25.3.20
Corona 19
Corona 19 tends to spread to two people. [i.e. 1 2 4 8 16 32 ...] That kind of expansion grows fast. So the rate of spreading is like atomic fission. That is why governments are shutting down. It is serious, but not in the same way that people understand. Also it has incubation up until 14 days.
In any case this gives one a good chance to stay home and get through Shas [the Two Talmuds], Rav Shach's Avi Ezri, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, and Algebraic Topology which most people are behind schedule in any case. This certainly gives one a chance to catch up.
In any case this gives one a good chance to stay home and get through Shas [the Two Talmuds], Rav Shach's Avi Ezri, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, and Algebraic Topology which most people are behind schedule in any case. This certainly gives one a chance to catch up.
A major goal in Hegel was to come to freedom. Not all that different from Leonard Nelson.
Kant and Hegel. See Walter Kaufman on Hegel which shows that a major goal in Hegel was to come to freedom. That is not how his system was used later by Marxists.
One thing you always know about Socialism is that it is always trying get to "equality" by means of force.
Analytic Philosophy came about more or less as a response to the many unhappy movements that seem to have based themselves on Hegel. [WWI also got a lot of people to doubt Hegel].
Leonard Nelson took a Kantian direction. Somewhat like Hegel in building on his predecessors [Kant and Fries] but went beyond.
Nelson sought axioms on which to base philosophy and morality. Somewhat like David Hilbert thought to do with Math and Physics.
Sometimes axioms disagree with what Reason recognizes as objective moral principles. [E.g. It is wrong to torture people for the fun of it.] So finding true axioms is important, but should not be used against facts.
To me it seems the starting axioms ought to be the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.
That is certainly how the sages understood the Ten Commandments as being the core principles behind many other laws.
In any case it is clear that both Hegel and Nelson saw Philosophy as something that is built up over time and reaches definite conclusions. But Axioms did not place any role in Hegel. Rather his building blocks were the dialectic.
In any case, I tend to see both Hegel and Nelson as having things important to help me shape my world view. [CAN these three things work together? I.e. Common sense reason that recognizes moral principles, axioms and the dialectic?]
It is harder to see how Hegel got to be used by so many pernicious movements being basically a traditional Christian and Capitalist. [However I did find it odd that in former USSR areas when I asked people how things had been under the USSR as compared to now the answer was always "It was better then." And sometimes they went into details. It seemed to me that the Russian experience was different than the WASP [White Anglo Saxon Protestant] that founded the USA.
One thing you always know about Socialism is that it is always trying get to "equality" by means of force.
Analytic Philosophy came about more or less as a response to the many unhappy movements that seem to have based themselves on Hegel. [WWI also got a lot of people to doubt Hegel].
Leonard Nelson took a Kantian direction. Somewhat like Hegel in building on his predecessors [Kant and Fries] but went beyond.
Nelson sought axioms on which to base philosophy and morality. Somewhat like David Hilbert thought to do with Math and Physics.
Sometimes axioms disagree with what Reason recognizes as objective moral principles. [E.g. It is wrong to torture people for the fun of it.] So finding true axioms is important, but should not be used against facts.
To me it seems the starting axioms ought to be the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.
That is certainly how the sages understood the Ten Commandments as being the core principles behind many other laws.
In any case it is clear that both Hegel and Nelson saw Philosophy as something that is built up over time and reaches definite conclusions. But Axioms did not place any role in Hegel. Rather his building blocks were the dialectic.
In any case, I tend to see both Hegel and Nelson as having things important to help me shape my world view. [CAN these three things work together? I.e. Common sense reason that recognizes moral principles, axioms and the dialectic?]
It is harder to see how Hegel got to be used by so many pernicious movements being basically a traditional Christian and Capitalist. [However I did find it odd that in former USSR areas when I asked people how things had been under the USSR as compared to now the answer was always "It was better then." And sometimes they went into details. It seemed to me that the Russian experience was different than the WASP [White Anglo Saxon Protestant] that founded the USA.
24.3.20
The odd thing is philosophers generally have a very high IQ. The highest IQ in universities are the people in Physics. (The lowest are the one is psychology departments. If you ever wondered why are psychologists so stupid and malicious, this might help answer your question.)
So it is curious that philosophers get so much wrong in subjects like time and space. Either they want to take down natural science since "we can not know anything" [according to their theories of post modernism]. Or they want to "help science."
People in Physics might naturally say, "Thanks anyway for your help. We would rather do without it."[i.e. "Leave us alone."]
Okay, so why is this? Most of the professors are very smart. It can not be they are missing this.
I would like to suggest the path of learning of "saying the words and going on." [Called" girsa".]
If people would do this with Physics and Math--even if their major is in philosophy, they would surely not be ignorant about physics. There would be less confusion about Relativity and QM.
So it is curious that philosophers get so much wrong in subjects like time and space. Either they want to take down natural science since "we can not know anything" [according to their theories of post modernism]. Or they want to "help science."
People in Physics might naturally say, "Thanks anyway for your help. We would rather do without it."[i.e. "Leave us alone."]
Okay, so why is this? Most of the professors are very smart. It can not be they are missing this.
I would like to suggest the path of learning of "saying the words and going on." [Called" girsa".]
If people would do this with Physics and Math--even if their major is in philosophy, they would surely not be ignorant about physics. There would be less confusion about Relativity and QM.
Objective morality does not depend on axioms. As Dr Michael Huemer pointed out, there might be no algorithm to figure things out what is moral and what is not.
But even so you do what to have basic starting points so you do not end up with a regress of reasons or reasons that are self contradictory or have axioms that make no sense.
But even so you do what to have basic starting points so you do not end up with a regress of reasons or reasons that are self contradictory or have axioms that make no sense.
So I can see why trust in God was thought in Navardok [and in the teachings of Rav Nahman also to some degree] as your starting axiom.And to a great degree this was carried over into the entire Lithuanian yeshiva world--to a lesser degree than it had been in Navardok but still thought to be a major first principle.
[So at the Mir when I was there, there were few basic assumptions. The actual first one was learning Torah. No surprise there. And that is quite valid. See the Nedesh HaHaim of Rav Haim of Voloshin for details. But also where a few other axioms. Trust in God [that means in that sense -to learn Torah and not worry about making a living. When it comes time to make a living God will help.]; not to speak Lason Hara (that was a big principle); kindness when others need help; being extremely careful about monetary issues--that is to be scrupulous/ careful to the nth degree. In general a major emphasis on good character traits.] [I can not say how much of that wore off on me, but I hope some did.]
[In terms of how I started out, it was Leonard Nelson that was building on axioms trying to develop the intent of David Hilbert of putting Philosophy on axioms--as Hilbert wanted for Mathematics and Physics]
Secular Morality usually starts with highly doubtful axioms. They find some slogan which sounds good and then base everything on that. And those slogans change with the tides.
[So at the Mir when I was there, there were few basic assumptions. The actual first one was learning Torah. No surprise there. And that is quite valid. See the Nedesh HaHaim of Rav Haim of Voloshin for details. But also where a few other axioms. Trust in God [that means in that sense -to learn Torah and not worry about making a living. When it comes time to make a living God will help.]; not to speak Lason Hara (that was a big principle); kindness when others need help; being extremely careful about monetary issues--that is to be scrupulous/ careful to the nth degree. In general a major emphasis on good character traits.] [I can not say how much of that wore off on me, but I hope some did.]
[In terms of how I started out, it was Leonard Nelson that was building on axioms trying to develop the intent of David Hilbert of putting Philosophy on axioms--as Hilbert wanted for Mathematics and Physics]
Secular Morality usually starts with highly doubtful axioms. They find some slogan which sounds good and then base everything on that. And those slogans change with the tides.
The Mishna says תעשה ולא מן העשוי ["'Make a thread on the four corners of your garment', do not make from what is already made"] and the gemara in Menakot [40b] asks on this from R. Zira who said: "If one puts tzitzit on a four cornered garment that already has four blue threads, then it is valid."
Rava said: "He transgresses 'thou shalt not add to these commandments,' and so the act is invalid." Rav Papa said: "The difference between the Mishna and R Zira is if one intends to add or to nullify."
Rava is hard to understand. If you would have only Rav Papa things would seem clear.
Rav Shach in Laws of Tzitzit I:15, brings that the explanation of Rava is an argument between most other Rishonim that say he is agreeing with R Zira. The Rambam says he is disagreeing.
I have some thoughts about this sugia.
But first let me try to make it clear.
First the case is where you have four and then one more is added. Then you take off the forth and leave the fifth.
Mishna: invalid.
R. Zira: Valid.
Rav Papa. Intending to add is the Mishna. Intending to nullify the forth is valid.
If you understand Rava as disagreeing with Rav Zira [that is Rambam] that means he thinks adding a fifth means even after taking off the forth it is still invalid. That means Rava would be disagreeing with Rav Papa also and saying that it makes no difference what his intention was.
But if Rava is coming to agree with R Zira it seems odd to say that it is valid because the deed of adding was not a "act" and so taking off the forth would be the beginning of putting on the fifth. This seems hard to understand for me.\\\\
There are here so many variables flying around that this is the exact type of thing that it is helpful to have a learning partner with high IQ.
You can place Rava (against Rav Papa) as saying the side of transgression is when the garment is OK because the act is not an act [Raavad] ;or with Rav Papa in the opposite sense-- that the side of transgression is when the act is not an act, and so only when he intends to nullify the previous thread is it OK (That is like the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Joseph Karo and the Rambam).
And you still do not know of perhaps the meaning is even to take off the forth thread or the extra fifth that the other is null also because of the same principle, "Make, but not from what is made", since even the forth was null while the 5th was on. So taking off the fifth should not make the 4th valid because it is a case of "make not from what is made".
In any case, my learning partner, David Bronson with whom I was learning in Uman was perfect for this kind of thing-- where just off hand I can count at least 20 or more permutations of how to fit this sugia together. But on my own I think this will take a long time to get to any clarity.
A side note here is that it is important to not that adding "extra" makes the whole thing null. This is why you would have in the world of Lithuanian types of yeshivot that "adding extra" of more than what the Law requires is looked at negatively. You see that principle here. The Law requires four tzitziot [blue threads] on a garment with four corners. Putting on a fifth one does not get one extra credit. It nulifies all the other four. So from this one can learn the lesson that what the Law requires it requires, not less and not more. Adding more than that nullifies everything.
Rava said: "He transgresses 'thou shalt not add to these commandments,' and so the act is invalid." Rav Papa said: "The difference between the Mishna and R Zira is if one intends to add or to nullify."
Rava is hard to understand. If you would have only Rav Papa things would seem clear.
Rav Shach in Laws of Tzitzit I:15, brings that the explanation of Rava is an argument between most other Rishonim that say he is agreeing with R Zira. The Rambam says he is disagreeing.
I have some thoughts about this sugia.
But first let me try to make it clear.
First the case is where you have four and then one more is added. Then you take off the forth and leave the fifth.
Mishna: invalid.
R. Zira: Valid.
Rav Papa. Intending to add is the Mishna. Intending to nullify the forth is valid.
If you understand Rava as disagreeing with Rav Zira [that is Rambam] that means he thinks adding a fifth means even after taking off the forth it is still invalid. That means Rava would be disagreeing with Rav Papa also and saying that it makes no difference what his intention was.
But if Rava is coming to agree with R Zira it seems odd to say that it is valid because the deed of adding was not a "act" and so taking off the forth would be the beginning of putting on the fifth. This seems hard to understand for me.\\\\
There are here so many variables flying around that this is the exact type of thing that it is helpful to have a learning partner with high IQ.
You can place Rava (against Rav Papa) as saying the side of transgression is when the garment is OK because the act is not an act [Raavad] ;or with Rav Papa in the opposite sense-- that the side of transgression is when the act is not an act, and so only when he intends to nullify the previous thread is it OK (That is like the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Joseph Karo and the Rambam).
And you still do not know of perhaps the meaning is even to take off the forth thread or the extra fifth that the other is null also because of the same principle, "Make, but not from what is made", since even the forth was null while the 5th was on. So taking off the fifth should not make the 4th valid because it is a case of "make not from what is made".
In any case, my learning partner, David Bronson with whom I was learning in Uman was perfect for this kind of thing-- where just off hand I can count at least 20 or more permutations of how to fit this sugia together. But on my own I think this will take a long time to get to any clarity.
A side note here is that it is important to not that adding "extra" makes the whole thing null. This is why you would have in the world of Lithuanian types of yeshivot that "adding extra" of more than what the Law requires is looked at negatively. You see that principle here. The Law requires four tzitziot [blue threads] on a garment with four corners. Putting on a fifth one does not get one extra credit. It nulifies all the other four. So from this one can learn the lesson that what the Law requires it requires, not less and not more. Adding more than that nullifies everything.
23.3.20
"locality". There are time and space, but things just do not take any values in these things until measured.
With Bell's inequality we would have to give up one of two things. Either locality [local action], or that things have values in time and space before measured. We can not give up the first so it is the second that must be given up. [The reason people think that because of Bell that we must give up the first is based on this ambiguity. Bell did show something but not what he thought nor what people think he showed.] I should add that with Bell there still are time and space, but things just do not take any values in these things until measured.
The thing that I find curious is the infinite mass and charge of bare particles. When interacting particles are fine it is the bare particle that always has this infinite mass and charge.
Though the way this is dealt with is by re-normalization, still that is a way of dealing with a problem, but which does not make the problem go away.
So what this looks like to me is somewhat like Kant. Not that space and time are subjective but rather dinge an sich [things in themselves that we do not have access to.] And then mass and charge also.
[Besides that most things seem to be at the core a kind of thing going back and forth [A WAVE]-a harmonic oscillator --makes me wonder, "what is doing the oscillating?"]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)