my search for truth

In my search for truth, I believe I came upon a remarkable theory of the Kant/Friesian approach of Kelley Ross and Leonard Nelson. But that is in terms of philosophy. I do not think that can substitute for the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach nor of Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Pnei Yehoshua,, and R Akiva Eiger,.Aruck LaNer These are separate areas of value.
Getting philosophy and politics right is just as important as Gemara.

For a long time I was unaware of German Idealism. Most philosophers  nowadays think they can by- pass it as irrelevant. In the meantime twentieth century thought is astoundingly empty of meaning and reason. I do not think you can bypass German Idealism, but nor do I think it is the strongest basis for politics. In terms of Politics, I think English thought --John Locke, De Foe, Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson are a lot better as you can see in the papers they wrote to convince NY to vote for the Constitution.

[In terms of Hegel, however, I do not share the general disdain  that some of the German Idealists held for him. I can see that in Russia, the Marxists were dealing with different kinds of problems than the founding fathers of the USA were dealing with. The thing about the USSR is that the czar and the later USSR had to deal with a totally different kind of population than WASP's  {White Anglo Saxon Protestants}. That means that things and ideas that worked for the newly formed USA could not work for Russia.]

In any case, I feel that Leonard Nelson deserves a lot more credit than he is usually given-- and that goes for the German Idealists also. [Somehow I imagine that Nelson's books have not even been translated. And that is surprising and sad.]

The idea of  balance of values is one that I got from my parents. Under their guidance I went to publc schools -which in those days were much better than now. My parents definite advocated a balance of values.

[In the USA there seems to have been a default position that everything and anything slightly related to German Idealism was out and out wrong. This even penetrated high school. You could not even find books old or new in that area. It was almost as if Kant and Hegel never existed. To replace that vacuum all kinds of really dumb stuff was suggested.] 

Nowadays the trend seems  a lot better. There is Dr Kelley Ross, Michael Huemer, Edward Fesser and others. The dark pit of insane twentieth century philosophy seems to be in the past--thank God.

"Seeking for truth" was a big subject when I was growing up. In any case truth is not what you know, but how you live.

"Seeking for truth" was a big subject around (in high school) when I was just entering my teen age years.
For some this was the age of the rise of many movements that laid claim to the "Truth."
On my own I did some reading on this. It seems to me today that a great deal of my motivation was internal as well as external.

I did not know anyone in particular who went deeply into Hindu or Buddhist religion, or the different gurus around then. But there were plenty of people that went that way (to their own later regret).

Philosophy at that time was well known to be empty of meaning, so no one that I knew went in that direction.

I did my own reading of Plato, Dante, Spinoza and a compilation of about 1000 Chinese philosophies.

[Neither in book stores nor the public library, nor the high school library were Hegel, nor anyone representing Idealism. However I do recall I think one book of Kant in the high school library.
The philosophical fads in those day  were ridiculous vacuums --but no one knew it at the time.]

Today I think avoiding these kinds of movements that lay claim to "the Truth" is the first step towards "the Truth". Truth lays in living a moral life, talking with God in one's own language, the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have other do unto you.

[To some degree I can see why there was no interest in Hegel or any part of German Idealism. But the philosophies that attempted to replace that were empty wallets. You can see this in Dr. Kelly Ross's web site where he goes into detailed about the failed philosophies of the twentieth century. Dr Michael Huemer also goes into some detail about that.]

In any case truth is not what you know, but how you live.

In terms of knowledge, nothing is immune to disproof. Lots of things people were 1000% sure of turned out to be false. [Frege's self evident axioms, the world is the center, etc, ] Even in your own life you can see this in things you thought you remembered in 100% certainly that later you found out were wrong. The mark of truth is that it s fallible as Popper said.  It must be falsifiable.

Maimonides and Saadia Gaon went a long ways in getting the ideas of Plato and Aristotle as considred a part of "The Truth." I feel today a similar effort is needed to get Kant, Hegel and Leonard Nelson also to be lifted from the pit of obscurity  into the light.

Hegelian Idealism

Hegel has had a curious history. Hegelian Idealism was totally gone by 1850.  Marx and Kierkegaard also disagreed with Hegel about most major points but still adopted his methods. Now these two philosophies of Marx and Kierkegaard  encompass a large part of the globe. And a great deal of twentieth century philosophy is a kind of struggle to escape Metaphysics. Is not it time to give Leonard Nelson and the Kant/Fries approach due consideration?

Opposed to the Idealism of Kant and Hegel is most of 20th century philosophy.

A great deal of twentieth century philosophy is  really quite horrible. As Dr John Searle put it "It is obviously false"--that is referring to the linguistic (British-American) and analytical (continental).

But never the less getting it right is still important.


[In high school I was very interested in philosophy but thankfully I did not go into it as a profession or even a hobby.  I guess I did not see much going on there of any value.

Allen Sokal and Allen Bloom already made these points. But you can see this for yourself when present day philosophers say anything that even vaguely is related to science. That is one  area you can see they went off the path of sanity.]

The places and people you might think to go to to learn Torah are actually Trojan horses.Torah scholars demons.

The Ran from Breslov had a good point in emphasizing the fact that many times the places and people you might think  to go to to learn Torah are  actually Trojan horses. Traps laid out by the Dark Side to entice people.

This to a large degree goes along with his emphasis on private service towards God. However there are some good a holy places that I am thrilled and very happy about that I went to like the Mir in NY and also Shar Yashv of Rav Friefeld.

The problem  is that authentic Litvak yeshivas are rare. However dens of the Dark Side are common.

So the best  is to learn Gemara Rashi Tosphot and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach at home unless one happens to be in an area like NY where the great Litvak yeshivas are located --or Bnei Brak.

Reb Nahman had a great deal of other important points, though for some reason when people get involved a bit too much in his books they tend to lose perspective.


Still this idea of Reb Nahman is not commonly known. But it comes often in the writings of Reb Nahman himself. For example in Volume I "the reason why people argue and make problems for those who fear God is because they (the problem makers ) hear Torah lessons from Torah scholars that are demons. שדין יהודאיים תלמידי חכמים. As a source the notes on bottom of the page say to look up the Zohar in Pinhas which I did not find there (though I did not look hard.). But this is a subject which comes up in the Ari. In any case it ought to be more well known
How many homes would be spared, how many lives would be save from ruin if this lesson was more well known and people would know to be wary and on guard?
[This theme is brought up also in the Rambam concerning people that make money off of Torah.The Rambam says they have no portion in the next world which means they lose their holy soul. That is in fact quite close to what Reb Nahman says in different words.]
The fact is that most people do not have much knowledge in Torah and thus are easily conned and deceived. And no one stands up except Reb Nahman to warn people.

It is interesting to note that the people who were with קורח  (Korah) who argued against Moses were the heads of the Sanhedrin. Some things just keep on recurring.




In any case if one is learning at home, the thing to do is to get one Gemara and concentrate on it for a year with the Maharsha and Tosphot. Then to get one or two of the major later on אחרונים that deal with that particular Gemara. Most often that will be the Pnei Yehoshua., if you choose Ketuboth or the Bava's or Shabat. There is also a very great edition of R.Akiva Eiger that collected his works along the seder of Shas. Also the ערוך לנר.  The Avi Ezri I think should just be learned in order independently. [That is in its own order, not according to the order of Shas. Just learn it from the beginning to end, and then review many times.]

Even though this is not a popular message, still judging from Yeravam ben Navat who refrained from the truth because of fear of losing his popularity and support, I would say that even at the certainty of losing popularity one ought to say the truth.

Music for the Glory of God

U-71 B Flat Majormp3  u71 in midi  u71 nwc

Esther apparently went twice to the king without being called. The second time was after the original event that is well known. The second time she went in again at the risk of her life in order to get the decree of annihilation rescinded. You know this because the second time it says the king again held out the golden staff to her.

It is also interesting to note the 10 sons of Haman were apparently hung as examples but were actually killed before then.

The main things of interest about this is that it seems it was this king that gave the final decree to grant permission to rebuild the Temple. [As far as I can tell from the Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah]

Another point of interest is how this relates to Herodotus and the events of this king invading Greece and being stopped by 300 Spartans. These events are not even hinted at which is curious. Apparently the invasion of Greece happened later. 

To come up with a political system based on the best philosophy ends up with the worst system in politics.

WWI and WWII brought an end to interest in German Idealism.

As a matter of fact it was mainly WWI but WWII finished the job. And in place of Kant and Hegel you got a host of  vacuous philosophies of the twentieth century.  

The reason was that the connection between philosophy and politics  is non trivial.

On the other hand, I think this is somewhat tragic since Kant was  the best thing that happened in philosophy ever since Aristotle and Plotinus. But in fact when it comes to politics, philosophy  is weak.
Starting from Plato, philosophers have come up with one ridiculous scheme after the other when it comes to politics and in understanding human nature.

What makes this confusing is that in some cases Hegel and Communism seem still to be functioning like in China. And even in Czarist Russia,  the simple implementation of some kind of Parliament  system [the Duma] did not help any of the problems of WWI nor the civil war.


The best idea in political thought to me still seems to be the Constitution of the USA. Politics and Philosophy seem best to be divided. To come up with a political system based on the best philosophy ends up with the worst system in politics.

The Constitution was based in part on John Locke, but mainly on the English system that had evolved in the 1700's along with a great deal of understanding of ancient systems like Athens and Rome. The Natural Law ideas of Aquinas certainly played a role. But the philosophical element was weak.
And the great effect and force of philosophy in the USA seems to constantly to be directed at undermining the Constitution-- starting from the Frankfurter School at Colombia,- but also including just about every other stream of philosophy.  It is like a great hobby -to throw darts at Christianity and at the Constitution. It is almost as if people get up the morning and wonder: "What can we do today to undermine the Constitution and/or faith."

Appendix: (1) Dr. Michael does not think any state is legitimate. He also favors open borders along with Dr Bryan Caplan. The Frankfurt School is well known to have been plotting the downfall of the USA since its inception.
Socialists on one hand, anarchists on the other. All brilliant philosophers. Where has common sense disappeared to?

(2) To some degree you can see that the Constitution based on a WASP population simply would not have worked in Czarst Russia. But the problem seems to be that people expert in their own field often get so caught u in their own worlds that they cannot see the limits of their ideas when applied  elsewhere. A good example is the war in Vietnam when the presidents of the USA were taking advice of economist on how to wage the war. That was to make it non cost effective for the North Vietnamese. But what works in economics does not necessarily work in governments and politics.

(3) I think getting philosophy right is important. And Kant, and the Kant Friesian School of Dr Ross  go a long way. But Philosophy still seems to have some kind of stumbling block in it when it comes to politics or common sense. [My impression is that Kant, Schopenhauer and Leonard Nelson are somewhat better than Hegel, even though I do not share their complete dismissal of him.]
I am thinking that as much as getting philosophy right, it is just as important to get politics right, and for that I think learning the Federalist Papers should be first priority.

Or perhaps to be more accurate in terms of political theory the best thing is to learn the background of the Constitution which is England in starting from Elizabeth plus John Locke and DeFoe. For starting to learn about the USA Constitution at the time it was written is losing the entire perspective.