Any of the Musar books of ethics and morality makes sense to learn for many reasons. One reason is that after the Middle Ages thinking in philosophy and or religious matters lost rigorous logic. That is,- even if the axioms that are assumed in the Middle Ages you might question, but almost always the results are exact. After the Middle Ages thinking in philosophy became mostly circular. Even by people you would have thought would be above that kind of mistake like John Locke or Kant.

The circular reasoning in Kant and Locke was pointed out by Dr. Kelley Ross. That is why he adopted the more rigorous approach of Leonard Nelson.

Allan Dershowitz wrote against impeachment

Allan Dershowitz wrote against impeachment a nice book that I read a bit of and it seemed to me to well reasoned. I recall the basic idea was that there needs to be some crime done in order for there to be impeachment. I think that is a good point.

Besides that there is a point of Steven Dutch that one's faith is the source of one's values. So it makes sense whether one is Catholic or Muslim--as long as one's faith holds that there is objective morality,--that the whole issue ought to be thought of from an objective standard--from from identity politics

The problem is that the Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach in two specific cases. The Congress does not get to define its own powers. Or at least it should not as long as the Constitution is the Constitution.

Are there evaluative facts? i.e. is there such a thing as objective good or evil? If there is, then there is free will. For what what is forced to do can not be termed good or evil. If one has free will then he can choose good.

You can not reduce questions of good and evil to ignorance because ignorance has to be ignorance of some fact. Ignorance of what? is the essential question.


See Dr. Michael Huemer for more information about objective morality. I  guess you could go to the intuitionist school of thought or to Hegel or Prichard and G.E. Moore for the same reason, but with limited time I found it easier to look at Dr Huemer than having to take  a few years to go through these other philosophers`.

"To finish Shas"

"To finish Shas" I recall was one theme that was mentioned often in Shar Yashuv. That was intended to say that no one has a right to an uninformed opinion. And to have an informed opinion means to have finished the two Talmuds at least once. [I.e. the one that is famous written in Iraq [Babylonia] and the other called the Yerushalmi.


Since I have concluded that math and physics and Aristotle's Metaphysics are in the category of Torah, it makes sense to me to suggest a daily schedule in which one finishes the two Talmuds plus the basic set of math and physics plus the books of Aristotle named Metaphysics.

[This is more or less based on authorities that came after Saadia Gaon and took his lead. However I do admit there were great rishonim would did not think these subjects would be included in Torah learning. Obviously the Ramban [Nachmanides] would not include Aristotle and probably not math or Physics either. This was a subject that was never much discussed at the Mir in NY. But once I returned there and discussed this a little bit with Rav Shmuel Berenbaum. And he said for parnasa [making a living] it is OK. I tried to argue and claim that to some rishonim learning physics is in itself a part of learning Torah. But he did not accept that. And he repeated again the statement if it is for parnasa it is ok.


Maimonides himself does take this approach of Saadia Gaon as you can see in the Guide. But contrary to what most people think, he includes his opinion also in the Mishne Torah in the law about dividing one's learning into three parts. One part is Gemara. And there he says that "the subjects called pardes are in the category of Gemara" and he defined what is included in pardes in the first four chapters of mishne torah.

Winds and Violin in C major.

Music file w12. mp3 w12 in midi format  w12nwc

My suggestion--learn mediaeval books on morality and ethics right at the start of every day-- even if only for a few minutes. This is from the Musar Movement of Rav Israel Salanter

One of the main idea of Musar was to help people develop good character traits. Is it effective? I think so. From my own experience in the Mir in NY and in Shar Yashuv I would have to say that learning books of ethics actually helps one develop good character to some degree. But it is not fool-proof. [It is like Steven Dutch wrote: "I am completely unable to conceive of any system that can not be abused and used for personal power and profit."
So the fact that a system can be abused does not count against it in the larger picture. [This idea is an ancient Roman proverb: "Abusus non tollit usum." (Abuse does not cancel use.)] The real questions are if it is true and does it bring people to a higher level of objective morality at least to some degree? Since both these conditions are certainly fulfilled by Musar and the general Litvak yeshiva approach I have to put in my two cents worth of approval.

[Rav Shach also wrote as much in the introduction to one of the volumes of the Avi Ezri.]

Especially at the start of every day right when you wake up--learn Musar. Or if you know there is some particular area you need to work on then find the parts of Musar that deal with that area and  especially some short paragraphs and say them right when you wake up before you say anything else.

In the Guide of Maimonides there is the parable

In the Guide of Maimonides there is the story about a king and the levels of closeness to him in his country. [1.] People outside the country. [2.] People inside the country.  [3.] People around the palace. [4.] People on the inside of the palace in the outer areas. [5.] People with the kind in the inside area of the palace. The allegory refers to God. People outside the country are barbarians. People inside are people with morality of reason (the Rambam calls this level the "laws of the ancient Greeks"). People around the palace are those who learn and do the Talmud ("the Talmudiim"). The people inside the palace are the physicists. People on the very inside are the prophets and the philosophers.

The putting of philosophers on the inside with the king does not seem to be applicable nowadays.

See how i got fired by the ryerson philosophy department.

See also Michael Huemer. [Dr Kelley Ross also. Plus Allan Bloom]
Basically I have an idea that philosophy comes in stages. The Ancient Greek Philosophy started with the question how is change possible? Then Plato answered it and from then until Plotinus was tying up loose ends.
Then the problem of Faith and Reason began with  St. Augustine and Philo. That went until Descartes. With Descartes began the Mind Body Problem. That went until Kant made his sort of synthesis.  Now the reason philosophy is  a mess is that the next problem has not been found.

I myself think the argument between Hegel and Fries [as represented in the writings of Kelley Ross, and Leonard Nelson] is the most important issue today. How do you deal with it?

One way I have thought of is along the lines of Michael Huemer. [I assume he gets this from the school of the intuitionists like G.E. Moore]. That reason recognizes universals. But even with that knowledge tends to be as things appear prima facie unless further evidence is forthcoming. He holds there is no such thing as pure empirical knowledge. Even what we thing is empirical always has a element of a priori.