[marriage ideas]

Yeshiva [beit midrash] starts at 18 years old. The emphasis is at that point to start thinking about shiduchim [marriage ideas]. In the USA it was expected to marry sometime during the first four years --from 18-22. The idea was to be supported by one's parents or in laws for a few years after that until some viable other form vocation becomes available.
This seems to me to be the best idea and applicable to everyone. Even for people in STEM.

A lot depends on the kind of institution one is in. People depend a lot on their immediate environment for their attitudes towards life.

Kant and Hegel

The ground of knowledge is in the long run intuitive. It is almost the same kind of thing as intellectual intuition.


 neither the subject nor the object is primary. Neither causes the other. Both need a Ground--the subject itself.
For Hegel, the ground is the Subject. 

For both this is the privileged position. The bird's eye view. I have difficulty seeing how any of this is all that different from neo-Platonic thought with the Logos Mind having the privileged position.
And I should mention this is not God as the Rambam already made clear. He knows there is a kind of internal spiritual principle in the Universe a kind of Gaia spirit. But that is not God and worship of it is idolatry.

Oral Law in capsule form

Fast food is an idea I like. Even in home cooking I do not like to wait.  And in learning also from a very young age I loved the idea of condensed learning. You know what I mean. This is the difference between reading and outline series or reading text.At about 7 I remember getting an outline of college chemistry. That is I do not have the ability to concentrate for a long time so I like things that get to the point immediately.
So it occurred to me how to get the Oral Law in capsule form. I think the best condensation is "Musar and Gemara." And in Musar itself the Obligations of the Heart חובות לבבות and or the Or Israel by Isaac Blazer and in Gemara I think the most powerful pill form is any essay from Rav Shach in the Avi Ezri. That is to learn it with the Gemara and the Rambam it is going on. That would contain the basic essence of the Oral Law in fast food form. In that way you do not have to wait for twenty years until you have gone through the actual entire oral law and even then to probably have not gotten the idea. [If you like you could take an essay from Reb Chaim Solovieitchik also. It is just that I personally often end up more confused than I started out when I read Reb Chaim. Rav Shach makes the most complex and difficult subjects as simple as apple pie.]

You could apply the same idea to Isaac Luria. The fact is the Eitz Chaim
really is the whole thing in capsule form.

{Just for clarity. I am not saying this makes one an expert-or can take the place of the normal four year program in  an Authentic Lithuanian Yeshiva or studying STEM in  college. Rather I am talking to people like me to whom options like these are not available.}

radical Muslims

It is not "radical" Muslims as opposed to normal Muslims that are the problem. It is the whole "meme." In any group with any belief system there will be those that are fanatical about the beliefs. A fanatical Catholic nun is different than a radical Muslim because of the type of belief system. Not because the personalities are so different. Rather it is what they believe in that matters.

libertarian-ism.Ann Rand

There are good arguers for libertarian-ism. Off hand I can think of Michael Huemer [an intuitionist but he agrees with Ann Rand on important points] and Bryan Caplan and Friedman. The ones that have good arguments against it are the very famous Edward Fesser. Dr Ross was once part for the movement but went away but today I think he classifies himself a "a kind of libertarian."  Steven Dutch has some pointed critique on the movement. The more powerful thinkers here are the one that argue the libertarian doctrines are flawed.

Alt Right. "Blame it on Jews"

A drop too much "Blame it on Jews" exists in the Alt Right. This is disturbing because I agree with almost everything else.There is an sad attempt to wipe out the white race. This is in the Jewish people as well with  anti Ashkenazim prejudice.  The values of private property, limited government,  everything the opposite of socialism, are Torah values that I share with the Alt Right. Feminizes are certainly something that I see as a problem.

Talmud Shavuot 43b , Tosphot,

Conclusion

Mainly the idea is that the תוספות was asking a question in רבינו חננאל that seems to apply to רש''י just as well. But for some odd reason תוספות does not seem to want to ask it on רש''י. Then the מהרש''א gives and answer why תוספות asked on רבינו חננאל specifically.  I asked that the idea of the מהרש''א does not seem to help anything. He uses the idea that a jump two steps is too much. I asked, but you have the same two steps to רש''י?
The answer. There in fact there is a third case.  That is this each one רש''י and רבינו חננאל deal with a case someone, we do not know who, said the משכון is for the amount of the הלוואה. The difference of opinion is who said it. The idea I am trying to present is that to each one there is a third case. That is to רש''י we have the two cases when the מלווה spoke and when the מלווה did not speak. The third case is when the borrower spoke. And we can see easily that this will be different from the first two cases to רבי אליעזר .
But to רבינו חננאל we have two cases that the לווה spoke and he did not speak. But what happens in his opinion if the מלווה spoke. Then it would be the same as when the לווה did not speak. Thus the skipping the middle step applies to him and thus רש''י comes out better.

I do not have any kind of opinion that Tosphot can not be wrong. Rather. It is simply not possible that he did not think through something thoroughly.


מסקנה, בעיקר הרעיון הוא כי התוספות שואלים שאלה על רבינו חננאל שנראתה שחל על רש''י באותה מידה. אבל מסיבה כלשהי תוספות לא  רוצים לשאול אותה על רש''י. ואז מהרש''א נותן תשובה לענות מדוע תוספות שואלים על רבינו חננאל במיוחד. שאלתי שהרעיון של המהרש''א לא נראה שתעזור כלום. הוא מנצל את הרעיון של קפיצה שני צעדים היא יותר מדי. שאלתי, אבל יש לך את אותם שני צעדים רש''י? התשובה. יש למעשה קיים מקרה שלישי. כלומר כל אחד, רש''י ורבינו חננאל עסקים עם  מקרה שמישהו, אנחנו לא יודעים מי, אמר שהמשכון הוא בגין הסכום של ההלוואה. הבדל דעות מי אמר את זה. הרעיון שאני מנסה להציג הוא כי לכל אחד יש מקרה שלישי. הווה רש''י יש לנו שני מקרים כאשר המלווה דיבר וכאשר שמלווה לא דבר. המקרה השלישי הוא כאשר הלווה דיבר. ואנחנו יכולים לראות בקלות כי זה יהיה שונה משני המקרים הראשונים לרבי אליעזר. אבל לרבינו חננאל יש לנו שני מקרים,  הלווה דיבר, והוא לא דיבר. אבל מה קורה לדעתו אם המלווה דיבר. אז זה יהיה זהה כאשר הלווה לא דיבר. כך דילוג על שלב הביניים חל עליו, ולכן הוא רש''י יוצא טוב יותר.