and ritual commands of God. So chet means to ›transgress the mitzvot‹ , to fail to correctly or completely fulfill God’s precepts and commandments.
The Hebrew word for repentance is תשובה t’shuvah, which means ›to return‹ – to come back to the path leading to the ›bull’s-eye‹ of following God’s commands.«

Rabbi Wayne D. Dosick: Living Judaism. The Complete Guide to Jewish Belief, Tradition, and Practice

http://www.aish.com/h/hh/gar/atonement/48954551.html? “This is the idea of teshuva. Teshuva literally means “return.” When we “do teshuva,” we examine our ways, identify those areas where we are losing ground, and “return” to our own previous state of spiritual purity. And in the process, we “return” to our connection with the Almighty as well.

The process of teshuva involves the following four steps:

Step 1 – Regret. Realize the extent of the damage and feel sincere regret.

Step 2 – Cessation. Immediately stop the harmful action.

Step 3 – Confession. Articulate the mistake and ask for forgiveness.

Step 4 – Resolution. Make a firm commitment not to repeat it in the future.“

“How should we feel upon recognizing a mistake? Should we feel guilty, worthless and bad? No! “Guilt” is the negative emotion saying that “I am bad.” Whereas “regret” is the positive acknowledgement that while my essence remains pure, I have failed to live up to my potential.“

[source:

subfunctions:

aloy the non-believer mythologizing elisabet and having elisabet come to fill the space where all-mother would have resided is a really good and subtle bit of characterization. not quite as obvious as elisabet filling the ‘mother’ void for aloy, but still indirectly present, because ‘mother’ and ‘all-mother’ are deeply intertwined for the nora, and aloy is more nora than she thinks.

  • aloy holds on to the idea of meeting elisabet until the very last second, far past the point when she knew that elisabet lived a thousand years ago. when she finds the alpha registry file, she talks about getting the chance to meet whoever birthed her. it’s an unusual bit of naivety from someone typically pragmatic and sharp, a naivety that aloy doesn’t show in any other situation, and though she doesn’t directly say that she’s thinking of elisabet, i believe that she was – at the very least, hoping that elisabet’s descendants might be behind that door, but deep down, hoping that it was elisabet herself.
  • because later, at gaia prime, aloy says, “she’s gone. really gone,” after watching the hologram in which elisabet plans to sacrifice herself to protect the facility. aloy speaks in the present tense and seems crushed, and even sylens seems struck by the uncharacteristic vulnerability there. some part of aloy genuinely believed that elisabet could have found a way to survive a thousand years, because elisabet = mother, and for the nora, motherhood is divine.
  • there are other things in aloy’s characterization that indicate this mindset. a big indicator is elisabet saying in no uncertain terms that stopping the swarm is impossible, but aloy wholeheartedly believing that she did it anyway, that elisabet somehow transcended her own genius to do the impossible. this is to keep the player guessing, of course, and it’s a reasonable conclusion considering that life still exists, but it’s also a demonstration of outright faith from someone who doesn’t often display faith.
  • additionally, aloy’s single-minded obsession with discovering who her mother was is a natural result of being outcast from a society centered around an all-mother and matrilineage but raised in its ways nonetheless, and it’s likely that she would absorb the spiritual components of that society in some form as well, even if she held no conscious belief.
  • finally, there is a striking visual indicator – the scene at the end of the final battle, after aloy shoves the master override into the vessel carrying HADES. the hologram that opens up is the cosmic vastness of space, with elisabet’s giant glowing form standing against it, across from and as tall as the spire (itself a religious object now), as aloy looks on reverently. the image of elisabet is very godlike, with aloy small and reaching out. it’s an interesting choice of visuals that contrasts with the smaller and more personal scene of aloy finding elisabet’s body. i think the two scenes represent the dual role that elisabet plays in aloy’s mind – mother and goddess both.

so i think aloy was not only looking for her mother, in the end, but also (unconsciously) looking to fill a void where all-mother should have been, a void that comes from emerging as a non-believer in a faith-based environment. and it raises all kinds of characterization possibilities for the sequel(s), with the inevitability of aloy restoring GAIA – in other words, aloy meeting one of her mothers who is basically the equivalent of a goddess and the closest thing to all-mother.

Your grace, I’d like to ask your opinion on “Coriolanus”. It’s one of the plays I’ve never really enjoyed and I’m looking for a new perspective, if you would, please.

dukeofbookingham:

Coriolanus is weird. We don’t have a whole lot of strong reason to like/root for the title character. It’s sort of a slow burn of a play, where with every scene you’re just sitting there going, “There is no way this is going to end well,” and naturally, it doesn’t. Honestly the most interesting thing about Coriolanus (sometimes fondly referred to as Coriogaynus in the Shakespeare fandom) is the bizarre relationship between the title character and the nominal villain, Aufidius. They have this deeply strange, honor-bound, ill-fated, antagonistic relationship which is also the most overtly homoerotic one in the entire Shakespearean canon. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the following speech, after Aufidius unexpectedly finds his ‘enemy’ Coriolanus on his doorstep:

O Coriolanus, Coriolanus!
Each word thou hast spoke hath weeded from my heart
A root of ancient envy. If Jupiter
Should from yond cloud speak divine things,
And say ‘Tis true,’ I’ld not believe them more
Than thee, all noble Coriolanus. Let me twine
Mine arms about that body,
where against
My grained ash an hundred times hath broke
And scarr’d the moon with splinters: here I clip
The anvil of my sword, and
do contest
As hotly and as nobly with thy love
As ever in ambitious strength I did
Contend against thy valour. Know thou first,
I loved the maid I married; never man
Sigh’d truer breath; but that I see thee here,
Thou noble thing! more dances my rapt heart
Than when I first my wedded mistress saw
Bestride my threshold.
Why, thou Mars! I tell thee,
We have a power on foot; and I had purpose
Once more to hew thy target from thy brawn,
Or lose mine arm fort: thou hast beat me out
Twelve several times, and I have nightly since
Dreamt of encounters ‘twixt thyself and me;
We have been down together in my sleep,
Unbuckling helms, fisting each other’s throat,
And waked half dead with nothing.
Worthy Coriolanus,
Had we no quarrel else to Rome, but that
Thou art thence banish’d, we would muster all
From twelve to seventy, and pouring war
Into the bowels of ungrateful Rome,
Like a bold flood o’er-bear. O, come, go in,
And take our friendly senators by the hands;
Who now are here, taking their leaves of me,
Who am prepared against your territories,
Though not for Rome itself.

Maybe it’s just me, but that’s pretty fucking fascinating.

brightquietude:

This reminded me of a study I read about in Cordelia Fine’s book Delusions of Gender:

“Kristi Klein and Sara Hodges used an empathic accuracy test in which participants watched a video of a woman talking about her failure to get a high enough score on an exam to get into the graduate school she wanted to attend. When the feminine nature of the empathic accuracy test was highlighted by asking participants for sympathy ratings before the empathic accuracy test, women scored significantly better than men. But a second group of women and men went through exactly the same procedure but with one vital difference: they were offered money for doing well. Specifically, they earned $2 for every correct answer. This financial incentive levelled the performance of women and men, showing that when it literally ‘pays to understand’ male insensitivity is curiously easily overcome.“ (Emphasis mine.)

(An endnote also states that “Men also scored equivalently to women when the sympathy rating was requested after the empathic accuracy test.”)

The passage goes on to add

“You can also improve men’s performance by inviting them to see a greater social value in empathising ability. Cardiff University psychologists presented undergraduate men with a passage titled ‘What Women Want’. The text, complete with bogus references, then went on to explain that contrary to popular opinion ‘non-traditional men who are more in touch with their feminine side’ are regarded as more sexually desirable and interesting by women, not to mention more likely to leave bars and clubs in the company of one. Men who read this passage performed better on the empathic accuracy task than did control men (to whom the test was presented in a nothing-to-do-with-gender fashion) or men who had been told that the experiment was investigating their alleged intuitive inferiority.“

In other words: men aren’t necessarily worse at sensing and understanding others’ feelings than women are; it’s just that quite a few of them don’t feel the need to put for the effort unless it profits them in some way… and perhaps don’t want to show too much empathy, because doing so would make them feel less masculine/manly.