I don't have a  Gemara to look this up, but it occurred to me an important question about Bava Metzia and Shavuot 44. [The same Gemara is in Bava Metzia perek האומנים]That is what does Rabbi Akiva hold? The Gemara concludes in Shavuot that the argument of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva depends on the argument of Raba and Rav Joseph. So what we do know so far is RA holds the lender is a paid guard and RE hold he is an unpaid guard.
Now I admit that if one had the Gemara in front of him this might seem like a silly question. But my question is this. What does Rabbi Akiva hold? Does he mean he is a paid guard and thus patur in the case of armed robbery completely? And this get his entire loan? And in the case of loss or not armed robbery [theft] then he is obligated meaning he lose the entire loan? But this can not be right because the the Gemara would have a way of making Rabbi Akiva and Shmuel coincide! And the Gemara pushed that off right at the beginning! [Unless you would want to say the Gemara is changing its mind here and is thinking it is OK for Shmuel and Rabbi Akiva to agree. Now normally this would be impossible but in our case it might be try because we know Tosphot does Poskin like Shmuel. So you might say Tosphot is in fact thinking the Gemara changed its mind without saying so!]
So Fine maybe this is how Tosphot learns the sugia. I just do not know and have no way to look it up.

But what about the Rif and Rambam? I mean lets look at the other side of things. Maybe the Gemara means Rabbi Akiva hold he is a paid guard and thus patur in a case of armed robbery but still loses the amount of the משכון? Fine. Then what about the case of theft or loss? Then he is obligated  and loses the whole loan. This is definite like Shmuel. and that is not good at all because the Rif and Rambam do not poskin like Shmuel.

One way I think makes sense here is this: Rabbi Akiva holds he is a paid guard and so he loses nothing in the case of armed robbery. And in a case of not armed robbery but rather theft or loss he loses just the amount of the pledge משכון. This would be great if this were true. Because then there would not be any case in which Rabbi Akiva and Shmuel are agreeing. And we certainly need this according to the beginning of the Gemera and also the fact is the Rambam and Rif do not poskin like Shmuel.

In summery: What we might have here is two different ways of learning this Gemara. One like Tosphot and the other like the Rif and Rambam.

________________________________________________________________________________
I don't have a  גמרא to look this up, but it occurred to me an important question about בבא מציעא and שבועות מ''ד. The same גמרא is in בבא מציעא פרק האומנים.That is what does רבי עקיבה hold? The גמרא concludes in שבועות that the argument of רבי אליעזר and רבי עקיבה depends on the argument of רבה and רב יוסף. So what we do know so far is רבי עקיבה holds the מלווה is a שומר שכר and רבי אליעזר hold he is an unpaid guard.
Now I admit that if one had the גמרא in front of him this might seem like a silly question. But my question is this. What does רבי עקיבה hold? Does he mean he is a שומר שכר and thus פטור in the case of armed robbery completely? And this get his entire loan? And in the case of אבידה or גניבה then he is obligated meaning he loses the entire loan? Or just the amount of the משכון? But this can not be right because the the גמרא would have a way of making רבי עקיבה and שמואל coincide! And the גמרא pushed that off right at the beginning! Unless you would want to say the גמרא is changing its mind here and is thinking it is OK for שמואל and רבי עקיבה to agree. Now normally this would be impossible but in our case it might be try because we know תוספות does decide like שמואל. So you might say תוספות is in fact thinking the גמרא changed its mind without saying so!
So Fine maybe this is how תוספות learns the סוגיא. I just do not know and have no way to look it up.

But what about the רי''ף and רמב''ם? I mean lets look at the other side of things. Maybe the גמרא means רבי עקיבה hold he is a paid guard and thus פטור in a case of armed robbery but still loses the amount of the משכון? Fine. Then what about the case of theft or loss? Then he is obligated  and loses the whole loan. This is definitely like שמואל. and that is not good at all because the רי''ף and רמב''ם do not decide like שמואל.

One way I think makes sense here is this: רבי עקיבה holds he is a paid guard and so he loses nothing in the case of armed robbery. And in a case of not armed robbery but rather theft or loss he loses just the amount of the pledge משכון. This would be great if this were true. Because then there would not be any case in which רבי עקיבה and שמואל are agreeing. And we certainly need this according to the beginning of the גמרא and also the fact is the רמב''ם and רי''ף do not decide like שמואל.

In summery. What we might have here is two different ways of learning this גמרא. One like תוספות and the other like the רי''ף and רמב''ם.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Something to consider in light of the above. Does any of this help us when it comes to the argument between Rashi and Rabbainu Chananel? I mean: the Gemara's original question was is there an argument between Shmuel and Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer? The Gemara answers no. One is when the lender explained and the other case is when he did not. Rashi says the case of Shmuel is when he did not.
Tome it makes sense to say Rabbainu Hananal must have meant that the Gemara did not use the word "lender," because it would make no sense for the lender to explain the pledge is for the whole loan if that would weaken his position! 
Now I wonder if going back to the original position of the Gemara as I mentioned in the above essay is related to this?  For I have been suggesting that the Gemara did go back to its original position according to Tosphot and the Rif. So now understanding this original position makes sense.

And the fact of the matter is according to this idea of mine that Rabbainu chanel is when the borrowers spoke and Rashi is when the lender spoke we come out with the outstanding and amazing conclusion that there is no argument.
If the borrower spoke he increased his power and so if the lender lost the pledge it goes for the whole loan. If the lender spoke then it was he who increased his power and the pledge is only according to it monetary value.

Furthermore according to what I wrote before that the cases in Bava Metzia 104 and Shavuot 44 are different this also might make  a difference. That is: I wrote Shavuot is when the pledge was lost and the Gemara in Bava Metzia is when the loan was not paid back and so the lender can go after the whole pledge. Going after the whole pledge might be when it was the lender who spoke. The case in Shavuot is when the borrower spoke. And so these two are not disagreeing at all!
And this idea that the different gemaras in different places do not disagree is certainly a starting prima facie assumption of Tosphot.
This might help u in terms of Rosh Hodesh also.
 I wrote in my little booklet Iyunai Bava Metzia that the two gemaras in rosh hashana and Sanhedrin seem to disagree. The Gemara in Sanhedrin the day of rosh hodesh does not depend on the Sanhedrin and to one opinion in Tosphot that means the molad even though you can never see the actual molad
The gemara in Rosh Hashana makes clear everything depends on the ability to see the new moon. To resolve this it is possible to say the difference is when there is a sitting Sanhedrin or not.

Shabatai Tzvi and the cult that the Gra signed the excommunication on.

I think the whole business of the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on is a waste of time and even damaging mentally and spiritually.  

 The Shatz  left lots of cookies. That is like Hansel and Gretel left crumbs to be able to find their way back to the town. Cookies mostly seem innocent. They are also left by software writers in order to preserve their copyright. That is: when they write some code, they sometimes writes meaningless code that does nothing, and has no use. But if someone copies their software and claims that they (the second person) thought it up all by himself, it can be shown in a court of law that the second copied from the first if there are the same lines of meaningless code. [Since there is zero chance the second thought up also the same meaningless code by himself]

These cookies you can find all over all books of the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on. So you know from where they get their ideas from. The Shatz has copyrights.

But even more so--actual basic innovative ideas of the Shatz and his false prophet, Nathan, were accepted by the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on and became part of parcel of their unique teachings.
This is not news to anyone with the slightest familiarity with the books of the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on and knows a bit of history.
What was a surprise to me was the first chapter in the Lekutai Moharan. I had thought that seeing the Divine wisdom in everything and tying oneself to that wisdom was a unique idea of Reb Nachman. Little did I know. It is straight from Natan Haazati [Natan from Gaza] whose has a long and involved presentation of this idea in one of his major works. [In some universities you can find his three books on microfilm]

But Reb Nachman is the very best of the bunch. The most insightful and sincere. The rest of it really ought be be thrown out with the rest of the trash as the Gra already said 200 years ago and still is not listened to.

It is undoubted the original the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on had spiritual powers, but certainly not any more than the Shatz himself. The miracles people did in name of the Shatz dwarfed anything anyone heard or saw with the Baal Shem Tov. People as far away as Frankfurt  could revive the dead just by saying the name of the Shatz. I never heard anyone do such a thing by saying the name of the Baal Shem Tov.
Spiritual powers are taken to be  a proof of holiness by the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on. The opposite is the truth. Spiritual powers are a proof of unholiness and powers from the Dark Side.

At any rate, it takes a certain amount of the interest out of  learning the Lekutai Moharan when you realize from where a lot of the ideas come from.

Reb Nachman was sincere, but so was Shabatai Tzvi. That does not make one right.


The trouble here is that this kind of person that makes a living by being meta-magical is not that rare in human societies. Every society has it's shamans, witch doctors, speaking in tongues --but all at the right time. So they are not full blown schizophrenics, but a gray area called schizo-typal personality

r49 g major  Edited

Gemara and Musar.

To communicate with you a little of my yeshiva experience. Both yeshivas were very special places. 


There is something very special about being immersed in Torah all day. I was kind of a "Masmid," in that it would have taken a thermonuclear device to tear me away from the Gemara. 

And there was in Israel a kind of light that lit up inside my head 

 So Torah is important. 

Why I mention this  is that I am thinking that it might be hard for me at this point to go through the entire Oral Law as I had hoped. 

 But what I am thinking is the idea of מזכה את הרבים- To bring merit to many. 
But I think that since the authentic Lithuanian yeshiva approach is precious and dear and valuable, it might be an idea  to recreate something like that in whatever area you settle down in.

But it has to be authentic with the real spirit of Torah. That would be the exact opposite of what most yeshivas are today. That is my thought for how  I could perhaps merit to the great light of Torah--by bringing Torah to others. That is Gemara and Musar.

False Torah is worse than no Torah. Torah used to promote a cult is  a travesty.

Communism and Socialism as opposed to Talmud.

I think Communism is wrong mainly from the aspect of belief in wise people. That is I learn Talmud and see straight forwards market Capitalism in the three major tractates, Bava Kama, Bava Metzia, Bava Batra. I read the Bible and see the command "Thou shalt not steal." That means also one is not allowed to steal from rich people just as much as from poor people.
I also see, "Thou shalt not covet," which seems relevant.


Then I also have great respect for people that I consider wise nowadays like Dr Kelley Ross and Michael Huemer and Edward Feser. I read Dr Huemer's critique on communism and it made sense to me. [That it is based on the labor theory of value.]


Then I have have had many conversations with people in the former USSR and asked about their experiences. Plus I also remember how America was before the liberals ruined it. So all and all I am pretty disappointed with the Left and anything to do with socialism.
Plus I am kind of shocked when I see or hear people advocating socialistic policies. I wonder, "Do they not know where this leads to?"


And Kelley Ross made a profound statement concerning the job of the State:" On the other hand, if the state provides for general interests only indirectly by being the guarantor of justice, this does not need to be understood as any kind of contract; for no one agrees to be bound by justice. Those who do wrong certainly do not agree to be bound by justice, but those are precisely the ones against whom the state will legitimately exercise force."
Dr Ross's essay on Marxism

I would say that learning Torah has a quality of being a guaranteed cure for most physical mental and spiritual problems as long as it is not being paid for.

That would go along with what the sages said זכה נעשית לו סם חיים לא זכה נעשית לו סם מוות.
Concerning the words of Torah,if one has merit it becomes for him an elixir of life and if he does merit then it becomes poison.



This idea I saw in the Musar book  of the son of the Rambam, Reb Avraham. מספיק לעובדי השם

Ideas in Talmud Tractate Bava Metzia ch 8 and 9.

Ideas in Talmud Tractate Bava Metzia ch 8 and 9.

I have to admit there is something odd about Sefardim that I had not put together before.
But because of the great Sefardi Chachamim [wise men] I am reluctant to put anything down in writing.
The Jews that were under Muslim rule in the first generation were intermarried with Muslims as a rule, not as an exception. There is something, a drop, violent about them. Some ancient taint. Not that that has anything to do with being Jewish. Jewish is just belief in Torah and keeping the laws of Torah. But everyone has some kind of evil inclination to overcome and it seems to me for the first time I am connecting the dots.

Are you an Ashkenazi Jew that has found himself subject to this strange kind of  vibe. You are approached all the time for money by Sefadim, and they make  a song and dance about how "We are all brothers." But then if you move into some area where there is a Sefardi, somehow they always on the sly manage to get rid of you? You think you are alone?

I  can't even begin to count how many times I have seen this  exact scenario played out but I never could imagine what was really going on. I always though there was some reason that I did not understand, until one day it dawned on me the one common factor.
An Ashkenazic Jew in a Sefardi area. They will always find some excuse to get rid of him.

This would not be necessary to say if not for people like Rav Shick that tried to make Sefardim to be super Jews. Everyone that wanted to start a yeshiva would go and flatter Sefardim to get to to come.  

Constitution of the USA and Brett Stevens

amerika is saying as a few other people that democracy has not worked very well in the USA.
This is an opinion I have seen on Return Of Kings. Herodotus said there was one fellow who suggested Democracy for Persia before Darius became king.  And we see Aristotle going through a very large number of possible constitutions

I have had this kind of discussion with my learning partner and he is as so many other in the USA upset the way the USA is today.

My own feeling about this is first to look at people older and wiser than myself. The deepest philosopher I have seen in this generation is Kelley Ross. Edward Fesser and  few others are also up there in the stratosphere but Dr Ross is the deepest. I also remember a time when the USA was different and decent and frankly amazing. I have heard ad talked with many people that have lived under various systems. Muslims in the Middle East and people under the USSR.

People that wish other systems outside of the Constitutional Republic  you used to have in the USA are not aware of what it is like to live in other kinds of systems.

Any system can be abused.


And my first basic approach is to look at the Talmud. The Talmud does not deal with politics but it does deal at great length with laws of contracts and the Constitution is  a contract. Since the Federal government does not respect the contract any more that is no reason to say it is not a good approach.
I think I would have to agree with my learning partner that the monkey in the wrench is what wreaked up everything. Before that the Constitution of the USA was working very well.

The rule of דינא דמלכותא דינא is from the power of  a messenger according to the Rashbam. That means when representatives do not do what they were empowered to do by the people their power is void. So again I think if the Constitution would be enforced things would be different. Plus it can only work for people with a core set of values based on the law of God as expressed in the Torah. The founding fathers made it in such a way that it would work only for people from a Jewish or Christian background.

cults of worship of tzadikim

The most important thing in the Torah is not to do idolatry.  How things are in the wider world others will have to answer for. But in the Jewish world the cults of worship of tzadikim are great and many.
And we know from the sages of the Talmud, כל הכופר בעבודה זרה כאילו שהוא מודה בכל התורה כולה Anyone who denies idolatry is as if he admitted the truth of the entire Torah

The way this was brought home to me originally was by reading the Old Testament when I was in Tzefat (Safed) in Israel.That is if you just start at the beginning and go through the whole thing you will see the one thing the prophets are always upset about is idolatry.

At a later date, I was going through the book of Daniel, and there it was clear that Daniel and this friends were praying to God directly. Not through anyone, nor in the merit of anyone.

 But furthermore, I would like to ask people to be careful about this. With every ounce of my being, with every bone in my body, I ask you to stay away from the cults at all cost. This will certainly be accounted to you as a great merit of listening to the Torah.

After that we have come to this, then I was thinking about the next step of learning the whole Torah in order to keep it. But first things first.

That is I was thinking of a small program of learning through the entire Oral Law  by just devoting a 40 min. to it daily.

Because that is all it takes in order to get though a 1/2 page of Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Mahrasha and Maharam from Lublin. Then you could continue through the Jerusalem Talmud, etc. until you have finished all the sefarim of the Chazal. [Bavli Yerushalmi, Tosephta, Sifra, Sifri,  Mechita, Torah Cohanim, Midrash Raba, Midrash Tanchuma.]

I have thought about learning for sometime. How to learn? Does it depend on what one is learning?

Does every subject need a different approach? And what is worthwhile to learn?

I mentioned here a there a few ideas that I heard from different sources over the years.Maybe it would be a good idea to put it all together in one essay. But just for now I will just say over some random ideas and maybe organize it all later.
(1) Whatever is the hardest-do it first thing when you wake up for the first hour.
(2) I also heard about the last 20 minutes before bed but I have not been able to do that myself.
(3) Saying the words and going on as it says in the Talmud Shabat and Avodah Zara. This is also brought down in the Musar book אורחות צדיקים.
(4) The main things I think to learn are the 1. The Written and Oral Torah, 2. Physics, 3. Survival skills, 4. A Vocation.
(5) Because of the difficulty of Physics I find that for myself it is best to do the Physics session right when I wake up. But others might prefer a different schedule.
(6) The desirability of Physics I based on the Rambam and the Musar book the חובות לבבות
(7) I have found doing Physics in Hebrew, Russian and German to be helpful. Often there is some missing piece that you find in the Hebrew, Russian or German that the English does not cover.
(8) Gemara learning. Besides the basic need to go through the whole Oral Law word for word, I have found it helpful to stay on one Tosphot for a long time and an essay from Rav Elazar Menachem Shach or Reb Chaim Soloveitchik. ["Long time" can mean a week or a month or more.]

[9] The Rambam does say Metaphysics and Physics. He is referring to Aristotle. But what that would mean today? It means I think a whole vast realm of learning that I do not feel up to. But the way I see it it would mean Aristotle's Metaphysics , the Guide, Crescas, Joseph Albo, Ibn Gavirol, Abravenal, Kant. Hegel.

Trump's Foreign policy is not to start WWIII.

Trump's Foreign policy is not to start WWIII.

I do not see much reason to start WWIII. And besides that I do not see anything Russia doing that is anything different than their usual policy of protecting their own people and interests. In the Ukraine they sent support for people that either were actual Russians that happen to live in the Ukraine [moved there during the time of the USSR] or people that wanted an alliance with Russia, and we know anyway Russian does not want NATO expansion.
If the Ukraine had not taken the first steps towards NATO by trying to be part of the economic union of the EU, then nothing would have happened. 

In the ME [Middle East], Russia is also just protecting its own interests as usual. What is the surprise?


Trump's is the best foreign policy I have seen so far.
Trump is not encouraging the creation of a vast Islamic Caliphate as the USA has been doing for the last eight years. (And this would by definition mean WWIII.) Nor is he backing down from any real confrontation. But to start up with Russia when Russia is not doing anything wrong to the USA or to anyone else makes no sense.

You might think this is just common sense. But I have heard people that are more or less perfectly happy with the idea of war with Russia. They might not put it in that way, but that is what it amounts to. Personally, I can not think of a worse idea.

Bava Metzia 104a-b I would like to present this idea:(a wild guess) That the Gemara changed its mind about Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha.

Bava Metzia 104a-b

I would like to present this idea: That the Gemara changed its mind about Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha.

That is at first the Gemara thought he hold דורשין לשון הדיוט ["We explain the language of a document"] but then changed its mind.

I do not have the Gemara in front of me but from what I recall it can be looked at in this way.

So I admit I might be wrong. But let me present what I remember. The Gemara suggests that R Yehoshua holds דורשים לשון הדיוט ("We explain the language of a document"). The reason is because he says a lender can not take a pledge that is worth more than the loan. The gemara asked It seems the reason is he writes כל תשלומתא דאית לך כל קבל דיכי. Then what if he did not write this? Then he would not acquire the whole pledge? This would contradict Rabbi Yochanan who said he can collect the pledge from the orphans. Rather it is for the פחת.
I think that this Gemara is obviously making a difference between if the words were written or not [like the Maharsha] that ["We explain the language of a document"] דורשין לשון הדיוט here has a different meaning than the way Tosphot explained it beforehand on 104 A. [Not like the Mahrashal who said Tosphot continues his regular way of explaining it.]

So the simple way the Gemara sounds to me, and the way the Mahrasha must have looked at it, is this. At first we thought R. Yehoshua was דורש לשון הדיוט ["We explain the language of a document"]which here means it has to be written  and דורש ["We explain the language of a document"] means like we are דורש  "We explain the language of a verse." We analyze its language exactly. But then we ask from Rabbi Yochanan that it does not matter if it is written. So then we change the original premise. We say R yehoshua does not hold דורשין["We explain the language of a document"]. So it does not need to be written. So then why do we write it? For the פחת
_________________________________________________________________________________בבא מציעא ק''ד ע''א ע''ב

I would like to present this idea: That the גמרא changed its mind about רבי יהושע בן קרחה.

That is at first the  גמרא thought he hold דורשין לשון הדיוט but then changed its mind.

I do not have the  גמרא in front of me but from what I recall it can be looked at in this way.

So I admit I might be wrong. But let me present what I remember. The  גמרא suggests that רבי יהושע בן קרחה  hold דורשים לשון הדיוט. The reason is because he says a lender can not take a pledge that is worth more than the loan. The  גמרא asked It seems the reason is he writes כל תשלומתא דאית לך כל קבל דיכי. Then what if he did not write this? Then he would not acquire the whole משכון? This would contradict  רבי יוחנן who said he can collect the משכון from the orphans. Rather it is for the פחת.
I think that this  גמרא is obviously making a difference between if the words were written or not [like theמהרש''א  that דורשין לשון הדיוט here has a different meaning than the way תוספות explained it beforehand on ק''ד ע''א. Not like the מהרש''ל who said תוספות continues his regular way of explaining it.

So the simple way the  גמרא sounds to me, and the way the מהרש''א must have looked at it, is this. At first we thought רבי יהושע בן קרחה was דורש לשון הדיוט which here means it has to be written  and דורש means like we are דורש  verse. We analyze its language exactly. But then we ask from Rabbi רבי יוחנן that it does not matter if it is written. So then we change the original premise. We say רבי יהושע בן קרחה does not hold דורשין. So it does not need to be written. So then why do we write it? For the פחת

בבא מציעא ק''ד ע''א ע''ב

אני רוצה להציג את הרעיון הזה: עובדה שהגמרא שינתה את דעתה על רבי יהושע בן קרחה.
כלומר בהתחלת הגמרא חשבה להחזיק דורשין לשון הדיוט אבל אז שינתה את דעתה. הגמרא עולה כי רבי יהושע בן קרחה מחזיק דורשים לשון הדיוט. הסיבה לכך היא כי הוא אומר המלווה לא יכול לקחת על ההתחייבות משכון שהוא שווה יותר מאשר ההלוואה. הגמרא שאלה נראה כי הסיבה היא שהוא כותב, "כל תשלומתא דאית לך כל קבל דיכי". אז מה אם הוא לא כתב את זה? אחר כך הוא לא יכול לקחת את המשכון מהיתומים? זה יסתור רבי יוחנן שאמר שהוא יכול לאסוף את המשכון מהיתומים. במקום זה הוא עבור הפחת.
אני חושב כי גמרא זו הוא ללא ספק עושה את ההבדל בין אם המילים נכתבו או לא [כמו מהרש''א כי דורשין לשון הדיוט כאן יש משמעות שונה מאשר הדרך שתוספות הסבירו את זאת מראש על ק''ד ע''א. לא כמו המהרש''ל שאמר תוספות ממשיכים בדרך הרגילה שלהם]. לכן הדרך הפשוטה שאת הגמרא נשמעת לי, ואת האופן שבו המהרש''א בוודאי הסתכל בה, היא זו. בהתחלה חשבנו רב יהושע בן קרחה היה דורש לשון הדיוט אשר כאן זה אומר שזה צריך להיות כתוב. דורש פירושו כמו שאנחנו דורשים פסוק. אנחנו מנתחים את שפתו בדיוק. אבל אז אנו מבקשים מרבי יוחנן שזה לא משנה אם זה כתוב. אז נשנה את ההנחה המקורית. אנחנו אומרים רבי יהושע בן קרחה אינו מחזיק דורשין. אז זה לא צריך להיות כתוב. אז למה אנחנו כותבים את זה? עבור הפחת.

Ideas in Bava Metzia updated




But then what is the conclusion of the Gemara? Not like at first that we are דושין לשון הדיוט but rather that it does not need to be written. and then how is the Gemara understanding R Yehoshua ben Karcha? What is the reason he can not take a pledge more than the loan? Because the pledge corresponds to the loan whether it is written or not. and this would then be like the Gemara in Shavuot. which would be great. And then the Gemara asks why then write it? for the פחת


But then what is the conclusion of the גמרא? Not like at first that we are דושין לשון הדיוט but rather that it does not need to be written. and then how is the גמרא understanding רבי יהושע בן קרחה? What is the reason he can not take a pledge more than the loan? Because the pledge corresponds to the loan whether it is written or not. and this would then be like the גמרא in שבועות which would be great. And then the גמרא asks why then write it? for the פחת

אבל אז מה המסקנה של הגמרא? לא כמו בהתחלה שאנחנו דושין לשון הדיוט אלא שזה לא צריך להיות כתוב. ואז איך היא הגמרא מבינה רבי יהושע בן קרחה? מהי הסיבה שהוא לא יכול לעבוט יותר על ההלוואה? בגלל השעבוד תואם את ההלוואה אם ​​זה בכתב או לא. אז זה יהיה כמו הגמרא בשבועות. זאת תהיה נהדרת. ואז הגמרא שואלת למה אז לכתוב את זה? עבור הפחת.

The Libertarian Party

Steven Dutch had some critique about the libertarian party that made sense to me. Plus there are some philosophical critiques I think I saw on Edward Fesser. Plus Dr Kelley Ross left that party for enough good reasons. While getting back to the actual Constitution of the USA is important I do not think the libertarian party would do so. I think Trump would do so.

The Edward Fesser critique I think was based on the idea of  desert island with two people: "Suppose, for example, that you and I are castaways and wash up on some tiny island upon which no human beings have ever trod.  You immediately pass out on the beach, while I get to work constructing a bamboo fence whose perimeter happens entirely to enclose your body.  Upon waking, you accuse me of imprisoning you and thereby violating your self-ownership rights, and demand to be released.  Suppose I then respond as follows: “I have not imprisoned you at all!  I’ve simply homesteaded all the land around you -- which you had no right to, since it was virgin territory -- and I’ve built a fence around it, to make sure you don’t come onto my land and take any of the resources I’ve justly acquired.  True, you’ve got nothing in the way of resources in the seven-foot by four-foot plot of sand I’ve left you, but that’s not my fault.  That’s just your bad luck, sorry.  I suppose it would be nice of me to give you some of mine, but at most I’d be unkind rather than unjust if I decide not to do so.  And I was very careful not to touch you as I built my fence.  I do respect your right of self-ownership, after all!' "

See also




A major philosopher of the Libertarians in Ann Rand and  she is a great writer, but a sloppy thinker as Dr Michael Huemer pointed out in his critique.


The deepest and most thorough of all these people is Kelley Ross. Edward Fesser is pretty much up there with him in sheer intellectual power, but slightly less because less thorough. Michael Huemer is simply brilliant but I put him in third place after the first two. Not because of intellect. He is maybe smarter than the first two but the first two are more thorough and take longer to get to a conclusion.

I wondered for a long time what Kelley Ross would say about Huemer. Two Titans. Finally I found out in a letter and also in an essay. Which was along the lines of what I had been thinking anyway.

Shimshon Refael Hirsch. Rav Cook and Reb Israel Salanter

I have thought and wondered for some time what could provide a simple introduction to Torah
The trouble that I see is that of schizo-typal personalities. That is mentally unbalanced people that feel they already understand the Torah perfectly and have to bring everyone else to their perverted version of it. All books that supposedly provide an introduction to Torah though are from these kind of insane individuals or followers of said individuals.

And even if one would have the time and effort to go through the entire Oral and Written Law that still is no guarantee to come out with  an authentic approach.
Thus it occurs to me that there is a great need for the Horev of Shimshon Refael Hirsch. I would add Rav Cook also to this list of recommended introductions, except that I am not that familiar with his writings.

Reb Israel Salanter's Musar movement and all of the books that came from from his immediate disciples are very good, but the movement itself got sidetracked in strange fanatical ways.

Reb Israel wrote a letter called the Igeret HaMusar which he meant to inaugurate a kind of Musar Movement. Later one of his disciples Isaac Blazer wrote a book called Or Israel and the letter of Israel Salanter is in the middle of that book. The basic message in plain English is to fear God and to work on one's Midot [character traits]. That is a book that inspired me greatly to look more deeply into Musar when I was at the Mirrer yeshiva. It is slightly different than the Madragat HaAdam which also is basic Musar but with a special emphasis on trust in God. Both of these books however are in Hebrew and the Horev of Shimshon Refael Hirsch is in English already and also provides a kind of Introduction to Torah thought that Musar already assumes. 


So to get a proper picture of Torah the best idea would be I think the Horev by Rav Hirsch, Rav Cook's writings, the entire school of thought of Reb Israel Salanter [this means his direct students], plus the actual Musar from the Middle Ages, plus Saadia Gaon's אמונות ודעות and the Rambam's Guide. 

Music for the glory of God

r46  r47   [r46 midi r46 nwc]  [r47 midi   r47 nwc]

If you are protecting Hillary then guns are the answer. If you are protecting ordinary people from criminals that is different.

Virtue signalling is not virtue

The essence of the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on is virtue signalling by dress and by elaborate display of rituals. "Virtue signalling is not virtue, it is the pretense of virtue.  Being virtuous results in status. People look-up to virtuous people. But on the other hand virtue is hard and requires sacrifice and discipline. You are only as generous as the portion of your income you’re actually willing to give to others.

Some people try to acquire status a dishonest way. They practice virtuous activities so they can show off their virtue to others. But this virtue is not real virtue.

A generous man gives to the poor because it’s the right thing to do or because he is compelled by compassion, duty, or guilt; he does so for some reason intrinsic to himself and his own character. He is generous because he is a generous person. The generous man who gives to the poor while telling those around him how generous he is, is not being virtuous. He is not displaying his own virtue, rather he is buying the status of being a generous person with his gifts."

I think it matters what the character of the higher power is and what kind of obligations He imposes. The Rambam definitely mentioned this in the Guide for the Perplexed. Let's take for example Venus. She imposes certain obligations. Her obligations are opposed to those of Artemis. In fact, so opposed such that if one serves Venus, Artemis is likely to get mad at him, and visa versa. That is perhaps an extreme example. But the point I think is clear.

This was a short note I wrote on social revolutionary 




I think the point is brought out well in Kelley Ross's essay the Dark Side of the Tao.


The point I am trying to make is that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob imposes certain moral obligation that are unique and different from other "higher powers."   Thus everything depends of what higher power one is serving.

However nowadays it has become profitable to  signal to others that one is serving the God of the Torah. It has become big business. This is why you see many people making elaborate display of their religiosity.


My feeling is that it matters which higher power we choose. That is choosing the First Cause is important. But then there is a subject element of how we understand the first cause. Schopenhauer put it the best way to make this understandable. Not a direct quote but his idea is, "The representation is provided half by the subject and half by the object." All I am saying is how we understand the First Cause is important.

This is why the Torah and the books of Musar make it clear that God requires certain standards of morality and does not leave it up to us to decide what we want to be moral but makes it clear from the outset.

Song for the glory of the God of Israel, r45 3-4 time.

r45 B flat major mp3 [same piece in midi  same piece in nwc]  r1mp3 [r1 midi][r1 nwc] r2mp3 [r2 in midi] [r2 nwc] r43 mp3[same piece in midi] [same piece in nwc] r3 mp3 [r3 in midi]  [r3 in nwc] r4 mp3[dito in midi] [dito in nwc] r5 f major mp3 r5 midi  [r5 nwc] r6 mp3 r6 midi r6 nwc r7 mp3 [r7 midi] -r7nwc  r8 C major mp3 r8 midi  r8 nwc

An American Folk Song about the Land of Israel. I should mention I was in Safed for seven years in the north part of Israel and this song is no exaggeration.

On Jordan's stormy banks I stand
And cast a wishful eye
To Canaan's fair and happy land
Where my possessions lie


There generous fruits that never fail
On trees immortal grow
There rocks and hills, and brooks and vales
With milk and honey flow

 I am bound for the promised land
I am bound for the promised land
Oh, who will come and go with me?
I am bound for the promised land



Oh, the transporting, rapturous scene
That rises to my sight
Sweet fields arrayed in living green
And rivers of delight

When shall I reach that happy place
And be forever blest
When shall I  see my Father's face
And in His bosom rest

I am bound for the promised land
I am bound for the promised land
Oh, who will come and go with me?

I am bound for the promised land

_________________________________________________________________________

I should mention I was in Safed for seven years in the north part of Israel and this song is no exaggeration.
In fact I think it is quite accurate  a description of how things were for me in Israel for the time I merited to be there.

The trouble with religious teachers is they are not trustworthy. Friendship is just a word, but money is forever. They get what they can from other people. Their obligations to others is null. Their attitude is: "There is only me. There is only what I can get for myself. Trust no one." And thus, no matter what you do for them. No matter how much you try, when you are in need, they will always turn their back on you.

There should be a list exposing the rotten religious teachers for what they really are. Anti Torah, Anti Jewish, anti Morality, that have penetrated the body of sincere Torah keeping Jews.


It can be helpful in understanding this  to take a
voluntary organisation like a yeshiva or a synagogue as the relevant social practice or concept, with the policies  and  principles  written  into  the  organisation’s  constitution  and
rules and the leadership body responsible for carrying out of these principles.
When a Trojan horse of religious teachers has entered the walls of Troy and managed to infiltrate into positions of leadership it is safe to say we are in a crisis.


This list is not hard to make. All religious teachers in LA are Trojan horses. Even places you would expect to be better because they learn Torah are in fact no exception.
There ought to be an official list that people could add to if their experiences with some religious teachers show that that religious teachers is in fact a Trojan horse. There are plenty of religious teachers to fill the bill and in fact so many that perhaps there ought to be a short list of the few one that are in fact loyal to Torah.

The trouble with religious teachers is they are not trustworthy.  Friendship is just a word, but money  is  forever.  They get what they can from other people.  Their obligations to others is null. Their attitude is: "There is only me.  There is only what I can get for myself.  Trust no one."  And thus, no matter what you do for them, no matter how much you try, when you are in need, they will always turn their back on you.


If it would be that they are rotten people I would not bother writing about it. But what really bother me is they give the holy Torah a bad name. When people find out how really bad the religious teachers are they tend to attribute the cause to the Torah.
However it is true that even without that reason, I would have an obligation to warn people about a stumbling block. But I just do not feel that degree of social responsibility to warn people about every bad group out there. But the rotten religious teachers is more close to home. So at least this one group I think it is proper to let people know about.

Perhaps we lack a right to engage in activities that reasonably appear to show an intention to harm or impose unacceptable risks on others. For example, I may not run towards you brandishing a sword, even if I do not in fact intend to hurt you. The principle also explains why we punish people for merely attempting or conspiring to commit crimes. Thus, suppose that people who read the Communist  Manifesto are slightly more likely than the average person to attempt the violent overthrow of the government. (This might be because such people are more likely to already have designs for overthrowing the government, and/or because the reading of the book occasionally causes people to acquire such intentions.) I take it that this would not show there is no on the face of it  right to read the Communist Manifesto—though perhaps the situation would be otherwise if the reading of the Manifesto had a very strong tendency to cause revolutionary efforts, or if the occurrence of this effect did not depend on further free choices on the part of the reader. But let us take the Koran. There is a strong tendency on the part of people that read it to take violent actions against Jews and Christians. This should be taken as good cause to  throw it out. Similarly I think we can show similar effects from that certain books of the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on. That is they may not directly cause violence, but  cause insanity. In other words reading any book we have to assume is OK unless some  kind of meme inside of it seems to cause people to swallow it and become violent or insane. It is for this reason that pharmacies are not allowed to sell poison under a label "Pain killer. Guaranteed to relieve all your ills." [The advertising would be absolutely true. Still it would be against the law.]

Rebuke

I saw recently in the Even Shelema which is a collection of statements from the Gra that even when you know the person will not accept your rebuke. I seem to recall the Shelah say the same thing. On the other hand one does need to know how to deliver rebuke. If one can not do it without anger then certainly he is not obligated. And the most obvious point is one does need to know when something is truly wrong or not.


There are good arguments for free will. Michael Huemer presented a few and so did Maimonides. But in any case once there is free will you have to assume that men and women can choose good or evil. The only moral superiority anyone has is when they choose good. That is clearly what the Torah holds.
On a side note there is a command in the Torah to rebuke your fellow man or woman when you see them doing wrong.

R48 D Minor

race

 race. I have thought for a long time that the way  nature operates to take  one species and make it into two or more is to start slowly with race.  I based this idea on Darwin. The idea is that you take one species and separate it. You put one group on some island somewhere. Then you take another group and put it elsewhere. After a short amount of time that one species will be two species. That is what race is. Race is you take a group of humans they go down to Africa. Another group goes north. Eventually they become two species.

But added to this I need a little wisdom from the Talmud: that is is not a good idea to go against nature,- because nature will win.

But that still does not mean anything about how to treat other people. It has to do with groups but not individuals.

Second Amendment. Get groups together to get every possible Trump voter to the polls.

The religion of the left is power. I do not think they will give it up without a fight. Thus I think Americans ought to be armed in such a way to make a declaration of martial law and invalidation of the November election impossible.




One way you can defend the Second Amendment is by natural rights of self defense.

To help that things should not come to that Americans should be well armed and organized as groups. The best thing is to already get groups together to get every possible Trump voter to the polls.

There was a group of people in Rome that were religious followers of Plato. They followed Plato and learned him religiously just like we learn Gemara {Talmud.} They sat in the Beit Midrash all day and learned his writings. The Rosh Yeshiva gave  a shiur klali [class for the whole yeshiva]every week and every day there were classes in Plato. One practice was someone would give a seminar. That is for young married men they would give something that would approach a regular class of a Rosh yeshiva but on a slightly lower level.

The unique thing about this place that I find fascinating is the efforts of the Rosh yeshiva to consider Aristotle as a commentary of Plato and not as an adversary.
There was no denying that Aristotle disagreed with Plato on important points but still they sought insights into Plato by means of Aristotle.

What became of this? It became the pillar of all Western Thought. The Neo Platonic school of thought became the basis of Saadia Gaon, the Rambam (Maimonides), Crescas, Hegel, the Ari (Arizal, Isaac Luria), Augustine, Ibn Gavirol.

The reason I bring this up is that I think people have made too much of  a big deal out of the arguments between Kant and Hegel. Way too much. What I see is a kind of learning of Kant that would use insights of Hegel to understand Kant much like the Neo Platonic, Plotinus, used Aristotle as a commentary of Plato.

I mention this because I have been troubled for a long time about what you would call intellectual intuition. This I think is at least one major difference between Kant and Hegel. And On this issue I definitely go with Kant. But I can not see why that would cancel the insights of Hegel.

I admit i am nervous about saying this because of my lack of  knowledge. Still I see this as a promising approach.

Meta-magical thinking and schizoid personality disorders.

Meta Magical thinking is something I have seen a lot of in the world of the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on.
The leaders of the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on almost certainly have schizo-typal personality disorders as do many of their followers. People have been able to discern the line between normal thinking, schizo-typal thinking and downright schizophrenia.

So the obvious question is what happens when there are real objective phenomena that seem to be above the natural order?

The awareness that there is spiritual thinking that is downright sick is a strong part of the Lithuanian yeshiva experience, and any slight suggestion of this kind of thinking is rigorously excluded.
They are very well aware that there are people that are very religious, but not from a healthy standpoint.

It would be helpful to have a useful measure of such things.

The problem is that this kind of thinking is sanctioned and when people are not outright schizophrenic and have some control they can direct  their thinking in socially accepted direction and become the holy man of the community.

The problem that I see is that hanging out with sick people can make one sick --even if he starts out as perfectly normal and healthy.  Furthermore following a sick person can make a whole community sick. These are the basic problems I see here.

I know this group likes to think of themselves as super Jews, beyond reproach. It is sad that the truth is just the opposite and the numbers of broken lives and broken homes they leave behind is horrific.
So I would say to be careful to adhere to what the Gra said in all subjects, and especially in this.

Meta-magical thinking and schizoid personality disorders.

Meta Magical thinking is something I have seen a lot of in the world of the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on.
The leaders of the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on almost certainly have schizo typal personality disorders as do many of their followers. People have been able to discern the line between normal thinking, schizo typal thinking and downright schizophrenia.

So the obvious question is what happens when there are real objective phenomena that seem to be above the natural order?

The awareness that there is spiritual thinking that is downright sick is a strong part of the Lithuanian yeshiva experience. and any slight suggestion of this kind of thinking is rigorously excluded.
They are very well aware that there are people that are very religious, but not from a healthy standpoint.

It would be helpful to have a useful measure of such things.

The problem is that this kind of thinking is sanctioned and when people are not outright schizophrenic and have some control they can direct  their thinking in socially accepted direction and become the holy man of the community.

The problem that I see is that hanging out with sick people can make one sick --even if he starts out as perfectly normal and healthy.  Furthermore following a sick person can make a whole community sick. These are the basic problems I see here.

Hegel is like Aristotle

What Kelley Ross does is he has discrete steps in the a priori. That is not a continuum. That is one thing will be contingent to some higher a priori, but necessary for a lower level.

But within one area of value, he will have continuous values.

This again seem to me to  go along with Hegel. Hegel does not want any universal to be contingent. But to him there is certainly a hierarchy of universals.

In other words though Hegel is like Aristotle in many ways, still in this one area he diverges. With Aristotle the universal is definitely dependent on the particular. Hegel does not want that. He wants the universal to contain the particular. Hegel calls the universal an independent immediacy. [Shorter Logic pg 159.]

Social revolutionary.

Social revolutionary asked on my comment on his blog:

"I think it would be extremely helpful and revolutionary if we could determine where in the continuum one gives way to the other. Or is there no continuum?"


I did not mention it in my answer to him but I think he is  dealing with the issues brought up by Frege and later on people. That is a good deal of 20th century philosophy tried to deny the existence of the a priori. They tried to use Frege for that. But I do not know. I think Michael Huemer also gives a great account of lots of levels of a priori knowledge.
I am reluctant to go further than this because I am kind of on thin ice. I perceive some connection between Kant and Hegel which would be great as far as Shalom Sharabi and Isaac Luria are concerned. But I am afraid to go too far with this. [What I mean is my level in philosophy has not gone much further than what I learned in high school. People like Kelley Ross and Michael Huemer have done a lot of great thinking about these things.

 

Reason perceives universals--not prime substance. The idea of dinge an sich

 "The thing in itself." And that is a concept that is hard to grasp in all its glory. It refers to both a priori and empirical knowledge. The best treatments of this are from Schopenhauer and Dr Kelley Ross. 

The way I see it is that Aristotle is not that far away from this concept with Prime matter being something that reason can not perceive.That is: not only do we have Plato showing there is a an aspect of reality hidden from reason but I think we have to include Aristotle in this also. For the simple reason that Reason perceives universals--not prime substance. The Gra hints to this also in his statement on the Hagada that everything has an open aspect and a hidden aspect. 


Kant's original idea is modest: "It is easily seen that this object must be thought only as something in general = x, since outside our knowledge we have nothing which we could set over against this knowledge as corresponding to it...."[Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason translated by Norman Kemp Smith, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1965, p. 134. 

Unbelievably simple. 

But this goes further. We can check empirical knowledge. The way  Kant would  put it is: "We have something to set against it". That is we have a measuring stick. A Priori knowledge has no such measuring stick for its first axioms. Thus, "How do we know synthetic a priori?"
The "Obligations of the Heart" [The first Musar book by Ibn Pakuda] (What a name! Pakuda means an "order," or a "command") says it is by prophecy. That is all advances in knowledge are not by reason but by revelation. 
The Rambam also mentions this in the Guide concerning moral knowledge. 
Schopenhauer always refers to the "Ding An Sich" [the thing in itself] not the plural like Kant's dinge an sich things in themselves. And that brings us to the First Cause and also to the sub levels of  contingency.


So then as Dr Ross puts it we do not think a bathtub full of computer chips can do any commutations.The Structures have to be already there for the mind to perceive anything.

The way this works are by Stephen Gould, Sapolsky, and by a recent essay I saw on a nice blog.
That is structures that stick out to perceive more  than what they were designed for, {Stephen Gould}.
Neural networks and chaos. {Sapolsky}. Quantum jumping.  [by "An Unmarried Man".] Dr Hoffman

The way to understand this the way I usually do is by the idea of plane of existence But a more fruitful approach could be through מרחב כיסוי the covering manifold.

That is p: C to X.  That is "p" is a map from the covering manifold to the base manifold. And p^-1 maps in the opposite direction up to your C [cover]. And every point in your base {"X"} has an open area surrounding it, i.e. "U". And every curve in X that can be mapped to curves in upper manifolds U sub Alpha.  All this means is you have lots of covering spaces over one manifold. That tomy way of thinking means lots of things in planes of existence that  when they get "down here" become existing things.


[I mean this as metaphysics. Not as a biological process. But who knows?]

Anyway the place where Hegel comes into this is in the hierarchy of his triads which really are stages of unconditioned reality becoming reality.
You need Hegel because of this fellow The Maverick Philosopher that prime matter is not up to the job.

The song at the end of the Passover hagada "One Goat."

I think that חד גדיא (one goat) is a very important lesson about במדה שאדם מודד בה מודדים לו which comes from a Gemara. That is: What one dishes out to others always comes back a full circle. [Lit. "The measure one measures out to others is the same measure that will be measures out to him from heaven."] 

I have seen this countless of times myself. And I am always shocked when I see people doing evil to others and I wonder to myself why do they not realize that what goes around comes around.

But that is just how I have understood that Piut [song]myself. I think that is clearly what it is saying. 


I should mention that I am not immune to the process of מדה כנגד מדה. [what one gives is what one gets,] Thus I see everything that has gone wrong in my own life as a direct result of my own sins. This comes from a statement in the Talmud. אין יסורים בלי עוון. (There is no suffering without sin.) Now you could ask on that from Job. But still I am just saying how I see things myself based on my experiences in a Musar Yeshiva in NY. That is I try to see what faults there are in me when things do not go my way. This approach I am very happy that I gained in yeshiva. Because I have seen lots of people when things do not go their way their first reaction is to blame others and almost never look into themselves.

I imagine that if I had not learned this in yeshiva from where could I have learned it? Thus I am grateful to God that I spent some important years in an authentic Lithuanian yeshiva. Whether I learned well or not is not the issue. Rather what is important is some amazing lessons in having the right attitude that I gained there.

religious teachers

religious teachers . I never thought they were anything but dressing up like holy people in order to make money. I never thought they knew Torah. Still there are people that go by same name but are in fact devoted to Torah These honest and decent people for some reason have not seen fit to disassociate themselves  from frauds.

There is a custom in the authentic Lithuanian yeshiva world to call people Reb just like you could say Mr Smith. Thus we have even the greatest of Torah scholars being called as "Mr Smith" as in "Reb Chaim" [that is Chaim Soloveitchik] or the "Chafetz Chaim." Or "Reb Moshe" [Moshe Feintstein]. "Reb Aaron" [Aaron Kotler]. But this is only a custom. [That is "Reb" is the same as "Mr."]

Sephardim have a custom that is also admirable. For authentic Torah Scholars they use the name the Talmud gives them: "Rav." So for the greatest Sephardi Torah Scholar we have "Rav Ovadia Joseph."

Gentiles for some reason have not learned to make this distinction, nor have most secular Jews. I have no idea why this is.
But my guess is that the true Torah scholars never made it their business to make this distinction which leaves all us simple Jews in a award position. It is almost impossible to tell who is real and who is putting on an act.
So why do not the true scholars speak up? I could not even begin to guess. It is like unspoken rule.

In the name of all of us simple Jews, I ask the true Torah scholars to help us to make this important distinction. Because without it everyone suffers.

But the silence of Torah scholars is puzzling in more ways than one. Everyone reading this probably knows just what I mean and has encountered this in many other ways. Maybe there is something good about their silence I do not know. But I speak my mind.

A man meets God. The experience is strange. He picks up a book and discovers that for millenia others have had the exact same experience.

https://dougwils.com/

From this link
Try this.

A man meets God. The experience is strange. He picks up a book and discovers that for millenia others have had the exact same experience.

He realizes that he has a 'map of the experience' so to speak. Curious, he digs deeper and discovers principles about this strange thing he was not aware of. The man tests them empirically and they are true.

Being social a social creature, he talks to others who have had the same and similar experience.

Along comes a random heathen man who attempts to cast doubt on the veracity of the experience by pointing to the book. The man looks at the heathen and shakes his head. "you miss the point. you invert the phenomena. you are looking at this wrong. you do not see. "

The differences between Kant and Hegel can be ironed out.  [If anyone is at all interested.]
The way is simple by an idea from the Rambam. Reason itself needs to be revealed.
You have the same unconditioned realities of Kant. But these unconditioned realities are a hierarchy. The same hierarchy of Hegel. But instead of their being perceived by reason they can only be revealed by the will of God. This was not I think the new idea of the Rambam. You can see this in the חובות לבבות Obligations of the Heart by Ibn Pakuda, the judge. I assume he might have gotten it from even earlier sources.

That is you could build a Kant-Hegelian system. You would preserve the ding an sich the Reality and realities that are not perceivable by reason but rather are revealed.--Or the way Plato would say it "Remembered." [See the Meno. And this is not like the Neo Platonic school that did not have anything like unconditioned realities. This rather would be straight back to Plato.]

You would also have to realize the absolute Spirit of Hegel is not the same thing as the First Cause as the Rambam also noted a long time before them.

I am the hierarchy of Hegel is not the same kind of thing that I am thinking of here. Here I am thinking of Kelly Ross hierarchy of Ur Contingency. But in any case you get the idea.

You might not think this is a big deal but I see it as very important for many reasons. One side issue that people might consider is that freedom has not much going for it from a John Lock perspective. If you think individual freedom is important you do need to find a better basis for it outside of the blank slate.

Government I thought was only granted certain powers in the Constitution. Even without the idea of rights, I would think that it has no power except what was agreed upon by the States. 
But it takes power anyway. I think if freedom and individual rights had more of an intellectual backing then people would be less willing to grant unlimited powers to government. 
Their power ought to be limited by reason of natural rights.


You really can not take Hegel alone in that he is definitely  on the side of Aristotle. To him the individual is the same as Aristotle's prime substance-- that is basically just nothing but a vessel prepared to contain some universals. So you need Plato's ideas  and Kant's autonomy of the individual.

That is you need to take Hegel the same way Plotinus took Aristotle as modifying and explaining Plato. You need Hegel to help fill in the whole picture.