10.2.20
The basic books of how to learn Torah are actually available. One could get a Avi Ezri of Rav Shach, the Hidushei HaRambam by Rav Haim of Brisk and his disciples, the Birkat Shmuel and Shaari Yosher, and the Hidushei HaGarnat by Naphtali Troup. And then just plow through them.
This is in fact what I was trying to do in Uman during a period I was isolated there.
Of course it is helpful to be either recall the actual Gemaras they are talking about, or at least be able to look up the basic subject. However I have to add that the Avi Ezri brings down the basic Gemara itself with such clarity that you can almost bypass the intermediate steps.
[To some degree you can do this also with Rav Chaim of Brisk,-- except that his is less clear than Rav Shach.] When I had the Avi Ezri I would go through each piece a few times. About once a day for a few days. That was not exactly the same as learning "beiyun" [in depth] . But it was not "bekiut" [fast learning] either. It was just this sort of middle way that seemed to work for me.
[Especially given the fact that my time was very limited. For someone with the merit of sitting and learning Torah all day I have no idea how I would go about learning Rav Haim or Rav Shach. I might just take one afternoon to go through a whole piece a few times instead of spreading it over a few days.]
This is in fact what I was trying to do in Uman during a period I was isolated there.
Of course it is helpful to be either recall the actual Gemaras they are talking about, or at least be able to look up the basic subject. However I have to add that the Avi Ezri brings down the basic Gemara itself with such clarity that you can almost bypass the intermediate steps.
[To some degree you can do this also with Rav Chaim of Brisk,-- except that his is less clear than Rav Shach.] When I had the Avi Ezri I would go through each piece a few times. About once a day for a few days. That was not exactly the same as learning "beiyun" [in depth] . But it was not "bekiut" [fast learning] either. It was just this sort of middle way that seemed to work for me.
[Especially given the fact that my time was very limited. For someone with the merit of sitting and learning Torah all day I have no idea how I would go about learning Rav Haim or Rav Shach. I might just take one afternoon to go through a whole piece a few times instead of spreading it over a few days.]
the big picture in learning Torah.
Why do you need the big picture in learning Torah. I mean to say why emphasize learning fast when it is known that one gets only a rough idea? [As you see in Sicha 76 of Rav Nahman of Breslov to say the words and go on.] Because you need the small pieces of the big picture but also the overview.
You can see this by this example. This is not a car.
This is a car:
You can see this by this example. This is not a car.
This is a car:
On the blog of Michael Huemer there is a comment that compares changes in philosophy to changes in science. And I have been wondering about that. After all, changes in science are because of new evidence. But that does not mean that philosophy is just speculation. Rather philosophy has a different kind of task--to get the big picture and make sense out of it.
And also I might mention that in fact changes in science are not just because of new evidence. Rather taking a look at Einstein. There was a contradiction between Maxwell and Newton. A certain kind of sense caused Einstein to choose Maxwell and to modify Newton. And Copernicus was not accepted because of new evidence. Rather his approach was simple as opposed to having to add more rings. It was the math that appealed to people--not new evidence. In the editions of his books, it is the math pages that are greased from fingers going over and over them.
[But sometimes it is experiments that do say something. The black box causing the Plank h bar. The success of QM to explain the spectrum of light coming out of excited atoms. String theory from things spinning around faster when they have more mass.]
And also I might mention that in fact changes in science are not just because of new evidence. Rather taking a look at Einstein. There was a contradiction between Maxwell and Newton. A certain kind of sense caused Einstein to choose Maxwell and to modify Newton. And Copernicus was not accepted because of new evidence. Rather his approach was simple as opposed to having to add more rings. It was the math that appealed to people--not new evidence. In the editions of his books, it is the math pages that are greased from fingers going over and over them.
[But sometimes it is experiments that do say something. The black box causing the Plank h bar. The success of QM to explain the spectrum of light coming out of excited atoms. String theory from things spinning around faster when they have more mass.]
9.2.20
Thinking about theological questions can cause a person to go nuts. However you can tell something about a religious belief because of the general kind of people that follow it.
I think that in Kant there is a kind of skepticism about any kind of thinking outside the realm of "conditions of possible experience" which limits what we can reason about. It is not just that you see this in his system but also in his separate writings about Swedenborg. All together you get the idea that he accepts there are metaphysical realities but best not to reason about what there is no way of testing.
[In a later essay, he held that even thinking about theological questions can cause a person to go nuts. So it was not just an idea that he had that Reason when going into areas of unconditioned realities comes up with self contradictions but specially any person doing so would also end up insane.]
I think that this that Kant noticed about the effect of thinking about spiritual things [making people insane] must have been noticed by him in his daily conversations. He was a great "socializer" as is not well known.
[ Rav Nahman's belief in the limits of wisdom is one of his most famous doctrines [I think it is mainly in LeM vol II]. There is a place in the "Hashmatot" at the end of the LeM [not printed in all editions] where he says openly that to wisdom was set a limit so that it could not expand beyond that limit.]
It is well known in the Lithuanian Yeshiva world that thinking about spiritual things is discouraged. Simply one ought to learn Gemara in depth and that is that.
[In short the less there is of this, the better.]
Also I am not saying that Kant needs to be taken here without a grain of salt. He certainly has a point. However it was Hegel who felt the dinge an sich is possible to get to and I also happen to have a lot of respect for a mystic of the Middle Ages Rav Avraham Abulafia. His approach to Jesus is certainly an eye opener. His basic idea is that Jesus would be someone along the lines of Joseph in Egypt. He calls him the חותם של יום הששי which you would think would refer to Yoseph, i.e. Foundation of Emanation. So why or in what way does Jesus fill that same job description?]
However there are ways of testing: It is not as if all religious systems are beyond testing. Not exactly scientific testing in a microscope. But rather in terms of character. And of course even with that people have free will so you can not get an exact result. For example it is rather clear that Nazi doctrines had something to do with WWII. So sometimes results can indicate something about a set of doctrines. You can see this also in Dante. The different levels of hell all have to do with traits of character. And clearly I have a feeling that Rav Nahman was right about a lot of stuff and the Gra and Rav Shach. So I do attribute to them a kind of sixth sense--an immediate non intuitive knowledge [not sensed with the five sense--but perhaps still sensed?]
So you can tell something about a religious belief because of the general kind of people that follow it.
[In a later essay, he held that even thinking about theological questions can cause a person to go nuts. So it was not just an idea that he had that Reason when going into areas of unconditioned realities comes up with self contradictions but specially any person doing so would also end up insane.]
I think that this that Kant noticed about the effect of thinking about spiritual things [making people insane] must have been noticed by him in his daily conversations. He was a great "socializer" as is not well known.
[ Rav Nahman's belief in the limits of wisdom is one of his most famous doctrines [I think it is mainly in LeM vol II]. There is a place in the "Hashmatot" at the end of the LeM [not printed in all editions] where he says openly that to wisdom was set a limit so that it could not expand beyond that limit.]
It is well known in the Lithuanian Yeshiva world that thinking about spiritual things is discouraged. Simply one ought to learn Gemara in depth and that is that.
[In short the less there is of this, the better.]
Also I am not saying that Kant needs to be taken here without a grain of salt. He certainly has a point. However it was Hegel who felt the dinge an sich is possible to get to and I also happen to have a lot of respect for a mystic of the Middle Ages Rav Avraham Abulafia. His approach to Jesus is certainly an eye opener. His basic idea is that Jesus would be someone along the lines of Joseph in Egypt. He calls him the חותם של יום הששי which you would think would refer to Yoseph, i.e. Foundation of Emanation. So why or in what way does Jesus fill that same job description?]
However there are ways of testing: It is not as if all religious systems are beyond testing. Not exactly scientific testing in a microscope. But rather in terms of character. And of course even with that people have free will so you can not get an exact result. For example it is rather clear that Nazi doctrines had something to do with WWII. So sometimes results can indicate something about a set of doctrines. You can see this also in Dante. The different levels of hell all have to do with traits of character. And clearly I have a feeling that Rav Nahman was right about a lot of stuff and the Gra and Rav Shach. So I do attribute to them a kind of sixth sense--an immediate non intuitive knowledge [not sensed with the five sense--but perhaps still sensed?]
So you can tell something about a religious belief because of the general kind of people that follow it.
Kant morals are universals
Kant was trying to capture something mentioned in the essay, “Why I am not an Objectivist” [by Dr. Huemer] i.e. that morals are universals. But they are different than universal laws. They are “oughts” not “is”. That is at least what I think he was trying to get at. [nd we can know universals as shown in the Critique about synthetic a prior which is equivalent to universals.--also as shown by Dr. Huemer in "Why I am not an Objectivist"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)