I have gained a lot by the idea's Kant, Fries, and Leonard Nelson.  That is a branch of Kant's thought that answers Kant's question about, "How is synthetic a prior knowledge possible?" [That means adjectives that can apply to many things.[Synthetic means knowledge that is so but it might not be so like "there is a continent between Europe and Asia. A priori means not based on observations nor dependent on such. ] And in a different way can apply to laws. [As Danny Frederick points out.]

Fries and Leonard Nelson answered this by a kind of knowing that is not by reason and not by sense perception. [immediate non intuitive.] Kant's answers was different. It is that we know the synthetic a priori by logic and reason but that reason has to fit within the confines of conditions of possible experience. [Hegel thought that this imposes conditions of reason that really do not exist. It all starts with Hume saying all that Reason can do is show contradictions. That was based on his being a teacher of Euclidean Geometry. But in fact Reason can do a lot more. It recognizes the synthetic a priori. It was up to Hume to prove his point before assuming it, and then messing up Western Philosophy ever since then.]

Yet I do not see the way that this is thought to be totally different than Hegel.

To me it seems both Hegel and Kant have lots of important points.

[I am no expert in this, but still I find these issues to be of great importance.]
One area that I think this is important is faith. That seems to be a kind of synthetic a priori knowledge that is different that logic or sensory evidence.

However when you try to apply these great thinkers to politics things seems to fall apart. But is that all that different from Plato himself! When he gets into politics, that is where things to go haywire. [In the Republic and the Laws.]

I have no idea why this is, but I can suggest that these are different areas of value. When it comes to politics, the founding fathers of the USA Constitution got things right.


But come to think about it, you find great thinkers that get just one thing right and everything else wrong. It is just the second level of talented people that see what is right, and see what is wrong.
An example would be Max Plank (the one who discovered that matter is quanta). It was said he wrote so much that eventually he had to hit on one right thing.

[I want to mention Dr Kelley Ross of the Kant Fries field of thought who has a lot more of "system" than either Kant or Fries. Kant is mainly limiting Reason and Fries modifies that. Dr Ross builds on that.]

The virus thing I think is just the flu. When I see the masks I am reminded on the bird masks that people would put on in the Middle Ages. The whole thing is just the king's clothes.
A real plague is like the black death or 1918 Influenza. This is nothing. It is all some kind of agenda.

Rav Nahman wrote that by trust in God, good thoughts are drawn to a person. [In Sefer HaMidot].

This is the usual approach of Rav Nahman --that is to find some human problem that someone is struggling with and to find an indirect solution. He is aware that human problems are is hard that a direct solution is impossible. So he looks and finds some side route approach it from.

For instance in our case, lots of people are struggling with wrong and or crazy thoughts. So instead of just advising "Do not think them." which can not work since the person is struggling anyway. So he finds an effective way that is indirectly related to the problem. 
Same thing with sexual sin. The ten psalms [16, 32,41,42,58,77,90,105,137,150] are a way to correct something that does not have any simple solution.

w67 C major 3/4 time  W67 IN MIDI FORMAT   w67 in nwc format

Rav Avraham Abulafia, Jesus and Professor Moshe Idel.

The phrase which I noticed in Rav Abulafia in one of his unpublished books while siting in Hebrew University was this "האירו קשריו" [his bonds became light] in relation to his being on the cross.
This to me seemed a world shaking revolution in world view. So after that, I looked up some of Moshe Idel's books on Abulafia  and other mystics from the middle ages,-- and that seemed to confirm the basic positive attitude of Rav Abulafia towards this subject.

Sen. Dr. Jensen's forced to say that anyone that dies has to be because Coronavirus: “Well, fear is a great way to control people.”

https://www.valleynewslive.com/content/misc/Sen-Dr-Jensens-Shocking-Admission-About-Coronavirus-569458361.html


He states that he was sent a seven page document from the Department of Health that he must fill out death certificates saying who ever dies must be because of Covid 19. 

The Closing of the American Mind

Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind  has this theses: the problems in the USA are a direct result of a basic conflict between Enlightenment philosophers and Anti Enlightenment Philosophers. To this he adds the question of what the Self is?
The question has not gotten less urgent.
But what I have not understood is why he did not bring Kant and Hegel who both meant to answer that exact question!

Was he dissatisfied with their approaches? It does not sound like that in the one time he mentions in a very positive light Kant's three Critiques and Hegel as the greatest of university philosophers.

After pinpointing the problem it is frustrating not to see him point towards a solution.

One thing about Hegel is he is often used by people against the ideals of the American Constitution. Is it possible that this is why Bloom was did not suggest Hegel? And that just leads to the natural question are the many movements that use Hegel all misusing him? [I think so. Still it is hard to know.]

[The way I suggest understanding Kant would be the approach of Leonard Nelson and to understand Hegel would be by the commentary of McTaggart.]

[But I should add that Kant and Hegel I see as mainly for the philosophical aspects, not the political. When it comes to the political issues, the writers of the Constitution of the USA got it right.]

Media Myths About Trump

Bankrupting America

When asked to justify some viewpoint, people often invoke some lofty general principle. The Issue is Never the Issue

The Issue is Never the Issue

Steven Dutch: "When asked to justify some viewpoint, people often invoke some lofty general principle, only to get tangled up very quickly in contradictions. Conservatives claim to be for personal freedom and against regulation, but then face the question why they don't support freedom for others, and are often willing to impose regulations on others, especially when it comes to sex." 

I have had a feeling like this for a long time but could never could express it.
It was like when I was learning American History. It always seemed superficial since the justifications always seemed hollow to me. Not that the justifications were dishonest. But rather I always felt something deeper was going on. Something under the surface.

Since I discovered Daniel Defoe a light went on in my head. I realized all the issues that were and still are facing the USA are simply continuations of the exact issues that were facing Great Britain in the 1700's. So if you want to understand America, you have to understand England.
And I notice this in other areas as well as Steven Dutch points out.
Another example would be American Independence. Taxation without representation never struck me as being something to make war over.  So what with or without representation? I always felt that could not possibly be what was really going on. 

As for Slavery:  There is no human transaction, either sexual or fiscal, that can be free from coercion.  People have to work or else give something in exchange for something else. No one in the USA is bothered by having forcing the middle class to work to pay for Baltimore or Detroit disaster zones. So making some work to pay for others is not the issue. Rather the issue of Slavery is a way to punish WASP's [White Anglo Saxon Protestants] for not giving others as much as others want.

There is an odd thing about marriage in that it does not sanctify sex. This is I think one area in which people are interested in making marriage to be acceptable as a cover and way of sanctifying sin.
Especially Christians seems to have this idea that marriage automatically sanctifies sex. So that deteriorates into using marriage as a way of sanctifying anything.
And that in itself accounts for the panic about a virus that hurts people that have no previous illness --but they do not count obesity or Sodom as previous conditions since that would show bias against those things.

The thing about marriage is that it is no where near as great a thing nowadays as it once was. At best the length of the best of marriages nowadays is about ten years. [I am not talking about marriages from the previous decades.]
And Christians get the subject of sex outside of marriage wrong also. It is not forbidden. לא תהיה קדשה מבנות ישראל is a "kedesha". That is not the same thing as "zona" which is translated as prostitute but in fact mean something completely different. [It is an argument. Either a woman who strays from her husband. Or to some a woman who has sex with one who is forbidden to her.]
In any case sex outside of marriage is a Pilegesh concubine as in Chronicles I 2:46 where we see one of the greatest of all of the generation that accepted the Torah Caleb ben Yefuna, has a few concubines and wives also. [See the Gra in the Shulchan Aruch of R. Joseph Karo. Even HaEzer who brings  a few more examples.]


And the issue of sex with an idolater is not the same thing as gentile. As we see in the argument between R Shimon ben Yochai that the actual prohibition of the Torah is sex with idolaters. And the sages say only the seven nations that were in in the land of Canaan.

Since the world is going into the Dark Ages, I would like to suggest a path of learning to sustain civilization for the small remnant.
The Written and Oral Law of Moses. [Which means  mainly the two Talmuds but also includes other books that contain the basic oral law it was all written down. That  midrashim of law (Sifrei Sifra etc), and midrash that are agada. The reason I bring Rav Shach's Avi Ezri is that is provides a way to understand how to learn the Oral Law in depth.]
Also Physics and metaphysics.

I hope that the basic idea is clear. I am talking about learning fast--saying the words and going on until you have finished the two Talmuds. That is Gemara with every Tosphot and Maharsha. The Yerushalmi with the two side commentaries Pnei Moshe and Karban Eda.
Plus the same with Physics and Metaphysics.
[That means Physics up until and including String Theory and Math which means mainly Algebraic Geometry and Algebraic Topology.] [Metaphysics means Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Leonard Nelson.]
[Rav Avraham Abulafia, from the Middle Ages seems very important, but I have not had a chance to study his works thoroughly so I am hesitant to recommend what I am not that familiar with. See Moshe Idel's books of Abulafia. One aspect of Rav Abulafia that I find fascinating is his positive approach towards Jesus, and yet I have not really had the chance to go into the issue in detail. The basic idea seems similar to how you consider the Patriarchs, Moses, Aaron, Joseph, David. I.e., souls of Emanation.

Fix bayonets. You will be forcibly removed from your home and family. Negative tests mean nothing.

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2020/04/07/fix-bayonets-you-will-be-forcibly-removed-from-your-home-and-family-negative-tests-mean-nothing/

To approach God is thought to be by spiritual things -not by Physics and Mathematics.

And to some degree you see this in later achronim [authors after Rav Yoseph Karo] like The Paths of the Just. 

However this does not look like the opinion of Ibn Pakuda [author of The Obligations of the Hearts] nor other rishonim [mediaeval authorities] that followed the path of Saadia Gaon.

And the reason seems plain and simple. That Physics and Math deal with the wisdom of God that is at the core of Creation. 

That is where you see the glory and wisdom of God.

But in the world of ethics, and morals and spirituality you see things are messy. That even morality is subject to people's opinion seems to be thought to be  a desirable thing. So fine. If so, then fine,-- but that does not make it objective and revealing God's wisdom.

[You see this in the Gemara where God said one thing, and the yeshiva in Heaven said something else; and they said 'a certain amora would decide between them''. And also in the events with R Yehoshua that in Bava Metzia the law goes like the majority opinion because "the Torah is not in Heaven". [However the issue is that to get to God's deeper wisdom in the work of Creation, one needs to learn and keep the Laws as they apply to people in order to get there.]

So you can see why in the parable of the palace in Guide why the Physicts are put into the palace of the King and the people that learn and keep the Oral and Written Law ("talmudiim) outside.

[The parable is in the Guide for the Perplexed. There you have  a king who rules in a country and there are levels of closeness to the king. People outside the country, those inside, those close to teh palace, and those inside the palace. In that parable those who keep the whole Torah perfectly are outside the palace. Those who learn Physics are inside.] 

[The most practical way to do this is to have a few books of Math and Physics and go through them in order from beginning to end--in order. As you see in Rav Nahman's Conversations  section 76. Say the words and go on. But to do this you need faith and trust in God that He will help you understand what you think you do not understand.]

תוספות הר''יד קידושין דף ג Rav Shach explains the Tosphot HaRi''d

The basic idea of the תוספות הר''יד  is that חליפין would work to acquire a wife if the handkerchief has a פרוטה worth. His point is the only thing the גמרא really means to exclude is קניין חליפין when one of the objects being exchanged is less than a פרוטה. This is why רב שך is dividing between two kinds of exchange in order to answer for the תוספות הר''יד. If it has a פרוטה's worth, then it comes under the category of acquiring by means of money. Only when the handkerchief is less is it actually קניין סודר היינו מטפחת which would not acquire a woman. This answers my question I asked yesterday that the גמרא is holds חליפין does not acquire a woman, and does not mention קניין סודר היינו מטפחת. My point today is that קניין סודר  in the view of the תוספות הר''יד is a kind of חליפין, but even חליפין is OK if it is more than a פרוטה. And that is the way רב שך answers the questions on the תוספות הר''יד

רב שך ברמב''ם הלכות אישות פרק א' הלכה ג' מביא את תוספות הרי''ד שקניין סודר תקף אם שווי המטפחת יותר מפרוטה. כמו כן, תקף אם ניתן בתנאי לתת מאוחר יותר מנה כסף, ובהמשך הזמן הוא נותן את זה. רב שך מסביר שיש שני סוגים של קניין סודר, האחד הוא חליפין, והשני הוא סוג מיוחד של חליפין שקיים רק כסוג של דרך להשלים עסקה. כמו בימינו לחיצת יד תהיה בקטגוריה מסוג זה. אז התוספות הרי''ד כולל בקניין כסף קניין סודר כאשר זה נעשה כחליפין ללא שום התחייבות נוספת לתת דבר נוסף. וזה יהיה סוג של חילופי כספים שווה בשווה ולא כשזה נעשה במיוחד כמו קניין סודר שהוא קטגוריה משלו (של סוג חילופין). שאלה, הגמרא מעוניינת בעיקר לסלק את קניין חליפין, ולא מזכירה קניין סודר. רק כדי שיהיה ברור אני אביא את הגמרא הבסיסי. הגמרא קידושין מביא משנה בשלשה דרכים אישה נקנית בכסף שטר ובאיה, וזה נועד להוציא את חליפין. שיכול להיות שהייתה לומד חליפין משדה עפרון, מכיוון שחליפין יכול לקנות שדה. אז אנו יודעים כעת לא, מכיוון שאישה לא תסכים שיקנה אותה בפחות מפרוטה. ומכיוון שחליפין יכולה להיות עבור פחות מפרוטה, לכן כל הסוג של קניית חליפין אינו נכלל, אפילו אם החליפין נעשה יותר מפרוטה .השאלה שלי. הגמרא מעוניין להוציא את סוג הרכישה שהוא חליפין ספציפית, ואפילו לא מזכיר את קניין סודר. זה נראה בדיוק ההפך ממה שאמרנו למעלה. זה נראה כאילו קניין חליפין לא יהיה תקפה, אבל אולי קניין סודר רגיל יהיה תקף.

הרעיון הבסיסי של התוספות הר''יד הוא שחליפין תפעל לרכישת אישה אם ערך המטפחת  יותר מערך פרוטה. הנקודה שלו היא הדבר היחיד שגמרא באמת מתכוון להוציא הוא קניין חליפין כאשר אחד החפצים המוחלפים הוא פחות מפרוטה. זו הסיבה שרב שך מחלק בין שני סוגים של חילופים כדי לענות עבור התוספות הר''יד. אם יש לו ערך פרוטה אז זה נכלל בקטגוריה של רכישה באמצעות כסף. רק כאשר המטפחת פחותה מפרוטה, זה בעצם קניין סודר היינו מטפחת שלא היה קונה אישה. זה עונה על שאלתי שהגמרא מחזיקה חליפין לא רוכש אישה, ולא מזכיר את קניין סודר היינו מטפחת. הנקודה שלי שקניין סודר בתוספות הר''יד הוא סוג של חליפין, אבל אפילו חליפין זה בסדר אם זה יותר מפרוטה. וככה רב שך עונה על שאלות על התוספות הר''יד.

Now Rav Shach explains the Tosphot HaRi''d that if the handkerchief is more than a pruta/penny the acquiring of the wife is valid. But it looks at that that might not be so to the Rambam. On one hand the Rambam says in three ways a woman is acquired, money, sex or a document. The Mishna says the same thing and the Gemara itself says that the Mishna is meaning to exclude a handkerchief. However  after Rav Shach makes clear there are two kinds of acquiring by handkerchief. One is when the handkerchief is meant to accomplish more than just the handkerchief. Like as the Ri''d says along with it he says he will give another amount of money. But by itself it is simple barter.
This opens the possibility if perhaps the Ramabm would agree with the Tosphot HaR''id inthe same case. But why would he? because in laws on Buying and Selling he says barter does not have a law of overcharging. That law says if one overcharges more than a 1/5 the sell is null. The Rambam brings from the Rif that that law does not apply to barter because this one wanted a needle and that one wanted a suit of armor. But the Rambam says that law does apply to fruit with fruit. That means barter would come under the category of  a sell by money.  So that would apply to marrying a woman also. So the handkerchief --if more than a penny-is an act of acquiring by money, not barter.

Rac Shach does not actually say all this but it is clearly what he is implying as raising this possibility. But also he brings the case of letting a slave go tat he says does not work if that was done by handkerchief. . There he makes no difference. So perhaps marriage is the same.

The basic idea of the Tospfot R"id [Rav Isaiah, one of the baali Hatospfot] is that barter would work to acquire a wife if the handkerchief has a penny's worth. His point is: the only thing the Gemara really means to exclude is exchange when one of the objects being exchanged is less than a penny.

This is why Rav Shach is dividing between two kinds of exchange in order to answer for the Tospfot R''id. If it has a penny's worth then it comes under the category of acquiring by means of money. Only when the handkerchief is less is it actually kinyan Sudar which would not acquire a woman.

This answers my question I asked yesterday that the Gemara is interested in eliminating exchange and does not mention kinyan sudar (acquire by exchange of a  handkerchief).

My point today is that kinyan sudar in the view of the Tosfot R''id is in fact a kind of exchange but even exchange is ok if it is more than a penny.
And that is in fact the way Rav Shach answers the questions of the Tospfot R''id

w66 a flat major mp3  w66 midi  w66 nwc

The known calendar seems to be based on Meton from Athens, and was not mentioned in the gemara. Nor is there anywhere mentioned in the Gemara that Hillel II sanctified the calendar.

I think Passover ought to be on the 15th day after the new moon. That is,- if you think of the day of the "molad" [when the moon and sun are joined at the same longitude], as the new moon, then 15 days from that ought to be Passover. But why think this? Mainly because of Tosphot in Sanhedrin page 10 side b at the top.
The known calendar seems to be based on Meton from Athens, and was not mentioned in the gemara. Nor is there anywhere mentioned in the Gemara that Hillel II sanctified the calendar. That is thought to be the case, but in fact it is no where in Shas.
There are in fact many examples of basic things in the Gemara that people are not aware of.
[One more reason to get through Shas yourself.]

רב שך [ברמב''ם הלכות אישות פרק א' הלכה ג'] מביא את תוספות הרי''ד

רב שך [ברמב''ם הלכות אישות פרק א' הלכה ג'] מביא את תוספות הרי''ד שקניין סודר תקף אם שווי המטפחת יותר מפרוטה ונמסר בתורת קניין כסף ולא בתורת קניין סודר. כמו כן, תקף אם ניתן בתנאי לתת מאוחר יותר כסף, ובהמשך הזמן הוא למעשה נותן את זה. רב שך מסביר שיש שני סוגים של קניין סודר, האחד הוא חליפין, והשני הוא סוג מיוחד של חליפין שקיים רק כסוג של דרך להשלים עסקה. כמו בימינו לחיצת יד תהיה בקטגוריה מסוג זה. אז התוספות הרי''ד כולל בקניין כסף קניין סודר כאשר זה נעשה כחליפין ללא שום התחייבות נוספת לתת דבר נוסף. וזה יהיה סוג של חילופי כספים שווה בשווה. אבל לא כשזה נעשה במיוחד כמו קניין סודר שהוא קטגוריה משלו (של סוג חילופין). הנושא  מבחינתי כאן שהוא מציג שאלה שנדמה שהגמרא מעוניינת בעיקר לסלק את קניין חליפין, ולא מזכירה קניין סודר. רק כדי שיהיה ברור אני אביא את הגמרא הבסיסי. הגמרא קידושין מביא משנה בשלשה דרכים אישה נקנית בכסף שטר ובאיה, וזה נועד להוציא את חליפין. שיכול להיות שהייתה לומד חליפין משדה עפרון, מכיוון שחליפין יכול לקנות שדה. אז אנו יודעים כעת לא, מכיוון שאישה לא תסכים שיקנה אותה בפחות מפרוטה. ומכיוון שחליפין יכולה להיות עבור פחות מפרוטה, לכן כל הסוג של קניית חליפין אינו נכלל, אפילו אם החליפין נעשה יותר מפרוטה.השאלה שלי. הגמרא מעוניין בפשטות להוציא את סוג הרכישה שהוא חליפין ספציפית, ואפילו לא מזכיר את קניין סודר. זה נראה בדיוק ההפך ממה שאמרנו למעלה. זה נראה כאילו קניין חליפין לא יהיה תקפה, אבל אולי קניין סודר רגיל יהיה תקף

רב שך in the הלכות אישות brings the תוספות רי''ד that קניין סודר  would be valid if it had a פרוטה worth in the handkerchief and given as money. That would make it like barter. But if on condition to give more later then that would be like kinyan sudar Also it would valid if it was given over on condition to give later some money, and later on he in fact gives it. רב שך explains there are two kinds of קניין handkerchief, one is חליפין barter, and the other is  a special kind of barter that exists only as a kind of way of completing a deal. Like nowadays a handshake would be in that kind of category. So the תוספות רי''ד is including קניין סודר when it is done as חליפין with no further obligation to give anything more. And that would be a kind of monetary exchange שווה בשווה. But not a when it is done specially as קניין סודר which is its own category of  kind of exchange.
The confusing issue for me here is that it seems that the גמרא is mainly interested in eliminating חליפין, and does not really mention the קניין סודר. I do not know if this is actually a good question, or just confusion on my part.
Just to be clear I will bring the basic גמרא. The גמרא קידושין brings  משנה בשלשה דרכים אישה נקנית בכסף שטר ובאיה,  and that is meant to exclude חליפין. You might have learned חליפין from the field of עפרון, since a field can be bought by חליפין. So we now know not so, because a woman will not agree to be bought for less than a פרוטה. And since חליפין can be for less than a פרוטה, therefore that whole kind of buying חליפין is excluded, even if the חליפין is done for more than a פרוטה.
So you see right away what is bothering me. The גמרא is plainly interested in excluding the kind of acquisition that is specifically חליפין, and does not even mention קניין סודר.  It seems just the opposite of what we said up above. It looks as if a handkerchief as חליפין would be not valid, but perhaps as a regular קניין סודר would be valid.

Rav Shach in the Laws of Marriage chapter 1 brings the Tosphot R''id

Rav Shach in the Laws of Marriage chapter 1 brings the Tosphot R''id that "kinyan sudar" marriage by a handkerchief would be valid if it had a penny's worth in the handkerchief. Also it would valid if it was given over on condition to give later some money and later he in fact gives it.

Rav Shach explains there are two kinds of "kinyan sudar" one is exchange and the other is  a special kind of exchange that exists only as a kind of way of completing a deal. Like nowadays a handshake would be in that kind of category. So the Tosphot Rid is including kinyan sudar when it is done as exchange with no further obligation to give anything more. And that would be a kind of monetary exchange. But not a when it is done specially as kinyan sudar which is its own category of  kind of exchange.

The confusing issue for me here is that it seems that the Gemara is mainly interested in eliminating exchange, and does not really mention the kinyan sudar. I do not know if this is actually a good question, or just confusion on my part.

Just to be clear I will bring the basic Gemara. The Gemara Kidushin brings the mishna that a woman is acquired in three ways: money, document, sex;-- and that is meant to exclude exchange. You might have learned exchange from the field of Efron, since a field can be bought by exchange. So we now know not so, because a woman will not agree to be bought for less than a penny. And since exchange can be for less than a penny, therefore that whole kind of buying (exchange) is excluded--even if the exchange is done for more than a penny.

So you see right away what is bothering me. The Gemara is plainly interested in excluding the kind of acquisition that is specifically exchange, and does not even mention kinyan sudar. That is, it seems just the opposite of what we said up above. It looks as if a handkerchief as exchange would be not valid but perhaps as in fact a regular kinya sudar would be valid!

[The idea here is this: what causes a woman to be married? Being married is a sort of state of being that has with it obligations. When does that state exist? It is similar to when you buy a field. When makes it "bought"?  In the West we understand that a document sometimes is just proof that some exchange happened, but sometimes it itself is what causes the exchange.]

twentieth century philosophy is tremendous logical thinking about stuff no one could possibly care less about.

Someone explained what analytic philosophy is like. [I forget who]. It is like the sword of Saladin as opposed to that of Richard III. Richard's sword was so heavy, you needed to be in the big leagues just to be able to pick it. It weighed a lot. On the other hand Saladin's was light, but was so sharp it could slice through a feather in mid air just by touching it.

Analytic philosophy is like Saladin's sword. Exact and rigorous to an amazing degree about language. It is not nonsense, but who could care less? Possible worlds? It tells me nothing about about possible world since it is not Physics.

[So what you get in the twentieth century philosophy is tremendous` logical thinking about stuff no one could possibly care less about. Or Continental.  So the obvious question is why not just get back to Kant and Hegel? I guess analytic philosophy does not find them "rigorous enough". Continental finds them lacking emotion. In any case, I would be happy to see renewed interest in Leonard Nelson's take on Kant in friesian,com and McTaggart's take on Hegel.

[Even if analytic philosophy meant anything at all, the main rule there is whatever anyone says, it is the solemn responsibility of someone else to contradict it. As Steven Dutch put it twentieth century is vacuous.]

The problem with "Torah Scholars that are demons" that is brought in the LeM I:12 of Rav Nahman of Breslov and Uman, really is an open Gemara in Shabat: "If you see a generation that troubles are coming upon it go out and check of the judges of Israel for all troubles that come into the world come only because of the judges of Israel."
So you see it was merely the fact that Rav Nahman choose to emphasize this point for some reasons unknown to me that makes it significant. But it is not as if he was the first to discover it.

To tell who might come into this category however is more difficult since Rav Nahman gives relatively few hints as to what it is that turns a person into a demon.

What my feeling about this is that the best path is to be safe and follow as closely as possible the straight path of Torah of the Gra, and Rav Israel Salanter, and Rav Shach. [Which would be in a practical sense to learn Torah in both in a in depth session and besides that a session of learning quickly and an emphasis on the Ethics of Torah that is the essence of Torah]

w65  [w65 in midi format]

God helps those that trust in him. Those that trust in their own efforts, He abandons.

I have wondered about the issue of trust in God because the only time I actually saw an approach like that that was real to people was for the short time I was at the Mir in NY. It was a general approach there that if you sit and learn Torah, God will take care of everything else. And that was done in deeds, not words.

What helped me get the message was the book of Navardok [Madragat HaAdam] but even without that, this attitude was simply embedded at the Mir.
Maybe it was also in Shar Yashuv to some degree but I do not recall.

It also helped me understand the idea of doing some effort in order to make  a vessel to receive the blessings from God, but that over exertion of effort is lack of trust.

The surprise for me was that as long as I stuck with that approach it worked. But when I abandoned it in order to "do effort",-- that is exactly when God stopped helping me.
So it is like the verses in Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Psalms and many other places say--God helps those that trust in him. Those that trust in their own efforts, He abandons.
[The main verses that I am thinking of are a few in Jeremiah] ברוך הגבר אשר יבטח בהשם והיה השם מבטחו..."Blessing is the man who trusts in God and makes God his trust. He will be like a tree planted on streams of flowing water... Cursed is the man who trusts in man, and places his trust in human efforts. He will be like a broken well that can not hold any water."

[Please look at the Musar [Ethics] books that deal with trust in God: Obligations of the Hearts, and Madragat HaAdam. You will see the issue of trust as opposed to effort is an argument among the rishonim.]

From a Physics blog about the Virus

https://motls.blogspot.com/2020/04/lockdowns-are-man-made-not-how-nature.html#disqus_thread

Sadly, I already expect 3) the shutdown will continue and perhaps escalate, towards bankruptcies of big companies, governments, and riots. The "experts" are the root of the problem but in some sense, the willingness of millions of ordinary morons to buy the same - and increasingly more radical - garbage from theSadly, I already expect 3) the shutdown will continue and perhaps escalate, towards bankruptcies of big companies, governments, and riots. The "experts" are the root of the problem but in some sense, the willingness of millions of ordinary morons to buy the same - and increasingly more radical - garbage from the "experts" is the actual root of the societal problem. "experts" is the actual root of the societal problem.

I try to model my attitude towards the issue of the virus based on a few statements of Rav Nahman of Breslov. One is that he was not thrilled with doctors. He certainly did not trust everything they were saying. Sometimes there are basic areas that they have got down pat, but sometimes when they venture into areas they that are new they really are just guessing. See the end of the Conversations of Rav Nahman.
Another thing is the idea of  ריבוי השתדלות [over effort]. He held that in terms of trust in God, one still ought to do some kind of minimal effort;-- but doing more than the minimum shows lack of trust in God. 

When one marries a woman by money, document, or sex, two kinds of acquisition take place. But acquisition by handkerchief does not work.

The subject of קניין סודר ("Kinyan" by handkerchief) acquisition by means of exchange of a handkerchief needs some clarity.
It comes up in the Tosphot HaR''id in Kidushin page 3.
But just for background information, I want to explain what the issue is.
It all starts from the Mishna there that, "A woman is acquired by money, document, or sex." The Gemara says that is meant to exclude barter. That also excludes exchange of a handkerchief.
["Why would we think that a woman is acquired by barter? Because we learn קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון acquisition is said by the field of Ephron. And the same word acquisition is used in discussing when one marries a woman. כי יקח איש אישה. From where we learn a man can acquire a woman by money just like a field is bought with money. (That is why you see nowadays people marry by means of a ring.) So you might think barter also would work since a field can also be bought by barter. But the Gemara says we would not learn that way because barter can be less than a penny and  a woman would not want to be acquired for less than a penny."]


The idea is that when one marries a woman two kinds of acquisition take place; (a) acquisition of marriage.   The idea is that a person can be obligated by means of a "Kinyan" [acquisition]. For example to sign a contract to produce an F-35 in a certain amount of time. This creates an obligation on a person to do the work. [It does not have to be a document. It can be by any kind of kinyan (acquisition) that an obligation is made. Nowadays we depend a lot on documents, but in fact acquisitions can be made by lots of things. [Pulling, pushing, lifting up. For example, if one buys a piano. How do you acquire it? Not by lifting surely. Not by money either. If you paid money and then want out of the deal you get the money back. So you would have to move the piano. And then the deal is finished.]] Another thing that happens when you marry a woman-(b) an acquisition of monetary obligations.

So the idea of the mishna is if one marries a woman by any one of those three ways in front of two witnesses, then these obligations are חל ("hal") that settle on you and her. That is: the acquisition takes place.

[The ring used nowadays is for שווה כסף (something worth money). That is learned from a Jewish slave that can be redeemed by money (if he is owned by another Jew). However let's say a Jew is sold or sells himself to a gentile in order to pay for some obligation. Then how can he be let go if the owner wants to let him go? One way is if someone gives to the owner some money. [I do not think paper money works here.] Another way is a document. But not by means of something worth money. So we see there are times that something worth money is not counted as money. -even if the owner wants to accept the object worth money instead of money, that does not help. It has to be money. But in terms of marriage it is thought to be considered as money.

[This actually brings up a question asked by Rav Shach and Rav Haim of Brisk. That is, that acquiring a woman by something worth money is learned from a Jewish slave. So since it does not work in all cases with a Jewish slave, why should it work at all with a woman? It is a half a gezera shava. [That is sometimes when the same word is used to two places the laws of one place are applied to the other place  except when you can only learn half. Then it does not apply at all.]

At any rate, my point is that you need Kant to limit what you can legitimately claim. But then you need to build up within those limits and that is probably by Hegel.

 Kant in his three critiques limits what we can know and what we can reason about. [That is things that fall into the category of conditions of possible experience. Outside of that are "things in themselves" Hegel takes this into account in order to determine how to stretch these boundaries.

Both seem important but to understand Kant I would go with Kelley Ross [the Friesian School.]

To understand Hegel I would go with Mctaggart.

Hegel is important because you want the big picture. What is the universe all about. Without that question there is absolutely no point to philosophy at all. So Kant can limit what we can understand but you still after him to see what is possible to understand in the big picture but to attempt that understanding taking into account Kant's point about how far human reason can go.


Kant limits what you can build. The reason is limits on reason. Hegel gets around those limits in order to build based on a process of dialectics based on what you see in Plato and Socrates. But with Hegel you get to conclusions that do not end until you get to God. That is he starts with Being and gets up to God. The Friesian approach has faith [non intuitive immediate knowledge] so in that way gets to God in a way, but not like Hegel. [My own impression here is that knowledge does progress. It is not pure empirical nor pure reason. See the paper of Michael Huemer that shows this. But Michael Huemer goes more with probability. [The kind you learned about when new evidence is added to your original probability based on Bayes.]
The Friesian approach needs a bit of study. Probably the best approach is that of Kelley Ross in his blog the Friesian School. The reason is that there are flaws in Fries's approach (that I admit I forgot) that Leonard Nelson corrected. But then in Nelson there were other flaws. So the best seems to be the modified Fries approach of Kelley Ross.]

At any rate, my point is that you need Kant to limit what you can legitimately claim. But then you need to build up within those limits and that is probably by Hegel.

w64 A Major   w64 in midi

Trust in God to help the way it was understood in the Mir in NY was to learn Torah and believe that God will take care of things like getting married and having a living. So the idea of sitting and learning even after marriage was along the lines of trusting in God. In Israel however the approach is to make political parties whose sole purpose is to extract money from secular Jews. That is not trust in God at all. But I should add that my idea of learning Torah since then has been expanded to include Physics and Metaphysics because of Saadia Gaon and people that followed his lead in this subject like Ibn Pakuda of the Obligations of the Heart.

But the basic structure of belief I still hold that the Mir was right. Trust in God and do not worry because God will take care of those that trust in Him. That is to say help and salvation is not at all assumed. Rather it is assumed according to the degree that one trusts in God.
The problem however can be that of self delusion. People can imagine that they are trusting in God while in fact being blind to the fact that they are trusting in their political parties to extract money from secular Jews.

My own impression is that God has often helped me whether I trusted or not. So I am not saying what will happen if they think they trust in God. I think people can fool themselves thinking they are trusting in God. But I can say that is one really does trust in God, God definitely helps.  

My learning partner David Bronson sent to me a video about the virus that I have not seen yet. But I think to put it up here since I have a great deal of confidence in my learning partner's common sense because almost always when we disagree about Tosphot, he ends up being right

I wanted to bring a subject for the sake of background information. It is about marriage and slavery. Allan Bloom's introduction to Kojeve's lectures on Hegel. Plus the incident of a virus spread in Soth America in Bolivia as a result of a civil war when they got rid of the land owners and divided the land equally. The peasants offered the land owners to sell back to them their land and sheep and cows. The landowners said, "We will not buy back what belonged to us," and left to start life elsewhere. The peasants cleared the jungle to make way for planting corn and upset the ecology in the area, and the rats came to settle in their village. So not just because society in organized in a way with some people on top does not mean they are exploiting. Every army knows letting the troops fight-the way they want is a disaster and recipe for defeat.

So in short for right now let me just bring the Gemara in Kidushin page 3. The Mishna says, "A woman is acquired in three ways: money, a document, or sex." The Gemara says this is to exclude exchange, because you might have thought just like a field is acquired by exchange so a woman. So we learn not so because exchange exists even less than a penny and a woman does not allow herself to be bought for less than a penny. The Tosphot Rid asks " If the handkerchief [for the exchange] is in fact worth more than a penny, she is bought."

The issue here is this. If you have ever sat at a marriage ceremony, you have seen this acquisition made by a handkerchief. And maybe you wondered "What kind of  acquisition it is?" It is not exactly a gift on condition to give back--but like it in some ways.
The answer is based on a verse in Ruth where a person takes off his shoe and gives it to another to seal a deal. It is a kind of mode of acquisition in which at that point the acquisition is made, It is in modern terms like signing a document.

So just to wrap this up for now I want to bring an idea of Rav Shach that will help to resolve these issues. It is that there are two kinds of קניין סודר ("kinyan sudar") exchange by handkerchief. One is where the act of exchange of the handkerchief [or any kind of vessel] finishes a deal--as a kind of way of making an acquisition as you see at marriages. Another kind is the normal act of exchange-barter. This for that.

I would like to go into this more but just quickly I want to add that the relation to slavery is that one can not let go of a slave  by this means exchange by handkerchief. It is to be by one of the three ways a slave is let go. Money, document or by injury to one of his external limbs. And the issue itself I just want to mention that slavery is not all that different from having to get up every day and go to school and then go to work. There are lots of things you are forced to do and if you do not then force is used against you. Slavery is  different in degree, not in kind. So why is it thought to be wrong? Where is the dividing line? A master does not own him? Do you own yourself? Can you do anything you want to yourself? No. Can you do anything you want? No. Everyone has his place and his job in society. Or you could live in the wilderness with no knife produced by society--- and see how you manage.


[The fact is that Hegel's politics does not seem so great. On the other hand "back to Kant" does not seem so great either. Nor "Analytic" vacuous philosophy of the Anglo Saxon world of the 20th century  nor Continental philosophy. Some synthesis of Hegel, Kant, Leonard Nelson seem to me the most promising. A "back to Plato" or "back to Kant" seems a bit difficult. Hegel does seem to hold a lot of promise. But lacking clarity about these issues what I would like to do would be to get through the three critiques of Kant, the four books published by Hegel and the writings of Leonard Nelson before I could draw a conclusion or see a direction forward.]


At any rate, I just wanted to say the basic point of Rav Shach [but not in his words]. Th Gemara is pretty clear that קניין חליפין [exchange by barter] does not apply to acquiring a wife. So to explain the Tospfot Rid is the question. The Tospfot Rid says if the handkerchief is worth more than a "pruta" penny then she is acquired. This is in spite of the fact that usually this acquisition by a handkerchief which is handed back is a kind of acquisition by barter not by money. So to explain this Rav Shach has to go into a  long explanation.

I think to get through these difficulties nowadays the best idea is to trust in God and learn the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. [But I do not think one should be paid for teaching or learning Torah.]
How to go about this I am not sure. Since God has granted to me a few of the volumes I finding it helpful to do a little review.   

In the Musar movement

In the Musar movement that began with Rav Israel Salanter you see that each one of his disciples had a different emphasis. [Musar means Morals. It is an approach that emphasizes learning four basic medieval books on Ethics.]
Trust in God was the thing by Navardok. "Seder" [Order] for Rav Simha Zisel. Fear of God for Rav Isaac Blasser. Good Character "midot tovot"  was clearly the beginning and probably was the thing emphasized by Rav Salanter himself.

I have to say I was mostly effected by Navardok and Rav Isaac Blasser's approach.

One thing is that you see Rav Israel himself wanted just that people should learn Musar and find for themselves what is necessary for their souls.

There is a remarkable insight in the Musar Movement in itself -the essential aspect of good character as being the main thrust of what the Law of God asks from you.

One thing about Musar is that it got to be used for money as learning Torah did also. It seems to me that it makes no sense to use to the Torah to make money. [My basic sympathy goes along with the idea that some have already said that Torah should not be used as a means to be making a living. And that people that give just encourage this kind of abuse of Torah. One ought to learn Torah but not do so for money, nor be paid.] Paying people to learn Torah just encourages the Torah scholars that are already demons just to get more power.]

Alexander Pruss on Godel

http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/search/label/Goedel

"Famously, Goedel’s incompleteness theorems refuted (naive) logicism, the view that mathematical truth is just provability.

But one doesn’t need all of the technical machinery of the incompleteness theorems to refute that. All one needs is Goedel’s simple but powerful insight that proofs are themselves mathematical objects—sequence of symbols (an insight emphasized by Goedel numbering). For once we see that, then the logicist view is that what makes a mathematical proposition true is that a certain kind of mathematical object—a proof—exists. But the latter claim is itself a mathematical claim, and so we are off on a vicious regress."

However I want to add that the idea of David Hilbert was to get to the basic axioms that Mathematics and Physics. Not that he was saying that those axioms could be proved. Leonard Nelson applied this idea to philosophy also. That is the point that Dr. Kelley Ross makes that to avoid a regress of reason one needs to start with immediate non-intuitive knowledge. However Dr Michael Huemer has a way of getting out of this problem by means of the idea that reason is just a faculty that recognizes universals. Not that reason is infallible. And the way it recognizes universals in by probability--not infallibility. [See his treatment of these issue.]  

"God created evil." Isaiah 45:7

The verse in Isaiah was pointed out where it says that "God created evil." But just to answer the issue I should add that when it comes to things beyond my understanding I defer to Kant about the things in themselves. That would be everything beyond the possibility of experience.
However, I am not saying 100% like Kant, because I think the limit that Kant places on Reason can be pushed back. This is the way I understood Hegel based on my reading of McTaggart on his Logic.

[This issue came up in http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/ who is a philosopher who I think is from the Analytic school. So I just added my comment there and thought also to post it here.]

I want to add that Steven Dutch was asked this and he answered that a lot of people have thought about this problem called the problem of evil.
Steven Dutch:

"How Can a Good God Permit Evil in the World?

An iceberg is a floating mountain of ice with most of its mass hidden below the surface. This question is more like a floating mountain of Styrofoam, with a tiny portion deep and hidden, and the vast majority on the surface and mostly made of air.

Lots of good, even great, books have been written on the deep and hidden aspects of this question. (One respondent asked me for references on this subject. The Library of Congress category for philosophy and theology is call letter B. The technical term for the question of good and evil is theodicy. I just searched it on Google and got 393,000 hits. Happy reading.) But if you are reading those books, you don't ask this question the way it is so often casually asked. Most people, when they ask this question, really mean something like:How could a good God disturb my comfort by confronting me with the existence of evil?How could a good God permit my sense of security to be violated by allowing evil to happen to others?Understanding this issue is really difficult. How could a good God create a world in which I have to think?

Dr Kelley Ross also treats this issue where he goes along with Schopenhauer. 

Some areas where critique on the Christian point of view makes sense.

There are some areas where critique on the Christian point of view makes sense. You never see anywhere that Jesus claims to be God. [He refers to the coming of the "son of man." [no capital letters in Greek.] Not the "son of God."] You never see him nullify the commandments. However there is a point about him even if some people get things wrong.  Some err on the side of over-doing. Others err on the side of under-doing.  It is hard to hold a middle point of view.
But even those that err on the side of under-doing accept his basic points. For some reason, he was able to embed in the human psyche the idea that the perfect person is the good and kind person. So when people ask, "How can Jesus be okay when such and such of his followers act not nicely?" they are implicitly accepting what he said.




He was to borrow a phrase from Allan Bloom a "civilization founding person."

[Critique on Jesus almost always means critique on Paul.]

On the critical side I want to say that אהיה אשר אהיה "I will be that which I will be" the name of God, is not the same as "I am". So even if the phrase of Jesus "I am" is hard to understand, still it is not the same as the name of God. ["I am before Abraham" in the Ancient Greek.]

The positive side is easy to see based on the idea of Rav Nahman about the importance of belief in a "true saint". [That is a theme in the book of Rav Nahman, the LeM.]

w63 A major

Girsa" [saying the words and going on]

The way of learning of "Girsa" [saying the words and going on] is very different from what people experience in school. The reason is that in school there is an emphasis on tests.

There is aspects of tests that are good. They show to oneself what he or she is good at and thus spend effort in that direction.

On the other hand the emphasis on tests does not take into account the idea that some things are important to learn whether one is good at them or not.

So when I say that people ought to learn Physics and Mathematics in this way of "Girsa" [just say the words from the beginning to the end of the book], I am not saying that everyone will become geniuses because of this. 

But I still think after doing this with any text of Physics four times, from beginning to end, the effect will be such that even people that imagine that they are not talented will discover that they are a lot more talented than they thought.

[I am going here with the idea that the Ten Commandments are contained in the Ten Statements of Creation [See the commentary of the Gra on Pirkei Avot V.]. So the Law of Moses in contained in a hidden way in the Work of Creation. In some way, you can see this in the Gemara itself. "R. Yohanan ben Zacai knew the Work of Creation and the Divine Chariot." You can see this theme a lot in Rav Nahman of Breslov' s LeM.]
טבעו בארץ ששעריה "The gates of Torah are sunken into the Earth". That is towards the end of volume I of the LeM. But there are plenty of hints to this all throughout the LeM--if one is willing to see them.


[I am not saying to stop learning in depth or doing review. But for some reason this kind of fast learning was mentioned by Rav Nahman in is Conversations number 76 as being the main way of learning. He almost seems to de-emphasize learning in depth on purpose. he says to have every day a session in learning with "slight iyun" [lit.,  a small amount of in depth learning.] To me that seems to imply that in fact learning fast was his preferred method for everyone.

[I think you have to say that Torah hidden in the work of Creation is more powerful to help a person come to good character traits than open Torah. In the LeM of Rav Nahman he brings an idea that telling open Torah to a wicked person causes them to become more evil. So the tzadik [saint] has to tell them Torah in a hidden way. There the idea is a about the "secular conversation" of a tzadik, but to me it seems the same principle applies here. The hidden Torah inside of the Work of Creation is what causes people to become better people.]
You can see in Rav Nahman's LeM also that there is not a proportional relationship between learning Torah and good character. So this idea of learning the Hidden Torah in the Work of Creation makes more sense to spend time and energy on.

w62 E Flat Major

It is usually understood that when there is an argument among Rishonim [mediaeval authorities] it does not make sense to say one or the other was right. You might do like the Beit Yoseph that you go by three only. That is the Rif, Rambam and Rosh. When two of these three agree to anything, that is the law. Still that does not make the other wrong. And when you can not find a consensus among these three, then you go by the majority of Rishonim.

So in the case where many of the Rishonim that hold Physics is a part of learning Torah, how would you decide that? Some hold yes, and some hold not. Since the Rambam is clear, and the Rosh and Rif do not openly discuss this, it seems clear the law is like the Rambam--especially after many rishonim go with the Rambam in this point.
[You might add the fact that both the Rif and Rosh say that "outside books" in Sanhedrin are not what people often think are "outside books". They are not books of Math and Physics. "Outside" means giving explanations not from the sages of the Mishna or Gemara or Midrash.]


There is an aspect here of experience also. It does not to me seem that learning Torah alone with these two added things Physics and Metaphysics [as the Rambam phrases it in the Guide] really leads to human perfection.  

Learning Torah and the Wisdom of God as it is contained in the work of Creation

You see in the Nefesh HaChaim of Rav Haim of Voloshin the importance of learning Torah.
I agree with this. The only thing is that I add the learning the Wisdom of God as it is contained in the work of Creation as being also a part of God's Law.

You see this in Rishonim [authorities from the Middle Ages. That is everyone that wrote either commentary or law from Rav Hai Geon until Rav Yoseph Karo. Not inclusive] based on Saadia Gaon. I mean Saadia Gaon opened this understanding that many later Rishonim accepted. Among them the Obligations of the Hearts, Maimonides/Rambam, Benjamin the author of Maalat HaMidot and others.
In later Musar books you a distinct backing away from this. The Ramban [Nahmanides] would be one that disagreed and stated the tradition that would refer to Aristotle as "may his name be blotted out". That opinion of the Ramban got to be accepted but is not the opinion of the above mentioned Rishonim that went with the approach of Saadia Gaon.

I feel that Maimonides was right in this subject that the Wisdom of God as contained in Creation is on a higher level than the laws about human interactions --which is also Torah but still seems to be on a lesser level.

You see this in the story brought in the Guide about the King. Outside the palace of the King are the people that learn Talmud. Inside the palace are the Physicists. [This analogy certainly shocked people. You can see why there were a few attempts to exclude the Rambam/Maimonides from acceptance.]

And I might add that if personal experience means anything, I would have to side with the Rambam/Maimonides in this issue.

But not to learn layman's Physics books. Do it right, or do not do it at all.
Doing it right means, you do not need to be a genius. Just like learning regular Torah does not depend on how smart one is. It is a mitzvah in itself. [The way to go about it is the path of learning of Rav Nahman of saying the words until you finish the book. But also review.]

To start exploring other galaxies at this point makes sense. However you can not go faster than light. Anyway it would take lots of energy to accelerate and decelerate. You would need to find a way to make a worm hole. That is the only possible plan. [The energy problem might not be too hard if you had a way of converting gravity waves into energy or anti gravity.]


I can see a few possibilities. One is that in String Theory, the Branes that strings live on are also strings. [That is they are the same stuff, but just more dimensions.] They are higher dimensional --so the string has somewhere to be. So these branes should not be all that harder to deal with any more than ordinary matter. [They are not just "space-time". I mean space-time is hard to deal with. It takes something big like the sun to do something noticeable to space-time. But branes are just another form of strings.]

What did Jesus mean when He told his followers to heed those who sat on the Chair of Moses in Matthew 23:2?
It must be he held from keeping the Oral and Written Law of Moses.

[Another reference would be the story of the poor man and rich man that both died. The poor man saw the rich man in Hell. He asked the poor man who was in Heaven to give him a drink of water. But there was a gap between heaven and hell that was not possible to pass. So the rich man asked at least to go back to earth to warn others about the problems that he was encountering in Hell that resulted from his not sharing. But the answer was : They have the Law and the prophets. Let them go and study and keep them. So the rich man said, "They would listen if one would rise from teh dead and warm them." And he was answered, if they will not listen to the law of Moses and teh prophets then even if one would rise from the dead and warn them they also would not listen."
So there is no indication that the Law is no longer invalid.

I also noticed that Dr. Michael Huemer wrote some critique about Communism [which to me does that where the Democrats want to go] https://spot.colorado.edu/~... His point is that not just that Communism leads to many unfortunate results like Venezuela,--but that it has a false assumption in its very core. [The Labor Theory of Value that how much value something has is because of how much work went into making it. Clearly it is absurd. If someone works twenty hours making a pin needle, not one will but it for $50. Yet the LTV is the source of teh idea that the owner of the factory extracts extra value from the workers.]
Huemer is basing himself to a large degree on G.E. Moore. That is a school called the Intuitionists that hold the reason recognizes Moral Values

The Kant Fries School of Dr Kelley Ross has a different kind of critique based on Kant's idea that people have self autonomy. That is authority ought not be imposed on people except for the bare minimum of getting a working state.

My own complain against communism and socialism has always stemmed from one basic starting axiom. "Thou Shalt not Steal". Stealing from the rich to give to the poor, has never seemed to me to be any different from stealing period. 

I must say that there is a lot going on in the world that if you look closely seem to cast doubt on the core concepts of mass and forces.

For instance the four forces (Gravity, Electro-Magnetism, Strong, Weak) do not seem basic, but rather seem to stem from Quantum Mechanics. What I mean is in Quantum Field Theory if you solve things like electrons going around a Helium atom you have a phase inside the equation which has to disappear before you get to an actual physical solution. But the fact that it is still there forces there to be three of the four forces,-- and maybe even Gravity.

Another thing I mentioned a few days ago is the infinite mass that always shows up in any particle. [I mean the bare particle by itself is a whirling conglomerate of infinite waves. The particle that is measure in the lab is not the bare particle. [I mentioned there that this seem to show a kind of Kant kind of idea that the actual "thing in itself" is hard to understand. At least it is not so simple. Hegel thought there is access to the "thing in itself" by means of a dialectical process.] 

w61 G Minor

Corona 19

Corona 19 tends to spread to two people. [i.e. 1 2 4 8 16 32 ...] That kind of expansion  grows fast. So the rate of spreading is like atomic fission. That is why governments are shutting down. It is serious, but not in the same way that people understand. Also it has incubation up until 14 days.

In any case this gives one a good chance to stay home and get through Shas [the Two Talmuds], Rav Shach's Avi Ezri,  Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, and Algebraic Topology which most people are behind schedule in any case. This certainly gives one a chance to catch up.

A major goal in Hegel was to come to freedom. Not all that different from Leonard Nelson.

Kant and Hegel. See Walter Kaufman on Hegel which shows that a major goal in Hegel was to come to freedom. That is not how his system was used later by Marxists.
One thing you always know about Socialism is that it is always trying get to "equality" by means of force.

Analytic Philosophy came about more or less as a response to the many unhappy movements that seem to have based themselves on Hegel. [WWI also got a lot of people to doubt Hegel].

Leonard Nelson took a Kantian direction. Somewhat like Hegel in building on his predecessors [Kant and Fries] but went beyond.

Nelson sought axioms on which to base philosophy and morality. Somewhat like David Hilbert thought to do with Math and Physics.

Sometimes axioms disagree with what Reason recognizes as objective moral principles. [E.g. It is wrong to torture people for the fun of it.] So finding true axioms is important, but should not be used against facts.
To me it seems the starting axioms ought to be the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.
That is certainly how the sages understood the Ten Commandments as being the core principles behind  many other laws.

In any case it is clear that both Hegel and Nelson saw Philosophy as something that is built up over time and reaches definite conclusions. But Axioms did not place any role in Hegel. Rather his building blocks were the dialectic.

In any case, I tend to see both Hegel and Nelson as having things important to help me shape my world view. [CAN these three things work together? I.e. Common sense reason that recognizes moral principles, axioms and the dialectic?]
It is harder to see how Hegel got to be used by so many pernicious movements being basically a traditional Christian and Capitalist. [However I did find it odd that in former USSR areas when I asked people how things had been under the USSR as compared to now the answer was always "It was better then." And sometimes they went into details. It seemed to me that the Russian experience was different than the WASP [White Anglo Saxon Protestant] that founded the USA.

The odd thing is philosophers generally have a very high IQ. The highest IQ in universities are the people in Physics. (The lowest are the one is psychology departments. If you ever wondered why are psychologists so stupid and malicious, this might help answer your question.)
So it is curious that philosophers get so much wrong in subjects like time and space. Either they want to take down natural science since "we can not know anything" [according to their theories of post modernism]. Or they want to "help science."
People in Physics might naturally say, "Thanks anyway for your help. We would rather do without it."[i.e. "Leave us alone."]
Okay, so why is this? Most of the professors are very smart. It can not be they are missing this.
I would like to suggest the path of learning of  "saying the words and going on." [Called" girsa".]
If people would do this with Physics and Math--even if their major is in philosophy, they would surely not be ignorant about physics. There would be less confusion about Relativity and QM.