I admit Musar (Classical ethics from the Middle Ages) is only a first order theory in ethics

I admit Musar מוסר (Classical Ethics from the Middle Ages) is only a first order theory in ethics, and that this fact is what makes it uninteresting, and perhaps even not effective. The very first Musar book,The Duties of the Heart [חובות לבבות] did however put a second order theory in the beginning of his book. It is a modification of neo-Platonism. But Musar was not meant to be second order (Meta-Musar). But there were people that went through the trouble to give a second order theory, e.g, Saadia Geon, Maimonides (the Rambam). . [ But his basic focus is to find justification for the commandments of God.] A kind of preliminary approach can be found for the commandments based on a mystic approach can be found in the writings of Isaac Luria, but he is dealing with connections in higher worlds and has not brought his ideas down to the human level. But to accept any part of the mystic approach you have to get over the hurdle that Kant made.(note 1) Or you could dispense with the mystic approach completely and settle for the Metaphysical Aristotelian approach of the Rambam/Maimonides or the metaphysical Neo Platonic approach of Saadia Geon and the Duties of the Heart.

My suggestion is to learn Musar with its underlying set of justifications. It is the difference between a doctor telling a person, "Don't eat  such and such" and a doctor telling the same person "Don't eat such and such a thing because you will die in three months if you do, and the reason is that you are allergic to it and it has a cumulative effect." The only problem with this idea is that it is time consuming.
(note 1) You could get over this hurdle with Schopenhauer. But if one tries to ignore it I think one will trip and fall. Just imagine you are running a four laps around the field and there are hurdles in front of you. And you decide to think positive :"there is no hurdle".
Hegal  also is a highly metaphysical system

  I tend to think of Hegel as a kind of intuitionist along the lines of Prichard. The reason I tend to trust Kelly Ross is on philosophical issues I have spend some time learning I have found him to be remarkably insightful. So I tend to trust him also on issue like Hegel in which I know little. It is the same reason that when I learn Talmud with my learning partner and we disagree that I tend to think that he is probably right --since after arguing with him I usually find out that in fact he did understand the material better than me. It is called "faith in the wise."
I think everyone can agree that Hegel has some important points. But he falls flat on his face when he discuss social issues. His best work is analysis of other philosophers and also in making his own metaphysical system.

But the world has fallen into ignorance. Many people claim to be experts in Torah without having done the work.

Torah does not mean Jewish history. It means a basic understanding of the Oral and written Law. That means two things. (1) General knowledge of Shas and Poskim (The 60 tractates of the Talmud and Rif Rambam, Rosh, Tur, Beit Yoseph and Shulchan Aruch. and it is desirable also to have knowledge of the writings of the Remak and Isaac Luria and the books of Jewish philosophy by Maimonides and Saadia Geon in order to understand the basic world view of the Torah

Idolatry.

Does one need intension is be liable?

"One who serves idols from love or fear, Abyee said is liable and Rava said he is not liable." (Sanhedrin 61b)

How does this fit the Mishna (page 60b), "One who serves idols or bows or sacrifices or burns or pours or who accepts it as his god and says 'you are my god is liable.'"

I asked this a few days ago one one of my blogs. Today I want to say over the question again and give a possible answer.
 The question is that if accepting it as his god is not necessary, then what does Abyee do with the end of the Mishna? If it is necessary, then what does Rava do with the beginning of the Mishna?

I hope this question is clear to people. I went into more detail somewhere else on some this blog or the Wine  Women and Transcendence blog.
At ant rate here is my answer. First let's look at the Gemara [Talmud]. The Gemara starts off with Abyee wanting to use this Mishna as a proof, and the Gemara pushes off the proof with a statement of Rabbi Jeremiah who says the first statement of the Mishna means service like its way (the usual way of the idol). From this we see Abyee thought the Mishna is a proof. It occurred to me that Abyee must be thinking that the juxtaposition of the first five cases against the last case means that the first cases don't need the condition of accepting as ones god. And Rava must be thinking that the Mishna is thinking that it only needs to mention this condition in the last clause because there you might think you don't need it since he is saying openly he accepts the idol as his god.

That is all I have to say about this. I had another idea about the Baal Hameor but maybe I will write about that elsewhere. (note 1) I also have an idea about Kant I have wanted to write about for a  few days (mainly the fact that his "thing in itself" the "dinge an sich" is a position in epistemology, not metaphysics. (Kant says it exists but its character depends on the subject ) That has been noted before by Dr. Kelly Ross in California but he derives it from a short statement of Kant, while I wanted to show that it is a central position of Kant but I just have not been able to find time for an essay about this). [Kant is very important in order to understand the Rambam but I just can't go into this issue right now]

I also would like to go into some detail about the idea that Abyee uses for a proof about the high priest having to bring a sacrifice if he make a mistake about what is considered idolatry. The Sanhedrin also does this and I wanted to go into some detail showing how this contradicts the idea of Daat Torah. But no time today.

(note 1) That his idea that sacrifice exodus 22 would only exclude service in  a way of honor to idols that one usually sacrifices to and not to other kinds of idols makes sense. You can see this by this idea: what does sacrifice tell us-not to sacrifice to idols that one usually serves in some other manner or idols that in fact one usually sacrifices to. That excludes kissing or hugging or any other type of serve to those particular idols. But it does not tell us anything about other kinds of idols.  
  That is, to acquit a way of honor or dishonor to idols that such is not their way we need the verse, "How do they serve?" Deuteronomy 12. This is not really a big deal but it does show how what the Meor Hagadol is saying is not just some ad hoc distinction but is required by the logic o the subject.

Reform Judaism

Reform Judaism says Torah is about Social Justice. But a simple glance at the Torah will show anyone that that is not true. Torah is about keeping the commandments of God.   Yet Reform Judaism does have a point in so far as they are using an idea of the Rambam. To the Rambam the purpose of many of the commandments between man and his fellow man is to bring peace to the country. But even here Reform is not representing the Torah accurately. Justice as the Torah understands it is very different from what Reform Judaism understands.  Even though given a choice of a Reform Temple and  an religious synagogue  I would  go to the Reform temple. In fact, even if given the choice to go to an religious synagogue or stay home I would stay home. And I would pay real money to avoid going anywhere near an religious synagogue.

What is wrong with an religious synagogue  is what the sages of the Talmud teach us about the evil inclination to serve idols  There was some point the sages of Israel decided to pray to God to take away the desire to serve idols. They saw it come out of the Holy of Holies in the form of a small lion of fire. So we see where there is holiness there is also great evil. Reform is great in ways the religious will never dream of. But they still need to start learning and keeping Torah.

The area Reform is right about is the fact that the Torah emphasizes the between man and his fellow man part of the commandments as the first priority.  The religious certainly claim to be trying to keep all the commandments of God but that is clearly not true. They certainly do not even attempt to keep the part of the Torah that deals with the relationships between people.That is why I will not go near them. Even though I respect the fact that they take one part of the Torah very seriously.

But Reform has a real problem about that "social justice" nonsense. It is a weasel word for socialism and anti Americanism which is directly opposed to the Torah.

Still anything is better than a religious synagogue that is simply a place of gathering for demons. You cant go there ad come out clean. It has to take  its  toll on you and your family. 

idolatry

Introduction: There is a chapter in Sanhedrin which deals with the question one what types of  crime deserve  execution.

Part of that chapter deals with idolatry.

And to start out the subject the Mishna gives a list of six things that are liable.
"One who serves an idol, one who sacrifices to it, one who burns a sacrifice to it, one who pours a libation in front of it, one who bows before it and one who accepts it as his god and says, 'you are my god.'"

That is the six are : the four regular types, plus service according its way and then words with intention.


Later on the Gemara (Babylonian Talmud) brings an argument between two sages Abyee and Rava (two amoraim (people that lived in the time of the Talmud)) if idolatry needs intension.

My comments here deal with the question of how do they learn (understand) our Mishna?







 Talmud Sanhedrin page 61 side B. The way I used to think about idolatry was that its essence was to accept another being as one's god -a being that is not God.  In this context God would be considered as the First Cause. But that is clearly wrong. We have an argument in Sanhedrin 61b. One who serves an idol from love or fear Abyee says he is liable and Rava says he is not liable. So certainly to Abyee, the essence of idolatry is not accepting it as one god. And there is no reason to think Rava disagrees with this. It is just that Rava adds an extra condition. So idolatry is serving another being that is not God,  and Rava adds a condition that one accepts this other beings as ones god. [I am not saying any of this is clear. I am just saying what it looks like the the Talmud is holding this as the definition of idolatry. I so far am not claiming I have any idea what this means. I assume it has something to do with numinousity that comes from some being that is not God. But that is just my guess.]
But  now let us look at the Mishna 60b. It lists several ways to be liable (sacrifice, burning, pouring, bowing) and then lists another way: "One who accepts it as his god and says, 'you are my god.'" This on one hand seems to be like Abyee. That is because the condition accepting it as ones god is not necessary to be liable in the previous cases. On the other hand this looks to be not like Abyee. After all if saying "You are my god" to an idol is liable, then to Abyee there should be no reason to add an extra condition "accepting it as ones god."


The next thing I wanted to say today was in reference to a Rambam that explains "from love or fear" to mean
"love" of the beauty of the idol and "fear" is fear that the idol should not hurt him. Why would the Rambam say this? I did not mention this before because I was learning like Rashi and that made the most sense. [I forget why.] Rashi says love and fear means love and fear of a person.
At any rate, the reason I think the Rambam says his explanation is this: Abyee agrees that walking into a house of an idol and bowing down thinking it is a synagogue is not liable because his heart is towards Heaven. With Rashi there seems to be little difference between love and fear and this last case. In both cases he is not serving the idol with any kind of intension. With the Rambam it all makes sense why he would be liable to Abyee for love and fear and not liable when his heart is towards Heaven.

This is these ideas stated in Hebrew for anyone that might be reading this that speaks Hebrew better than English:
)סנהדרין סא: הקדמה. המשנה מונה שישה דברים שחייבים בשביל עבודה זרה. העובד עבודה זרה, זביחה, הקטרה, עירוי, השתחווייה, והמקבלו כאלוה ואומר לו אלי אתה. הגמרא מביאה מחלוקת בין אביי ורבא אם עבודה זרה צריכה כוונה. אני הייתי רגיל לחשוב שעיקר עבודה זרה הוא לקבל אותה כאלוה. עכשיו ברור שזה אינו נכון. לאביי אפשר להיות חייב גם אם אינו מקבלו כאלוה. ואין סיבה לחשוה שרבא חולק על עיקר פירושו של עבודה זרה. אלא שהוא מוסיף תנאי.) סנהדרין סא: המשנה מונה ששה דברים שחייבים בשביל עבודה זרה. האחרון הוא המקלו עליו כאלוה ואומר לו אלי אתה. מצד אחד זה נראה כמו אביי בגלל שבשביל העבודות הראשונות כנראה לא צריכות לקבל כאלוה. מצד שני זה מראה לא כאביי שאם האמירה אלי אתה מחייבת אותו למה צריכים גם לקבל עליו כאלוה?)סנהדרין סא: מחלוקת אביי ורבא. אתמר העובד עבודה זרה מאהבה ומיראה, אביי אמר חייב. רבא אמר פטור. הרמב''ם מפרש מאהבה מאהבת היופי שלה, ומיראה מיראה שמא תריע לו. רש''י מפרש מאהבת אדם ומיראתו. הסיבה שהרמב''ם מפרש כשיטתו היא שאביי מודה שמשתחווה לבית עבודה זרה וחושב שהוא בית הכנסת לא כלום הוא שליבו לשמים. להרמב''ם מובן שיש חילוק גדול בין מאהבה ומיראה שחייבים וליבו לשמים שלא כלום הוא




The critique on Musar is when I told my learning partner that it is first order morality. I said it is about things you have to do, not justification for why you have to do them. I said, "That might be why you never found it interesting." He said: "That would explain why it seems to be not effective in correcting people's character as it is supposed to."

I am not saying I agree with his assessment. But you should know that he has never been enthusiastic about Musar. Almost to the degree of seeing it as a waste of time. I hold the exact opposite. My impression of Musar is that it is important to understand the Torah's point of view.  Without Musar people tend to come up with a lot of crazy ideas of what they think the Torah ought to be saying. Not that there is anything wrong with being independent but it ought to be after sufficient research. Has a person finished Shas and Poskim and all writings of  the Ari and the Gra and the Rambam and Saadai Geon? Then he can have his own opinion about what the Torah says. Everyone has  a right to his own informed opinion. No one has the right to an uninformed opinion. Ah but he does not have time for all that study? Then he has no right to an opinion.
Cancel your cable TV, and start to learn Torah

Democrats protect the rights of sociopaths, not working honest working people.

Why to vote Republican.

  Liberals have traditionally drawn their strength from representing the working class.  The Democrats have have adopted stances that have alienated the working classes while contributing virtually nothing in the way of additional support.


Democrats are highly hostile to Christianity and traditional Judaism.  Traditional Jews and  Christianity see the Torah as a goal and as God's word. Democrats undermine the Torah every chance they get. I think anyone voting democrat is voting for Satan. But hey, that is just my personal opinion.


The issues:

(Issue 1) Crime

 Liberals routinely lament that they are accused of being "soft on crime" without bothering to adopt the obvious remedy: stop being soft on crime. If you're a criminal you have only one right and that is to stop committing crimes.


(Issue 2) Extenuating Circumstances

Extenuating circumstances are being so desperate for money to feed your family that you steal. Being too poor to afford an HDTV is not. Being poor because you have a lousy job because you were too arrogant or lazy to stay in school and learn, is most assuredly not. Extenuating circumstances are performing some legal act and accidentally violating some legal technicality. Extenuating circumstances are protecting yourself from domestic abuse and killing your abuser. Extenuating circumstances might even include performing some minor illegal act that spins wildly out of control, but I'd limit this to things that are utterly unforeseeable. Carrying a weapon means you have planned ahead and can foresee any imaginable consequences.

The fact that you were abused may count as extenuating circumstances if you exact vengeance on your abuser. But if someone is not harming you, that creates an absolute obligation on your part not to harm him or her. There are no extenuating circumstances for violating this social contract. If you have pain in your life, go find the person who caused it and deal with it; inflicting pain on a completely innocent person is absolutely indefensible.


(Issue 3) Excessive Penalties?

Consider the broader effects of crime. A home break-in might do a few hundred dollars in damage, but scar the owners emotionally for a long time. The damage itself might merit, say a year in jail, but what about the damage to the homeowners' peace of mind? A relative handful of sexual predators have made millions of parents reluctant to let their kids go to the park unsupervised. Crime, even trivial crime, degrades the quality of life of 280 million non-criminals. How can you possibly have an excessive punishment for that?

In one notorious case, a two-time felon stole a slice of pizza from a child. He was sent up for life under California's "three strikes" law. For stealing a slice of pizza. Now think about this. Here is a grown adult so disdainful of the rights of others that he's willing to swipe a slice of pizza from a child, and so unconcerned about his own future that he's willing to risk life imprisonment to do it. Frankly I'm delighted that he tripped the tripwire over something so trivial instead of something where he'd be willing to kill or seriously hurt someone.



(Issue 4) Wrongful Convictions

I contend it is absolutely impossible to have wrongful convictions without police, prosecutorial, or judicial misconduct. Every wrongful conviction should be investigated as a crime.

Having said that, the police don't sweep choir practices and public libraries looking for criminals. What I'd like to know about wrongful convictions is this: what fraction of wrongfully convicted people had absolutely no prior criminal record, no history of drug or alcohol use, and no involvement with people who did? I suspect the number is pretty small.

And the police tend to be much gentler with the middle class. So if you want to avoid being arrested for something you didn't do, become middle class. Absolutely avoid people, places, and behaviors that even remotely suggest you might be involved in a crime. And absolutely avoid getting involved in a real crime. A criminal record is more or less informed consent for being one of the usual suspects in the future. Once you opt for crime as an occupation, being wrongfully accused is an occupational hazard.
Rights of the Sociopath

The liberal stance on crime is part of a broader view that the way to protect the rights of all is to protect the rights of the obnoxious. After all, if you protect the free speech rights of, say, the American Nazi Party or the Ku Klux Klan or a pornographer, surely you've built a wall big and strong enough to protect the free speech rights of all.

The only problem is, what happens when the activities of the sociopath degrade the rights of others? Protecting the rights of the obnoxious protects only the rights of the obnoxious. I'm not terribly worried about the FBI coming into my house without a warrant. I'm much more concerned about a criminal coming in without a warrant. I'm not nearly as worried about being executed for a crime I didn't commit as being executed for the crime of having something somebody else wants.

 What good does it do to protect someone's right to privacy in abortion when we can force people to keep records on all their financial matters?

Worst of all are the cases where protecting the rights of sociopaths interferes with the legitimate rights of others. I routinely see programs I support undermined to provide funds to help people who cannot keep their own lives in order. I have to buy insurance to protect myself against lawsuits by the negligent and personally irresponsible. For some time during the 1960's and 1970's, it was virtually impossible to buy good plastic cement because some people liked to sniff the fumes, so all that was available was a grossly inferior goo based on lemon oil. I have to restart my lawn mower every time I let go of the handle because some idiots have been known to reach inside while the blade is spinning. There is a virtually endless list of petty degradations that ordinary citizens suffer in the name of protecting Lifestyles of the Stupid, Selfish and Irresponsible.



(Issue 5) Alienating the Workers

Liberals are sorely puzzled that they can't get workers, blacks, women, and gays and the poor together in one big unhappy family, that they can't get workers to agree that they share common ground and common enemies with other marginalized groups.

Working class people work, and they worked hard to get what they have. So they don't want it threatened. They don't want criminals in their neighborhoods and they don't want the value of their homes threatened. And they're smart enough to realize that if you can take down the wealthy and the powerful, you can squash working class people like a bug. So many of them don't buy into the "soak the rich" philosophy because they know perfectly well who will be next to get soaked.

If you're a working class home owner, and somebody burglarizes your house, he gets an attorney at public expense (this is considered a triumph of American jurisprudence). You can't sue him to recover your losses, but he can sue you if he gets hurt during the burglary. And you won't get any public assistance with your legal bills. And if you win, you can't sue the burglar for your expenses.

On April 28, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of laws requiring identification at polling places. You shouldn't have to breathe a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court issues a ruling that meshes with common sense. Opponents of the law argued that getting an ID card put a burden on poor voters. Tell that to someone who pays several months salary worth of taxes every year.



Bottom Line

Dump the sociopaths and the criminals. They have one right, and one only, and that is to stop being sociopaths and criminals. Defending sociopaths and criminals does absolutely nothing to protect the rights of ordinary citizens and a great deal to undermine their rights.

But who will speak for these people? Nobody. Let them speak for themselves. Some positions are simply not worth defending.

It makes all the difference in the world who you believe represents human perfection. And it seems to make little or no difference what your opinions are about theology.  That is you might think that the Gra represents human perfection. Well then you will try to learn Torah as much as possible and try to keep it to the best of your ability. It won't make any difference why you think that. And your theology about what is it that makes a tzadik/ saint special.
.

 It is just the choice of one tzadik or another that will affect things. And it will also make  great deal of difference what that tzadik said or did. And this will apply in the wide world. Some people think Buddha was the peak and their actions and world view will be affected much more by that choice of a tzadik than by what they think about G-d or if the tzadik was holy.


Of course it makes a difference what is reported about that person that people follow.

But all this so far is only dependent on the subjects. It is possible that whether the person people follow was objectivity a tzadik also make a difference.


The basic idea here is that people choice some one they admire to follow. And that choice will determine all subsequent actions--not their abstract philosophy or world view.


I should mention I have a personal approach to this issue. There is one person I admire above all. That is my Dad. Or perhaps I should say my Mom and Dad. The reason is not that they had all human perfection. But they had this unique approach called "be a mensch" or a decent human being. But being a mensch means so much more. It was a kind of balanced approach. An approach in which one could recognize many aspects of human perfection and admire them and aspire to them.  The  list of great people to admire in my home were Moses, Albert Einstein, Mozart, Plato etc. There would have been no reason to claim just one of these people had all perfection.