I had a few idea to mention. One in particular I think stands out. It is related to something the Chovot Levavot says--The Duties of the Heart.

It is the idea that one is not supposed to make up a new religion.

That means in practical terms that even though what does it means to keep the Torah can be hard to decide on a daily basis still we know what it means not to keep the Torah.

That means to say we know more or less that a Jews is supposed to learn the Oral and written law--the Five books of Moses and the Babylonian Talmud from cover to cover- and to keep what the Torah says. Period.
But in this process sometimes people have experience with other individuals which might not be optimum. This still does not give one permission to go and make up some new religion.
Learning Torah has been considered the prime directive of the Torah for a couple of thousand years. This is not the subject of any debate. That means to say at minimum everyone should sit down a learn Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot at least an hour every day. And when it comes to Jewish law, the requirement to keep it is not a debate-- although the particulars are.

Also Monotheism is the philosophy of the Torah. This also has never been the subject of ant debate. Torah is not a document of pantheism in any sense and no one ever considered it as such--not Maimonides nor Isaac Luria

Devykut "attachment with God."

For me it so happened that I   that I started reading the Ari (Isaac Luria רבינו האריז''ל).  And after about a year I made Aliya to Israel and then I did a lot of  personal conversation with God while hiking in the forests surrounding Safed in the north of Israel].

 I spent most of my time in a forest. And then I got something that you could call Devykut. Devykut means literally "attachment with God." 


But outside of the subject of of this devykut, I would like to defend the Arizal [Isaac Luria--known by the short name the Ari] here in a philosophical way.
 The system of the Ari is Neo Platonic. That is is assumes a very Neo Platonic system, and then develops it in great detail based on the personal insights of the Ari himself-not on reasoning or logic.

But what makes it particularly interesting is the fact that it looks like Plato was right. I mean let's looks at the rival schools of thought. The rationalist-- the antimonies of Kant demonstrated well the fallacy of rationalism.
The empiricists. There are a few well known simple proofs that empiricism is wrong. [See Michael Huemer's counter examples like you know an object can not be blue and green in the same place at the same time.]  Also Twentieth century philosophy is problematic. In the famous words of John Searle [at University of California, Berkeley], Post modern philosophy and all the analytic linguistic approach is "Obviously false". Just by default alone you are stuck with Hegel or Kant. At this point I rest my case. In either case you are dealing with a neo Platonic approach.

[Well I am not exactly done. I am not very happy with Hegel. But I would rather not go into that right now. And Kant many people associate with the Neo-Kant School. And that is definitely not Neo Platonic. {They also do not think we can know if the Ding An Sich  exists, and that is not Kant who wrote that we do know it exists--but its character is modified by our subjective input.} 

[It would be possible to argue with me that the Ari and Neo-Platonism do put a large degree of confidence in reason--much more than Kant. I assume this is why many Jews like were happy enough to go along with Hegel. 

[On a side note I might mention that there is another system of Kabala of Avraham Abulafia which Moshe Idel did some work on. And I should let people know that in university when people talk about Kabala they are usually talking about Avraham Abulafia, or some other Medieval system [like the "Heichalot"] and not Rav Isaac Luria. [These are relatively unsophisticated systems.] When people in the religious world talk about Kabalah, they usually means three specific people: the Zohar, Moshe Cardovaro and Isaac Luria. There is in fact almost no intersection between University Kabalah and Isaac Luria Kabalah.

There are a few different approaches to I. Luria. The best I think is Shalom Sharabi from Yemen. But there is also a good approach of the Ramchal [Moshe Chaim Lutzatto]. These are both very sophisticated approaches]. 
  

Kabalah in the Ashkenaic world after the events surrounding Shabati Tzvi are filled with interpretations from Natan his disciple. Of all Ashkenazim, only the Gra is clean. The rest of the books take the system of Shabati Tzvi in Kabalah -- but the problem is the system itself is wrong and from the Sitra Achra.
When people think they are reading holy books of Kabalah, they are getting a heavy dose of the Sitra Achra (Dark Side) when they read Ashkenazic Kabalah.

Fear of God brings to length of days. [That is that each day should be filled with things that contribute to life goals--and not having your day taken up by things you know to be a waste of time].
I think we can rely on his intuition in this but it still does not tell us how to come to fear of God.

We know the Rambam had an unusual approach to this. [Even though he hides this approach well for the sake of uninitiated still you can see it openly in the Guide.] He held that learning the work of Creation leads to fear of God. and he defines this as what the ancient Greeks called Physics.

I have only a few minutes left here so I would like just to get to my point about Fear of God.
A proper Fear of God program that would I hope lead to length of day I think could be divided into several areas.
[1] Talking to God in a wilderness or forest far from other people. [Pack a lunch and canned water] This is not prayer but opening up ones heart to God. This is very very different from prayer. One advantage of this is that prayer is for specific things that are often contrary to ones actual interest. Another advantage is that it takes exercise to get to a wildness.
[2] Musar. That is two parts. Ancient medieval Musar books and part two the Musar books of the disciples of Israel Salanter. [Christians might try to find similar books that apply to them. Perhaps St John of the Cross.]
[3] The Rambam program of Physics. This goes even for people that are not talented in Physics and Math.

An overview of philosophy today

\
And further more I want to take note of the very significant Neo Platonic approach to reason   There he divides reason into three parts reason in potential, reason in actuality and reason that is acquired. This seems highly Kantian. It assumes a kind of process where reason has gotten a hold of the data that is out there, and now has to process the data.


 This has already been noted by Edward Fesser concerning the general Aristotelian idea of potential and actuality.




This essay I wrote yesterday. But today I just wanted to add a few ideas concerning the implications of the above essay.


And most philosophers of the twentieth century have been trained in linguistics and existentialism and thus lost their ability to think logically. So in fact the only interesting thing today in philosophy is this debate between California and Colorado. (And also Edward Feser-- for Catholics.)

There is among Catholics and effort to get back to work on Aquinas and Aristotle. This is a good thing but  Aquinas never made a bridge between the First Cause who is total actuality and the God of the Old Testament. Aristotle also I see as an important aside to Plato. But his Metaphysics has an essential contradiction in it that to me makes Plato much more interesting

The path of Torah is fairly well understood

Though I think that there is a basic Torah path which involves learning Gemara Rashi and Tosphot and basic acetic practices which lead to enlightenment.

But the questions about Torah are many and I think might even be insolvable.



In spite of this I think the path of Torah is fairly well understood. We don't have a lot of questions about what the oral and written law say to do. Nor do we have a wide range of ambiguity about the world view of the Torah. These are fairly well settled issues. The problem that makes it ambiguous is not just intention either. The ambiguity comes from some mysterious aspect of the whole Torah path to perfection. For some people it seem to work and for other it does not. And this seems to have nothing to do with intention. It is just that even person has his own path he must trod down on.

OK now I hope that I have made it clear that particular aspect of Torah. But I wanted to point out a some of the basic problems about what you might call Torah world view. In this we have to start out with the assumption that the Torah is not a glass that you can pour out its world view, and substitute your own in it place. Maimonides and Saadia Geon did a basic analysis of the world view of Torah. They bring to light the basic approach to Torah that one might not be able to see by just learning Gemara, or the written Torah itself. (There is no reason to think their analysis of the world view of Torah is obsolete. No new information has been made available to suggest this.)

I want to add that not only does the Torah have a particular world view but it also has something to say about human goods.[It is not just a book of rituals.] And it sees a connection between non moral values and moral values. People might have alternative views about human goods, but they should not claim that their views are consistent with the Torah. [The issue is not what is Apikorosut/heresy. Rather what does the Torah think about a certain set of questions. If people don't agree with Torah that is their prerogative. But it is not their prerogative to claim their alternative scheme is what the Torah says.]


Here I list  a few Torah views which I think should not be up for debate (1) Reality is objective.
 (2) Moral principles are also objective and can be known through reason. [But because human beings are flawed we need the Torah to reveal to us what  reason would say about how to achieve human goods.] (3) Capitalism is the only just social system. This is obvious when you open up the Torah portion after the Ten Commandments in Exodus. You could also consult Tractate Bava Metzia for more details concerning the practice of capitalism. (4) According to Maimonides and Saadia Geon the Torah is Monotheistic. That is that the First Cause/the Creator  made the universe something from nothing--not from His substance. (5) According to the Torah the universe is not God, and it is not condensed god substance. Maimonides goes into this in great depth in the Guide for the Perplexed and Saadia Geon also goes into this in his Emunot Vedeot.

God is not identical with the world,

[1] The belief system of the Torah is monotheism.  God is not identical with the world, but that He is accessible to every human being. But access to God does not come through other human beings but by direct talking with God from ones deepest core in his heart.
This might be hard to do but it is a lot easier that running around after people for help that they can't give anyway.
[2] Part of the issue here is that there seem to be a list of things that are offered to people to promote some kind of connection with the Creator. Yoga and meditation is high on the list if you are considering Brahma to be identical with the First Cause, but I seriously doubt if this works. Also praying through other people seems to me to be problematic. Monotheism I think implies direct prayer to God, not through intermediates. This is not to disparage anyone's religion but rather to suggest to people to get together a private prayer  kit and to go out into the wilderness with hiking boots and pack lunch and talk to God directly. And not invoke any persons merit but to speak to God as you would your own parents. If you were asking your mother a favor, I do not suppose you would ask it in the name of some saint. And God I think is not less concerned about you than your own parents.

[3] Now some people go to public buildings for religious matters, This seems to be to form more of a connection with people than with God,- and I think it should be avoided unless there are social reasons involved or else to learn Torah and Talmud which does need a learning environment. But religious ceremony in public buildings in my opinion is purely negative.

[4] Often people think wearing religious clothing makes them righteous and they get an obnoxious attitude of superiority by that. but according to the Torah one ought to be careful never to display how religious you are.or even if you are religious at all. מה ה' אלקיך דורש ממך כי אם הצנע לכת עם אלקיך "What does got desire from you but to walk modestly with your God." That is to make sure to not wear religious clothing so that your relationship with God remains personal, not public.
[About the head covering.  That is just one of the things the religious like to add to the Torah to make themselves seem righteous. The origin of the whole thing is from מסכת סופרים where it says one called to read the Torah in public should cover his head. There is no law that one should cover his head any other time. It is considered a good thing but not a law. But even a good thing can turn sour when use for nefarious purposes and the religious make a show of it which is against the Torah.]

fear of God

On the subject of fear of God. On my last essay here I talked about how important it is. But I did not mention some of the pitfalls involved with it.  The problem is that fear of God, even true fear of God, is often mixed up with stupidity. He brings this idea from a verse in Job, "Is not your fear your stupidity?"   Fear of God needs to be coupled with intelligence. This is not something we see much.
Some books of Halacha in fact we find are institutionalized stupidity or concretized fanaticism.



  In spite of these problems, and even if one goes to public school, I think the basic set of Musar books [especially the Chovot Levavot/ Duties of the Heart] are important and apply to everyone across the board.


  I should just mention here one advantage of fear of God that I think if people would know about  it would inspire them towards more effort in that direction. Fear of God helps to have less of your time wasted by idiots. You get more of your life goals [or natural human goods] accomplished and less of your time is taken up by nut cases. Fear of God forms a protective cover against nut cases.

Also I should mention that to justify fear of God nowadays you really need a modified Kantian approach.

Simple Medieval philosophy would be hard to use to justify fear of God today. Simply put the reason is that there are legitimate complaints by the rationalist like Descartes and Spinoza, and from empiricist like John Locke. So you clearly need either Hegel or Kant in any case.

[Most approaches to life I judge based on the idea of where their vector is pointing to.  I.e. one approach my be full of flaws but of their vector is towards God then I will consider it kosher. Other approaches might disguise themselves in religious clothing, but if their vector is towards some human being or political ideals , then I will consider it as not kosher--even if they are strict about religious rituals and symbols. That  will not make any path kosher to me. In fact an emphasis on religious rituals will in general cause red warning lights to go off in my mind.]

To conclude the main idea here to get the basic books dealing with fear of God and learn them every day.
The basic books are Chovot Levavot חובות לבבות, Mesilat Yesharim, Orchot Tzadikim, Shaari Teshuva.
[from the Middle Ages except the second]. Then the next would be the disciples of Israel Salanter, Madragat HaAdam  [Navardok], Chochvei Or by Isaac Blazer. And the Nefesh Hachaim by Reb Chaim from Voloshin. Also the Gra has a few like the "Even Shelama," and the Sidur HaGra. If I could I would like to add to this basic set also the books coming from the Rambam--that is Musar books written by him and his son and grandson, etc.
The nice thing about Musar is it encompasses both the numinous aspects of Torah and the aspects that deal with human relationships together without emphasizing one over the other. Needless to say I think we have all witnessed people that do one part of the Torah and ignore the other part. So it is good that there is this balanced approach.
[Even Shelama collects pithy statements of the Gra from his commentaries. But sometimes the way they are written in that book do not correspond exactly with what the Gra wrote. To correct this flaw there is an edition of the Even Shelama  from Israel that brings the actual language of the Gra on the side.]

Appendix


2) The Rambam/Maimonides has an approach that learning Metaphysics brings to love of God and Physics to fear of God. [He was referring to these two sets of books by Aristotle.]
3) In any case basic Musar seems to be important. When the question is applied to non Jews I am not sure how it could be answered.
My suggestion is talking to God in a private place. That is getting into the habit of talking with God directly where ever you go. And making it  a habit to do a lot of walking so that you get a chance to tell God what is in your heart a lot. And learning Torah, the Oral and Written Law.