I would like to suggest a philosophy program at universities that deals with Metaphysics.
And in particular I am thinking about the nature and origin of Evil.
This is something barely noticed by Western Philosophy up until Schopenhauer. Hegel specifically denied the existence of evil. That is hard to credit after the Twentieth Century.
But to deal with Evil in a philosophical way my suggestion would be to have a university course that would deal first with the pre-Socratics and the Tree of Life [עץ חיים]of Isaac Luria האריז''ל, and Schopenhauer.
This suggestion could not be made while British and American philosophy departments were still in the Dark ages. Recently the fallacies of post Modern Philosophy have become apparent even to school children and it is high time for some real philosophy to be done. John Searle wrote that L/A linguistic analytic philosophy of the twentieth century is "obviously false."
Obviously the actual Book of Aristotle, "Metaphysics", would have to be tackled also but that it seems would require it s own separate course.
[To bring in a little bit more detail about what I mean:
Also I am referring to the last section of the Eitz Chaim עץ חיים and the Mavo Shearaim מבוא שעריםof Issac Luria which deal with the origin and nature of evil.
Obviously Schopenhauer is very important for this issue, but one does need a little background in Kant to understand his basic thesis.
In fact without Schopenhauer it is hard to find any philosophical justification for the existence of evil at all. Only after you have Kant and Schopenhauer it is possible to appreciate the approach of Isaac Luria .
[I know you might complain to me and say that you can’t understand Luria, Schopenhauer without the proper context. How is it possible you can ask to learn the last section of the Eitz Chaim (Tree of Life) without the previous sections? Or Schopenhauer without Kant, or without Plotinus and Plato?
I agree --but I think in a university course, you should need only a few introductory lectures to get the orientation right and then you can go to the actual material after a few weeks. After all you don't need to have learned all of Kant to understand Schopenhauer.]
I should mention that any treatment of Kabalah ought to deal with authentic Kabalah and not any books that claims to be explaining the Kabalah. And in fact this is a major problem in many books of mysticism. They claim to be explaining Isaac Luria while in fact getting their major doctrines from Shabati Tzvi.
With Kabalah the key word to hold to is "authentic".