25.6.15
Learning Torah,
I have been trying to figure out a good argument for learning Torah. And I don't want to go the way of the Nefesh HaChaim to do so.
That is I am starting out with a conclusion and trying to figure out a good argument to bring to that conclusion. X therefore Y. Y is "It is good to learn Torah." Solve for X.
The arguments against keeping or learning Torah seem infinite and some seem convincing.
One argument against learning is when people see what happens when people overdo it. It is like eating too much. You can see what happens to people when they eat too much. But no one uses that as an argument not to eat.
One argument against it is to notice that Reform Jews support the State of Israel and clearly have the benefit of mankind as the major goal. Yet they do not learn very much Torah. Just a drop.
I could try to point out that this good will of reform Jews while a great thing in itself can go over a line into over-tolerance.
What I can say as an argument for Torah is my own parents home which was an island of wholesomeness and decency and holiness and our home was based on Torah even though we were Reform Jews--in name at least. I am sure my parents held from Torah much more strongly than the Reform Movement.
There is an aspect of numinous of Torah that I think is the best aspect of it. It connects one to the Divine.
For that reason I suggest having two sessions ever day in Torah. One in the Oral Law and the other in Poskim [i.e. people that sifted through the Talmud to come up with one law on each subject instead of an argument on each subject.] That is to go through the oral law from start to finish Talmud Bavli Yerushalmi, Tosphta Sifra, Sifri, Mechilta, Torat Kohanim. And the Poskim: Rambam, Tur, Shulchan Aruch with the commentaries.
That is I am starting out with a conclusion and trying to figure out a good argument to bring to that conclusion. X therefore Y. Y is "It is good to learn Torah." Solve for X.
The arguments against keeping or learning Torah seem infinite and some seem convincing.
One argument against learning is when people see what happens when people overdo it. It is like eating too much. You can see what happens to people when they eat too much. But no one uses that as an argument not to eat.
One argument against it is to notice that Reform Jews support the State of Israel and clearly have the benefit of mankind as the major goal. Yet they do not learn very much Torah. Just a drop.
I could try to point out that this good will of reform Jews while a great thing in itself can go over a line into over-tolerance.
What I can say as an argument for Torah is my own parents home which was an island of wholesomeness and decency and holiness and our home was based on Torah even though we were Reform Jews--in name at least. I am sure my parents held from Torah much more strongly than the Reform Movement.
There is an aspect of numinous of Torah that I think is the best aspect of it. It connects one to the Divine.
For that reason I suggest having two sessions ever day in Torah. One in the Oral Law and the other in Poskim [i.e. people that sifted through the Talmud to come up with one law on each subject instead of an argument on each subject.] That is to go through the oral law from start to finish Talmud Bavli Yerushalmi, Tosphta Sifra, Sifri, Mechilta, Torat Kohanim. And the Poskim: Rambam, Tur, Shulchan Aruch with the commentaries.
24.6.15
In the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
There is a sort of ambiguity when people discuss QM as being subjective. It is not "subjective" in the same way that word is used in general language. There is nothing subjective about the fact that the two slit experiment results in interference. It has nothing to do with who is watching it. It has to do with what happens when a particle interacts with another particle. That creates interference.
The word "subjective" is already ambiguous. A "subject" in Kant is the observer. A "subject" in England is a subject of the king--as in the "king's subjects."
So what is meant by subjective when people use the term in QM? It means probability. You have a state of a system and then you have something that acts on it. Then you get a new state. The probability of the new state occurring is what people mean by the word "subjective."
It is better not to read what philosophers write about Quantum Mechanics. Kelley Ross is right that Kant provided essential insights, but since then there have been very few people that work in philosophy that understand Physics well enough to say anything intelligent about it. And that means that few philosophers are competent to comment about reality. They might be able to give a course in philosophy, but to say anything intelligent about the nature of reality they are far away from.
[I should mention that Quantum Mechanics (Heisenberg) deals nicely with interference and you don't need the Schrodinger picture for that. See this post by Lubos that does the actual calculation To derive interference from the Heisenberg Picture
Here is an important quote from Lubos: http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/why-subjective-quantum-mechanics-allows.html?m=1
Here is an important quote from Lubos: http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/why-subjective-quantum-mechanics-allows.html?m=1
What this means is amazingly simple if you want Fear of God then you can't join any organization. Especially one that presents itself as fearing God, [any so called "the religious world " that is]. They will turn out to be the biggest obstacle that prevent you from fear of god because of their amazing and shocking levels of hypocrisy. That includes Breslov sadly. That is the path to Fear of God is clear learn Torah--that is the Oral and written Torah and Musar--but don't dare venture towards any organization that is claiming to represent that path. The is no possibility that it will not turn out to be false. For that is the state of things today.
Reform Judaism
My parents raised my brothers and myself as Reform Jews. But not exactly like Reform. I am not sure what the Reform doctrines are today but in my home it was considered that keeping all the Torah and mitzvah with down to the last drop was a great and wondrous thing.-- but it was voluntarily.
Of course there are many aspects of Torah that are not voluntary but in fact law. But still this was how things were in our home.You can do all the mitzvot you want but you can't force anyone else to do them and you can't ignore your obligations because you want to be frum.
Of course there are many aspects of Torah that are not voluntary but in fact law. But still this was how things were in our home.You can do all the mitzvot you want but you can't force anyone else to do them and you can't ignore your obligations because you want to be frum.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)