[theletterf]

When he quoted Tolkien, my heart stopped. This passage might provide you with a suggestion on how to live a virtuous life:

"The twentieth-century Catholic author J.R.R. Tolkien, in the words of a protagonist in one of his novels, described our responsibility in this way: “It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.” [187] The civilization of love will not arise from a single or spectacular gesture, but from the sum total of small and steadfast acts of fidelity that serve as a bulwark against dehumanization."

[bradrn]

I am immediately reminded of my favourite quote from the Jewish book Pirkei Avot (‘Ethics of the Fathers’):

> It is not your duty to finish the work [of perfecting the world], but neither are you at liberty to neglect it.

[https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.2.16?ven=english|Mishnah...]

[jimbokun]

EVERY progressive needs to read this quote.

It’s my biggest frustration with so many expressing progressive beliefs. I’ve lost count of the times a progressive expresses unwillingness to address problems at a smaller, local or personal level. Instead there is a demand to fix everything forever and at once at the highest levels, or do nothing at all.

[consumer451]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

The world would likely be a better place if people of all political stripes could internalize this concept.

[pdonis]

But how do you judge the consequences? Either you have an infinite regress, or you end up declaring by fiat that some things are good and others are bad, just because. Which is...deontology--what "consequentialism" was supposed to be opposed to and an improvement on.

The concept that I think the world would be a better place if people of all political stripes could internalize is that nobody knows for sure what is good. We all have to make moral and ethical choices with incomplete knowledge. So when people make choices that you disagree with, the default presumption, at least, should not be that they're evil, but that they have different information than you do. That information can include different judgments about what is good and what is not. There is no single moral or ethical system that has all the right answers--including "consequentialism".

[khafra]

Neither Deontology, Virtue Ethics, nor Consequentialism describe the ends; only the tradeoffs. You could have a deontological commitment to never giving a sucker an even break. You could have a virtue ethicist who considers the Joker a paragon--I think some of them are in politics. Consequentialism just says that deontology is too myopic, and locally following the correct rules is sometimes less good than maximizing long-term gains. Consequentialism is ceteris paribus correct; but ceteris is often not paribus for humans, so pure consequentialism has a lot of footguns in it.

[pdonis]

> Neither Deontology, Virtue Ethics, nor Consequentialism describe the ends

If you insist on just looking at the general, abstract terms as categories, instead of the actual ethical systems that are usually described as falling into those categories, I suppose that's true. But I don't see why it's relevant. In order to actually make ethical choices in the real world, you have to specify ends--your ethical choices have to bottom out at some point in saying that some things are good and some things are bad, just because. That's true whether you think you're doing Deontology, Virtue Ethics, Consequentialism, or what have you.

> Consequentialism just says that deontology is too myopic, and locally following the correct rules is sometimes less good than maximizing long-term gains.

And in making such claims, Consequentialism is both misdescribing Deontology and avoiding the actual issue.

First, there is nothing that restricts Deontology to "locally following correct rules". More generally, there is nothing that forbids Deontology from looking at consequences! Indeed, Deontology often requires you to look at consequences, since actions that might be innocuous taken in isolation can have serious ethical implications when put in context.

Second, when you say "maximizing long-term gains", what counts as "long-term" and what counts as "gains"? Any answer to such questions is going to bottom out, as I said, in claims that some things are good, and some things are bad, just because. There is no way to avoid that. But Consequentialism bills itself as avoiding that--as avoiding "just following rules" and looking at things rationally instead. And it doesn't and can't deliver on that promise. It just obfuscates what it's actually doing.

> Consequentialism is ceteris paribus correct

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

[jimbokun]

I think this is the best descriptor for the philosophy of the Abundance movement.

[Aeolun]

The fact that you call them progressives hints at a more general frustration that I doubt has anything to do with the problem.

There is nothing wrong with some people working on a regional or global fix while others work on a local one. The important thing is that they’re working for it.

[elmomle]

I think there's more nuance to it. The big failing of progressive movements is that they seek, often from a position of disadvantage, to impose power over society too, but in the ways they feel are more just. The vast majority of progressives I know aren't very interested in listening to the other side, or implicitly believe that the other side is wrong and it's just a matter of making them see that.

But this ignores the humanity of people on the other side of the issue--people who may have legitimate moral and philosophical questions about very difficult and complex issues.

It does seem that acting locally, within the realm of actual human relationships rather than alienating impositions of authority, would likely result in much greater good in the long term.

[jimbokun]

Even if you do think the other side is evil in many of their beliefs and actions, you still may need to work with them on issues where you find agreement.

Like diplomacy with regimes you find reprehensible may still be preferable to war.

[palmotea]

> you still may need to work with them on issues where you find agreement.

There are many progressives that can't even manage that.

[sevenzero]

Not to mention the counterpart to progressive people -> conservative people, cause so many more issues they just love to not acknowledge.

[jimbokun]

Agree to disagree.

I don’t think “global” fixes ever work well. In practice throwing out everything and starting from scratch just makes the overall situation worse.

Sustainable, lasting progress happens incrementally.

[nashashmi]

Those people are not progressives. They are brainwashed wokes riled up using anger and cynicism; a mob in the making to counter a government; a transient missile fired at an opponent existing while it fires through and fleeting after it hits a target.

[jimbokun]

I’m just using the term those people use to identify themselves.

[weitendorf]

A formative moment for me was reading Richard Stallman's writing on the GNU website and seeing him quote [0] Rabbi Hillel [1]:

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?"

This inspired me to seek out more about Rabbinic Judaism and its theology more deeply, and I found the language and analogies concerning the idea of "repairing the world" (which you referenced, but which I think at first glance aren't necessarily something most people would identify as a specific core doctrinal theme) particularly inspiring [2]. To me it's frankly beautiful and something I recommend anybody interested in metaphysics or ethics/morality looking into; it also ties into the Kabbalah. IMO this aspect of Jewish theology deserves to be more widely known because it's something all of us can learn from.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkun_olam

[jfengel]

I grew up Jewish. I have lost my faith, but that quote is still fundamental to how I see my place in the world.

[kuerbel]

I'm an atheist but I really like:

>Therefore man was created single in the world to teach that for anybody who destroys a single life it is counted as if he destroyed an entire world, and for anybody who preserves a single life it is counted as if he preserved an entire world.

(Directly from the Mishna in the Talmud Yerushalmi)

[michaelchisari]

I'm not Muslim (an agnostic Catholic if anything) but I love the Hadith

| If the final hour comes while one of you has a seed in his hand, if he can plant it before it takes place, let him do so.

I take it to mean it is never too late to do something good, even (or especially) something you will never benefit from.

[lukan]

To me that never made sense. If the world is really ending, there is no point in planting a tree.

It only made sense as in, you never know if the world is really ending. So assume it is not and do the right thing, even if things seem dark. Everything we do matters. Always.

[michaelchisari]

| Everything we do matters. Always.

Yeah you get it.

[jimbokun]

So maybe you didn’t lose your faith as thoroughly as you suppose.

[redfloatplane]

That is a really beautiful passage, thank you for sharing - I hadn't made it to that section yet and still haven't. I'm still reflecting on the stuff in the opening!

> If we focus only on contingencies, we risk letting the succession of emergencies dictate the direction of our path. We are living through a rapid phase of transition, a “change of era,” in which — while some are vying for the future of new technologies and others dedicate themselves to reflecting on the matter — most people are watching and waiting, observing from afar and merely hoping for the best. For this very reason, crucial questions impose themselves on our conscience and can no longer be avoided: Where are we going? Toward what goal do we wish to orient ourselves? What direction should we choose as a people and as a human community?

[Animats]

> If we focus only on contingencies, we risk letting the succession of emergencies dictate the direction of our path.

That's a maxim for leaders generally. It's quite common for CEOs to spend all their time on managing crises and not enough on trying to progress and improve the business. It's even worse for politicians.

[redfloatplane]

Yes, I found that really striking. I am still making my way through this document, but I think there's quite a high wisdom-per-sentence value. For me, there's a lot to learn from here, and I'm very grateful for it!

[Animats]

It's a classic management remark, but one that you don't see that often. One form it takes is that a manager should spend a sizable fraction of their time with the subordinates who aren't having problems. They're the ones who move things forward.

[simonw]

I wondered if that was the Pope's way of throwing shade at Palantir and Peter Thiel.

[michaelchisari]

Most certainly but after two thousand years the Magisterium have mastered the art of universalizing the moment. A direct call out would age poorly. A hundred years from now, nobody will remember Thiel or Palantir (inshallah) but the sentiment will still most certainly ring true.

[jimbokun]

And many will still remember Tolkien fondly.

[wyclif]

It totally is. That was the first thought that went through my head when I got to the JRRT quote.

[portmanteur]

The Lord of the Rings is a fundamentally Catholic work, written in English, and one of the most popular works of literature of the past century. So it is not unusual for an English-speaking Pope to quote from it.

Further, what shade would be thrown, and why? What criticism of Palantir would the Pope be attempting to make here?

[simonw]

> What criticism of Palantir would the Pope be attempting to make here?

The quote in question:

> It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.

Palantir very much strikes me as a company that is attempting to "master all the tides of the world".

And honestly, just reminding people that Lord of the Rings is a book concerned with morality and the fight against evil counts as throwing shade at Palantir, since they named their company after a corrupted device from those novels.

[simonw]

Here's similar thinking from the Catholic Herald, who are significantly more qualified to opine on this than I am! https://thecatholicherald.com/article/is-magnifica-humanitas...

[hackyhacky]

> The Lord of the Rings is a fundamentally Catholic work

That's a bit of a stretch. I've read the whole thing and I can't recall any mention of Christianity at all.

> So it is not unusual for an English-speaking Pope to quote from it.

Interesting. How many other popes have quoted Lord of the Rings in an Encyclical Letter?

[portmanteur]

It is not a stretch. Tolkien was a devout Catholic. The story has a wide variety of allegorical symbolism pointing to a profound Catholic faith. The ring is a metaphor for sin. In famous scene of Boromir’s death, in telling Aragorn he succumbed to temptation by the ring he says, “I have failed.” To which Aragorn, the rightful King, recognizing Boromir’s atonement, replies, “No, brother, you have won a great victory.” This is a blow-for-blow metaphor of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, aka Confession.

Many writers have written on the vast number of Catholic themes and metaphors in LOTR, but one great example is Frodo’s Journey: https://www.amazon.com/Frodos-Journey-Discover-Hidden-Meanin...

Many of his arguments are summarized in this interview: https://youtu.be/HKqvCRc0wWU?si=CPY3SpvRsZ_ZK-Tw

[hackyhacky]

> Tolkien was a devout Catholic.

There are many Catholic authors. Not everything they write is necessarily a "Catholic work."

> The ring is a metaphor for sin.

You are welcome to your Catholic interpretation of his work, but Tolkien himself famously said that "There is no 'symbolism' or conscious allegory in my story."

As a piece of symbolism, the ring doesn't make any sense. Is he saying that elves helped make sin? And that it can be destroyed in a volcano? In context, it's incoherent and inconsistent with Catholic dogma.

Even if we buy your view that the ring is a symbol for sin, that hardly makes it specifically Catholic. Many religions have a concept of sin, including other branches of Christianity.

If you were to make a case that LOTR is a Catholic work (not an Evangelical, or Lutheran, or Hindu, or Jewish work) you would need to include some specifically Catholic references, such as that scene where the Orcs worship Sauron's mother. (/s)

> Many of his arguments are summarized in this interview: https://youtu.be/HKqvCRc0wWU?si=CPY3SpvRsZ_ZK-Tw

I was excited until I realized that the interview is not with Tolkien, but with some random bozo pushing a religious-nationalist agenda. What makes his interpretation of Tolkien's work more valid than that of Tolkien himself?

Also, you did say that it's not unusual for popes to cite Tolkien. I'm still waiting for your supporting evidence in this matter.

[suburban_strike]

> There is no 'symbolism' or conscious allegory in my story.

Every author says this; they have a financial stake in not alienating outgroups they hope to sell their book to.

Fiction authors (and actors) are professional liars, who sell very convincing lies for a living. Their words should not be trusted so easily.

[moffers]

I had the exact same thought, and JD Vance too.

[zimpenfish]

> When he quoted Tolkien, my heart stopped.

I wonder if meeting Colbert played any part in that.

[wowoc]

I doubt it, there is a much simpler explanation: virtually all English-speaking Catholics dig Tolkien.

[jimbokun]

Lewis and Tolkien hanging out at pubs in Oxford remains the apex of nerdy Christian geekery.

[zimpenfish]

I had a look and yeah, Popes quoting Tolkien does seem to be a thing, at least in the last couple of decades.

[girvo]

It’s a whole thing. The priest at my high school was way into Tolkien and, more interestingly to me as a teenager: the Wolfenstein series of games!

[Aeolun]

The priest at your high school? This is a set of words I’ve never heard in the same sentence. Where was this? If you don’t mind me asking.

[girvo]

Australia! Catholic high school, though in practice amusingly secular

[zimpenfish]

I went to a school run by monks[0]. Technically at least two were also priests (although I wasn't sure of the distinction then and I'm still not sure decades later.)

[0] Alas, a dodgy branch of monks who have since encountered many legal issues around child care, etc., as have at least one of my teachers.

[lordgrenville]

"But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs."

[svieira]

> Certainly, the decisive turning points in world history are substantially co-determined by souls whom no history book ever mentions. And we will only find out about those souls to whom we owe the decisive turning points in our personal lives on the day when all that is hidden is revealed.

Edith Stine

[ycitm]

The next sentence in the quote hasn't aged so well - "What weather they shall have is not ours to rule."

[oulipo2]

Sure. And this is what everyday people do. And this is why CEOs and billionaires refuse to do (doing their fair share), and freeride on the people's work and dedication