The meaning of life and "to find the truth."

High School had an indelible imprint on my life. I think the USA was changing at that time. But as a rule families did stuff on weekends. This I think was practically universal in the USA at the time. I had to go to Hebrew School on Shabat so the only day we could do stuff was Sunday. Summers were different. Either we went back East.[NY, NJ] or to summer camps.
Families were much more fragile than ours, but still stable and sturdy as a rule. High School itself was combination of intense frustration and awesome high points. But it was all an integral whole. Family and school and vacations all had an organic connection.
I was intensely curious about the meaning of life and "to find the truth." This was in to some degree part of the environment in S. California at the time. That is I studied philosophy on my own but not as an academic endeavor but to find the truth. Plato, Spinoza, Dante, Buddha, Marx, and Chinese philosophers were like bread and butter to me. Eventually I settled on the Torah--the Law of Moses as having the most accurate representation of reality and the truth. That was my personal journey.

My parents and friends provided as much support as possible but largely this was a lonely effort.

I was looking for the truth but the truth was before my very eyes. Family values, a decent stable democracy as the USA was in those days, it all seems idyllic compared to what the world has sunken into since then. Even though it was an amazing world I still sought the transcendental meaning behind it all.

In any case I found some amazing truth in the Law of Moses. But I also saw it can be misused.
Still in the world of the Lithuanian Yeshiva I found a close connection between the inner essence of the Law of Moses and how people were living their lives.






.

Godel has a proof of the existence of God

Godel has a proof of the existence of God that I mentioned on one of my blogs. The idea was really from Anselm and Godel put it into logical form. It depends on God having all positive traits. I tried to reinforce that idea by means of the Compactness Theorem of Godel. This was all in some other blog entry somewhere. Today I just wanted to add that it seems to me that this completeness theorem itself is related to the fact that in differential manifolds we only talk about C^0 or C^ Infinity. The reason is that a manifold M that is C^r itself has a C^r diffeomorphism from M to a manifold that is C^infinity.
[Kelly Ross rightfully noted that existence is a predicate.]

a C^r manifold is a manifold that you can take a derivative r times over the complex field.  A C^r manifold has a C^r function to a C^infinity manifold.  



[(Compactness Theorem). A set of formulas Γ is satisfiable if and only if every finite subset of Γ is satisfiable.][From the finite to the infinite. Perhaps the simplest use of the Compactness Theorem is to show that if there exist arbitrarily large finite objects of some type, then there must also be an infinite object of this type.] [Mathematical Logic ch. 4 and ch. 9]



This idea is sound. However I prefer to go with the more direct and simpler approach of Saadia Gaon and the חובות לבבות (Obligations of the Heart) and  the  Rambam of the First Cause, and the fact that there has to be a First Cause because of the problem of the infinite regress, For me that is the simplest and strongest approach, though I think  Anselm's one is also good and complementary.


In any case this is related to Kelley Ross in a different way. Here is what he says in his PhD Thesis [Sec III]: "This continues the theory of purposive value by at last addressing the hitherto presupposed polarity of value, although the discussion belong to absolute transcendence because it may be taken to be a general characteristic of positive transcendence (and so characteristic of it as such) and because its meaning seems to be bound up with the meaning of our existence and non-existence."

That is to say in plain English he is considering God as "absolute transcendence" and considers Him to be the One who has positive transcendence. I.e. by means of intention. That is all you can say about this from the standpoint of Kelley Ross. But the connection with Godel and the idea positive traits is certainly tantalizing.

[from Purim]

Xerxes is as far as I know is אחשורוש [from Purim] because that is how the name is pronounced in Persian.
He had two dreams telling him to attack Athens and all of the Hellenes. That was after he had thought to do so anyway. His chief adviser told him not to do so. At night he saw a handsome man standing over him telling him if he does not attack Greece he would lose everything just as fast as he gained everything. Then he had a second dream along the same lines. And then his put his chief adviser in his royal robes, and sat him down on his throne at night to sleep. The same man came to his adviser and said "Are you the one who has been telling Xerxes not to attack Athens? You are jerk." Or something along those lines.
When he attacked his allies were numerous. Everyone thought he would win and joined him. No one joined the Hellenes. Even those that had agreed to ally themselves with Athens stayed away from the battle to see which side would prevail.
300 Spartans and about 4000 other men from other parts of Greece stopped about 1/2 a million men.
And the Spartans would have won if not for one betrayer who showed the Persians and alternative route to get behind the Greek lines.

Xerxes was the last great king of Persia and from then on its glory and might fell.

Ideas in Talmud Bava Metzia chapters 8 and 9.

I added a little idea which is so simple I embarrassed I did not think of it before. Mainly that there was a question on the opinion of the Riva in Tosphot page 98.
[The Riva was one of the Baali HaTosphot.]
I do not know who asked it. Maybe Tosphot themselves or maybe my learning partner. The question was the Riva has to treat a case of  "I do not know" as if it was a case of אונס that is armed robbery, and he also needs to treat it as if it was a case of denial.

For we know the opinion of the Riva is thus if the a guard of an animal or object loses it and says "there was no object" that does not require an oath at all unless there is with it another object that he admits he owes. That is it is a case of מודה מקצת. But if he says there  was an object but there was armed robbery, then he needs to take an oath.

[Unlike Rashi or Rabbainu Tam]

What if he says "I do not know." The Gemara says "I do not know" requires another animal of "I admit I owe it." So to the Riva I do not know is טענת כפירה. But then the Gemara also says to Rami Bar Chama that if you have I do not know you need also
 admission and denial. So there I do not know is a case of אונס

I  can't look it up to see if this fits into the Gemara. But it seems to me this minute that if he says, "I do not know if there was armed robbery or not" that is considered armed robbery--and thus is required an oath. But if he says, "I do not know if I borrowed another animal or not," that is considered denial.

Off hand it would seem that this probably would not work in our Gemara on page 98 since the Gemra is dealing with only one kind of ''I do not know.'' But without a Gemara, I can't tell.
If this would work, then probably my learning partner would have seen it.  Still it is a tantalizing possibility to think we might have  good answer for the Riva.

the essence of Torah

What is the essence of Torah? The way I see it, it is the Ten Commandments.

What this means in a practical sense is it is a denial of other things that claim to represent the basic sense of Torah.
So believing in some tzadik or other righteous person would not be the essence of Torah.
This would also mean simply learning Torah or Musar would not be the essence either.
Rather it is a strict Ethical Monotheism that says God is one and he is not the world. And what one would call menschlichkeit. being a decent human being. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not bear false witness.
The essence of Torah is not to follow other groups that make their main thing some other kind of essence.

Religious teachers expect to be treated as if they represented the Torah. But they don't. They represent false Torah. Pseudo Torah. The Torah of Rituals. Not the real authentic Torah.

Of course to keep  the Ten Commandments requires knowledge of  the Oral and Written Law. For example "Thou shalt not steal" requires knowing the laws of Bava Metzia Bava Kama and all seder Nezikim and Nashim.

For more information on Religious teachers look up: "Home Wreckers".

however damaging to family life liberal society is, it can not possibly come close to the damage that religious teachers cause.

There is a kind of paradox in social norms. True that liberal society tends to weaken family bonds.
But you would expect in the religious world, things would be different. At first the religious teachers encourage one to disobey his parents because they are not religious enough. Then they urge ones wife to divorce him because he is not religious enough or religious in the right way that they think is right. Then they urge his children to disparage and ignore him and make false accusations. Somehow however damaging to family life liberal society is, it can not possibly come close to the damage that religious teachers cause.

They must think there is no judge and no judgment.
If you ask your children just one thing. Your whole life you never asked them a thing but there is something important to you, do you have any authority? Would you not think that the Ten Commandments would make a difference? Forget it. Your worth to your children is how much money they can keep on skimming off of you.
Certainly one should never believe them about the time of day, much less about what the Torah says.

False friends are much worse than open enemies. 

The Major Lies of Feminism