century of philosophy that is worthless and vacuous [both so called "analytic" and "continental"].

After a century of philosophy that is worthless and vacuous [both so called analytic and continental] it seems the main issue in philosophy is between Leonard Nelson and Hegel. Or more accurately between Nelson and McTaggart-- since Hegel without McTaggart is almost indecipherable] .

Analytic philosophy is worthless because it is all about analyzing language-- which means analysis of fiction; like a deep study in the physics of Tolkien's Rings. Language is 100% subjective; and has zero independent validity except for when you say "dog" that I understand a dog. There is nothing more. It all about the King's clothes--when he has no clothes.]
[Modern philosophy is elaborating endless variations on existing themes
And as Steven Dutch put it:
"Elaborating endless variations on existing themes is creativity in a sense, but not of the same order as coming up with wholly new classes of ideas. This is not a value judgment, it is simply being true to the accurate usage of words."

I see trust in God [Bitachon] as very important. That was ever since I saw the book Madragat HaAdam [of Navardok] at the Mir in NY. But how to implement trust in God in a practical sense has always been an issue for me. The way it worked at the Mir for other and for me was more or less to devote ourselves to learning Torah and taking it as a given that God would take care of everything else.. And that worked--for as long as I was there. But not so much since I left.

To me the issue seems always to be exactly how much effort do you do and how much do you cease efforts and trust in God. That may not tell you much about the inner heart, but it does relate to the practical aspect of trust.

Maimonides was working for Saladin (as a doctor)

If Maimonides was working for Saladin (as a doctor) the last ten years of his life that would mean he started worked for him about 7 years after Saladin conquered Jerusalem. [ But that would have been in 1191 about three years after Saladin lost to Richard I the Lion Heart [at Arsuf]; and thus Saladin lost control of most of Israel especially the coastal regions, but retained Jerusalem]. That also means that during that time Maimonides wrote the Guide for the Perplexed.



[Saladin was actually not an Arab but a Kurd, but was working for the Seluks in Egypt until he killed his employers and took over. His major rivalry was with the Caliph of Baghdad who was Abassid. [The Abassid's  ruled the Muslim world for about 500 years from 750  A.D. and on until 1254 A.D..]



It does not seem to me that the fact he was working for Saladin changed anything in the Guide. He had it all laid out in his mind from the time he was a teenager as he writes in the Commentary on the Mishna. He says openly he is going to write two more books. One collected all the laws and the other explaining the world view of the Torah.  It is somewhat along the lines of Aristotle and Plotinus (neo Plato). That is also the basic world view of the Hovot LeVavot [Obligations of the Heart as you can see in the very first section of that =the most important of all Musar books.] 

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.