Drop the Humanities and Social Studies departments in universities

The entire thesis of Allan Bloom [in Closing of the American Mind]is the crisis of the Enlightenment, and that since the USA is the embodiment of the enlightenment this crisis has come to a climax in the USA itself. The problems he outlined in various chapters were meant as illustrations of a deeper problem that one could not simply put a band-aid on.   Nationalism in the USA is connected with the  Constitution and its principles. So the drawback is that these principles must lead to a crisis by their very nature.

[Actually, I have not reviewed the book for some time. So I am writing from memory.]


But if memory serves correctly about the basic idea of the book then he also hinted to possible solutions.
He directed the book especially towards students of the university. Therefore there is something about education that he was thinking about that could provide the answer. Specifically education in Plato's Republic, the Hebrew Bible, Kant's three critiques and Hegel.
Plus drop the NY Times. Drop modern philosophy into the trash. Drop the Humanities and Social Studies departments in universities into the hell from which they emerged.

Bloom did not mentioned explicitly the Hebrew Bible, but he did say that his close relatives that had a background in it and the Oral Law had a much better and deeper understanding of the meaning of life than people that read the NY Times. He did mention learning the Republic of Plato in terms of a solution. [But I do not see that. The shorter dialogues I think are much more powerful.]

A picture of the moment the Juno probe went into orbit around Jupiter

from here:link

I should mention that the Soviets had great respect for the USA in terms of the research done on Mars. Mars is a lot further out than Venus which the Russians decided to explore. Here getting the probe into orbit around Jupiter is an infinitely more difficult task than anything done before.

Talmud Bava Metzia

I wanted to mention here that to understand a question of Tosphot is often just as hard as it is to understand his answer. So here is my approach to understand the question.

Credit for this idea really goes to David Bronson because it is from him that I learned the method of breaking down a problem in Tosphot into its constituent parts and then putting it back together. I saw him do this numerous times and so I kind up picked up the method.

I had an idea in Bava Metzia page 14b that I would like to share.



Introduction: You have a lender that loaned $120 to a borrower. The borrower has a field worth 100. Then he buys a new field worth 100. Then he sells the first field. The buyer does $20 worth of improvement. Then the borrower sells the second field. Then defaults on the loan. The lender gets the first field. The first buyer then goes to the borrower himself for the improvement that he did and the main price. If the borrower still has nothing he collects from the second field only his main price , not the improvements,



Tosphot is bothered by the question why is there a second field? I suggested perhaps there is a second field because the lender got all of his loan paid back by the first buyer. It occurred to me today to analyse the sugia in the way my learned partner would have done if I would be learning with him. That is to break it down into its constituent parts and then put it back together.

So let's say the lender loaned to the borrower $120. And the borrower had a field worth $100. Then the borrower loses all the money. In the meantime he sold the field. The lender gets the whole field plus the improvements. Then the first buyer gets paid back the main price he paid for the field and its improvements from the lender and if the lender has nothing then he gets the main price from the second buyer. This is all just straight Gemara. I have not said anything new so far. It is just the Gemara puts all this into 8 words " יש לו שבח מן בני חורין וקרן ממשועבדים"
But what surprises Tosphot is this question: why does the lender not get paid back from the second field instead of from the improvements of the first field? In other words what gives him the right to collect improvements done on the second field that have nothing to do with the loan instead of going straight to the second field that was sold by the borrower?

This is the question of Tosphot. I wanted to add that Tosphot's approach is not that of the Rambam and I think Tosphot thus would be disagreeing about the idea of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik if the improvement is considered to a result of the field or the result of the work done on it.

I am in a student dorm so it is hard to concentrate. But the above is the basic idea I wanted to share.

What I could add for the sake of clarity is this. We are not talking about a case when the lender did not collect from the שבח because the Gemara says the first buyer gets paid back for the שבח from בני חורין. So why then did the lender not go directly to the second buyer instead of to the first buyer's improvements?
_________________________________________________________________________________


  בבא מציעא דף י''ד ע''ב מבוא: יש לך מלווה של 120 שקלים. היה ללווה   שדה שווה 100 שקלים. אז הוא קנה תחום חדש בשווי 100 שקלים. אז הוא מכר את השדה הראשון. הקונה עושה 20 שקלים בשווי של שיפור. אז מכר את השדה השני. ואז יש מחדל על ההלוואה. המלווה מקבל את השדה הראשון. הקונה הראשון לאחר מכן אוסף מהלווה עצמו לשיפור שהוא עשה ואת המחיר העיקרי. אם הלווה עדיין אין דבר, אז הקונה  אוסף מהשדה השני רק המחיר העיקרי שלו, לא שיפורים. לתוספות  הטרידה השאלה, "למה יש השדה השני?" הצעתי אולי יש שדה שני כי ההלוואה  משולמת על ידי הקונה הראשון?אבל  הפתעת תוספות היא השאלה: מדוע המלווה לא גובה  מהשדה השני במקום השיפורים של השדה הראשון? במילים אחרות מה נותן לו את הזכות לגבות שיפורים במקום ללכת ישר לשדה השני שנמכר על ידי הלווה? זו השאלה של תוספות. רציתי להוסיף כי לתוספות הגישה אינה כמו הרמב''ם. ואני חושב מחלוקת תוספות והרמב''ם בכך תהיה  הרעיון של רב חיים הלוי אם השיפור נחשב לתוצאה של השדה או התוצאה של העבודה שנעשתה עליו. מה שיכולתי להוסיף למען הבהירות היא זו. אנחנו לא מדברים על מקרה כאשר המלווה לא גבה מן השבח משום הגמרא אומר הקונה הראשון מקבל תשלום בחזרה עבור השבח מבני החורין. אז למה אז המלווה לא ללכת ישירות לקונה השני במקום כדי השיפורים של הקונה הראשון?





I wanted to mention here that to understand a question of Tosphot is often just as hard as it is to understand his answer. So here is my approach to understand the question.   The Rambam apparently thinks the lender can collect from either field and so he must be thinking the שבח on the first field is no less than the second field. Both are משועבד to the lender.


So God granted to me the merit of understanding Tospot 's question.

______________________________________________________________________________
The רמב''ם remains a mystery. The work done by the first buyer and the field contribute to the שבח. It is not the field's alone. Unless the  רמב''ם is  thinking like this. If it is שבח הבא ממילא then it is equal to the second field. If it is improvements like building a fence then it is totally of the first buyer. If it is crops the it is half the buyers and half the field.
__________________________________________________________________________________
That is when it is a fence then the רמב''ם would say the lender must collect from the second buyer  or collect the field from the first buyer but pay for the fence. If it is fruit of trees then in fact the lender can collect from either field. If the improvement is crops then he can collect from either field but pays for half the crops


רמב''ם נשאר בגדר תעלומה. אולי אפשר לומר שהרמב''ם מחזיק ככה: העבודה שנעשית על ידי הקונה הראשון והשדה תורמים את השבח. זה אומר אם זה שבח הבא ממילא, אז זה שווה לשדה השני. אם זה שיפורים כמו בניית גדר אז זה לחלוטין של הקונה הראשון. אם זה יבולים זה חצי מן הקונה וחצי מהשדה. כלומר כאשר השבח הוא גדר אז רמב''ם יאמר המלווה חייב לאסוף מהקונה השני או לאסוף בתחום מהקונה הראשון אבל לשלם עבור הגדר. אם זה פרי של עצים אז למעשה המלווה יכול לגבות באיזה מהתחומים שהוא רוצה. אם השיפור הוא יבולים ואז יוכל לאסוף משני השדות אלא אם הוא אוסף מן הראשון אז משלם עבור מחצית היבולים.

_______________________________________________________________________________

The problem on my explanation of תוספות is if the  whole question revolves around the fact that the lender collects from the שבח instead of the second field then why are the answers of תוספות not related to the שבח alone? Why do they relate also to the field of the first buyer?

הבעיה על ההסבר שלי של תוספות היא אם כל השאלה סובבת סביב העובדה כי המלווה גובה שבח במקום בשדה השני, אז למה לא תהיינה התשובות של תוספות קשורות רק לשבח? למה הן מתייחסות גם אל השדה של הקונה הראשון בעצמו?
______________________________________________________________________________

Answer. In fact, the answers of תוספות do answer the question on שבח but also they have implications for the קרן. For example the answer of תוספות that there is a second field because the first was made an אפותיקי  shows why the מלווה collected from both the first field and its שבח. The other answer that כל שיעבודו עליו also shows why he collected from both the first field and its שבח. Also the answer כלה שיעבודו answer this question.

I would be amiss if I did not explain the kind of damage that religious teachers do to homes and families in exactly the same way as outlined in this article

See these links: Dalrock

original post

Written by my husband, Ken Alexander

Lori's recent viral post struck a chord where women on both sides of the issue lined up to voice their agreement or stark disagreement over a husband's responsibility towards household chores. A few days later, it made it to the Daily Mail news source out of the UK titled Blogger is blasted over 'outdated' advice for a happy marriage as she urges women to 'do your housework cheerfully'. The reason it struck such a viral cord is twofold: First because it did not fit with the progressive women's agenda when Lori teaches that a wife married to a husband unwilling to meet her expectations should just take the high road and love him anyway. Second, because this is one of the hottest sources of frustration for most wives in the modern world. 

In my early years of marriage, Lori was often frustrated with me as her perception was that I was not doing enough to help her. I was at the time struggling to build a consulting firm and my head was stressed to its max as I raced across the US and Europe seeking success and security that comes from a good reputation. Hardly was I focused on housework after working a sixty hour week, and to be honest, I really detested household chores. But I had no issues caring for the kids, or cooking meals, and vacuuming. But dishes and cleaning was not my idea of my role in the relationship. 

Too often the root of this frustration came to Lori after talking to a family member or friend who helped to create the heart of the unmet expectations. I recall having a wonderful weekend with my wife, enjoying each other and the kids, and walking along in harmony together. I left on a trip and just after I got the the hotel in New York City, I grabbed the telephone and dialed the woman I had just spent a great week with. Looking out over Central Park from the 18th story with the lights surrounding it and darkness at the center, Lori answered the phone.

How's it going babes?

Oh, I'm fine?

Did you have a good day?

It was fine.

Well I had a good trip out, and my client put me up in a really nice hotel room overlooking the Park. It's way too expensive, but a really nice view. I wish you were here to share it with me!

Ya, you know Ken, you really don't help me enough around the house. We have four kids now and you know my stomach is not well. You really need to help me more.

Oh, WOW! Where is that coming from? You know I help a lot with the kids, and when you are sick I often cook the meals and take care of things. I don't get what you want from me? What happened between the time I left you this morning and I landed in NY?

I was talking to a friend today and she told me that you really should be helping me more. What I need is more help. My friend's and sisters' husbands help their wives more. 

Wait a second. You are telling me that when I kissed you goodbye today, you were doing great with our relationship and fine with how much I was helping around the house? Somehow between that moment and now you have talked to someone and you are upset over our relationship?  I don't know what to tell you, but I don't understand how your friends have anything to do with us and how we live out our marriage together.

Therapists  are the agents of the Sitra Achra [the Dark Side]. The Satan found it difficult to destroy marriages and families all by himself so he set up his agents to help him in his work.

Nationalism really comes down to a debate between Kant and Hegel. I am on the side of Kant in this, but I think Hegel also had some good points.  I am not sure how to reconcile them. You can see the side of nationalism in Howard Bloom's, The Lucifer Principle. But the draw backs of the system in the USA was brought to print by Allan Bloom's masterpiece, The Closing of the American Mind.

[I should say here that I tend to be on the ide of the Kant-Fries school of thought that you can see in the blog of Kelley Ross] And I also think that my very good impression of Hegeli more based on my  reading of his Logic of the encyclopedia. That is a masterpiece. But the way he elevates the "State" in the Phenomenology is really hard to digest.

I knew  some people that were prime examples of what a man is supposed to be.
My Dad as a father, a husband, a scientist. My teachers in school,: Mr Smart the music teacher, my two Roshei Yeshiva, Reb Freifeld and Reb Shmuel Berenbaum.

I would like to go into detail about each one and what I learned from them. But this minute it is hard to do so because excellence is hard to describe. And what makes it different from mediocrity. Still, God willing I would like to go into detail perhaps in a future comment.

Each one had a great sense of balance and responsibility.

Each one was focused on what they could give to others-not what they could get from others.

I have described my Dad a little in this blog beforehand but he remains the greatest mystery to me.
His major principle was self sufficiency. Do it yourself.  Many people have made it their way of life to collect charity from others and that would have been for my Dad the lowest of the low.

Mr Smart had an amazing sense when it came to music and how to instill appreciation of great music into his students. He got his amateur high school orchestra into a state of excellence. I have no idea how. It was just some kind of excitement about him when it came to music and conducting the orchestra.
Reb Shelomo Friefeld  had a grasp of what Torah is supposed to be about and a way of instilling that into others.

And Reb Shmuel really needs to be understood together with his wife Rebitzin Berenbaum. As a team they made the Mir yeshiva in NY into the most phenomenal kind of place I have seen. The spirit of Torah just permeated the place.

But in the face of these really great people, I am at a loss to describe what it was that pushed them over the line from average into greatness.

Today it is hard to find good people, much less great people. But the main thing about each of the people I mentioned is they loved what they were doing, and they were extremely competent, and  had a tremendous excitement about them in trying to instill this into others.

[Sadly enough I knew a great number of con men that acted the parts, but had no substance. It took me too much time and experience and suffering to realize this. To understand the world you live in it is no enough to have great teachers. You need to experience terrible people also in order appreciate the good ones. And book learning can complement this but it does not replace it.