The problem of Reb Nahman is that he has advice and ideas that are amazingly insightful, and yet the observation of many is that people that get involve in Breslov lose the desire to learn Torah, and often seem to go off on awkward tangents.
You can try to answer this question in different ways, by ignoring it, or denying the reality of the situation.
It is like the Mind-Body problem that seems to defy solution.

The great Litvak roshei yeshiva seemed to have dealt with this problem in a uniform way. They always refused the option of considering Reb Nahman anything but a great tzadik. Yet as for the issues that I have raised, they said, "It is high things." That is: too high for them to deal with. It was thought to be outside their ares of expertise. That is what I myself heard from Reb Shmuel Berenbaum of the Mir in NY, and also Rav Montag in Netivot in Israel and also Rav Issahar Meir the friend of Bava Sali and rosh yeshiva of the Yehivat HaNegev and that whole group of yeshivas that were started by Rav Issahar Meir.

In general the way it became clear to me that Lithuanian roshei yeshiva are strongly pro-Reb Nahman was that I would usually approach them trying hard to get some kind of negative comment about Reb Nahman. Any slight criticism, anything at all. But no matter how hard I tried I could never get any of them to utter the slightest negative comment about Reb Nahman.

U-86 B Flat Major I have no ear phones and so I do not really know how this sounds. Also I use a new app Zamzar.com which coverts midi to mp3 in  in different ways than the converter from google.
So if this sounds OK to you, I am pleased.

Reb Moshe and Reb Aaron Kotler were both of the opinion that דינא דמלכותא דינא "the law of the state is the law"

In the USA there are insane people that hate you if you say one nice word about Israel. Better to avoid the subject. As for the actual subject of the army [IDF]  the idea is if people enjoy a certain benefit from the State -[for example their lives which they would lose if the Arabs would attack]-they ought to contribute.
When I was at the Mir in NY and making preparations to make alyia [go to Israel] I was made aware of this and all the more so in Israel itself. The whole anti Israel thing is really a kind of antisemitism.
The whole anti Israel thing seems  like a mistake. But still I swallowed the view because that s what I thought I was supposed to think. It was only very much later that I saw Reb Moshe and Reb Aaron Kotler were both of the opinion that דינא דמלכותא דינא "the law of the state is the law" that I began to open my eyes.  [The view of Reb Aaron I saw in the introduction to a sort of Musar book that he wrote. The view of Reb Moshe I forget where I saw it.]

Their view of course is not as positive as others that consider Israel the fulfillment on ancient prophecy. But one way or the other, in terms of Torah, serving in the IDF is a good deed and also an obligation.

forms of totalitarian systems

Karl Popper hated all forms of totalitarian systems. That is great. But his blaming Hegel seems misplaced. The reason he blamed Hegel is fairly clear that he was depending on the Scribner’s Hegel Selections [and Gans’s additions]. But furthermore in fact the communists made a very big deal out of Hegel even though they specifically repudiated him.  But still they found in his writing someone that they felt they needed to fight and repudiate.
Still what is sad about this is that Hegel does seem to have a lot of good ideas.
If you hate socialism-which is a proper approach as we learned from Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge and more recently Venezuela, still it makes little sense to blame Hegel. Why not blame Socialism itself?

In an case, philosophy and politics seem to be separate. Hegel and Plato both seem to have been trying to get too much out of their ideas.  It seems that when philosophers step into politics they misstep and overstep. I think in terms of politics the founding fathers of the USA saw a lot further than any philosophers.


There is a moral aspect to politics. To advocate socialism has an aspect to it that is not moral. That is even if you do not do it yourself, but if you recommend to others to deprive people of their property, that is like אבק גזילה [the dust of theft.] If you vote for such a thing that also has a aspect to it of stealing other people's property.  Even though you do not do it yourself, but to use you vote to empower the government to steal also is אבק גזילה the dust of theft. [We find this concept in the Talmud. Some things are not slander but אבק לשון הרע the dust of slander, and some things are not forbidden relations but אבק עריות the dust of forbidden relations.]

Dr Kelley Ross of the Kant Fries School] and Michael Huemer do not think much of Hegel. And I am not one to stand between giants. But to me it looks like Hegel, the Kant Friesian School and also Michael Huemer have good points. Just for one example:Michael Huemer noted that Hume's limitation of what we can know a priori is not true. Hume just assumes that all that can be known without observation is what can be derived from definitions. Hume states this over and over again without any proof or argument. And there is no reason to belive it is true. But still that does not invalidate kant of Hegel. since there is still a different kind of thinking that goes into a priori knowledge than what you can know from induction.

I might add that for some reason or other the only people that seem to pay attension to the Kant Fries School are in Poland [and maybe some in Germany]. I get the impression that for most people that are interested in Kant go with the Neo Kant School of Marburg and Herman Cohen. However, to me it seems to Friesian school is better.

low class people

Hanging out with low class people [in terms of "Midot" that is traits like honesty, compassion etc] tend to damage one's own traits. I have definitely not been careful about this myself partly as  result of naivety, and partly because in the USA it is considered that all people are equal. So I did really not get an idea of dividing people by traits.
But for myself, now I can see in retrospect that it should have been easy to identify groups that I could have avoided by simply being aware of the difference between groups that excel in traits and those that do not. The difference is obvious if you look for it.

That is to say I see "midot tovot" [That is what is called "being a mensch"] as being the main key to Gan Eden. Another way to look at this is simply to fulfill the Ten Commandments.
However the Rambam did add to this in הלכות תשובה that one's portion in the next world also depends on his wisdom.

It is easy to lose one's portion in the next world. The Musar movement of Reb Israel Salanter.

Rav Isaac Blazer -the original disciple of Reb Israel Salanter-makes a point in his book אור ישראל the Light of Israel that making it to Gan Eden is harder than most people realize. That is even with one's good deeds, it is easy to lose one's portion in the next world.
While it seems that there are are no guarantees, his implication is that by learning Musar (note 1) in order to come to have good traits and fear of God can go a long way to helping.
It is my impression that what most people think is important in this world really does not matter much. But also what people think will guarantee them a good place in the next world, probably does not work as well as they imagine.   [Even the promise  of the Ran of Breslov to come to Uman and say the ten psalms, while it probably works to some degree, but not as much as people imagine. His promise was to try and help in the next world. He did not promise that he would succeed. In the long run I think Rav Isaac Blazer was correct, that everything depends on good traits and fear of God.
[However the Rambam did add one's "wisdom" in laws of repentance as was pointed out to me by someone in the Mir. That in fact goes along with something Reb Nahman also brings from the Rambam about שכל הנקנה acquired intellect as the last stage in potential intellect and intellect in action. This is a well known Rambam doctrine that Reb Nahman brings--without however mentioning the source.]

The Musar movement I ought to mention really concentrated on action not words. The idea was to learn Musar in order to do it. The movement itself was more or less absorbed into the Litvak yeshivas started by the disciple of the Gra Reb Haim from Voloshin. (note 2)


(note 1) Musar means medieval Ethics books like the Obligations of the Heart. But now the term has been widened to include the books of the disciples of Reb Israel Salanter. It also now refers to post medieval books like the Paths of the Righteous מסילת ישרים. The main points of these books are to define one ethical obligations. The idea of learning Musar is that by learning these books every day one eventually changes for the better.

(note 2) Dr Huemer of the University of Colorado holds that liberalism is gaining traction because it is objective morality. And that people tend to start seeing moral principles more clearly over time. This might correspond to what the Rambam was saying about the laws of the Torah--that they have reasons and the reasons are known.  One of the reasons is "to bring to peace of the state." It is possible that methods to bring this about can become more clear over time.
On the other hand,  to be able to discern the difference between right and wrong depends on learning and doing the Law of Moses. Without that, we would have no moral sense. He ignores how the Bible shaped Western Civilization and especially the USA  and it is the astounding success of the USA which is the light on the hill that others see and want to copy that causes the values of the Bible to spread,

Different ways of learning.

 Different ways of learning.
One I have mentioned--say the words in order and go on until the end of the book and then review over again. [This I have been doing for recent years]
The other I found very helpful when I was learning Gemara with the  Soncino translation was to read through the Gemara and commentary of Rashi once through the whole paragraph. Then the English. And then the Gemara again with Rashi. [This I did for about seven years-my first years in NY Litvak yeshivas.]

The third method I found helpful in Tosphot and also Physics is  to take just one section  and read through it every day from beginning to end for forty days straight.

The path of Lithuanian yeshivas is to take note of the advantage of learning fast idea  for the afternoon and learning in depth in the morning.