The way of learning when I was in public high school was by reading--not saying the words- and taking tests. That did not really click with me. Especially taking tests.

The way of learning in Shar Yashuv [the first Litvak yeshiva I was in after high school] emphasized review.
Rav Freifeld in fat used to recommend learning through each chapter of Gemara ten times.

But I had also heard about the idea of learning fast by saying the words and not looking back. This I heard of even before I had heard of Rav Nahman of Breslov. This later method of learning is brought in one of the classical books of Musar {Mediaeval Musar/Ethics}.

To me it seems there ought to be a combination of this fact time along with the type of review.


The question is what to apply these two methods to. My approach is to emphasize The Law of Moses. That is to learn the Written Law [the Old Testament], Oral Law  (to get through the two Talmuds at least once with every Tosphot and Maharsha), Physics and Metaphysics.

There is an aspect of Torah that has to do with the group. How do you spend your time learning what no one else cares about and which does not relate to you directly?
I am not saying this ought to be the case, but you are learning about laws of what a wife can sell and the whole vast subject of Ketuboth. Let's say for arguments sake that no one else in the world would care about that?
This gives almost by definition the desire to be respected enough when you learn that so that what you say about it should be at least taken into account. But what if not only you but the laws themselves where no at all cared about?

This gives a certainly motivation to be more interested or at least but the centre of gravity of your learning on what is objectively  the part of God's Law that is in Creation itself. Physics. That is objective and can not be ignored.

However Torah even as it relates to people also in not subjective. It is objective morality. However it makes it hard to be all that interested when it seems your efforts go evaporate into thin air.

The idea that the Law of God is what you see in Creation itself is  a theme that comes up a lot in Rav Nahman of Uman and Breslov.  [This is one area that is a bit hard to figure out what Rav Nahman held. For it is fairly clear he was  against secular learning. What he calls "outer wisdoms". To me it seems that one has to make a difference between man made wisdoms that are not a part of objective reality and between God's wisdom as contained in Creation.



[What I mean by subjective is like languages. If not for the way the person listening to you understands what you mean by saying dog the "d" with the "g" and the "o" in the middle would mean nothing. Language is 100% subjective. Objective is for example the dog itself. It does not care about what people call it.]

w56 Allegro in F major

Do numbers exist?

Dr. Michael Huemer holds that universals [like numbers] exist, but they depend on the existence of particulars. [The regular idea of Aristotle.] [I see he put up an essay "An Argument against Nominalism"] 
This makes sense to me. But it does not seem to conflict with Divine Simplicity since I also hold with Kant at least to the degree that Reason does not comprehend any area that is outside of conditions of experience. [Things in themselves].

As Huemer puts it: "trees exist". Same with "two." There can be two rocks. Two people. Twos of lots of things. But you do not stub your toe running into a "two" lying on the sidewalk.

[Divine simplicity is the idea that God is simple. Not parts, ingredients. Not a composite. But you might add with Kant that there is nothing that pure reason can comprehend about God, because he is not with "conditions of possible experience". That is he is in the realms of "things in themselves".]

[This is one area that Hegel disagreed with Kant in that he held there can be access to dinge an sich. Incidentally that is also the view of Leonard Nelson in saying that we can access the dinge an sich  by means of immediate non intuitive knowledge.. Huemer goes with prima facie probability.

That is to say it would take a lot of evidence to show that trees do not exists.  That places the burden on the "philosopher" to show trees have nothing in common.

bezmenov had a YouTube video about how the KGB used most of its resources on infiltrating the USA and turning it to communism by means of infiltration subversion, Not the usual kind of activity associated with the KGB and Thrush in Man from Uncle. He was a high ranking officer in the KGB but defected. It could be similar activity might have been going on to subvert the Vatican also.


bezmenov U tube


[On the other hand it would have taken a lot more resources than the KGB actually had in order to do that. Probably it was like a chain. Socialism had a lot of professors  that were teaching it.]

If you have ever been part of even the most healthy and straightest and best of religious groups like the Litvak Yeshiva world you might know that even in the best of groups there is an aspect of cultism. And that leaves you wondered were you part of a decent group or part of a cult.

But I say that these categories can overlap.

Just to give an example. Take Adi Da. Clearly a cult. And yet there probably some aspects of legitimate teachings also. Or Scientology. Same thing.
These are clearly cults and yet probably had some aspects of benefit.
So the question is not whether the group is a cult or legitimate. Nor how much of a percent is each one. Rather the question is that of cyanide. You do not care how much cyanide is in your chocolate pudding. If there is any at all --that is already too much.

So even if you are part of a good group there still can be plenty of things to be wary of.  The Dark Side can get into everything. Especially in the religious world.

The way I see marriage nowadays is in this way. If you would know that after ten years she will take everything from you and poison your children against you would you still go into it?
For some people the answer is yes. It is that important to have children. But many others would say no.
That is why I just do not see marriage as the best idea. It makes no difference how determined you are to make it work since there is another person involved who learned the right words to convince you.

And what about the simple option of פילגש? If it is good enough for Jacob our forefather why should it not be good enough for me? In any case, it is a argument among the rishonim but I see it nowadays as the best approach. To the Ramban [Nachmanides], Raavad and most other rishonim it is perfectly allowed.