19.7.15
Schopenhauer said the "thing in itself" is the Will. I would like to claim that two levels of dinge an sich. That is I want to preserve some of Schopenhauer insights. But I also want to have mundane objects to have this aspect also of ding an sich. So I want two or more levels of this as is clear anyway from Kelly Ross--as his objects of value [which have increasing levels of numinosity] as in fact levels of this ding on sich.
But furthermore, I want to Will to be the observer. In this way, I think we come to a unique understanding of Transcendental Idealism. If the Will is the observer, then this boils down to mundane objects being dependent on the existence (i.e. idealism) of the Will, but independent of his experience (transcendent). After he makes them, they don't depends on his watching them every second in order to exist as the Rambam already said in the Guide. They are not a part of His existence though they depend on his existence.
Appendix:
(1) I forgot to mention: the one kind of ding an sich is hidden from pure reason. That is to say there is human reason which is flawed because of our being prone to reason baldly. But there is human reason that is pure. But even that reason (which is called by Kant) pure reason has a limit. Then there is the reason of the Will which created reason in the first place. That Will will have to have a higher type of reason.
And so one kind of ding an sich is hidden from pure perception and another kind is hidden from pure reason. That is the Creator of pure reason is hidden from pure reason.
(2) I am not claiming to have any knowledge of Kant or Schopenhauer. I wish I would have to the time for that. Here I am only making two suggestions based on my merge understanding of some of their major points. At some point I tried to get into Kant but it takes a tremendous amount of time.
(3) The basic questions on what I wrote up above are these: the third man problem concerning reason. and the fact that observation and experience in the above context are the same.
The that means to say I am saying there is a difference between pure reason and the reason of the First Cause. [This is well known from the Rambam.] But then we would have to have a higher reason beyond that to make the reason of the First Cause into Reason. I tried to answer this question in the above essay by the idea that God created reason itself so we don't need to postulate anything beyond that.
The second question is that Transcendental Idealism postulates the existence of the object is independent of experience [beyond experience] but dependent on the existence of the observer. If we say First Cause is the observer it seems hard to say things are beyond his experience. But for monotheism I think we have to say that.
But furthermore, I want to Will to be the observer. In this way, I think we come to a unique understanding of Transcendental Idealism. If the Will is the observer, then this boils down to mundane objects being dependent on the existence (i.e. idealism) of the Will, but independent of his experience (transcendent). After he makes them, they don't depends on his watching them every second in order to exist as the Rambam already said in the Guide. They are not a part of His existence though they depend on his existence.
Appendix:
(1) I forgot to mention: the one kind of ding an sich is hidden from pure reason. That is to say there is human reason which is flawed because of our being prone to reason baldly. But there is human reason that is pure. But even that reason (which is called by Kant) pure reason has a limit. Then there is the reason of the Will which created reason in the first place. That Will will have to have a higher type of reason.
And so one kind of ding an sich is hidden from pure perception and another kind is hidden from pure reason. That is the Creator of pure reason is hidden from pure reason.
(2) I am not claiming to have any knowledge of Kant or Schopenhauer. I wish I would have to the time for that. Here I am only making two suggestions based on my merge understanding of some of their major points. At some point I tried to get into Kant but it takes a tremendous amount of time.
(3) The basic questions on what I wrote up above are these: the third man problem concerning reason. and the fact that observation and experience in the above context are the same.
The that means to say I am saying there is a difference between pure reason and the reason of the First Cause. [This is well known from the Rambam.] But then we would have to have a higher reason beyond that to make the reason of the First Cause into Reason. I tried to answer this question in the above essay by the idea that God created reason itself so we don't need to postulate anything beyond that.
The second question is that Transcendental Idealism postulates the existence of the object is independent of experience [beyond experience] but dependent on the existence of the observer. If we say First Cause is the observer it seems hard to say things are beyond his experience. But for monotheism I think we have to say that.
The truth be told the path of Torah is highly individualistic.
On one hand learning Talmud has this quality of connecting one with the Will and First Cause if done with that intention. That is for it to really work it has to be done like baali teshuva do it--for itself or "Lishma." And there is such a thing as learning all day. I mean in the view of Reform Jews making money is either or. Either you go to collage and learn an honest profession, or you will depend on charity. That is why most Reform parents are horrified when their children decide to go to yeshiva.
And to a large degree they are right. However in the Torah we do find a third way--a path in which one learns Torah all day and yet depends that God will send to him his living needs without depending on charity. This not just some opinion of mine. It is a direct Mishna in Pirkei Avot.
But this seems to depend totally on one motivation for learning. In this case we are not looking at teh question if an action is right or wrong independent of intention. Here the rightness or wrongness depends on intention.
In any case I find it difficult or maybe impossible to recommend learning Torah all day. I can see that this is justified for some people depending on the pureness of their motive. But what usually see is bad results. And I thin the bad results are because the motives are not pure. But who can tell such a thing? I can't judge other's motives. But the results are open for all to see. One Torah becomes means for making money then the results seems to be consistently bad.
And to a large degree they are right. However in the Torah we do find a third way--a path in which one learns Torah all day and yet depends that God will send to him his living needs without depending on charity. This not just some opinion of mine. It is a direct Mishna in Pirkei Avot.
But this seems to depend totally on one motivation for learning. In this case we are not looking at teh question if an action is right or wrong independent of intention. Here the rightness or wrongness depends on intention.
In any case I find it difficult or maybe impossible to recommend learning Torah all day. I can see that this is justified for some people depending on the pureness of their motive. But what usually see is bad results. And I thin the bad results are because the motives are not pure. But who can tell such a thing? I can't judge other's motives. But the results are open for all to see. One Torah becomes means for making money then the results seems to be consistently bad.
18.7.15
closeness to a true tzadik. Leaders of Breslov are and have always been con men. Another example is talking alone with God--hitbodadut. In Breslov this is always a pubic affair with organized trips with fan fare and a wide public appeal to give charity to make such trips possible. Learning Torah is another example. If Torah is learned at all, it is never Gemara, Rashi, and Tosphot. In terms of this aspect of Torah it would be more sensible to join an authentic yeshiva like the Mirrer Yeshiva or the other great yeshivas of New York.
17.7.15
My value system is based on a Kelly Ross idea. .
That is to say my value system which works for me is balance between an array of good and great ideals.
That is it is not enough for me to be walking in what I think is the right path. I have to have some way of justifying it or at least defending it.
You could probably guess without my saying the basic values. To speak the truth at all cost, family values, loyalty to family and friends and towards anyone who has done for me a good turn. To learn every day a little math, a little physics, a little Gemara. To avoid cults.
That is it is not enough for me to be walking in what I think is the right path. I have to have some way of justifying it or at least defending it.
You could probably guess without my saying the basic values. To speak the truth at all cost, family values, loyalty to family and friends and towards anyone who has done for me a good turn. To learn every day a little math, a little physics, a little Gemara. To avoid cults.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)