28.11.21
27.11.21
I have never been very happy about Communism.
26.11.21
So there is some element of the deception of the Zohar
I can see that in Torah also there us the legal aspect Gemara, and the spiritual.
The thing about the spiritual aspect is that it has the highest danger of delusion. And in Torah there were books like the Sefer Hayetzira and mystics. The problem that the Sitra Achra, the Dark Side, that gets mixed up in this area. And when it comes to "spiritual" things, it is hard to now what is from the realm of holiness and what is from the Dark Side.
You can have great saints [tzadikim] that serve God through personal fasting and prayer, like the Ari, the Gra. Rav Nahman, still the fact that they believed in the Zohar means there is a certain element that gets mixed up with them. After all the Zohar can not be from R. Shimon ben Yochai since on every few pages is contained the phrase עם כל דא מתורגם מן עם כל זה--"although" in the time of R Shimon ben Yochai was אף על פי או אף על גב. The עם כל דא מתורגם מן עם כל זה is a medieval invention by the family of translators --the Ibn Tibon family. So there is some element of the deception of the Zohar that gets mixed up with the good. Most people involved in mysticism are not spiritual but delusional
25.11.21
John Locke and Montesquieu, the American system of Justice
I wish I could share with others the feeling of being astounded realizing that the American system of Justice which finds some middle ground between freedom and equality--which are after all exact opposites. [If you force everyone to be equal then no-one is free. If everyone is free then immediately no one is equal because some fail and some excel.]
I wonder from where this system comes from? I know the founding fathers studied John Locke and Montesquieu and the Roman republic and the Athenian Democracy. But I also began to see that it was highly based on the English system. But I could see little in philosophy that could result in such a system. It seemed piecemeal. Ad Hoc. Rather than based on John Locke, the English system was explained by John Locke after it was already in place especially after the Glorious Revolution.
[Plato certainly never recommended such a system. Rather his system resembled many aspects of Sparta but with most of the brutality taken out. The Roman Republic had two central bodies of authority, the the Plebeians and the Senate, [as reflected in the sign of Rome SPQR ] . But that was just as Ad Hoc. The people were given authority and the tribunes in order to stop the disintegration of Rome. There was no theory behind it. There was no theory behind the Magna Carta nor the Provisions of Oxford. Only after the fact, did it become clear that this form of government meant freedom and human flourishing.
24.11.21
one is not supposed to worship an intermediate.
We know one is not supposed to worship an intermediate. And the Rambam considers that to be the main prohibition of idolatry. So it is easy nowadays to see the reason for the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication. I can understand that at the time of the herem/ excommunication it was not clear to most people what the problem was. So most people ignored the herem (excommunication) that the Gra signed. But\ nowadays it is abundantly clear.
[Even Rav Nahman mentions this important principle in the LeM vol I perek 62. One is not supposed to worship an intermediate. So one could ask on why Rav Nahman seems to contradict himself in terms of the need to a "tzadik." I am not sure how to answer this, but I still feel that Rav Nahman himself was not included in the herem, so I feel more or less at ease in learning what is possible from his writings.
Attitudes. One is total belief like when one is a child. Then skepticism like when one gets to college and doubts everything. The higher naivety is in between. The Goldie Locks approach. Not too hot, not too cold.
In the study of history there is something called "the higher naivety". There are two other attitudes. One is total belief like when one is a child. )Then skepticism like when one gets to college and doubts everything. (as some say about Homer. They say you can not learn anything from Homer about the age before the Greek States.] Like chariots. Some thought they were an anachronism. But later it turned out from archeology that there were chariots in the time of the war on Troy. ) The higher naivety is in between. It is to believe unless one can not. What can make something not believable? Self contradictions. Or external evidence. [You might see some of Hegel here about synthesis.]
Similar in philosophy there is an attitude to try to take apart. Then there is the sort of reading called "charity"--that is if a great philosopher writes something that does not seem to make sense, to try to make sense of it and say he meant something that is more sensible. (Michael Huemer is with "He meant what he said'' view.))Then there is "He meant what he said" but to try to find some way of making sense of it.
This is how many other issues can be approached. The Goldie Locks approach. Not too hot, not too cold. But just right. In Rav Nahman' writings there are amazing insights and other things that are less than believable. {Maybe he himself was saying these in a half humorous fashion, or perhaps not well understood. So you throw out everything? I say not. You leave the great insights and ignore what seems less well thought out. {It is characteristic of Western thought to be "either or." It is all right or all wrong.. I tend to be in the middle. Some is right and some needs to be ignored.
23.11.21
Then I got to places that had claimed to be accepting "anyone who wanted to learn Torah." What they meant was "anyone with rich American parents."
One thing you can notice in Rav Nahman of Breslov [i.e. his books] is the idea that there is always an ''ietza" some sort of advice that can help for every situation. Though he never actually says this in so many words, still the idea is implicit in everything he writes.
How to find the right bit of advice that can help you is of course the problem.
For example the Tikun Klali [saying the ten psalms to correct sexual sin] is actually called this by name: "the general correction". [In reference to the LeM vol I perek 19]
But when Rav Nahman uses the idea of correction he does not mean it just in terms of sin but actually correction of problems.
And I tend to think in these terms myself after learning Rav Nahman's books. I can see his point.
[Sefer HaMidot especially.]
It is well known that he held that "Hitbodadut" is a general practice that can help. That is--to talk to God as one talks with a friend--in one's own language. No rituals or formulas of prayer.
I wanted especially to mention one bit of advice that actually is in a mishna כל המקבל עליו עול תורה מעבירים ממנו עול מלכות ועול רך ארץ For anyone that accepts on himself the yoke of Torah, there is removed from him the yoke of government and the yoke of the way of the earth.
That is to say: I have noticed something about the Litvak path of learning Gemara Rashi and Tosphot along with Musar that fulfill this idea of Rav Nahman. This path of straight Torah I have noticed tends to have this aspect to it of removing from one many of the other kinds of worries and difficulties that people encounter. {I do not learn Torah all day as I should because I was kicked our of every beit midrash where I sat down to learn. At first it was the Lakewood kollel in LA where they told my wife to get rid of me because because I was learning Torah without getting paid. Then I got to places that had claimed to be accepting "anyone who wanted to learn Torah." What they meant was "anyone with rich American parents." So I have found the major obstacle to learning Torah is the hypocrisy of those that claim to be doing so for its own sake, not for money. There is a temptation to discount the value of Torah because of this> I tend to say instead that Torah is great and holy, but people that use Torah to make money and dress religiously to show how holy they are are obstacles to true Torah.
22.11.21
21.11.21
See Isaac of Aco's account of his encounter with Moshe De'Leon. De Leon had been selling a new book page by page that no one had heard of, the "Zohar", which he claimed he had found in an ancient manuscript.
I know that people have an inherent curiosity about the nature of reality. They might look at philosophy and find word puzzles. Or they might look at the Zohar, and find that it is a highly problematic source of information. [note 1]
Even if they want to look at Physics, they find that layman's books are often worse than useless. They do not know how to get to the real thing.
For this reason I have often mentioned that learning Physics is possible for everyone. No one has to be a genius. What scares people off is the intimating system of tests. And these tests are important on one hand --to know who really knows -- as opposed to those who imagine that they know. But the downside of tests is people with inherent curiosity, but not much talent get discouraged.
I hope to show that Physics and Math are available to everyone by the idea in tractate Shabat page 63 לעלם ליגמר אינש אע''ג דמשכח ואע''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר Always one finish (the whole book at least once) and then go back and explain it -even though he forgets, and even though he does not know what he is saying.)
[note 1] See Isaac of Aco's account of his encounter with Moshe De'Leon. De Leon had been selling a new book page by page that no one had heard of, the "Zohar," which he claimed he had found in an ancient manuscript. [He was never clear how it got into is possession.] So when a great sage from Israel arrived in Spain on a visit, people asked him to go and speak with De Leon and find out from where this book came from. This was Isaac from Aco. At that time deLeon was not in his hometown and Isaac of Aco went to see him. When he asked DeLeon, De Leon said, "I have the original manuscript at home and when I get there I will show you, or may God strike me dead!" Sadly enough, God struck him dead before he got back home. But Isaac of Aco went anyway and asked his wife about it and offered to her a very large sum of money to show him the manuscript. She swore to him that there was no such thing. She observed her husband sitting in his room and writing it "from his head" (that is the phrase she used to describe it.)
Of course it is clear that he had written a copy from himself in order to make extra copies from. That is how when people came to ask for the same page that someone else had bought, deLeon could write out that same page word from word.
And Rav Yaakov Emden made a study of this subject, and decided that some parts were probably based on ancient sources.
I might mention that the עם כל דא ["although"] phrase in the Zohar bothers me. In the time of the Mishna and Gemara one could say although by אף על פי or אף על גב. But during the Middle Ages it was noticed that these phrase are extremely awkward. So the Ibn Tibon family came up with a better way עם כל זה while עם כל דא is the translation into Aramaic. So the Zohar was written during the Middles Ages. QED
Rittenhouse
Rittenhouse was acquitted on all accounts. He had gone to protect store owners and stores from being looted and destroyed as when happening all over the USA. Then he was attacked and he defended himself. I can not see why this even went to trial. One glance at the video should have been enough. He was knocked down an a guy was pulling out a gun to shoot him, and so he shot before he was killed. How much more obvious could this be?
Well the answer seems to be that too much of the judicial system in the USA has gotten politized. Instead of justice, what is pursued is what is politically correct.
So while on one hand I am happy that justice was served, still I am thinking that this whole trial shows that the justice system in the USA needs to get back on track.[One suggestion is this people making false accusations should be punished by the law. They should at least be liable. That should even apply to prosecutors.]
20.11.21
infrared telescopes and Philip Rosenblum-Rosten
Two infrared telescopes. Spitzer and James Web. The Spitzer was the first in space. Now the James Webb is about to be deployed. Why should not Philip Rosenblum get some credit for being the inventor of the first infrared telescope?
Spitzer was operated by NASA, JPL/Cal Tech. named after the person who suggested the idea of a space telescope and a very good scientist. James Webb has not yet gone into operation yet.[James Webb was the administrator of NASA.] I am just wondering why the name Philip Rosenblum is never mentioned with his own invention. Something he did not just suggest but actually made. Should that not count for something? Would it not be like crediting someone who thought about an electric light bulb instead of the person who actually made it-- Edison? Do you not usually give credit to the person that made the first thing, not those who thought how nice it would be to have it. The two brothers (Wright) that made an airplane get the credit, not people who thought about how nice it would be to fly?
Even though Isabella promoted Columbus, she is not given credit for the discovery of America, rather the person who actually did it, Columbus. Who gets the credit for Mozart symphonies, the musical director of the orchestra in Vienna or Mozart?
I realize credit does not always go to who deserves it. Some theorems in Mathematics get named for those who used them or introduced them to the public rather than the inventor. Not that the second person was trying to steal credit. Rather it was just the way things worked out. Still I think that some effort ought to be made to give credit to whom credit is due.
[Maybe I could suggest that the next generation of Infrared telescopes be called on the name of Philip Rosenblum? This way one dos not detract from the credit due to others, but still gives credit to the actual inventor.]
19.11.21
The Jerusalem Talmud asks about that first stalk.
If you have the peah [edge of the field.] which is what one must leave to the poor. It is at least 1/60. The first stalk that is cut makes that obligation come into play. [He can not just say, "The whole field is peah." It has to be after something has been reaped.] The Jerusalem Talmud asks about that first stalk. Is is also obligated in peah? [That means we know that it first has to be cut. And then he could make the rest of the field peah. But if he wanted to, could he then say that first stalk is also peah? Answer: No. The reason is it makes everything else obligated, and so it itself is not. And so it is obligated in truma and maasar (gifts to the kohen/priest and Levite).
Then let's say he goes ahead, and cuts through the whole field. [He was supposed to leave 1/60 standing for the poor.] The first stalk of the 1/60 makes the obligation of peah go to the reaped sheaves. (According to Peah perek II, mishna 5) The question is: Is that first stalk of the 1/60 obligated in peah? Answer: No. It is like the first stalk of the 59/60. [I would like to add here the "hava amina" of he gemara. That is why would this be a question in the first place? Should it not be clear that the case is the same as the first stalk that was reaped? Answer: the first stalk of the 1/60 is now cut. And therefore ought to be obligated in peah. This is different than the first stalk of the 59/60 which caused an obligation on the standing stalks, but it itself is not standing. So then perhaps this ought to be the final answer? No. Because its being cut is simultaneous with the obligation coming on the reaped sheaves. That might be the difference. However you can still argue before it was cut, it was standing and at that time the obligation was on the standing stalks. After it was cut, the obligation is on the reaped sheaves . What makes it not obligated is that it is like the first stalk of the 59/60. It makes obligated and so is not obligated.]
The question is could he make the 1/60 still to be peah? Or is now that whole part of the field obligated in truma and maasar?
I realized while coming back from the sea that this is the point of Rav Shach. He asks on the Rambam that writes "If he reaps the whole field [even though he was supposed to leave 1/60], he still gives peah. And if he gives most of what was harvested as peah, that is not obligated in truma and maasar." That means to say that the second he transgressed and reaped the first stalk of the1/60, by transgressing the command to leave a part of the field to the poor that causes the obligation of peah to go on the reaped part (since he can no longer give from the non-reaped part the proper amount). And then, that 1/60 part is obligated in truma and maasar. And even if he gives it to the poor, it is just a present and not considered abandoned (which would be not obligated in truma and maasar), it still is obligated in truma and maasar and can not not become peah.
________________________________________________________________________________
פאה is what one must leave to the poor. It is at least אחד ממאה. The first stalk that is cut makes that obligation חל. [He can not say, "the whole field is פאה." It has to be after something has been reaped.] The גמרא ירושלמי asks about that first stalk. Is is also obligated in פאה? [That means we know that it first has to be cut. And then he could make the rest of the field פאה. But if he wanted to could he then say that first stalk is also פאה? Answer של הגמרא: No. The reason is it makes everything else obligated, and so it itself is not חייב. And so it is obligated in תרומה and מעשר . Then let's say he goes ahead and cuts through the whole field. The first stalk of the חלק אחד מששים makes the obligation of פאה go to the reaped sheaves According to פאה פרק ב' משנה ה') Then the גמרא ירושלמי asks, "Is that first stalk of the חלק אחד מששים obligated in פאה? Answer: No. It is like the first stalk of the חמישים ותשעה מששים. I would like to add here the הווא אמינא" of הגמרא. That is why would this be a question in the first place? Should it not be clear that the case is the same as the first stalk that was reaped? Answer: the first stalk of the חלק אחד מששים is now cut. And therefore ought to be obligated in פאה. This is different than the first stalk of the חמישים ותשעה מששים which caused an obligation on הקמה standing stalks, but it itself is not standing. So then perhaps this ought to be the final answer? No. Because its being cut is simultaneous with the obligation coming on the reaped sheaves. That might be the difference. However you can still argue before it was cut it was standing and at that time the obligation was on the standing stalks. After it was cut the obligation in fact is on the reaped sheaves at the time the obligation is on the reaped sheaves. What makes it not obligated בפאה is that it is like the first stalk of the חמישים ותשעה מששים. It makes obligated and so is not obligated. My question is could he make the אחד מששים still to be פאה? Or is now that whole part of the field obligated in תרומה and מעשר? I realized while coming back from the sea that this is the point of רב שך. He asks on the רמב''ם that writes "If he reaps the whole field, he still gives פאה. And if he gives most of what was harvested as פאה, that is not obligated in תרומה and מעשר ." That means to say that the second he פשע and reaped the first stalk on the אחד מששים , that causes the obligation of פאה to go on the reaped part since he can no longer give from the non-reaped part the proper amount. And then that אחד מששים part is obligated in תרומה and מעשר . And even if he gives it to the poor, it is just a present and not considered abandoned , it still is obligated in תרומה and מעשר and can not not become פאה.
פאה זה מה שצריך להשאיר לעניים. זה לפחות אחד ממאה. הגבעול הראשון שנחתך הופך את המחויבות הזו לחל. [הוא לא יכול לומר "כל השדה פאה". זה חייב להיות אחרי שמשהו נקצר.] הגמרא ירושלמי שואל על הגבעול הראשון. האם חייב גם בפאה? [זה אומר שאנחנו יודעים שקודם כל צריך לחתוך אותו. ואז הוא יכול לעשות את שאר השדה פאה. אבל אם הוא רוצה היה יכול אז לומר שגבעול ראשון הוא גם פאה? תשובה של הגמרא: לא. הסיבה היא שזה הופך את כל השאר לחייב, ולכן זה עצמו לא חייב. ולכן חייב בתרומה ומעשר . ואז נניח שהוא ממשיך וחותך את כל השדה. הגבעול הראשון של חלק אחד מששים גורם לחובת הפאה ללכת לאלומות הנקצרות לפי פאה פרק ב' משנה ה') ואז שואל הגמרא ירושלמי, "האם הגבעול הראשון של חלק אחד מששים חייב בפאה? תשובה: לא. זה כמו הגבעול הראשון של החמישים ותשעה מששים. אני רוצה להוסיף כאן את הווא אמינא" של הגמרא. לכן זו תהיה שאלה מלכתחילה? האם לא צריך להיות ברור שהמקרה זהה לגבעול הראשון שנקטף? תשובה: הגבעול הראשון של חלק אחד מששים נחתך כעת. ולפיכך צריך לחייב בפאה. זה שונה מהגבעול הראשון של החמישים ותשעה מששים שגרם להתחייבות על גבעולים עומדים, אבל הוא עצמו אינו עומד. אז אולי זו צריכה להיות התשובה הסופית? לא, כי גזירתו בד בבד עם החיוב הבא על האלומות הקצורות. יכול להיות שזה ההבדל. עם זאת אתה עדיין יכול להתווכח לפני שנחתך זה היה עומד ובאותו זמן החיוב היה על הגבעולים העומדים. לאחר שנכרת החיוב הוא למעשה על האלומות הנקצרות בזמן שהחיוב הוא על האלומות הנקצרות. מה שהופך את זה לא חייב בפאה זה שזה כמו הגבעול הראשון של החמישים ותשעה מששים. זה עושה מחויב ולכן אינו מחויב. השאלה שלי היא האם הוא יכול לגרום לאחד מששים להיות פאה? או שמא עכשיו כל החלק הזה של השדה חייב בתרומה ומעשר? הבנתי שזו הנקודה של רב שך. שואל על הרמב''ם שכותב "אם קוטף את כל השדה עדיין נותן פאה. ואם נותן רוב מה שנקטף כפאה, אין חייב בתרומה ומעשר". כלומר לומר שבשני הוא פשע וקצר גבעול ראשון על אחד מששים, שגורם לחובת פאה ללכת על החלק הנקצר כיון שאינו יכול עוד לתת מהחלק הלא נקצר את הכמות הראויה. ואחר כך חלק אחד מששים חייב בתרומה ומעשר . ואפילו אם נותן לעני, זה רק מתנה ואינו נחשב נטוש, עדיין חייב בתרומה ומעשר ואינו יכול להיות פאה.
Being silent to one's insult
In the LeM of Rav Nahman in vol I:6 is brought: Being silent to one's insult is the main repentance on one's sins.[This is simple to understand if you know the principle of repentance which is to accept not to repeat the sin. But a sin can be an isur asey איסור עשה (a prohibition that comes from a positive command), a lav לאו (prohibition), a lav that has karet לאו שיש בו כרת (prohibition that has the penalty of being cut off from one's people), a lav that has hilul hashem לאו שיש בו חילול השם (a prohibition that has the desecration of the Divine Name). For the last two simple repentance and Yom Kippur are not enough, one must receive afflictions in order for the repentance to b accepted. So Rav Nahman is saying here that being silent in the face of being insult is in place of other sorts of afflictions.
Later in vol II Rav Nahman says that this Torah lesson contains in it the intensions of Elul and that the intensions of Elul are a segulah סגולה [help] to find one's match.
I actually had a lot of trouble finding my match for a long time. I had tried every possible idea that I or anyone else could suggest.... Until one day I decided I was going to say that Torah lesson LeM vol I perek 6 every day and never stop until I would find my match. And that is what I did. Every day for about a year until I fact I found my match.
And other thing I gained from that was the idea of silence. In that Torah lesson, silence in itself is praised, not just silence in the face of one's insult.
18.11.21
music files from years ago (when I was a teenager) and some recent.
orchestra [written a long time ago in my parent's home. In high school orchestra in in Idywild Music Camp we were playing Beethoven and Brahms so that obviously effected my style.]
piano [also written at my parents home. It is called piano because on that it was written but scored for organ.]
Kant
Kant wants to show that our intuitions [things that we see or hear] can only have unity if the categories (where, how, when) unite them. But the doubt is how does this work? If I go into a field and collect flowers and put them into a basket, the basket puts them together, but does not make them a unity.
Kant answers this question by showing that intuitions have to have the capability to be able to be united by the categories. [The forms of intuitions are in them, but the unity is contributed by the categories.] [Reason is in the things themselves. Otherwise they could not be interpreted as fitting into the categories. [note 1]] And he shows that the categories can only unite concepts and intuitions, but not make them out of scratch. So he shows that both require the other. The categories and the intuitions are dependent one on the other.
The question is this still seems to leave the flowers in the basket. So I am thinking that this must be one of reasons for the principle that there is a deeper source of knowledge, non intuitive immediate knowledge that unites the categories with the intuitions. [That is the idea of the Kant-Friesian School]
I might mention that there is plenty of debate about the B Deduction of how the mind and body work together [intuitions and categories.] [It seems the B Deduction shows that space and time have to have structure that is able to be thought by the mind.] The other debate is whether intuitions have themselves some sort of knowledge in them besides the categories. In any case no scholars of Kant seem to take the Kant Fries approach. [Kant obviously did not. Rather this immediate non intuitive knowledge seems to answer the question.. And besides that Kant's own explanation seems to be "It must be true", that still leaves me wondering "How is it true?" I think the Friesian idea helps for that.
[It so happens that, even as Nelson tried to revive this idea,.]
I ought to mention that immediate non intuitive knowledge was conjectured for the sake of the dinge an sich. But it seems to help also for Kant's dilemma how categories of thought and sense perception relate.
[I have mentioned that this is tremendously significant to my learning partner in Uman David Bronson and others but apparently no one has paid attention. See the site of Kelley Ross
[note 1]This is close to what Hegel says. Both Kant and Hegel are looking for something inside sensory perception that makes it amenable to being processed by the human mind. To Hegel the reason is that Logos Reason is in everything. See Plotinus. Kant's answer is different and still subject to debate.
Robert E Lee.
I have been thinking about Robert E Lee. And it occurred to me to mention a few ideas. One is a retraction. I think that when Stonewall Jackson died, Lee did not think the South was lost.
Next as to secession, even though the tenth ammendment looks to some degree as allowing it, still there is some doubt because the idea that all rights not granted by the Constitution to the Federal government are reserved for the states or to the people of the USA would mean any individual person could also secede from the Union. So no one could be guilty of any crime because all he would need to say would be "I secede from the Union." [Or you could argue that individuals are different than states for individuals are liable to punishment by the courts as brought in the Constitution. But there is no such mechanism for punishing states. Besides that, Virginia openly made the possibility of secession as a key condition for joining the Union in the first place.]
Another point on the side of Lee is that the Constitution mentions citizens of the states and of the union itself. It seems one can be both! So Lee was right that he was a citizen of Virginia and thus bound by its laws--and its secession.
"It is possible to find God in everything." [LeM II: 44 and also I think II:87].
I was at the nearby Breslov Na Nach place yesterday and some mentioned an idea that kind of makes sense to me. At first I suggested the idea that is well known, "תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם" ("Learning Torah is equal to all the other mitzvot put together.") And this person is a working guy who as you can imagine finds it hard to be sitting and learning all day because of his responsibilities. He mentioned this idea of Rav Nahman of finding the good point in others and in oneself. And that situations with people often change so that sitting and learning is not always possible.
[He did not mention another idea of Rav Nahman but which I think is relevant here that, "It is possible to find God in everything." [LeM II: 44 and also I think II:87]. And this applies to me since I also have found that my goal of sitting and learning Torah just did not work out as well as I thought.
The idea is brought at greater length in the LeM [of Rav Nahman] in a few other places that is based on the mishna in Pirkei Avot בעשרה מאמרות נברא העולם with ten statements the world was created. Nine of them are open and plain to see "God said..." [and in everything created by these nine statements the glory of God is revealed. ] But the tenth statement is hidden. It does not say "God said.." , rather just "In the beginning God created...". That is called the "Hidden Statement." Now even though it says "the whole world is full of his glory" still there are places where the glory of God does not reach as it says וכבודי לאחר לא אתן "I will not give of my glory to another".[The speaker in that verse is God]. But nothing can exist without the will of God to make it exist. So how do evil things and places have existence? That is by the hidden statement. So even when one has fallen into evil and evil places and from there one seeks God and tries to return to Him, then the glory of the hidden statement is revealed upon him.
[There is more to be discussed here, but I just got back from the sea and I would like to spend my time learning. So it is best for anyone reading this just to see in the LeM of Rav Nahman some of the places that are relevant to this like the LeM II:4.]
Capitalism lifts everyone out of poverty.
It is a proven fact that democracy and prosperity go together. And it has been proven that socialism and repression, and poverty go together hand in hand.
\Why is this? The question of "Why?"" never bothered me much since I assumed that no matter how brilliant a system may be conceived --if its end result is million of dead and an equality of poverty, then that system can not be right. [I mean what should it matter to a poor person in the USA the lives better than medieval kings? Capitalism lifts everyone out of poverty. The poorest of the poor in the USA have I phones and Nikes shoes and electricity and sanitation that medial kings could not have dreamed of.]
Even China never got out of poverty until it embraced a market economy, but with the control of the party that retains political control.--not market control.
[And I admit I can not see the attraction of Communism today. All one has to do is the compare a picture of any ordinary grocery store in the USA, with a picture of street block long lines in the USSR just to get a loaf of bread.]
17.11.21
Bikini Nuclear tests.
Since I have not been able to spend much time on learning Torah --though I should overcome the difficulties. But in the meantime I wanted to mention my feeling the Bikini Nuclear tests. The people on those islands were evacuated but later brought back and assured that it was safe to return. They were test mice to see the effects of radiation poisoning. So if you think medical scientists would never use people are guinea pigs, think again. And that brings me to the non existent epidemic to cause people to take tests drugs (called by euphemism "vaccines.) [Do yourself a bit of reading to understand the many years it takes to develop a real vaccine. There is no question that these are fakes.]
See the Conversations of Rav Nahman (Sichot HaRan) [of Breslov]. [paragraph 50.]
And I might mention that Dr Michael Huemer in one paper deals with the problems of political activists and all other sorts of people like doctors that think they they know more than they do. [In the named
In Praise of Passivity
by Michael Huemer
Political actors, including voters, activists, and leaders, are often ignorant of basic facts relevant to policy choices. Even experts have little understanding of the working of society and little ability to predict future outcomes. Only the most simple and uncontroversial political claims can be counted on. This is partly because political knowledge is very difficult to attain, and partly because individuals are not sufficiently motivated to attain it. As a result, the best advice for political actors is very often to simply stop trying to solve social problems, since interventions not based on precise understanding are likely to do more harm than good.
]
pure Litvak Yeshiva approach
My own experience with the Mir Yeshiva in NY was not very long. And it is sad that I did not have an appreciation for it as much as I should have had. I was just three short years. I did not have a great understanding at the time of the Gra and the herem he signed on. But I did have some grasp of the amazing world of true authentic Torah.
And I do not think I am alone in this. Many people do not really get why the Gra signed on the letter of excommunication. I guess the problem of idol worship does not occur to people to be a problem.
I could make a suggestion concerning the מנהל רוחני [the person more or less appointed to give the Musar talks.] They do not tend to be as admirable as the rosh yeshiva. They tend to not be able to give the deep sorts of classes that a rosh yeshiva is expected to give.[Along the lines of R. Akiva Eigger or Rav Chaim of Brisk]--or at least to be able to give over the idea of Rav Chaim and the other greats --e.g. Shimon Shkopf, Rav Shach, etc. But neither are they very well versed in Musar itself. They may have learned some Musar, but are usually unaware of the philosophical aspects of Musar. [an example would be the Chovot Levavot which is openly neo-Platonic.] Or take the Ramchal--certainly a great mystic and there is some hint of this in the Mesilat Yesharim. But the teachers of Musar are often not very well versed in that area either.
While at the Mir it was easy for me to see the greatness of the roshei yeshiva--in character and in deep understanding of the Gemara and Tosphot. But since I left there, I have never seen anyone that comes within light years of that. [ That is one reason I named this blog after Rav Shach--to give people an idea of an example of deep penetrating analysis of Gemara really means.
[That is not to say there is a case for the pure Litvak Yeshiva approach or even for the Gra alone per se. Rather Balance. Balance is the path of my parents. And one ought to not look at the Reform movement or the Zionist movement as aberration that are unexplainable except as the result of apikorsim heretics,- but rather as a natural result of pressure-the pressure of the insanity of fanatic religious leaders.
16.11.21
Even with people doing good work in understanding Kant (like Paul Wolff), you still end up with the problem that this approach has kinks that just do not seem to go away. You could at that point look at Schelling or Fichte which are not Kantian at all, or you could take the Fries approach which is a modification of Kant. [It is not psychologism-using the mind to explain none mind based facts.]
Or you could take the Hegel approach. But that approach is certainly not to the liking of any Kantians. And at lot there depends on which initial texts one takes. For some reason I read the Logic [that part of the Encyclopedia] first and that fit completely into my understanding of Plato and Plotinus. [Ever since then I have never understood the complaints about Hegel.]
And you could combine both. After all Hegel is mainly interested in building his Metaphysical system. he does not care about the Mind Body Problem. While Kant [and Fries] are involved in that very much so-- in answering Berkeley and Hume.
[Incidentally, the Fries approach needed a certain amount of development. Leonard Nelson added a bit of clarity to it [as mentioned in Dr Kelley Ross's web site]. But even more so--the Friesian School of Nelson could not deal with the Special Theory of Relativity and even less with the General Theory of Relativity. That includes Nelson himself and all those who followed him until Gretta Hermann.]
There is an obligation to leave the edge of the field for the poor.
There is an obligation to leave the edge of the field for the poor. That is not to touch it at all. This is called "peah". The amount one must leave is 1/60.
That left over part is not obligated in the presents given to the priest or the Levite [called truma and maasar.]
Let's say however one just goes ahead and reaps the whole field. The second that he jumped the line and cut down the first stalk of the 1/60 the obligation of peah goes over to the sheaves. Some part of the sheaves he has to leave as peah so as to get up to 1/60 of the whole field.
But what happens to the first stalk of that started the process in the first place? and what happens to the second stalk of the 1/60 part that was the beginning of the transgression of the לא תכלה "Do not finish harvesting your field, but leave the corner of your field to the poor." Well the second he harvested that stalk, he transgressed that prohibition. So the questions are is the very first stalk still obligated in truma. (For at first it was obligated in truma since it is not "left over". But now all the reaped field is liable to be peah. Does that include the first stalk? And the difference is what is obligated in truma is called "tevel". Grain that has not had the presents to the priest and Levite separated rom it and thus forbidden to be eaten.) And what about the second stalk? Is it obligated in truma? For at first it was supposed to be peah. But the second he cuts it the obligation of peah goes over to the sheaves--but now it also is sheaf!! And it is peah? So which one is it?
15.11.21
Tractate Shabat page 139. I quote: "If you see a generation that troubles come upon it go out a check the judges of Israel.
I really did not appreciate the path of the Gra and the straight Litvak yeshiva
Worship of dead corpses would seem clearly to be a problem.
There is little in the religious world that actually corresponds to Torah. Examples are plentiful. Worship of dead corpses would seem clearly to be a problem. And yet the herem the Gra signed addressing this exact problem is ignored. There are many other examples but open idolatry should seem to be clearly in violation of the Ten Commandments. So why are all the groups that are included in the herem [excommunication] of the Gra thought to be the highest examples of loyalty to Torah? Should not every one of their books be considered to be dirty? No. Rather considered the peak of loyalty to Torah! How much clearer could things be?
14.11.21
I looked at some of this and I can see his points. After all we know slavery in the Torah is nothing like slavery as practiced. For example if one has only one pillow, he must give it to his slave. The slave can not be made worse off than the master. That is different from galley slaves.
[However brilliant Thomas Sowell is I must mention that some of his points are less accurate as noted by Brian Caplan here.
Besides this it occurred to me that Lincoln had the authority to free the slaves דינא דמלכותא דינא."The law of the state is the law." Though he clearly did not have authority to make war on the South. Even though the law of the state is the law is applied differently by the Rishonim, still t least we have the Rambam who hold that if a king declares "Anyone who does not pay such and such a tax will be sold as a slave" that is valid. Thus with symmetry, he can declare slaves to be free.
If that was a good idea or not is debatable. But to me it seems that it was valid. Not only that but a sell under duress is valid. So the fact that the Southern States signed the 14th ammendment under duress does not make it invalid.. The only aspect that one can complain about in the Civil War is that the union of the states was voluntary. So making a war to keep it together, seems absurd.
And Lincoln's statement, "If slavery is not wrong then nothing is wrong", seems untrue. Maybe slavery is OK if slaves are treated right, while murder is wrong. Or making an unjust war might be wrong? People get all excited about lots of different things. sometimes justified and sometimes not.
Nowadays I can see the point of the South that in freeing the slaves, there would be perpetual war against the whites. This seems fulfilled nowadays with the continuous attacks against the Constitution and all Western values. It is like letting the German Barbarians into the Roman empire. While at firt things seemed okay, but eventually it was a time bomb just waiting to explode.
Lets say for a similar example that a women agrees to get married to some man. And then at some point she wants to leave? Can he then bludgeon her to death? [As actually happens.]
And so what about the colonies making the war of Independence of the American Revolution? if you want to go with "No taxation without representation". Well from what could that be true? We know the king of England can not make taxes without the consent of Parliament. But the Parliament can make taxes as well as it pleases. And the American colonies were being taxed y Parliament as is the right of Parliament to do so. [And even the king agreed.] Where in the Magna Charta or the Provisions of Oxford does it say every person that is taxed has to have representation? So the Colonies were in rebellion exactly as the South was. What makes one right and the other wrong? If the South was wrong, then so was the American Revolution.
Rav Shach in Yerushalmi perek 2 halacha 5 in Peah and 2:11 in Laws of Peah
I am still pondering this hard Rambam 2:11 in Peah. The owner of the field harvests the whole. He was supposed to leave 1/60 of the standing wheat to the poor. He gives from what was reaped to the poor. And if he gives most of what was reaped, that is not obligated in truma and maasar. [Truma is what is given t priests. Maasar is what is given to Levites. Clearly neither applies to peah which is the edge of the field which is given to the poor.] Only if he finished all the work [reaped and threshed], then he has to take truma and maasar and give to the poor.
Again what is this "most of what was reaped"? Normally one can give his whole field as peah except for the first stalk. [Obviously of he does nothing with the field at all then it can not be "peah" i.e. the corner. There has to be some beginning work in order for the rest to be what was left
So Rav Shach brings from the Yerushalmi perek 2 halacha 5 in Peah that if he even started to reap the 1/60, then the obligation of peah goes on the sheaves, not the standing wheat any more.
That helps a little. So now he can give the whole 59/60 as peah. But still I am wondering about the Yerushalmi itself. Why can he not just give what is left of the standing ears as peah and what in them does not make up the whole 1/60, to give the needed amount from what was reaped?
13.11.21
Even though I am a beach bum, I am not saying that this is an ideal path. Just the opposite. If I could spend all day and night learning Torah I would. And you can see the importance of this in the Nefesh HaChaim by Rav Haim of Voloshin (a disciple of the Gra.) Why I do not is the fact of the religious world is a mess of people that imagine themselves to be superior to all others by means of rituals that have nothing to do with Torah. [And it does help much by the fact that most "Torah scholars " are demons as brought many times in the LeM of Rav Nahman. though what this means is not clear, still one can be pretty sure this this ("demon") is not a complementary term.
The correction {tikun} to
all this would be to heed the idea of the Gra who signed on the letter of excommunication. But that is ignored, and so the religious world ends up with this sort of characteristic of in outward rituals, all is well , inside there is a tiny invisible drop of cyanide.
[And I must add that Rav Nahman himself was certainly not in the inclusive language of that letter, though many people think he was.
[As for the religious world in general I must say that I discussed this with David Bronson for a few hours and after that he said, "Well since there are problems that we can not fix, let's sit and learn Gemara," and thus began our daily sessions for one hour in Gemara. And eventually I began to see that bitul Torah [not learning Torah when one can] is the source of many problems that people have including me. [Still I do not mean that the world of yeshivot is OK. Just that since no one really knows what is going on, we ought to sit and learn Torah as well as we can--including not using Torah to make money.
12.11.21
War is unpredictable. For some reason it seems that things were on the side of the North. In the battle of Chancellorsville, the Union general made an absurd mistake to give up a high ground with every possible military advantage and go into the thick woods. But it seems that mistake was the cause of General Stonewall Jackson being accidently shot and killed by his own men due to the darkness and thickness of the woods that made fighting in them incomprehensible. To that loss even General R.E. Lee more or less implied that after that, the war was almost guaranteed to be lost..
Still it is hard to know. There is a verse in Proverbs ,"Woe to the land that a slave becomes its king." [as happened in the USA]. And there is a statement from the sages: "A person who does a favor for one who does not appreciate it is as one who throws a stone at Markulis." [Markulis is an idol whose worship was in the fashion of throwing stone at it.] And in the USA, it is hard to find a black person who is grateful to the USA for freeing them. Most hate the USA, and are determined to bring it down.
11.11.21
I can not see why people don't learn Mathematics and Physics. Certainty most people are curious about the nature of reality.
I can not see why people don't learn Mathematics and Physics. Certainty most people are curious about the nature of reality. So why do they go into alternative subjects that they must know [at least subconsciously are mixed with delusions. Whether in politics or religion, what people say are poorly thought out delusions.- at least most.
All I can say is that they must think that these subjects [Mathematics and Physics] are too hard. So I suggest the saying the words in order and going on--- from the beginning to the end and only after one has finished , then to review.
And to believe that by saying the words/ the idea become absorbed in the subconscious.]
10.11.21
daughter of a Torah Scholar
If you want to learn Torah there is this idea of the sages "to marry the daughter of a Torah "."
After thinking about this I can see that there is here not a hard fast rule. Good character is not the sole domain of daughters of Torah scholars. If fact, I was advised to take whom was available at the time who had been running after me for years. [Paula Finn.] And I think this was in fact a good choice. Rav Arye Kaplan was the first person to suggest to me to agree to marry her. I said, "But she is not a bat talmid chacham [the daughter of a Torah]! He answered, "If you wait for the religious, they will offer to you a baalat mum [one with a hidden defect.]".
He knew the reality of the religious as opposed to the abstract idea divorced from actual human beings.
[That is not the only example of his great skepticism about the religious world.]
On the other hand I must say that one needs to get married to a girl that is devoted to the idea that her husband and children must learn Torah. If she is wishy washy about that, then it is hard to imagine one will learn Torah.
For the sake of clarity and openness I should mention that I consider Physics and Mathematics as being in the category of Learning Torah as is clear in the Laws of Learning Torah in the Rambam, chapter 3 about the subjects defined in th first four chapters as eing in the category of Gemara.
Peah 2:11. But that initial stalk is considered by the Jerusalem Talmud to obligate., and thus not obligated
The basic issue of "peah" is you are to harvest your field up until 1/60. That us all that unharvested standing corn in left for the poor. But lets say one is tempted to go beyond that boundary? He harvests the next stalk that is part of that 1/60. Then the obligation of peah goes to what was already harvested.
And in fact this is the case the Rambam is talking about in Peah 2:11. But that initial stalk is considered by the Jerusalem Talmud to obligate., and thus not obligated. So that whole 59/60 of the field becomes possible to be made into peah. [In peah one can made all except for the sheaf that beings the process. But he can not make less than 1/60.
So if he says all that I have harvested in peah that is valid since there is still that first sheaf that in not obligated .
What bothers me here is this. The initial stalk is what makes the obligation of peah go to the harvested wheat מן העומד לעומרים. Fine. And we are talking about where he simply went ahead and reaped the whole field. So now the question is why does the Rambam say is he makes most of it to be peah then it is not obligated in truma and maasar? It should be 59/60. And if you would hold that that initial stalk of the 1/60 [that was supposed to be let alone and become peah with the rest of the 1/60] is obligated in peah then fine so the next stalk is not and that is the thing that would make the whole 59/60 plus that one more stalk all possible to be made into peah. So the first question I have here is why does the Rambam not simply say then that if he makes the 59/60 into peah then it is not obligated in truma and maasar [or the 59/60 plus that one stalk then it is not obligated in truma and maasar.] What is this "most" the Rambam puts there?
[I am referring here to the answer of Rav Shach about this difficult Rambam which takes care of the issue to some degree but still leaves this gap between what should be 59/60 not "most".
Also I admit that I am still mulling over this sort of odd state of affairs where he cuts into the 1/60 and then as per the Yerushalmi the obligation goes to the 59/60 that was already reaped. Let us say that first stalk is obligated in peah? then what makes the reaped sheaves into peah? Nothing. Everything else is standing! Or may that is the exact point of the Yerushami? So that first stalk is in fact not able to be made peah. But there are lots of other issues here which I am not sure if are issues or simply that I have not leaned the subject well.
If you are wondering then I will tell you: The issues that are bothering me are simply these: Surely not all the reaped sheaves are peah [the second he goes over the 1/60 line of demarcation. He has to declare them or some part of them to be peah. So what is left besides what he made peah could be the none peah part which makes the peah valid? And what is the law about what was standing at that minute? Presumably it can not be made peah even if he wants to? He can give it as a present to the poor but it will till be obligated in truma and maasar.
"shver Rambam" [hard Rambam] Peah 2:11
I was not thinking about that "shver Rambam" [hard Rambam] Peah 2:11 at all. Sadly to say I was just lazing off at the beach. But now and then it occurred to me to wonder what he could mean? And what is the answer of Rav Shach to explain him? Oddly enough right before I drifted off to sleep, the answer hit me.
The answer is this. I knew Rav Shach suggested that that Rambam is based on the Yerushalmi. And now I see what this means. If one reaps the whole field, he is supposed to leave 1/60 as the edge/peah for the poor. If he then goes ahead and reaps one sheaf of the 1/60 then the obligation of peah switches from the standing sheaves to the stacks that he harvested. The question the Yerushalmi asks then is what is the law about that first sheaf? Is it obligated in peah?
That Yerushalmi is the reason the Rambam writes "If he makes most of the field that he harvested as peah then it is not obligated in truma and maasar."[The whole statement is if he reaped the whole field he can still give the peah from what is reaped. And if he makes most of what was reaped as peah that is valid and not obligated in truma and maasar.]] That is referring to our case. He reaped the first sheaf of the 1/60. The obligation went to the stacks. But he said "all that is harvested is now peah." Well if that first sheaf of the 1/60 is also obligated in peah then there is nothing left to be not peah. Therefore the Rambam is poskining/deciding that first sheaf is not obligated in peah. So when peah goes over to the stacks, that has validity as peah and therefore not obligated in truma and maasar. And that is 59/60 of the field. Which is the majority of the field. [The problem was what is this majority? Why not say if he harvested his field and made all of it except for one stalk as peah that has validity as peah and it is all not obligated in truma.]
morals are objective.
I have been having a debate on the blog of Michael Huemer about rights and the issue of government came up. I just wanted to say that my idea about government is what I think John Locke meant [even though I do not recall seeing it stated openly in the Two Treaties]. That is this: in the state of nature man has rights. [That is not hard to see that some principles of morality are objective. We do not think it is right to torture millions of people for the fun of it is okay. So there is an objective right of millions of people not to be tortured for the fun of it. Even if someone might do that, it still is wrong.]
But we give up some of our rights in order to form a government. Even though the government is formed to preserve our rights still some of our rights we agree to relinquish in order to have a government in the first place. E.g we agree to have judges instead of deciding argument ourselves. We agree the government can make laws for the common good instead of our deciding our own good and acting on that by ourselves. etc.
[I am also saying that morals are objective. This is well argued by Huemer in some of his papers on his web site and all those arguments are put together in his book Ethical Intuitionism.]
8.11.21
This problem of self delusion is wide spread in the religious world, but is just the normal state among "mystics. "
the greats, Kant, Hegel, Leonard Nelson
Once John Searle makes it clear that he thinks the whole problem that started "Idealism" in Berkley is a mistake that caused philosophy to sink into the mud for 300 hundred years is a mistake [See5:16 of this video]-a simple mistake in the word "aware".[The idea is that we are only aware of the picture of an object that we have in our mind] [The logical fallacy of ambiguity, aware of an external thing. Aware of an inner thing.] This lends a lot of support to ideas of Huemer that we have direct awareness of what we see and feel. Otherwise you might say that most of us simple people have not the wherewith all mental capacities to understand the deep logic of the philosophers. However I have been aware of this issue for a long time, I still think the greats, Kant, Hegel, Leonard Nelson still have very important points. And all the more so that there is no evidence to say that Hegel agreed with Berkley at all. Just the opposite. I have always thought that his point is the exact point of Huemer that we have direct awareness of the real world and the mistake of the later philosophers is just misuse of the double meaning of the word awareness.
The Russians had tried Marx and Communism and found it terrible.
How is it that Marxism is so entrenched the English departments of American universities? The Russians had tried Marx and Communism and found it terrible. Even as freedom was granted to the republics, there was an attempt to keep Communism. The result was the Russian people elected to have Yeltsin and freedom. Clearly those who knew a thing or two about the joys of Socialism decided it was nothing like its promises.
Laws of Peah 2:11 See Rav Shach
There is an extremely puzzling Rambam that I have no idea how to deal with. It is this statement "If he gives most of the peah to the poor then that part is not obligated in truma and maasar." [Truma is what is given to priests. Maasar is the tithe given to Levites]
I would like to show what is hard to see in this. Normally if one has a field he must leave 1/60 for the poor at the edge. [That is he must leave of what is standing.] But lets say he reaps the whole field. Then he gives the same amount to the poor [from the reaped sheaves even though he was supposed to give from the standing grain]. The Rambam brings this law and then adds this phrase, "If he gives most of the field as peah, that which he gives is not obligated in trumah and maasar.]"
Obviously he can give the whole field as peah except for the first stalk that he cuts. He cuts the stalk and then automatically he is required to give a "edge" peah of the field. [And that edge is not obligated in Trumah nor Maasar], So what is this "most". Why not just "all except that stalk"?
From what I can tell the things that are worthwhile are STEM [Science, Tech, Engineering, Mathematics.] Gemara and Tosphot.
It seems to me that in my parents home I developed a desire for learning. Part of that was because of my love for my dad [not that he was learning all the time, but rather because of his work in STEM] and also I think this was i response to school where I wanted to do well. It seems to me that this has stayed with me.. I can see this might not be inside every person that might not be driven to learn and learn well. This must be an acquired taste. Thus I think that my experience of tremendous admiration for my dad and the sorts of public schools I went to were unique.
I can see that not everyone has a drive for learning. And certainly I did not either have any kind of drive in this direction except for the set of circumstances I was born into--great parents and great schools and teachers.
To make it clear what I am saying is just a repeat of Aristotle ""Virtue is habit." One ought to accustom himself to learn so that eventually one gets to the point that if a whole day goes by without learning, one feels empty. Almost as if the whole day was a waste.
But furthermore I would like to suggest that there are subjects that are worthwhile learning and others that are destructive to one's mind. \But how can one know what is worthwhile spending time a effort on and on the contrary what is not just a waste of time but destructive before one has actually learned?
I guess one must depend on "authority." Or common sense.
From what I can tell the things that are worthwhile are STEM [Science, Tech, Engineering, Mathematics.] Gemara and Tosphot.
[Though some rishonim (mediaeval authorities)emphasize Metaphysics it is hard to know what is worthwhile to look at in that area.] The problem in philosophy is every professor disagrees with every other professor. You have nothing like that in math where most teachers agree that 2 +2 =4. Philosophy is nothing like that where if one does not downgrade everyone else, then one gets zero credit.
And as far as public schools are concerned, there is no question that my parents would have kept me from them nowadays as highly destructive.
7.11.21
The fragmented soul.
The fragmented soul. In this generation the mind has been torn apart. According to Freud we are a Easter basket that contains different eggs, the id and ego and the super ego. What makes these things one thing? Nothing. Just they are all in one basket. With Kant things are not so much different with many different functions of the mind and in particular the categories. What makes them one?
It is as if there is no soul. But in fact the religious are not so much better. The trait of the religious is the desire for your money in order to finance their fanatic life style which in terms of having a sex life is very successful. The religious have lots of children. And they get to fry secular Jews to pay for it.
The proper approach I think is balance. ["Balance" is not a word that my parents would have used but it describes to a large degree their approach of a middle point between faith and reason. It sees there is a limitation to faith --where faith can believe in too many false things which lead it to tremendous evils. But Reason also can be a obstacle to truth since it does not know its limits. So one needs a balance. To get to the place of balance, one needs a certain kind of common sense.
6.11.21
I have to say that Philosophy is looking good. For some reason there seems to be a new generation of university professors that have become aware of the bankrupt twentieth century philosophy. Or take the few morsels here and there. This gives me great reason for optimism. The best of the moderns Kelley Ross [based on Kant, Fries, and Nelson], Michael Huemer [Foundationalists].Robert Hanna [straight back to Kant with no detours.] And more. At a lot of the insane noise of 20th century philosophy post modernism existentialism etc. they have all seen through the spider webs of verbiage. They are no longer impressed with Freud's steam engine model of the mind. [It seemed original at the time, but it was all taken literally from how a steam engine works. --like sublimation of heat energy to mechanical energy. Steam pressure etc.] Nowadays he would have decided that the computer is the latest thing and aid the mind is a computer. ut in the same way that is pseudo science. There is no relation between a computer and the mind since the computer has no mind at all.
5.11.21
On one hand Rav Israel Salanter was right in emphasizing the actual sitting down and learning the basic books of Musar, I would suggest that Physics also adds to this. This certainly was the path of my parents of balance. Torah with the way of the Earth.תורה עם דרך ארץ
In the book Or Israel [Light of Israel אור ישראל] by Isaac Blazer he brings the idea that just knowing the essentials of Musar is not enough. One should spend much time and effort to come to fear of God. While this is certainly true, I think the religious that emphasize rituals think that they have fear of God. I think the emphasis on rituals is what replaces authentic fear of God.
So what can lead to Fear Of God? On one hand Rav Israel Salanter was right in emphasizing the actual sitting down and learning the basic books of Musar, I would suggest that Physics also adds to this. You do not see this in the Mishna Torah of the Rambam openly, but in the Guide you see that when he emphasizes learning Physics and Metaphysics he associated Physics with Fear of God, and Metaphysics with Love of God. {In one place only.}
At any rate, I have two points to make here. One is that fear of God and good character which are the goals of Musar are in fact very important. On the other hand the religious world is the exact opposite of fear of God. The emphasis on rituals and the worship of dead people has nothing to do with authentic fear of God.
But I must make distinction. There are great Litvak yeshivot which learn Torah for its own sake. This is praiseworthy. There are also dens of thieves that the Gra signed his name against- since he saw their root and essence.
4.11.21
3.11.21
Western doctors find things that are not wrong and give medicines that are not needed , and have no idea of what to do when there is actually a problem.