pure Litvak Yeshiva approach

 My own experience with the Mir Yeshiva in NY was not very long. And it is sad that I did not have an appreciation for it as much as I should have had. I was just three short years. I did not have a great understanding at the time of the Gra and the herem he signed on. But I did have some grasp of the amazing world of true authentic Torah.

And I do not think I am alone in this. Many people do not really get why the Gra signed on the letter of excommunication. I guess the problem of idol worship does not occur to people to be  a problem.

I could make a suggestion concerning the מנהל רוחני [the person more or less appointed to give the Musar talks.] They do not tend to be as admirable as the rosh yeshiva. They tend to not be able to give the deep sorts of classes that a rosh yeshiva is expected to give.[Along the lines of R. Akiva Eigger or Rav Chaim of Brisk]--or at least to be able to give over the idea of Rav Chaim and the other greats --e.g. Shimon Shkopf, Rav Shach, etc. But neither are they very well versed in Musar itself. They may have learned some Musar, but are usually unaware of the philosophical aspects of Musar. [an example would be the Chovot Levavot which is openly neo-Platonic.]  Or take the Ramchal--certainly a great mystic and there is some hint of this in the Mesilat Yesharim. But the teachers of Musar are often not very well versed in that area either. 

While at the Mir it was easy for me to see the greatness of the roshei yeshiva--in character and in deep understanding of the Gemara and Tosphot. But since I left there, I have never seen anyone that comes within light years of that. [ That is one reason I named this blog after Rav Shach--to give people an idea of an example of deep penetrating analysis of Gemara really means.

[That is not to say there is a case for the pure Litvak Yeshiva approach or even for the Gra alone per se. Rather Balance. Balance is the path of my parents. And one ought to not look at the Reform movement or the Zionist movement as aberration that are unexplainable except as the result of apikorsim heretics,- but rather as a natural result of pressure-the pressure of the insanity of fanatic religious leaders.

 Even with people doing good work in understanding Kant (like Paul Wolff), you still end up with the problem that this approach  has kinks that just do not seem to go away.  You could at that point look at Schelling or Fichte which are not Kantian at all, or you could take the Fries approach which is a modification of Kant. [It is not psychologism-using the mind to explain none mind based facts.]

Or you could take the Hegel approach. But that approach is certainly not to the liking of any Kantians. And at lot there depends on which initial texts one takes. For some reason I read the Logic [that part of the Encyclopedia] first and that fit completely into my understanding of Plato and Plotinus. [Ever since then I have never understood the complaints about Hegel.]  

And you could combine both. After all Hegel is mainly interested in building his Metaphysical system. he does not care about the Mind Body Problem. While Kant [and Fries] are involved in that very much so-- in answering Berkeley and Hume.   

[Incidentally, the Fries approach needed a certain amount of development. Leonard Nelson added a bit of clarity to it [as mentioned in Dr Kelley Ross's web site]. But even more so--the Friesian School of Nelson could not deal with the Special Theory of Relativity and even less with the General Theory of Relativity. That includes Nelson himself and all those who followed him until Gretta Hermann.]

There is an obligation to leave the edge of the field for the poor.

There is an obligation to leave the edge of the field for the poor. That is not to touch it at all. This is called "peah". The amount one must leave is 1/60. 

That left over part is not obligated in the presents given to the priest or the Levite [called truma and maasar.]

Let's say however one just goes ahead and reaps the whole field. The second that he jumped the line and cut down the first stalk of the 1/60 the obligation of peah goes over to  the sheaves. Some part of the sheaves he has to leave as peah so as to get up to 1/60 of the whole field.

But what happens to the first stalk of that started the process in the first place? and what happens to the second stalk of the 1/60 part that was the beginning of the transgression of the  לא תכלה "Do not finish harvesting your field, but leave the corner of your field to the poor." Well the second he harvested that stalk, he transgressed that prohibition. So the questions are is the very first stalk still obligated in truma. (For at first it was obligated in truma since it is not "left over". But now all the reaped field is liable to be peah. Does that include the first stalk? And the difference is what is obligated in truma  is called "tevel". Grain that has not had the presents to the priest and Levite separated rom it and thus forbidden to be eaten.) And what about the second stalk? Is it obligated in truma? For at first it was supposed to be peah. But the second he cuts it the obligation of peah goes over to the sheaves--but now it also is sheaf!! And it is peah? So which one is it? 

Tractate Shabat page 139. I quote: "If you see a generation that troubles come upon it go out a check the judges of Israel.

Tractate Shabat page 139. I quote: "If you see a generation that troubles come upon it go out a check the judges of Israel. For no troubles come upon the world except for he cause of the judges of Israel."

So we see the problem that Rav Nahman was referring to concerning Torah scholars that are demons [LeM vol. I perek 12 and 28] was noticed before. 

 The problem is how to tell who is from the realm of holiness and who is from the Dark Side?

And it is not possible to simply say, "Go and learn Torah, and you will see who is giving authentic advice and who is the fraud" because people need immediate advice and do not have the time to go through the entire Shas before they can reach a conclusion.

But you do have an indication if not an absolute proof.. Who encourages you to learn every day Gemara and Tosphot is from the Realm of Holiness. 

[The Dark Side can not stand that people learn authentic Torah.]

And I can see that ones parents often warn one about this problem. But the religious fanaticism that is in people does not let them listen their parents. This is odd since you might imagine that the fifth commandment of the Ten Commandments ought to make a difference to supposedly religious people.

[Parents are often aware of hypocrisy, while young [i.e eighteen years old] are not aware. The young think in fact it is all about learning Torah for its own sake, not for money and power. o they warn their children. But the children are taken in by the propaganda. Thus it is best to listen to the Torah which already told us to listen to our parents. We might be smart, but they know a thing or two about the ral world.

It is hard to know what to make of all this. On one hand, the importance of Torah is clear. On the other hand the religious world is mentally sick. What could be the meaning? I should mention that I was troubled by this for years until I understood that the religious world an d Torah are two  opposites. 

I really did not appreciate the path of the Gra and the straight Litvak yeshiva

 I really did not appreciate the path of the Gra and the straight Litvak yeshiva. Now I am happy that I also was inspired and gained a great deal from the advice and ideas of Rav Nahman of Breslov, but leaving the context of the straight Litvak sort of yeshiva was a mistake. [At least I can see that now.] So while I can not change the past, I can suggest to others that if they have merited to be in a straight Litvak yeshiva, then "count your blessings." Be grateful. You can learn from Rav Nahman's LeM and other books, but one must not be taken off the straight and narrow because of that.

z46 music file

 z46 A minor

Worship of dead corpses would seem clearly to be a problem.

 There is little in the religious world that actually corresponds to Torah. Examples are plentiful. Worship of dead corpses would seem clearly to be a problem. And yet the herem the Gra signed addressing this exact problem is ignored. There are many other examples but open idolatry should seem to be clearly in violation of the Ten Commandments. So why are all the groups that are included in the herem [excommunication] of the Gra thought to be the highest examples of loyalty to Torah? Should not every one of their books be considered to be dirty? No. Rather considered the peak of loyalty to Torah! How much clearer could things be?

 Thomas Sowell on Slavery 

I looked at some of this and I can see his points. After all we know slavery in the Torah is nothing like slavery as practiced. For example if one has only one  pillow, he must give it to his slave. The slave can not be made worse off than the master. That is different from galley slaves. 

[However brilliant Thomas Sowell is I must mention that some of his points are less accurate as noted by Brian Caplan here.   

Besides this it occurred to me that Lincoln had the authority to free the slaves דינא דמלכותא דינא."The law of the state is the law." Though he clearly did not have authority to make war on the South.  Even though the law of the state is the law is applied differently by the Rishonim, still t least we have the Rambam who hold that if a king declares "Anyone who does not pay such and such a tax will be sold as a slave" that is valid. Thus with symmetry, he can declare slaves to be free.  

If that was a good idea or not is debatable. But to me it seems that it was valid. Not only that but a sell under duress is valid. So the fact that the Southern States signed the 14th ammendment under duress does not make it invalid.. The only aspect that one can complain about in the Civil War is that the union of the states was voluntary. So making a war to keep it together, seems absurd. 

And Lincoln's statement, "If slavery is not wrong then nothing is wrong", seems untrue. Maybe slavery is OK if slaves are treated right, while murder is wrong. Or making an unjust war might be wrong?  People get all excited about lots of different things. sometimes justified and sometimes not.

Nowadays I can see the point of the South that in freeing the slaves, there would be perpetual war against the whites. This seems fulfilled nowadays with the continuous attacks against the Constitution and all Western values. It is like letting the German Barbarians into the Roman empire. While at firt things seemed okay, but eventually it was a time bomb just waiting to explode.

Lets say for a similar example that a women agrees to get married to some man. And then at some point she wants to leave? Can he then bludgeon her to death? [As actually happens.]

And so what about the colonies making the war of Independence of the American Revolution? if you want to go with "No taxation without representation". Well from what could that be true? We know the king of England can not make taxes without the consent of Parliament. But the Parliament can make taxes as well as it pleases. And the American colonies were being taxed y Parliament as is the right of Parliament to do so. [And even the king agreed.] Where in the Magna Charta or the Provisions of Oxford does it say every person that is taxed has to have representation? So the Colonies were in rebellion exactly as the South was. What makes one right and the other wrong? If the South was wrong, then so was the American Revolution.

Rav Shach in Yerushalmi perek 2 halacha 5 in Peah and 2:11 in Laws of Peah

 I am still pondering this hard Rambam 2:11 in Peah. The owner of the field harvests the whole. He was supposed to leave 1/60 of the standing wheat to the poor. He gives from what was reaped to the poor. And if he gives most of what was reaped, that is not obligated in truma and maasar. [Truma is what is given t priests. Maasar is what is given to Levites. Clearly neither applies to peah which is the edge of the field which is given to the poor.] Only if he finished all the work [reaped and threshed], then he has to take truma and maasar and give to the poor.

Again what is this "most of what was reaped"? Normally  one can give his whole field as peah except for the first stalk. [Obviously of he does nothing with the field at all then it can not be "peah" i.e. the corner. There has to be some beginning work in order for the rest to be what was left 

So Rav Shach brings from the Yerushalmi perek 2 halacha 5 in Peah that if he even started to reap the 1/60, then the obligation of peah goes on the sheaves, not the standing wheat any more.

That helps a little. So now he can give the whole 59/60 as peah. But still I am wondering about the Yerushalmi itself. Why can he not just give what is left of the standing ears as peah and what in them does not make up the whole 1/60, to give the needed amount from what was reaped?  

Even though I am a beach bum, I am not saying that this is an ideal path. Just the opposite. If I could spend all day and night learning Torah I would.  And you can see the importance of this in the Nefesh HaChaim by Rav Haim of Voloshin (a disciple of the Gra.) Why I do not is the fact of the religious world is a mess of people that imagine themselves to be superior to all others by means of rituals that have nothing to do with Torah. [And it does help much by the fact that most "Torah scholars " are demons as brought many times in the LeM of Rav Nahman. though what this means is not clear, still one can be pretty sure this this ("demon") is not a complementary term.

The correction {tikun} to

 all this would be to heed the idea of the Gra who signed on the letter of excommunication. But that is ignored, and so the religious world ends up with this sort of characteristic of in outward rituals, all is well , inside there is a tiny invisible drop of cyanide.  

[And I must add that Rav Nahman himself was certainly not in the inclusive language of that letter, though many people think he was. 

[As for the religious world in general I must say that I discussed this with David Bronson for a few hours and after that he said, "Well since there are problems that we can not fix, let's sit and learn Gemara," and thus began our daily sessions for one hour in Gemara. And eventually I began to see that bitul Torah [not learning Torah when one can] is the source of many problems that people have including me. [Still I do not mean that the world of yeshivot is OK. Just that since no one really knows what is going on, we ought to sit and learn Torah as well  as we can--including not using Torah to make money.

 War is unpredictable. For some reason it seems that things were on the side of the North. In the battle of Chancellorsville, the Union general made an absurd mistake to give up a high ground with every possible military advantage  and go into the thick woods.  But it seems that mistake was the cause of General Stonewall Jackson being accidently shot and killed by his own men due to the darkness and thickness of the woods that made fighting in them incomprehensible. To that loss even General R.E. Lee more or less implied that after that,  the war was almost guaranteed to be lost.. 

Still it is hard to know. There is a verse in Proverbs ,"Woe to the land that a slave becomes its king." [as happened in the USA]. And there is a statement from the sages: "A person who does a favor for one who does not appreciate it is as one who throws a stone at Markulis." [Markulis is an idol whose worship was in the fashion of throwing stone at it.] And in the USA, it is hard to find a black person who is grateful to the USA for freeing them. Most hate the USA, and are determined to bring it down.  

I can not see why people don't learn Mathematics and Physics. Certainty most people are curious about the nature of reality.

 I can not see why people don't learn Mathematics and Physics. Certainty most people are curious about the nature of reality.  So why do they go into alternative subjects that they must know [at least subconsciously are mixed with delusions. Whether in politics or religion, what people say are poorly thought out delusions.- at least most.

All I can say is that they must think that these subjects [Mathematics and Physics] are too hard. So I suggest the saying the words in order and going on--- from the beginning to the end  and only after one has finished , then to review.

 And to believe that by saying the words/ the idea become absorbed in the subconscious.]

daughter of a Torah Scholar

 If you want to learn Torah there is this idea of the sages "to marry the daughter of a Torah "."

After thinking about this I can see that there is here not a hard fast rule. Good character is not the sole domain of daughters of Torah scholars. If fact, I was advised to take whom was available at the time who had been running after me for years. [Paula Finn.] And I think this was in fact a good choice. Rav Arye Kaplan was the first person to suggest to me to agree to marry her. I said, "But she is not a bat talmid chacham [the daughter of a Torah]! He answered, "If you wait for the religious, they will offer to you a baalat mum [one with a hidden defect.]".

He knew the reality of the religious as opposed to the abstract idea divorced from actual human beings.

[That is not the only example of his great skepticism about the religious world.]

On the other hand I must say that one needs to get married to a girl that is devoted to the idea  that her husband and children must learn Torah. If she is wishy washy about that, then it is hard to imagine one will learn Torah.

For the sake of clarity and openness  I should mention that I consider Physics and Mathematics as being in the category of Learning Torah as is clear in the Laws of Learning Torah in the Rambam, chapter 3 about the subjects defined in th first four chapters as eing in the category of Gemara.

Peah 2:11. But that initial stalk is considered by the Jerusalem Talmud to obligate., and thus not obligated

 The basic issue of "peah" is you are to harvest your field up until 1/60. That us all that unharvested standing corn in left for the poor. But lets say one is tempted to go beyond that boundary? He harvests the next stalk that is part of that 1/60. Then the obligation of peah goes to what was already harvested.

And in fact this is the case the Rambam is talking about in Peah 2:11. But that initial stalk is considered by the Jerusalem Talmud to obligate., and thus not obligated. So that whole 59/60 of the field becomes possible to be made into peah. [In peah one can made all except for the sheaf that beings the process. But he can not make less than 1/60.

So if he says all that I have harvested in peah that is valid since there is still that first sheaf that in not obligated .

What bothers me here is this. The initial stalk is what makes the obligation of peah go to the harvested wheat מן העומד לעומרים. Fine. And we are talking about where he simply went ahead and reaped the whole field. So now the question is why does the Rambam say is he makes most of it to be peah then it is not obligated in truma and maasar? It should be 59/60. And if you would hold that that initial stalk of the 1/60 [that was supposed to be let alone and become peah with the rest of the 1/60]  is obligated in peah then fine so the next stalk is not and that is the thing that would make the whole 59/60 plus that one more stalk all possible to be made into peah. So the first question I have here is why does the Rambam not simply say then that if he makes the 59/60 into peah then it is not obligated in truma and maasar [or the 59/60 plus that one stalk then it is not obligated in truma and maasar.] What is this "most" the Rambam puts there?

 [I am referring here to the answer of Rav Shach about this difficult Rambam which takes care of the issue to some degree but still leaves this gap between what should be 59/60  not "most". 

Also I admit that I am still mulling over this sort of odd state of affairs where he cuts into the 1/60 and then as per the Yerushalmi the obligation goes to the 59/60 that was already reaped. Let us say that first stalk is obligated in peah? then what makes the reaped sheaves into peah? Nothing. Everything else is standing! Or may that is the exact point of the Yerushami? So that first stalk is in fact not able to be made peah. But there are lots of other issues here which I am not sure if are issues or simply that I have not leaned the subject well.

If you are wondering then I will tell you: The issues that are bothering me are simply these: Surely not all the reaped sheaves are peah [the second he goes over the 1/60 line of demarcation. He has to declare them or some part of them to be peah. So what is left besides what he made peah could be the none peah part which makes the peah valid? And what is the law about what was standing at that minute? Presumably it can not be made peah even if he wants to? He can give it as a present to the poor but it will till be obligated in truma and maasar.

"shver Rambam" [hard Rambam] Peah 2:11

I was not thinking about that "shver Rambam" [hard Rambam] Peah 2:11 at all. Sadly to say I was just lazing off at the beach. But now and then it occurred to me to wonder what he could mean? And what is the answer of Rav Shach to explain him?  Oddly enough right before I drifted off to sleep, the answer hit me.

The answer is this. I knew Rav Shach suggested that that Rambam is based on the Yerushalmi. And now I see what this means. If one reaps the whole field, he is supposed to leave 1/60 as the edge/peah for the poor. If he then goes ahead and reaps one sheaf of the 1/60 then the obligation of peah switches from the standing sheaves to the  stacks that he harvested. The question the Yerushalmi asks then is what is the law about that first sheaf? Is it obligated in peah?

That Yerushalmi is the reason the Rambam writes "If he makes most of the field that he harvested as peah then it is not obligated in truma and maasar."[The whole statement is if he reaped the whole field he can still give the peah from what is reaped. And if he makes most of what was reaped as peah that is valid and not obligated in truma and maasar.]] That is referring to our case. He reaped the first sheaf of the 1/60. The obligation went to the stacks. But he said "all that is harvested is now peah." Well if that first sheaf of the 1/60 is also obligated in peah then there is nothing left to be not peah. Therefore the Rambam is poskining/deciding that first sheaf is not obligated in peah. So when peah goes over to the stacks, that has validity as peah and therefore not obligated in truma and maasar.   And that is 59/60 of the field. Which is the majority of the field. [The problem was what is this majority? Why not say if he harvested his field and made all of it except for one stalk as peah that has validity as peah and it is all not obligated in truma.]

music file z45

 z45 D Minor  z45 in nwc

morals are objective.

 I have been having a debate on the blog of Michael Huemer about rights and the issue of government came up. I just wanted to say that my idea about government is what I think John Locke meant [even though I do not recall seeing it stated openly in the Two Treaties]. That is this: in the state of nature man has rights. [That is not hard to see that some principles of morality are objective. We do not think it is right to torture millions of people for the fun of it is okay. So there is an objective right of millions of people not to be tortured for the fun of it. Even if someone might do that, it still is wrong.]

But we give up some of our rights in order to form a government. Even though the government is formed to preserve our rights still some of our rights we agree to relinquish in order to have a government in the first place. E.g we agree to have judges instead of deciding argument ourselves. We agree the government can make laws for the common good instead of our deciding our own good and acting on that by ourselves. etc. 

[I am also saying that morals are objective. This is well argued by Huemer in some of his papers on his web site and all those arguments are put together in his book Ethical Intuitionism.] 

This problem of self delusion is wide spread in the religious world, but is just the normal state among "mystics. "

What is called mysticism is thought to have great insights into spiritual reality. This is obviously a mistake since it is too mixed up with falsehood.  While I do agree that the Ari and Rav Nahman had great spiritual insights, that has nothing to do with the basic question. A person can have great spiritual insights because of their work and efforts in learning Torah and in separating himself from the vanities of this world. But that has nothing to do with "Mysticism".

Better it is to stay away from the self deluded.  This problem of self delusion is wide spread in the religious world, but is just the normal state among "mystics. "

Delusion of the religious is, "Because we are strict in certain rituals, therefore we are smarter, more moral, and more holy than anyone else." [And the corollary to this axiom is "And thus we are not begging for charity as it seems we do all the time. Rather we are asking for what is justly ours since we uphold the whole world."]

One aspect of this delusion is the idea that the religious are more moral than anyone else. But experience shows this to be false. They seem nice until you ask for a favor (after you have done tons of favors.]) 

[I hope it is clear that I do not mean to cast aspersions on the truly sincere or the great Litvak yeshvot which are far from all these faults. Rather my hope is to warn the naïve about what is all too obvious to those with experience. And in the Torah there is a specific command ""Do not stand by the blood of your neighbor"אל תעמוד על דם רעיך

the greats, Kant, Hegel, Leonard Nelson

 Once John Searle makes it clear that he thinks the whole problem that started "Idealism" in Berkley is a mistake that caused philosophy to sink into the mud for 300 hundred years is a mistake [See5:16 of this video]-a simple mistake in the word "aware".[The idea is that we are only aware of the picture of an object that we have in our mind] [The logical fallacy of ambiguity, aware of an external thing. Aware of an inner thing.] This lends a lot of support to ideas of Huemer that we have direct awareness of what we see and feel. Otherwise you might say that most of us simple people have not the wherewith all mental capacities to understand the deep logic of the philosophers. However I have been aware of this issue for a long time, I still think the greats, Kant, Hegel, Leonard Nelson  still have very important points. And all the more so that there is no evidence to say that Hegel agreed with Berkley at all. Just the opposite. I have always thought that his point is the exact point of Huemer that we have direct awareness of the real world and the mistake of the later philosophers is just misuse of the double meaning of the word awareness.

The Russians had tried Marx and Communism and found it terrible.

 How is it that Marxism is so entrenched the English departments of American universities? The Russians had tried Marx and Communism and found it terrible. Even as freedom was granted to the republics, there was an attempt to keep Communism. The result was the Russian people elected to have Yeltsin and freedom. Clearly those who knew a thing or two about the joys of Socialism decided it was nothing like its promises.

Laws of Peah 2:11 See Rav Shach

 There is an extremely puzzling Rambam that I have no idea how to deal with. It is this statement "If he gives most of the peah to the poor then that part is not obligated in truma and maasar." [Truma is what is given to priests. Maasar is the tithe given to Levites]

I would like to show what is hard to see in this. Normally if one has a field he must leave 1/60 for the poor at the edge. [That is he must leave of what is standing.] But lets say he reaps the whole field. Then he gives the same amount to the poor [from the reaped sheaves even though he was supposed to give from the standing grain]. The Rambam brings this law and then adds this phrase, "If he gives most of the field as peah, that which he gives is not obligated in trumah and maasar.]"

Obviously he can give the whole field as peah except for the first stalk that he cuts. He cuts the stalk and then automatically he is required to give a "edge" peah of the field. [And that edge is not obligated in Trumah nor Maasar], So what is this "most". Why not just "all except that stalk"?

From what I can tell the things that are worthwhile are STEM [Science, Tech, Engineering, Mathematics.] Gemara and Tosphot.

 It seems to me that in my parents home I developed a desire for learning. Part of that was because of my love for my dad [not that he was learning all the time, but rather because of his work in STEM] and also I think this was i response to school where I wanted to do well. It seems to me that this has stayed with me.. I can see this might not be inside every person that might not be driven to  learn and learn well. This must be an acquired taste. Thus I think that my experience of tremendous admiration for my dad and the sorts of public schools I went to were unique. 

I can see that not everyone has a drive for learning. And certainly I did not either have any kind of drive in this direction except for the set of circumstances I was born into--great parents and great schools and teachers.

To make it clear what I am saying is just a repeat of Aristotle ""Virtue is habit." One ought to accustom himself to learn so that eventually one gets to the point that if a whole day goes by without learning, one feels empty. Almost as if the whole day was a waste.  

But furthermore I would like to suggest that there are subjects that are worthwhile learning and others that are destructive to one's mind. \But how can one know what is worthwhile spending time a effort on and on the contrary what is not just a waste of time but destructive before one has actually learned? 

I guess one must depend on "authority." Or common sense.

From what I can tell the things that are worthwhile are STEM [Science, Tech, Engineering, Mathematics.] Gemara and Tosphot. 

[Though some rishonim (mediaeval authorities)emphasize Metaphysics it is hard to know what is worthwhile to look at in that area.] The problem in philosophy is every professor disagrees with every other professor. You have nothing like that in math where most teachers agree that 2 +2 =4. Philosophy is nothing like that where if one does not downgrade everyone else, then one gets zero credit. 

And as far as public schools are concerned, there is no question that my parents would have kept me from them nowadays as highly destructive.  

 z35 E flat Major  z35 nwc

Music File z45

 z45 D minor midi     z45 in nwc format

The fragmented soul.

 The fragmented soul. In this generation the mind has been torn apart. According to Freud we are a Easter basket that contains  different eggs, the id and ego  and the super ego. What makes these things one thing? Nothing. Just they are all in one basket. With Kant things are not so much different with many different functions of the mind and in particular the categories. What makes them one?

It is as if there is no soul. But in fact the religious are not so much better. The  trait of the religious is the desire for your money in order to finance their fanatic life style which in terms of having a sex life is very successful. The religious have lots of children. And they get to fry secular Jews to pay for it.

The proper approach I think is balance. ["Balance" is not a word that my parents would have used but it describes to a large degree their approach of a middle point between faith and reason. It sees there is a limitation to faith --where faith can believe in too many false things which lead it to tremendous evils. But Reason also can be a obstacle to truth since it does not know its limits. So one needs a balance. To get to the place of balance, one needs a certain kind of common sense. 

I have to say that Philosophy is looking good. For some reason there seems to be a new generation of university professors that have become aware of the bankrupt twentieth century philosophy. Or take the few morsels here and there. This gives me great reason for optimism. The best of the moderns Kelley Ross [based on Kant, Fries, and Nelson], Michael Huemer [Foundationalists].Robert Hanna [straight back to Kant with no detours.] And more. At a lot of the insane noise of 20th century philosophy post modernism existentialism etc. they have all seen through the spider webs of verbiage. They are no longer impressed with Freud's steam engine model of the mind. [It seemed original at the time, but it was all taken literally from how a steam engine works. --like sublimation of heat energy to mechanical energy. Steam pressure etc.] Nowadays he would have decided that the computer is the latest thing and aid the mind is a computer. ut in the same way that is pseudo science. There is no relation between a computer and the mind since the computer has no mind at all.

 z44 E Minor

On one hand Rav Israel Salanter was right in emphasizing the actual sitting down and learning the basic books of Musar, I would suggest that Physics also adds to this. This certainly was the path of my parents of balance. Torah with the way of the Earth.תורה עם דרך ארץ

 In the book Or Israel [Light of Israel אור ישראל]  by Isaac Blazer he brings the idea that just knowing the essentials of Musar is not enough. One should spend much time and effort to come to fear of God. While this is certainly true, I think the religious that emphasize rituals think that they have fear of God.  I think the emphasis on rituals is what replaces authentic fear of God. 

So what can lead to Fear Of God? On one hand Rav Israel Salanter was right in emphasizing the actual sitting down and learning the basic books of Musar, I would suggest that Physics also adds to this. You do not see this in the Mishna Torah of the Rambam openly, but in the Guide you see that when he emphasizes learning Physics and Metaphysics he associated Physics with Fear of God, and Metaphysics with Love of God. {In one place only.}

At any rate, I have two points to make here. One is that fear of God and good character which are the goals of Musar are in fact very important. On the other hand the religious world is the exact opposite of fear of God. The emphasis on rituals  and the worship of dead people has nothing to do with authentic fear of God.

But I must make distinction. There are great Litvak yeshivot which learn Torah for its own sake. This is praiseworthy. There are also dens of thieves that the Gra signed his name against- since he saw their root and essence. 

The Obligations of the Hearts [Chovot Levavot] in the first part is Neo Platonic [[which is  a synthesis of Plato and Aristotle]. And you can see that the Ari also is Neo Platonic. But I can not see how   a neo Platonic system is possible to hold with except by Kant or Hegel. The reason is the straight Neo Platonism does have to face a series of challenges.

 For example the challenge of Berkley where he shows that there is something incongruous about the Aristotle idea of knowledge. For Aristotle we know the fire is hot because the form of the fire comes into the head. Berkley shows that there is nothing of the hotness of the fire that comes into the head to make me understand that fire is hot. (See Thomas Reid) There are also problems with combining any sort of Platonic system with Monotheism. [i.e, in Torah you must preserve Divine Simplicity. God is not a composite.. 

And I do not think these issues can be ignored. So you have to deal with these issues somehow or other.  

Kant and  Hegel are I think the only two still standing after 200 years of Philosophy. I mean to say like Robert Hanna "forward to Kant". --that almost everything that came after these two had some good points here and there, but that is like looking for  needles in a haystack. E.g. Wittgenstein had a great point to show how Husserl was wasting his time. But not much in any other way. That seems to be the main thing about everyone after Kant of Hegel-- they get one  point very well and everything else wrong. [However I think the Kant Friesian School does make progress.]

Western doctors find things that are not wrong and give medicines that are not needed , and have no idea of what to do when there is actually a problem.

I think that even a slight raising of temperature of the oceans seems to cause a great increase in the number of parasites in the waters. For some reason I seem to be the only person that notices this. Other people spend all time surfing and swimming. But I have not heard of anyone's complaint . Still to me it seems the waters are much more filled with little worms the get under one's skin and build nests there. This we already know happens to Salmon fish. But it seems to me that this phenomenon is increasing to include humans. I myself have gotten a few and I have found squishing them and applying some kinds of hard things helps. [for example I put on toothpaste mixed with bicarbonate. This seems to help.] 

But I am not going to Western doctors who find things that are not wrong and give medicines that are not needed , and have no idea of what to do when there is actually a problem. I would have a lot more confidence in Russian or Ukrainian doctors that seem to have a rule "do no harm". That is they do not try new supposedly effective methods which are really just the new toys.

I had a intense love of Torah and hoped to spend my life learning Torah. But I can see that  there is such a thing as השגחה פרטית (Divine Providence) that sometimes can create a situation where what might be right, but that there is some deep reason why things have to work out in a different way. So while surely learning Torah is the greatest of all mitzvot as it states clearly in the Mishna in Peah (and made even more clear by the Yerushalmi that every word of Torah is worth more than all the other miztvot,) still there is plenty I needed to learn by being flung out. One invaluable lesson I learned was that the Litvak yeshivot, have no idea of why the Gra is important. They walk in that path (to some degree), but really have no concept of "Why?" I learned that the herem (excommunication) that the Gra signed is much more significant and relevant than anyone today can even begin to imagine.

["Herem" as understood as excommunication is not an exact translation. It means not to have anything to do with one under the herem at all. Not even to sit within four yards of that person. Much less to learn Torah from them.]

But by being in my personal exile, I learned at lot more. But not everything is applicable to everyone in the same way as that first lesson. For example, I learned the importance of the opinion of Ibn Pakuda [of the Obligations of the Hearts] and the Rambam about the importance of learning Physics and Metaphysics. But I realize that the Ramban [Nahmanides] must have disagreed with this at least in terms of the Metaphysics part.] 

Though not at all talented in Mathematics and Physics, I did gain some understanding by means of the idea of the Musar book אורחות צדיקים [Ways of the Just] where in the part about learning Torah, he goes into the idea of "Girsa" saying the words and going on. I used that idea of just saying the words and going on for Mathematics and Physics. That does not make me smarter, but it does help me understand a lot more than if I would say, "I am not genius, so why should I try?"

Or the sweet policy of Mao to force industrialization and thus force the peasants into industry and with no one left to plant and harvest 38 million peasants "disappeared".

 University professors in the USA can be extremely smart. Take for example Robert Paul Wolff. So what do you do when smart people argue for absurd nonsense? When it comes to Kant the guy is a genius. So one might be inclined to ask did he never hear about the Gulags? Or the sweet policy of Mao to force industrialization and thus force the peasants into industry and with no one left to plant and harvest 38 million peasants "disappeared". 

In the Vorkuta Gulag, a general came and asked over and over for at least 20 minutes the men to speak up if they have any complaints. And he promised no one would be punished. A professor of history stood up, and said "I know that for what I have to say ten years will be added to my sentence."     The general again promised for the umpteenth time that no one would be punished. The professor recounted the history of slavery, and finished by saying that what we are experiencing here, is the worst kind of slavery in the entire history of mankind.  He did not get the ten year sentence that he expected. He was shot immediately.

But this problem has bothered me for as long as I remember. I have always believed that smart in one field meant smart in another field.  However it is clear to me that Americans know this to be not true. No one [but me] ever thinks that Mozart could have been a mathematical genius. 

So back to Wolff being a Marxist. I would like to suggest that care for the weak and feeble is not a Marxist invention, but goes back to the Golden Rule. [This is something that Nietzsche saw clearly. He put the blame for morality and compassion squarely  on the shoulders of the Bible. And he was right!

But obviously the Nietzschean critique of the central problem of morality is true--most of what people claim to be their moral motives are all hypocrisy.  But contrary to Nietzsche, the fact that getting to be decent and really authentic caring person is hard, does not mean that it is impossible. [As noted  before me.] We know this already from Isaac Luria that most of this world is evil. [Foundation is equally good and evil. Creation is mostly good. Emanation is all good.] 

I think the best understanding of communism can be gained from the example of a village in South Vietnam after the Communists took over. They had been fishing, and thus making a small amount of a living. They could at least make ends meet. The Communists came with the (usual) promise of free stuff for everyone. Then came in and took away the fish. [I forget the name of the village that I am thinking of, but this was the general approach]

I can see that 20th century philosophy went from worse to worse. From where do you get that everything is a social construct? Foucoult. It is helpful to realize that he openly said that nature itself is a social construct. And his thought has been enormously successful for the Left. He could write three whole volumes concerning a philosophical understanding of sex and entirely leave out women.

I mean to say to the Left: why follow a madman?

But the problem is that it is not always easy to tell who really is mad--especially when they can talk in the sophisticated sounding talk of academics.

What are plain people like myself to do when their arguments are in areas where we have little understanding? How can we tell who really is a  tzadik and who is wicked? 

I am not sure how to answer this question since the sort of sense one needs to tell who is a righteous person whom it is fitting to take advice from and whom is wicked is not as easy as you could find in a Batman film. There is no ambiguity who is the tzadik and who is the joker.

But there is a suggestion from Michael Huemer: that reason is meant to tell us about universals. And morality is  a sort of example of universals that apply to human beings. That is a very old idea from Socrates that Reason can discern morality. Reason can also tell us whom to pay attention to and whom is the joker. 

To Saadia Gaon also we know natural law by reason. But to Maimonides reason can not know morality.[]You see this in his explanation of Abraham the patriarch who knew natural law but not by reason but by revelation.

[Of course  Kierkegaard help truth is known not by reason at all. The divide between reason and faith is not bridgeable. But I think faith and reason are mutually dependent. And faith is not by following anyone at all. And I have a certain degree of sympathy towards this idea. I see the religious world in fact is not at all religious. They believe in dead people, not God. And this fact is way beyond obvious.

I still wonder why the worship of dead corpses that the religious world is involved never seems to draw any questions. I had thought idolatry is wrong and even mentioned in the Ten Commandments. So why are the religious thought to be religious? they are heretics.

The Stogy German Professor [Marcuse] finds himself in Southern California and finds that the land of eternal sunshine and surfing and girls is all really Nazism

 The Frankfurt School is an important subject. The Stogy German Professor [Marcuse] finds himself in Southern California and finds that the land of eternal sunshine and surfing and girls is all really Nazism [just hidden and waiting to break out onto the surface.] [The One Dimensional Man of Marcuse became the main text of the student radicals.]The idea off the alienation by technology of Heidegger gets accepted by the "Greening of America" of the 1960's. The whole mixture of Freud and Marx as the liberators of Mankind becomes the norm.

The attempt to understand surfing and girls as proto Nazism had it effect as we see today with the consistent onslaught against all America values by the Left.

[The reason why these German professors were doing this is the same as "Antifa" working on getting away from Nazism. So their solution was to go to the Far Left and Show that America was too dangerously in the center. [In the 1920's there was no center.] 

[But I claim that the center is not the place of danger but rather the right place to be. But to the Left there is no center. if you are not a Freudian Marxist then you are a Nazi.]

The first blessing before the Shema in the morning in the sidur of the geonim

Blessings are a subject that is not well known. Many people think that the order of blessings established by the Kneset Hagedola [Men of the Great Assembly] means the actual language of the blessings. But the Gemara in Brachot makes it clear that that is not the case. What they established was whether whether you have a structure where there is a "Blessed art thou " in the beginning and end or only in the beginning. So for example the blessing after a meal of bread. What was established was that the first blessing starts with "Blessed are Thou" and ends after a middle area with another "Blessed art thou." 

This is obvious in many places in Brachot and Tosphot. But one example I thought to bring to show this point is in one of the earliest sidurim of the time of the Geonim where the first blessing before the Shema in the morning is the first short sentence. Then another short statement. And then the final, "Blessed art Thou who makes the lights".

So while it is true that this blessing and many others were expanded, still the actual obligation is very short and simple. [The knowledge of what is obligatory and what is optional would make the morning prayer shorter.] 

Words are radically subjective

 Words are radically subjective. There is not the slightest objective connection between the word "dog" and an actual dog. So when English American Philosophy took its linguistic turn it became completely irrelevant   meaningless and just shows the amazing stupidity that really smart people can get into.

z44 music file

 z44  D Majormidi  z44 nwc   r77 mp3   r77 midi  r77 nwc

The flat tire of philosophy

It seemed to me when I was in high school that philosophy in fact had fallen  after being preoccupied with words. I felt that if philosophy is worth anything it must be about "the big picture". So what is "Being" itself as Heidegger pointed out is a part of that question. But also the simple person (the Dasein) also seemed important. Where do we fit into Being?

Philosophy seemed to get no where near answering or even asking any of these questions. Physics is certainly asking about the very nature of reality, but to go into that seemed to me at the time to be too hard. [I was not familiar with the idea of Rav Nahman that just by saying the words of what you are learning the learning gets absorbed subconsciously. If I had known that, I probably would have gone into Physics or the Aerospace industry like my dad.]

So today I would like to say that the Kant Friesian School as developed by Kelley Ross  answers a lot of the issues I had back then. You do not want a philosophy that ignores the Inner World [who we are as people with love and imagination.] You also do not want a philosophy that gets the outer world wrong like the existentialists and post modernism. 

To me it seems the the Kant Fries School is the best. But it took time to develop the approach. I was not all with Kant of Fries or Nelson. Rather it took time to get to a place where you have a a coherent approach that also takes an eagle eye of reality.

z43 music file

z43 C Minor

Heidegger certainly has a point that philosophy has been down hill since the Pre-Soctratics. That is it has become all about man and not about Being.

Heidegger certainly has a point that philosophy has been down hill since the Pre-Soctratics.  That is it has become all about man and not about Being. And he proposes to understand Being (Sein) by means of man (Dasein.) But he felt that this later part of his project was not possible so he never wrote the second part of Being and Time.. [Which was all about Dasein].

Why do I mention this? because I feel that the Kant-Fries School [and see https://www.friesian.com/undecd-1.htm] does have a lot to say about Being itself, and succeeds where Heidegger knew he had failed. 

Or maybe it is not that he failed, but did not see how to bring the project to fruition. 

Heidegger is a very Kantian sort of project. Instead of our accepting the dinge an sich things in themselves into computer chips, with Heidegger we impose our form of Being onto things in themselves.  But this is just as unsatisfactory as Kant himself. Imposing our forms onto things tells us nothing at all about anything except our delusions. [And in fact, I gave up after getting about half way through it. It did not seem to me that he succeeded in his original point, and about half way through Being and Time it seemed to go downhill.]

It is Fries who discovered this sort of knowledge that is not by reason nor by the sense that it is possible to understand the dinge an sich.

I was at the beach the whole day so I have nothing here to add about Gemara Rashi and Tosphot. And I am nor really able to concentrate on my learning as I should, so instead I elect to share my thoughts why I think the Kant-Fries School is important [in spite of my feeling that the serious disagreement with Hegel is unfounded.] At any rate, I discovered great ideas in Gemara really only because of my learning with David Bronson in Uman. It is really not all that innate to me. Inherently I am more interested in philosophy.

I might add here that there is a an idea in Heidegger of forsaking beings and follow Being. To seek authenticity. This strikes me as very close to Rav Nahman of Uman in his idea of Hitbodadut.. Go to a place where no one else is and talk with God. For when one is surrounded by people all the time it is very easy for one to lose entirely who one really is.

[The problem with Heidegger is that there is a sort of self worship there. All there is is to be who you are. No obligations to anyone else as Dr Michael Sugrue points out.] 

 For the type of dynamics you have with Lagrange [or the Hamiltonian] you find things tend to their place of minimal energy [or maximal sometimes like in optics], Causality is not at all the determining thing. 

This is something I have already mentioned this in terms of the Kant Friesian School. Where causality is not a part of things in themselves.

I might add to this that time also is secondary as we see in Quantum Mechanics. [As Lemaitre wrote almost a hundred years ago in his papers showing the Big Bang and that time only  began after there were a few quanta around to make time to be able to exist.] 

And this also goes with the Kant Fries approach where time itself is not a part of things in themselves.,

z42 music file

 z42 D minor  z42 nwc

Every group is trying to get to the top. Some by intellect. Some by skin color.

 As Jordan Peterson points out, hierarchies are imbedded into the DNA of not just mammals and chickens, but also in lobsters. So they are not the result of Capitalism. [Presumably lobsters are not adept at being shopkeepers.] So we see Nietzsche was right. Every group is trying to get to the top. Some by intellect. Some by skin color. 

The idea of the will to power but modified from Schopenhauer who was trying to say that there is only one dinge an sich. The Will. But Nietzsche  asked what does that will want? And he saw what is known as the will to power. You can see much in affairs where you might otherwise wonder what is this or that group trying to get to?    Well the answer is blowing in the wind. They all want power. Not equality. Not fair treatment. They want to be on top. But they dress it in fine sounding noble words of equality and justice.

With John Locke things have primary qualities and secondary qualities

 With John Locke things have primary qualities and secondary qualities. Primary means in themselves. Secondary is things that they have only because of our sensing them. [Like it feels hard and cold.] Kant noticed all qualities are secondary. Everything you know about a thing are things you know in relation to yourself. So what is left? The thing in itself.  That is like the old difference between form and content. The thing is the content and the form is your categories that you put it into. [The categories are like computer chips that process the information.] But "It exists" or "It does not exist" are also a priori forms . So we add that also? Then the thing in itself maybe is just not there? 

With Fries immediate non intuitive knowledge is how content is known. So this sort of knowledge does answer that question and many more.

With Hegel, the Logos [in Neo Platonic philosophy] is the source of everything. Not just the logical forms, but even beings. So our minds (which are small parts of the Logos) perceive immediately the categories.

And with Hegel just pure reason can know things. [So that is very close to Fries -- as far as I can see,-we know the thing in itself by reason to Hegel, and by a sort of knowledge that is not reason to Fries.]  

So what I getting at? It is that I think both Fries and Hegel are important. [But I should add that both are in some need for sieving. There are  along the way lots of places that can cause misunderstanding. And when I say Fries I really mean how that approach was developed by Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross. When I say Hegel while I think it is fairly plain and simple, but I can see that McTaggart and Cunningham added clarity where before there had been misunderstanding. 

In any case, I see "Back to Kant" straight just means the old problems cropping up again as was noticed immediately after the Critique was published