Faith and Reason was  not exactly a new idea in the Middle Ages. To combine Torah with Plato was already around from Philo. But to get the way they fit together was a Middle Ages invention. It was not to interpret the Bible as an allegory.

But faith with reason underwent a change because of Descartes's Mind-Body problem. Where is mind and reason valid? What do they measure. To get to the original synthesis of the Middle ages of Revelation with Reason you need to understand to extent and validity of reason.

How far can you trust spiritual experiences to tell you accurate data? Maybe a lot? Maybe not where it disagrees with Reason? But then where is the realm of Reason? 

To my way of thinking Kant and Hegel are helpful to answer these questions. Yet Hegel has been significantly mangled up by people wishing to use his rich wealth of ideas for their political purposes. And Kant is not so much behind that in terms of  misuse.

My opinion is that both the school of thought of Leonard Nelson based on Fries and Kant is helpful along with Hegel. I do not see them as much in conflict as is  thought.

With Fries you have faith-i.e. immediate non intuitive knowledge. That is knowledge not based on reason or senses for areas outside of "conditions of experience." But with Hegel you find that reason can get through the veil of perception by means of dialectic. So while reason is to some degree  a negative force limiting what you can know, it also makes progress towards the Absolute Spirit.

https://www.infowars.com/watch-alex-jones-message-to-the-new-world-order/

They are saying that Dr Fauci has not seen a patient for 20 years. He is an academic in an ivory tower. He based his conclusions on models which were wildly wrong.  Now that actual data is in we can see the difference between what was predicted by models as opposed to actual facts.
However I think this is  a great opportunity to catch up on figuring out how to building star ships.

D Major index number w76

people can believe a lot of stuff

You can see that people can believe a lot of stuff. And often it is a mixed bag. So you can also see why after clarity was brought into nature and gravity by Isaac Newton, that people thought they could extend that same process to bring clarity into things like politics, or spiritual issues.

But the attempts of philosophy, nor of political science actually succeed. Still there has been some progress. Though it can not be proven, still it looks that Kant was right about the limits of reason. So that also places limits on what you can talk about in terms of spiritual matters. [I mean that logic has limits and also limits about what you can say about spiritual things.] And Politics also made great progress in the creation of the Constitution of the USA.

Some people noted that philosophy after Kant and Hegel [especially 20th century] went seriously off the wires, crash dived,  wiped out. But as Robert Hanna made note of, much of the effort to get things back on track was ignored. John Searle made a famous comment about most of twentieth century philosophy, "It is obviously false."
[I am not sure why Robert Hanna does not mention Leonard Nelson or Hegel.]



[Robert Hanna came up with the idea "Forward To Kant" but does not hold from the Neo-Kant School of thought-- Marburg. So what about Leonard Nelson? Or Hegel? Now Hegel tends to be a bit obscure, however he becomes clear with McTaggart. [I only learned McTaggart a little bit but mainly I saw his commentary on Hegel's Logic--that is the part of his Encyclopedia.] So I think after you would throw out twentieth century philosophy, you would still end up with having to get back to Nelson and McTaggart. 

Rav Shach brings the Tosphot Bava Metzia page 47 [in the beginning of Laws of Marriage in the Rambam]

Rav Shach brings the Tosphot Bava Metzia page 47 [in the beginning of Laws of Marriage in the Rambam] that says there are two kinds of exchange: (1) barter and (2) handkerchief. [It does not have to be a  handkerchief. It could be any vessel.] The buyer takes a handkerchief and gives it to the seller and by that acquires the vessels or whatever the seller is selling. Now actual barter only works for vessels. Not fruit for fruit. But barter has to be for least a penny on both sides. The "kinyan sudar" does not need to be worth a pruta (penny).
But the barter does not have a law of overcharging, because this one wants a  needle and that one wants a coat of armor. [In that way barter is not like monetary exchange. But kinyan Sudar is  not like monetary exchange from the side of its own worth, but what about overcharging if it is used to seal a deal? There are so many questions here about the opinions and reasons for the Rambam I can see why Rav Shach just wrote this piece in short form.]

So barter  has this odd kind of  state. It is on the first way like a deal made with money. But the other side of things it is not like money. Deals made with money have  a law of overcharging. [Up to 1/5 the money is returned. More than 1/5 the deal is nullified.] 
So we know what the Tosphot R''id holds in terms of marriage. He spells it out. If the handkerchief is more than a penny's worth it is a deal made by money [so valid].

But the Rambam? Would he agree? I think not. After all the whole difference about the barter is not really relevant to the handkerchief. There seems to be no reason to think the Rambam would agree with the Ri''d.

Remember Lot's Wife: Diabolical Narcissism, the Overarching Global Pathology

American history

 But I believe American history is not taught well.  My eyes opened when I read Daniel Defoe's pamphlets from the 1700's and I began to see where all the issues that were facing the founding fathers all stemmed from: England. The powers of the King as opposed to Parliament.
I believe that without thorough knowledge of English history that American history is impossible to understand. In particular the years from 1700 until 1776.
[It is a lot easier to understand the Bill of Rights if you see the same issues in England.]



I think to understand the USA at all, one needs to start from Edward I and in fact even William the Conqueror.


I should add that I got real criticism from the teacher of AP History. And he was right. I had no feeling or concept of USA history. But what was I lacking? I realized what I was lacking recently when I read Daniel Defoe. [I recall that I passed the class, but still what was lacking in my understanding? It now know it was the background of the issues back into English history.]