Translate

Powered By Blogger

24.10.17

 The issue of love and family is hard to figure out. When I was in high school I waited for my Dad [almost every day ] to pick me up at the public library and there I read some of the symposium of Plato which is about Love. I must say growing up in my parent's home along with my learning of Plato gave me a very idealistic concept of what Love is all about.

[This left me unprepared for the cynical type of marriage that exists today -that which is called marriage but is really just a financial arrangement. The "real thing", the authentic connection between souls I think no longer exists.]
What accounts for charismatic leaders? Sometimes someone really knows what they are talking about and that can account for it. That is the reason people will flock to a lecture in Quantum Mechanics from Leonard Susskind.

  But other times it is hard to tell. Most often charismatic leaders  are ignorant of what they profess to know, but are in their position because of the snowball effect. They managed to get one or two people under their influence and then those people go out to make more converts etc. Sometimes like in academia you have  a group of people that award to each other credentials.

A friend played for me  a  little bit of of an Allan Watts talk on Buddhism. He started out saying that survival is a game. He then explained that survival is just a game that people play. He elaborated on this theme  a little and bit and I asked my friend what he learned from that. It occurs to me that what Allan Watts was saying to his audience was that their survival was just a game to him. It seems unlikely that he was saying that his own survival is just a game. I think he took his own survival deathly serious. So I wonder what is it about someone that is spouting utter nonsense that people get attracted to?

Mainly I would have to say that it is the desire to fit into a social group that gets people to accept whatever themes they say and to respect whom so ever they respect.

But unless something is really evil, I think it is best not to criticize. Say criticism for when it is absolutely necessary. I think much of the interest in Buddhism is a reaction to corrupt religions in the West and so it makes little sense to criticize what might be good for the people that are following it..

[People have needs that can be satisfied only in a social group. So the message of many groups is: agree with us and you will be accepted. Disagree? Then get out. ] Women nowadays use that leverage--you want to be in  a relationship you have to agree that she is a supreme being worthy of worship and praise. [At least that is what I found among Western women.]




23.10.17

Renaissance and the Enlightenment

I like the Renaissance a lot and Kant was pro Enlightenment to some degree. I mean though in fact he was pro Enlightenment, still in his system you find an area in which Reason has trouble penetrating. And that seems to leave room for faith. That is at least how Kant and Dr Kelley Ross look at it.

But with Hegel you really do not need the area of the dinge an sich/things in themselves to be immune from Reason, but rather a realm that some kind of awareness does exist.


I have never been able to blame the problems of the modern world on the Renaissance nor on the Enlightenment. Rather my own tendency has been to see Rousseau as the actual source of the problems. Later I saw in fact a few problems in Locke and Hume that I think may also contribute to the problems. But I still would not blame the Enlightenment itself.


[Dr Ross I would surely disagree with me about Hegel, but at this point I think that it is true that Hegel holds from an area of faith/knowledge that is not based on reason , nor understanding, nor empirical evidence. At least that is what I saw one time in reading Hegel. But Hegel would call it spirit--as different from Absolute Spirit.]


And furthermore I think it is necessary to agree with me. How can one think that all areas of spirit are open to knowledge by means of Reason or dialectics in Hegel's system?

Of course Hegel is open to abuse as the Marxists have found out. But I still can not see him to blame for that when openly the Marxists reject most of his system. but use some concepts they found useful.


There are plenty of problematic issues nowadays, but I would not blame the Renaissance nor the Enlightenment for them.

The problem that I see is the Satan that goes around with his agents. The way to get out of the problem with the Dark Side is not at all clear. The thing is there are different areas of value, and the main job of every person is to penetrate to the good core and avoid the kelipa [evil] in each area.












22.10.17

When the Rambam discusses Physics and Metaphysics

When the Rambam includes Physics and Metaphysics in the category of the Oral Law it seems  to include chemistry. That is he says is he referring to these subjects as understood by the ancient Greeks and whether in Mishne Torah or in Aristotle we can see Chemistry being included.
Even though the actual Physics of Aristotle does not seem valid anymore, still the subject matter that the Rambam was referring to is clear.
On the other hand when the Rambam refers to Metaphysics, I think it is clear he means specifically the book Metaphysics of Aristotle. But then going by subject matter I think then one would have to include Kant and Hegel.



Hezekiah (king of Judah) had been giving money [tribute]  to Assyria. Then at one point he stopped. Then the king of Assyria sent an army against the cities of Judah. So Hezekiah said to him "I am sorry. How much  would it take to make peace between us?" Assyria gave some staggering amount and Hezekiah sent it to him. Then the king of Assyria sent an army to conquer Jerusalem.

The lesson seems to be: Do not compromise with the Dark Side. They get a taste of victory and then they just want more.