Kant morals are universals

Kant was trying to capture something mentioned in the essay, “Why I am not an Objectivist” [by Dr. Huemer] i.e. that morals are universals. But they are different than universal laws. They are “oughts” not “is”. That is at least what I think he was trying to get at. [nd we can know universals as shown in the Critique about synthetic a prior which is equivalent to universals.--also as shown by Dr. Huemer in "Why I am not an Objectivist"

Hegel

 Hegel has this idea that there is kind of progress in philosophy in such that they are trying to progress towards a kind of understanding of the world --which means they are trying to question assumptions and also to build up sometimes their own system.

 Hegel was not unlike most other philosophers was not anti Christian though he is often thought to be. Just the opposite. He was doing in his way what Aquinas was doing. Except to me it seems he sees the world as an organic whole.

The reason Kelley Ross [The Kant Friesian School] and many others  are not happy with Hegel I think comes from politics. And in fact it does not seem that politics was Hegel's forte. As far as politics goes I think the founding fathers of the USA were much better. The problem with the Constitution of the USA is what the founding fathers said about it in the first place. It can only work for a certain kind of person.  That might explain some of the more difficult to understand aspects of the USA today. 

Ayn Rand

According to Ayn Rand. philosophy trickles down to the general world view of people--if it is accepted in the first place as legitimate. So you don't know the assumptions of people  before there is philosophy. It might be wildly insane. There is a sort of background of assumptions that people start with. So though philosophers now might seem off, that might be after there is already a background of rationality. 

w38  w38 midi   w38 nwc

The importance of the path of the Gra and Rav Shach is  not based on thinking they got everything right. Rather that they were the best in one area of value--understanding and keeping Torah. That does not assume that they could compose like Mozart. In fact I found it hard to keep all the Torah with the kind of greatness they brought to that endeavor.  But I realize they that is one area of value that they got right.

A theory of several areas of value is certainly brought in Ibn Pakuda in the Obligations of the Heart. You can see this also in Kelley Ross [The Kant-Fries School]. There were originally some problems in the Friesian approach that were later fixed by Leonard Nelson, and after that Kelley Ross made a kind of system out of the whole thing. It is a kind of rival to Hegel's system. [Which is better from a philosophical point of view I have no idea. Both have advantages. But in any case with both you have this idea of several areas of value.
(Hegel also has a many area of value system, except his values all approach God. It is different from Leonard Nelson in significant ways but also shares a lot of basic values.]

We know from Rav Nahman that there are Torah scholars that are demons [LeM I:12.]. But how can they trick others? People are so easy to swindle because of the victim's own moral defects.  When good judgment and moral sense are subjected and by lust or greed or sloth or vanity or anger, the one swindled participates willingly in his own undoing.  In the end he swindles himself. 

There is a transcendent aspect of human life. There are however different sources of transcendence. Not all are good. So it makes sense that Rav Nahman would warn about this. Clearly also the Gra and Rav Shach also warned about this, but for some reason their warnings seems to go ignored.

Learning in depth

Learning in depth I think is an aspect of the path of the Gra. The most important of the books on learning in depth are all from the path of the Gra. Not just after Rav Haim from Brisk but even before him. Might as well make a list. The Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Haim of Brisk. Shimon Shkopf the Shaari Yosher. R Akiva Eigger. Netivot HaMishpat. Baruch Ber of the Birkat Shmuel. Ketzot HaChoshen. The Musar movement. Naftali Troup. Aruch Hashulchan. The two commentaries on the Yerushalmi, Pnei Moshe and Karban Eda both direct disciples of the Gra  The peak is of course the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. But besides that there are countless of deep and great books by the great people of the Lithuanian Yeshivas which are all of amazing depth.
But I have to add that the path of the Gra to a large degree meant trust in God. People were not worried about making a living. Trust and learning Torah in depth are the two pillars of the path of the Gra.

[My thought is to at minimum get the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and do each section many times until it becomes clear.] 

Saadia Gaon in raised the two most famous objections on Jesus: (1) nullification of the commandments; (2) Divinity.
To answer the first objection it is possible to point out bahnsen The Theonomic Position

I have known about this essay for about two or three years but never thought to mention it. It seems important but I guess my blog was about other issues. So it simply never occurred to me to bring it up.
The other objection I have mentioned that "I am" (When Jesus stood before the Roman judge he was asked, "Who are you?" He said, "I am".)  is not the same thing as "אהיה אשר אהיה" "I will be that which I will be" [Which is the name of God at the Burning Bush].[That is the usual source for the claim. That is that "I am" refers to the name of God.] [The idea that Jesus is always refers to "the son of man", does not in itself seem to have any implication along these lines. So the critique of Saadia Gaon is a critique on the church rather than on Jesus. [And Avraham Abulafia also was critical of the Church, but about Jesus himself he said very positive things.]

So to me pursuing truth is more important that being "politically correct." PC means any mention of Jesus has to be with some insult. You might get away with saying something nice as long as you insult him afterwards.. But that has nothing to do with pursuing truth.



Here is a middle part of that paper of Bahnsen:

it would be senseless to think that Christ came in order to cancel mankind’s responsibility to keep them. It is theologically incredible that the mission of Christ was to make it morally acceptable now for men to blaspheme, murder, rape, steal, gossip, or envy! Christ did not come to change our evaluation of God’s laws from that of holy to unholy, obligatory to optional, or perfect to flawed. Listen to His own testimony:

Do not begin to think that I came to abrogate the Law or the Prophets; I came not to abrogate but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, until all things have happened, not one jot or tittle shall by any means pass away from the law. Therefore, whoever shall break one of these least commandments and teach men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:17-19).

Several points about the interpretation of this passage should be rather clear. (1) Christ twice denied that His advent had the purpose of abrogating the Old Testament commandments. (2) Until the expiration of the physical universe, not even a letter or stroke of the law will pass away. And (3) therefore God’s disapprobation rests upon anyone who teaches that even the least of the Old Testament laws may be broken.¹⁶

¹⁶ Attempts are sometimes made to evade the thrust of this text by editing out its reference to the moral demands of the Old Testament—contrary to what is obvious from its context (5:16, 20, 21-48; 6:1, 10, 33; 7:12, 20-21, 26) and semantics (“the law” in v. 18, “commandment” in v. 19). Other attempts are made to extract an abrogating of the law’s moral demands from the word “fulfill” (v. 17) or the phrase “until all things have happened” (v. 18). This, however, renders the verses self-contradictory in what they assert.

In all of its minute detail (every jot and tittle) the law of God, down to its least significant provision, should be reckoned to have an abiding validity—until and unless the Lawgiver reveals otherwise.

Rav Nahman deals with the issue that sometimes עת לעשות להשם הפרו תורתיך ואמרו חז''ל פעמים ביטולה של תורה זה הוא קיומה The verse in Psalms says It is time to do for God because they have nullified your commandments. And the Sages said sometimes the nullification of Torah is the fulfillment.

Rav Nahman brings this in that same Torah lesson I mentioned before LeM vol I:76.
This is how some rishonim understand Eliyahu on Mount Carmel. Not as "by prophecy" but rather because sometimes the nullification is the cause of the fulfillment.

Since the very same people that claim to represent Torah are in the category of "Torah scholars that are demons" that Rav Nahman brings in LeM I:12 the very need to keep Torah requires one to make this statement of Rav Nahman into a guiding principle. 

[In Exodus Moshe told Pharaoh the reason they had to leave Egypt to bring sacrifice- after all why could he not have found a park or some private home? Because there was idolatry there. Thus there was no possibility to bring a sacrifice to God anywhere that would be acceptable to God.  

There is a future looking point of view in which one learns from past great people but does not assume that they got everything right. You need some way of combining the good that you learn from past great people and also gain some kind of sense of "birur" to take the wheat from the chaff. Or even to tell who really is a good person worthy to learn from.

But even if you find great people in the past and you can combine all their good ideas that still does not take care of the job of the present of looking into the future. Being future oriented.

I have so many thoughts in this direction it is hard to be able to put it all down-.

One side issue is this very process of "Birur"(choosing). This whole idea here is certainly related to Hegel except in a slightly different way. With Hegel you have thesis anti thesis and then synthesis. But Birur is not the same since choosing is simply deciding what is good and valid in the first place and rejecting the rest.

The idea of trust in God I would like to extend to learning. At least that is how I understood the concept for myself during a period of years when I was adhering to the way of learning of "Girsa" [saying the words and going on].
I had noted before that that the idea of  "Bitachon" [trust in God] extends to even the next world. That is openly mentioned in the most famous of all Musar books, The Obligations of the Heart חובות הלבבות.

So I would think to apply this to learning Physics also.

But I can imagine this is  a a bit of a stretch. First to accept the idea that learning Physics and Math is in the category of learning Torah. [I have mentioned this before.] [And to accept that learning Torah itself is a commandment]. Then to say that learning even without understanding is also in that category. And then also apply learning something that at first seems hard to understand.

Even so, this is what I would like to suggest.


[Later the next day I noted in the writings of Rav Nahman this very idea [in LeM vol I chapter 76]. There is such a thing as trust in God in such a way that one merits to understand his learning even without "iyun" deep study. But the actual idea of just saying the words and going on is also mentioned in the begining of the LeM על ידי עמצאות הדיבור זוכים להבנת התורה לעומקה 

g major w36mp3 w36 midi   w36 nwc [the score you can see in midi or nwc.]
w37  [w37 midi file]  w37 nwc

The importance of the Gra

The importance of the Gra is hard to overestimate since he seems to have had an amazing intuition about what is straight Torah. So the Litvak yeshiva movement founded on his principles in fact represents authentic Torah to a high degree. It seems to me that after the Gra has come into the world then in order to get to authentic Torah in any sense at all, one needs to go through the path of the Gra.
Mainly the path of the Gra in a practical sense means trust in God, and an emphasis on the idea of "bitul Torah". "Bitul Torah" means wasting time from learning Torah. The idea is that there are things that one ought to do besides learning Torah. However the thing to do when one is not obligated in those things is to learn Torah. [The actual path of the Gra got combined with Musar of Rav Israel Salanter and Rav Shach.]

The only thing that I have to add to this idea is that I believe along the lines of the rishonim [medieval authorities] that held Physics and Math to be in the category of Torah. [Even  though this is an argument among the rishonim]. [These same "Rishonim" Ibn Pakuda, Binyamin the Doctor, etc all held also metaphysics is in that same command of learning Torah. But I have a hard time identifying what exactly does that include. Clearly Aristotle. But what else?

[I would venture to say that the fact that most rishonim do not mention Aristotle in terms of Metaphysics that they must have been referring to the whole disciple as it existed then. That would mean the actual book of Aristotle The Metaphysics along with the commentaries of Al Kindi and Al Farabi. Clearly also Plato and Plotinus. What I would add today would be the three Critiques of Kant and Hegel. Anything after that I am not sure of nor of the people leading up to Kant. That is to say a lot of people were leading up to Kant and all have value. But after Kant their value seems diminished to me. Also Kant and Hegel were the giants so after them I am not really sure of who would be thought to be progress after them? I would guess Leonard Nelson and Prichard. [Prichard was part of the school of  Intuitionists that Dr Huemer is based on.] (There is a great deal of tension between the Hegel approach and Leonard Nelson. I wish I had some kind of resolution for this matter and it seems of great importance to me and in fact to the whole world. But I have no resolution.Both Hegel and Nelson have significantly important points.]

At least Physics is well defined. We know where it is at today and therefore we know what to learn. String Theory.

w35 G Major. Winds, Brass, Violin.   [w35 in midi format]  w35 in nwc format

Howard Bloom mentioned that people are tribal [--in a super-organism] in The Lucifer Principle about what he calls a "social meme". He has got a very nice exposition how people get a certain kind of wiring in their heads that does not get easily readjusted once it is set--like a circuit board.

There are honest stupid people and deceitful stupid people.

The worst type of stupidity for me is not having any appreciation for what you don’t know. There are honest stupid people and deceitful stupid people. The honest variety can appreciate there is a lot they don’t know and could never understand. The deceitful variety portray what they don’t know as not that important and amenable to anyone’s understanding in principle. The deceitful variety are often the “educated” humanities folks and those in the soft sciences.

I prefer an uneducated stupid person to an educated one as a rule because the uneducated ones weren’t propagandized to believe they were smart as part of some soft university degree program. The educated ones are insufferable in large measure.

https://motls.blogspot.com/2020/02/when-dumb-humanities-trainees-deform.html#disqus_thread

Imagine everyone would wake up in the morning have twice as much money. Would anything change? No. Rent would double. Prices would double. Nothing has been added.

G Major Winds, violin, French horn. w34   W34 in midi format

It is a odd thing about Leonard Nelson's diagrams. See https://my.fit.edu/~aberdein/Nelson.pdf on some of the recent history by a  philosopher in Florida Dr Andrew Aberdein. Dr Kelley Ross [California] has his own expansion of the idea instead of a square he expands the method into a cube.

So on one hand you can argue that it simply is  away to make his arguments clear. But you have to wonder. For example you have Feynman diagrams that are common in QFT. They are a device. But he thought that they also present how things actually are.

So perhaps there is a connection between logic principles and Geometry. And perhaps you could expand into higher dimensional Geometry or even Algebraic geometry. [That is kind of like Abstract Algebra, but a little different-- in that it deals with local things instead of global things, like Algebraic Topology.]

But you have to wonder if this is perhaps not such a great idea because after all Mathematics was thought to be reducible to Logic until Godel came along.

Based on the idea of Rav Nahman that there is even such a thing as Torah scholar who is a demon, the question is- how far can you take this? How far is there suspicion on anything they say. After all, if lets say you have a delicious chocolate Sunday ice cream, but mixed within is  slight bit of arsenic? How good can that be? And the question ought to be asked,-- after it is known that this is not just in theory, but in fact in this very time and age now there are countless of victims. So the issue is very relevant.

My feeling is to follow the basic, authentic, straight path of the Gra and Rav Shach, and straight Musar. But it does not seem simple to do so, or what kind of "Birur" [sifting] is needed- even on a private level. One solution I have thought is to simply bury my head in the sand, and walk in the path of straight Torah as well as I can. Yet I feel there probably is something important about at least letting others know so at least others can be forewarned.[If I at least warn people, I do not have their blood on my hands. I guess that is the most I can do.] להרים מכשול מדרך עמי

F sharp minor  Oboe, French horn, 3 bassoons, piccolo, violin.

Howard Bloom (in The Lucifer Principle) explained why people do jihad because of a social meme that gets hard wired into their mentality. Like an electric circuits board that before it is hardened in the oven can be rewired in a different configuration. But after it has become hardened, it can not be undone except by taking out all the wiring.

[In the Gemara this is called "Girsa DeYankusa" [learning of youth], i.e., what one learns when he or she is young sticks.]
So you have to try to get the wiring on your circuit board attached well before it get hardened.
And that applies I think even in the beginning of the day. To start with Musar. That is why I think it is good to start the day right at first with the whole page of the Levels of Man of Navardok (Madragat Haadam) about trust in God.


However one needs care to decide what values are in fact good. "There is a crowd that willingly follows anything that moves." Have courage. Stand on right principle.

Objective morality is possible to know by prima facie evidence. [Dr Michael Huemer goes into this.The point is open in the gemara that there are reasons for the commandments and they are knowable. So the commandments are not good because God said so, but they are God said so because they lead to good. The question in the Gemara is between R. Shimon ben Yocahi whther you go by the reason for the commands or by the written word. See Bava Metzia page 119.]

From my little reading of history of Spain I recall a theme. Muslims took over areas of Spain. But the people were Christian.  [So in those areas the rulers were Muslim, but the population were Christian.] That was the setting for the next stage. "Soft jihad" you might call it. That was like this. Muslim adults would be great people. But their teenage boys would venture into the towns of the Christian and do acts of violence. More or less events of jihad. So two opposite streams tended to soften the population to eventually accept Islam. That is kind of how I recall the events in history but I have not read upon this in detail. [I think it was this process which ignited the Martyrs of Cordoba where some people would seek to be martyrs by going up to some Muslim and opening insulting them knowing the penalty.] So it seems like jihad sometimes does work.

[ It is a political problem. And I think that the Constitution of the USA has solved the political problem on how to create a just society. But it seems to work mainly with a Protestant society. So how could one deal with the issue of a different kind of population in a society that is "post Christian"{lukewarm of not at all}?  But looking at Hegel I did not see much helpful, because his forte was philosophy, not politics. Socialism has the basic problem that the very first Plymouth colony discovered when the Pilgrims went to settle in America. Why should the industrious work to feed the lazy?  So when the founding fathers of the USA were dealing with this problem they decided that the Constitution and their system could only work with a kind of people that had an essential set of values. [Basically Christian values as in family, belief in God, in kindness.]

the Gra and Rav Shach

The importance of the Gra and Rav Shach is not to follow them in every detail. The way I see things is that there is a kind of בירור האמת [the truth coming into the clearing like a meadow you find in the middle of a forest -to borrow an analogy from Heidegger.] The point is that sometimes even a great tzadik gains only certain aspects of the truth--but not the whole thing. So I see a kind of dialectical process that happens over time.
Even if Bava Sali was a great tzadik, it does not mean he never made a mistake. We do not even say that about Moses who made at least one major mistake that is recorded in Numbers. We do not say even the greatest tzadik does not and can not make a mistake. Even a sin. But the tzadik tries to repent. And if he does not know or understand his mistake in this world, he tries to correct it in the next world.
The the issue is not to choose a particular tzadik to follow. Rather the point is balance. To find the good values that one ought to stick with and some way to determine what kinds of people or ideas come from the Dark Side [the Sitra Achra] in order to reject what is evil.


[To me it seems that the Musar path of Rav Israel Salanter was in fact very much balanced. Still the "Musar movement" became a movement instead of a path of personal improvement as implied by the words itself. But the actual "Igeret HaMusar" is about learning musar, not making any kind of movement..]

I should add that the path of the Gra certainly is that of "Iyun" deep learning, even though there is an aspect of "Bekiut" [fast learning--saying the words and going on] also. There is a kind of balnce between these two types that I saw in the Mir in NY.

The path of the Gra

The path of the Gra involves learning Torah as a prime ideal. But I want to add to that learning Physics and Math because of discovering this in the Musar of the Rishonim [first authorities, i.e the authorities of the Middle Ages] even though in the achronim [later authorities after the Beit Yoseph.] the opposite is their approach.
 [The Rishonim also add Metaphysics.]
The way to accomplish this I believe is by the  Derech HaLimud [method of learning] of Rav Nahman of saying the words and going on.
(Sicha 76 in Sichot HaRan).
That would mean going through the Gemara with Tosphot and Maharsha. [That is the Oral Law]. In understanding the profound aspect of the Gemara I also think one must add the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. In terms of the Math and Physics, I think one should have a session in getting through Algebraic Topology and Quantum Field Theory and String Theory. [But I have no specific texts in mind.] [As for Metaphysics, clearly the Rishonim were referring to the Metaphysics of Aristotle. But I would add Kant, Leonard Nelson, and Hegel. (I do not have much of an idea how to resolve the difference between Hegel and Nelson.]


[I hope this is clear, But just in case let me add that the idea is to have a session in Gemara Tosphot and Maharsha every day. That is to do a few pages just straight. Then put in a place marker. Then pick up an Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and also go through a few pages. Put in a place marker. Then Physics. Same as above. Then a few sessions in Mathematics.]

w31 music file

F Major w31

B Minor

Steven Dutch said : I can think of any system that can not be misused."

The issue of Torah scholars that are demons Rav Nahman brings in the very last Torah lesson of his life. So in the thought of Rav Nahman this issue is of great importance. היינו תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים.  In the thought process of Rav Nahman the point is that he is actually thinking of real "shadim" or what might be called minor deities with real powers--even miraculous powers.
Though it is clear anyway that that is exactly what the gemara itself holds. As the issue applies to Torah scholars what seems that Rav Nahman is getting at is that the very inner essence of these people has been changed from a human essence to an essence of a demon. Kind of a frightening thought I must add.

Though I have mentioned that this is actually brought in the Gemara itself and even the Mishna yet seems to be an unpopular subject. You don't usually hear about it much--unless you happen to read Rav Nahman's books. Because in the Gemara itself it is mentioned I think just once.

The main thing here is not that this is a reflection on Torah itself. Rather like the Roman saying: "Abuse does not cancel use." Or as Steven Dutch said : I can not think of any system that can not be misused."

The way to understand this is that of בירוד. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff. The way to go about this is a kind of process desired by Hegel. That is in every concept is contained aspects of its opposite until you get to the ultimate Truth. So you need some kind of sublimation to get to the truth. That is in short you find what is right in both and then you can make a synthesis.
[I know this is hard to see in Hegel. I understood this only after learning McTaggart's commentary of Hegel's Logic

Sometimes you have one person who embodies a certain value -like the Gra would embody the value of learning Torah.

With Hegel it is important to see that the process of the dialectic is  a process which leads to the truth. [John Mctaggart [philosophy] makes this clear.] Sometimes you have one person who embodies a certain value -like the Gra would embody the value of learning Torah. Or Rav Israel Salanter the value of Musar. The question is how to combine these different values in a practical way for oneself. 

to critique the claim that a communist society would come up with all the good stuff of capitalism and more

I mean to to critique the claim that a communist society would come up with all the good stuff of capitalism and more. But no significant invention shows that claim to be not true.

Not one invention the whole 70  years of the USSR. The spies used to call Silicon Valley "the laboratories of the KGB" because that is where all the tech of the USSR came from. From spies stealing American inventions. [I know because one of my friends was a KGB agent, and I knew him well, and his family. I even taught how to play violin to his daughter.]
In fact, the very corporation my Dad was an inventor in was penetrated by the KGB. [The film, the Falcon and the Snowman was based on this.] [The incident happened after my Dad left the company. He at first had made the infrared detection part of the USA spy satellites. After that my dad continued working for that company --- on laser satellites. But after a few years of that he left.] 

the problem of people that are not physicists commenting on physics.

I also noticed the problem of people that are not physicists commenting on physics. However I also noticed the problem with physicists commenting on physics. That is to say sometimes it is hard to decided who really is the top and who just seems like they know.

Take for example Husserl who knew Physics of his time well. But that did not put him into the same league as an Einstein or Heisenberg. So when t comes to commenting and understanding Physics from a larger picture it turns out that Leonard Nelson was probably a lot better than Husserl. Even though Nelson was not in fact trained as a physicist.
But that does not mean that Husserl was a crackpot. Rather it simply means one has to recognize his own level of experience. Not assume one knows more than he does. Too many smart people over estimate their own abilities. 

Whether in terms of learning Gemara Tosphot and Maharsha or whether in terms of Physics, I think that there is no question that both "Bekius" (fast learning) and "Iyun"(in depth) are needed.

Clearly Rav Nahman was on the side of going fast. Saying the words just once and in order and going on as fast as possible.  And clearly at Shar Yashuv [Rav Freifeld's in NY] and in all places founded on the Gra, the emphasis is on the in depth approach.

But to me it seems clear that the Mir in NY settled on the path of balance. The morning was devoted to "iyun". There that meant preparing for the class of the four roshei yeshiva. And their classes were in fact amazingly deep. The classes were much more than going over Rav Haim of Brisk or R. Akiva Eigger. For some reason the roshie yeshiva had a new idea to add every day. [It was akin to taking classes in Physics from Richard Feynmann or Einstein.] I assume that this was because they had spent all their lives up until about the age of 50 simply preparing. So by the time they became teachers they had plenty of new idea every single day to go into the depths of Rav Haim Soloveitchik. 

The afternoons and evenings were for fast learning.

Rav Avraham Abulafia

Rav Avraham Abulafia for some reason is not as well known as one would expect. On one hand his books were never published until a few years ago. But he was thought to be one of the greatest mystics of the Middle Ages and is quoted at length by the Remak and Rav Haim Vital.

[The fourth section of Shaarai HaKedusha of Rav Haim Vital itself was never published until recently but that is the section of his only Musar book that explains how to come to "Ruach HaKodesh" [the Divine Spirit] and it is based totally on Rav Avraham Abulafia.

אמונת חכמים ["faith in the wise"] is in fact an important principle for me, so I take it as an axiom to believe the wise. The only question is how to decide who comes under that category. [This great importance of faith in the wise comes from Pirkei Avot but is emphasized by Rav Nahman of Breslov.


[The basic story with Rav Abulafia is the well known event that he went to debate with the pope. The pope left orders that when Rav Abulafia would reach the gates of Rome that he would be arrested. But for some reason people that tried to arrest him died suddenly.]

So Torah is not meant to be a profession.

There is an important commandment to learn Torah. The basic idea is that when there there is another commandment to do that no one else can do, then one is able  to stop learning and then to do the other commandment, and then get back to learning Torah. ["Able" but not obligated according to the Gra]] Otherwise anything one does besides learning Torah come under the category of "Bitul Torah".[Not learning Torah when one is able comes under the category of כי דבר השם בזה הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא הכרת בעולם הזה תכרת בעולם הבא עיין בנפש החיים ]

[However there is a large array of commandments that are in fact impossible to do by others. For example ונשמרתם מאד לנפשותיכם. פרו ורבו ויותר [watching your health. Having children, etc.]
There is however an important caveat [condition]--not to be making money by means of Torah. Using Torah for money does seem to detract from the value of the commandment. How much so is unclear to me. But in any case, it certainly is undesirable.

So Torah is not meant to be a profession. [See the commentary of Maimonides [Rav Moshe ben Maimon on Pirkei Avot chapter 4. לא קרדום לחפור בהם ... ואשתמש בתגא חלף.] [That statement of Hillel comes up in the first chapter of Pirkei Avot also but that is not where the Rambam put his long comment on it but rather in chapter 4.]

 So where  does Math and Physics fit in with this? I would have to say that they are in the category of learning Torah and are not just for Parnasa [making a living]. This I saw hints of in Rishonim like the Musar book Obligations of the Heart. But quite openly in the Rambam in Yad HaChazaka and the Guide.

F Major. French Horn, and Winds

w30 mp3 x30 midi  w30 nwc

Torah scholars that are demons

The only person that I know about who noticed the problems with Torah scholars that are demons is Rav Nahman of Breslov. You would think that this ought to be well known. And also a well developed subject. But for some reason the whole idea seems to be ignored.

[Though you certainly find this in the Mishna and Gemara, still the subject seems to be unpopular].

In Rav Nahman the subject is brought up (LeM I:12 I:28 I:60 II:8 and lots of other places I forget off hand.] but without going into the subject in such a way that can give a person tools to discern.]

In tractate Shabat the sages said "If you see a generation in which troubles are coming upon then check the judges of Israel;-- for all troubles that come into the world only come because of the judges of Israel." [I forget the exact page number but it is towards the end.] The Mishna in Avoda Zara says that "The Prushim are the destroyers of the world". [ פרושים הם מכלה עולם].

Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. One section per day.

Even though there is an aspect of keeping Torah which is important, the problem is how to go about this is hard to figure out.
The approach which makes sense to me is to have a few sessions of learning per day.
That is the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. One section per day. But go over that section every day for a few days in a row.
Also a session in Physics and a session in Mathematics. [Besides that secular subjects seem like "bitul Torah" to me.]

To me it does seem to make any difference if one has finished Shas before learning the Avi Ezri or the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Haim of Brisk. It was the path in Shar Yashuv to dig into the depths Gemara right away without any waiting. However I do recall the the first year in Shar Yashuv was spent on catching up. Maybe some part of the second year also. But pretty much the idea was that if one does not learn right away "how to learn" [how to understand the Gemara in a rigorous and exact way]then one never gets it. 

Howard Bloom [The Lucifer Principle]

The idea of Howard Bloom [The Lucifer Principle] in the "meme" the unit of social information that a collective is founded on does not capture fully the idea that a nation is founded on a legend. Like the Plymouth Colony in the the founded on the USA.
And the founding legend is determining a lot of how things develop after that.
The way this is refereed to nowadays is "The Narrative". If you can control how people perceive the past then you control the present and the future.

So in the USA what happens is people try to control the Narrative. They put the Plymouth Colony and anything after that reflects well on the Founding Fathers of the USA or the settling of the West in a negative light. That way they control the future to turn the USA into a totalitarian socialistic state by denying its founding legend and principles.

right kind balance

My point in bringing up my parents is to show it is possible to live a wholesome life of being a mensch and living Torah values while also working for a living and not using Torah for money. Somehow my parents got the right kind balance that is hard to put into words. 

the basic story of my Mom and Dad and their values.

I thought to write in short the basic story of my Mom and Dad and their values. The basic story starts in Poland.That is where my grandparents on both sides decided to go to the USA. So some missed World War I in that way. On the other hand  the parents of my Dad however did not go until after WWI. The basic education that both my parents received was American.  My Dad went to Cal Tech for his education. And then went to fight in WWII  in the USAF. He was a captain.
Their basic values were self sufficiency, be a mensch [good character] and marry a nice Jewish girl. These were values that were stated openly. As for the encouragement of Math and Physics--that is a aspect of my parents that they encouraged, but did not state openly . It was simply understood that when they saw my interest they approved.

The Jewish aspect was mainly in going to Temple Israel in Hollywood. But they were not going with the Reform approach exactly. Reform tends to emphasize what is called "Social Justice", which is a weasel word pseudonym for "Socialism."
In any case, regular American values was definitely their thing. Self reliance, straight talk. Truth Justice and Common Sense. However, I had a philosophical bent which led me to two great Litvak Yeshivas, Shar Yashuv and the Mir. [That was the result of my search for "the Truth".] [Shar Yashuv is where I learned from Naphtali Yeager who had a sort of approach to learning like zooming an electron microscop on Tosphot. Later at the Mir the approach was like an eagle--that is global. That you see in books like Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.]

So the path which I think is the best is a kind of synthesis between different areas of value. That is in a sense that would be like Hegel. That is there is an array of positive values and one ought to walk on a path that finds a proper balance. That is Self Sufficiency [or Self Reliance]--but with trust in God, learning Torah, learning Math and Physics.     

So you have an array of values like you see in Kelley Ross [based on Kant and Leonard Nelson.] But then with Dr Ross there is no combining of disparate areas of value. For that you need Hegel. So in short I see the need for both Leonard Nelson and Hegel. Why there has to be conflict does not seem very good to me since they both seem necessary.

music file w29

A major Allegro w29  w29 midi  w29 in nwc format

Popper showed psychology is pseudo science

The story he tells about how the idea of being able to falsify a theory is quite amazing. The story was he asked a psychoanalyst what is the proof of his theory?
The answer given was, "I have a thousand case files showing this."
Popper answered him, "And if you will have another one, it will just show what you already think." Right then it occurred to him the crux of the issue is not how much proof you have; but whether there is something that can show it is false. So he showed that psychology is pseudo science because no matter what theory anyone has, they never give any kind of case that could show they are wrong.
 And Dr. Kelley Ross noted that there is a point of starting reason that is not reasoned. It is not so different from Michael Huemer's starting point of prima facie evidence. The way things seem. But that starting point can be falsified by stronger evidence from a different direction.

[And his The Open Society And Its Enemies is quite an amazing book. The title says already quite a lot.] [Still I am not so happy with the chapter on Hegel which seems a bit overdone. But in any case I think there is a point that politics was not exactly Hegel's forte. For that I would rather read the Federalist papers of the founding fathers of the USA and John Locke which seem thought out better.]

to do every chapter [perek]] ten times

I ought to let people know how I learn Torah because it is good useful when you do not have a learning partner with a 150 or more IQ like I had with David Bronson. Or my teachers in Mir or Rav Naphtali Yeger of Shar Yashuv. [Though I am sure that David has at least 160 IQ. I am just saying that without a learning partner like that this method is what I recommend for me and others.]
So without further ado let me just say in short: I find the Maharsha on the page.  I then go over the paragraphs with the Tosphot and Mahaharsha, and do that a few times.
And if you are like me that spending a month or two on one page seems a bit too much, this is the way that I do myself when I get a chance to learn, and also I recommend this to others. That is the Gemara, Tosphot and Maharsha. A few times and then go on.

[Actually this was more or less how I learned in the Mir in spite of everyone else being involved in depth "Iyun" [in depth study] with the deep approaches of the Roshei Yeshiva at the time: Rav Shmuel Brudni, Rav Shmuel Berenbaum, Rav Sharaga Moshe, and the Sukat David.]  

[I should add here an idea that Rav Freifeld used to emphasize--to do every chapter [perek]] ten times. At that time I found that impractical, but since then I have seen the wisdom of this idea.]

In Hegel you have the idea of synthesis of different areas of value to get to the truth. This is not the same thing as "Birur" [choosing the good from what is to be rejected.]

So when you have an array of positive value, you do the "Birur" choosing and then you combine the different areas to get to "The Truth".

So let's say you have an array of different values [as brought in Kelley Ross's approach based on Kant and Leonard Nelson]. That is you start with all form and no content as in logic where each term of a formula like If A then B. And if B then C. Therefore if A then C is true. Each term is empty of content in that it can be filled with anything. But the formal logic of all classical logic still are applicable. But then you work up towards something that has more content and less form. That is straight Mathematics. It can not be reduced to formal logic. In that sense it has more content but is less formal. Then you work still towards more content as in Music and  Justice. Each has more numinous content but is not empty of logical form either. Then you get up towards all content and no form. God.
 So you have this array of values. Each one can not be reduced to formal logic or to any other area of value. You see a proto type of this in Maimonides where one's portion in the next world depends on deeds and wisdom. Two separate areas of value.

But then you have a process like that of finding what is valid in each area and rejecting what is not and then you combine them. This idea of Hegel of the Dialectic in which you find what is valid in each concept, and see that instead of leading to a contradiction it has to lead to a synthesis. [See McTaggart on Hegel's Logic.]

[What Hegel is doing is to take the approach of Socrates in questioning the slave boy and showing him that there are truths he knows but did not know that he knows. So there is a kind of Dialectical process in which truth becomes revealed. Hegel applied this on a vaster scale in a way that leads to the "Absolute Truth". In any case, it is better to see McTaggart to get a more clear picture of this.]

The Gra himself was the path of straight Torah.

Rav Shach a representative of the path of the Gra, but not the essence of the path itself. The Gra himself was the path of straight Torah.
There is a difference between a representation of something and the thing itself.

The Musar Movement (Musar itself means works of Ethics)

The Musar Movement has an advantage that by means of going through the basic texts of classical Musar, one comes to an understanding of the world view of Torah. The disadvantage is that even with this one can go off on a tangent.

Musar itself in fact became incorporated into the parallel Litvak Yeshiva idea which had been started by Rav Haim of Voloshin the disciple of the Gra. I imagine that the reason was this exact reason. So the idea of sitting and learning Musar hours and hours every day seems to no longer exist anywhere. But the fact is that without the basic texts of the Rishonim [mediaeval Musar], it seems impossible to come to any kind of world view that in fact is close to the Torah world view.


[Quick note of introduction. Musar itself means works of ethics of the Middle Ages. If one learns the Torah itself and also the Gemara it is hard to come to a rigorous cohesive world view of Torah. It was the forte of the sages of Middle Ages to get to a logical cohesive picture of what Torah is about that is understandable.]  

The difficulty in learning Torah is often the religious themselves.

The difficulty in learning Torah is often the religious themselves. In particular I noticed that people that make money off of Torah are are a problem.
Rav Nahman of Breslov brings up this problem in a few places in his LeM. But one place in particular that I recall says that when one wants to come into the gates of holiness, from heaven there is placed someone that seems like one who fears God to stop him.`
At any rate, this problem is wide spread and pervasive./It is almost a guarantee that anyone who makes their living by using Torah (to make their money) is from the realm of Evil.

I am, however, not saying that this is any kind of reason not to learn Torah. Rather my point is that one ought to learn Torah the right way,-- or not do it at all. Either (1) for its own sake, and not use it for making money as is done in kollel; (2) or not to do it at all. It is like any task. Do it right, or do not do it at all. But what ever you do, do not do it wrong.

w28 AMajor Allegro and Rondo.  w28 midi   w28 nwc

Being against Jesus is considered the main prime directive in the Jewish world. This does not seem to me to be the proper position to take regarding this issue.
I mean to say that if your commitment is towards objective truth then being against Jesus is wrong.
The reason for me to come to this conclusion was that originally my commitment was to get to objective truth. Not to go along with the crowd. Also I should add that I was born and raised in a time that going along with what others think was already thought to be a strike against one. [That is thinking like others was thought to be a highly negative trait.]

The main reason I came to a positive approach towards Jesus was mainly from the books of an ancient mystic Rav Avraham Abulafia who held Jesus if from the root of Joseph HaTzadik. He uses the term "the seal of the sixth day".
But for some reason when I have brought up Avraham Abulafia, that never seems to most people to be an convincing argument.

So I add the Ari Rav Isaac Luria in the few books of commentary on Joseph in the very last verse of Genesis. That might to others seem more convincing, but to me to see this in the words of Rav Abulafia was the one thing that convinced me.

It is not that everything is right. You need the Law and there is a kind of balance between these two areas of value--Law and Grace.

It is possible that what is going on nowadays is a kind of process of "birur" בורר that is taking the good and right and rejecting what is not. This would be like Hegel held that coming to the Truth is a process that happens over time. 

note about colleges nowadays

comment
I have two USMC sons, and one Army. One of the Marines started college, found he didn't like it (neither the students nor the profs). He dropped out after 3 semesters and joined the Corps. There he learned electronics and worked on Harriers and copters. First job when he got out: engineer at SpaceX, making 30% more than I make with a PhD and 35 years in the classroom. I am proud of the fact that I have steered all of my 9 children away from academia, and I do my best to steer my students away from it also.

Michael Huemer has already mentioned some problems with universities. My feeling about this is that certain ones in STEM are very good like CalTech and MIT and Stanford. But outside of STEM it is all just a waste.

music file w27

w27