We know Saadia Gaon was aware of mysticism. He wrote a commentary on Sefer Yezira. But did not think of it as authoritative. He did not borrow or use any idea from there when it came to understanding spiritual issues in his Emunot VeDeot.

Not did Ibn Pakuda [Author of the Obligations of the Hearts] nor the Rambam think of mysticism as a source or reliable knowledge, nor  a part of the commandment of learning Torah. When both of them expand the definition of learning Torah to include Physics and Metaphysics they do not include mysticism.

When the Rambam refers to Metaphysics he says quite openly in the Intro to the Guide  that he is referring to this subject as written down by the ancient Greeks. [Same with the Obligations of the Hearts on the first page of his introduction. And see later in Shar Ha'Behina 3.]

[I find great insights in the works of mystics like Rav Avraham Abulafia of the Middle Ages, but I do not consider that to be  a part of the written or oral law. Those are his personal revelations. Similarly to Rav Nahman of Breslov. In fact, if someone would be claiming that their personal insights come from Moses at Sinai, that would be  a problem. An example would be the Zohar. Insightful, but presented as being a part of the oral tradition. There is a kind of dishonesty in that.]

[Isaac of Acco met the author who exclaimed, may God strike him dead if he does not have a original copy in his house,-- and he would show him. But before Isaac got to his house, the author in fact died. [How inconvenient.] His wife swore there was no such original. (She said he sat there with nothing in front of him, and wrote it from his head.) But to me, the sure give away is "עם כל דא" a way of saying "although" invented by the Ibn Tibon family. I just can not force myself to read what is obviously a forgery, no matter how inspiring it might be.]


[Just for the record, I did learn a lot of the Ari/Rav Isaac Luria however I understand him as being like Rav Nahman in that he is just saying over his personal revelations, and not claiming that they are from Sinai. I never saw anything in the Ari that was claiming that these were oral traditions going back in time. ]

Instead of fiction I suggest Physics and Math. Why is it that people gravitate towards fiction? Because it is relaxing. However that does not mean not to do Physics at all. People have an idea that if they do not understand then what is the point? But there is a point. To be connected with the Wisdom of God.
So what people need is to first have the idea that they are not wasting their time by doing so and rather that they are fulfilling a commandment of God.

[As the Rishonim [mediaeval authorities] explain that to fulfill the commandment of love and fear of God is by learning Physics and Metaphysics. (When Rishonim like Ibn Pakuda or the Rambam refer to Metaphysics they explain exactly what they mean: the subject as defined by the ancient Greeks. Not mysticism. See the very introduction to the Guide of the Rambam and the very first page of the Obligations of the Hearts.]

Also people need the idea of doing this first thing in the morning after a cup of coffee.
If school is out, this is all the better. You get a chance to do this before having to run out and get to school or to work. After all, it is the first hour after you wake up that is the proper time to do this learning.

[Also I would suggest to have coffee and tea in the same cup. The reason the kind of lift that you get from coffee is a short burst. The lift from tea is more drawn out over a longer period.]

As Allan Bloom said the political question is solved once and for all: the Constitution of the USA

There is an intersection between philosophy and politics. But what is it exactly and why is it? And why does it always seem to get politics in a way that seems contrary to sense?
Politics should be the art of creating a prosperous and happy society. As Allan Bloom said the political question is solved once and for all: the Constitution of the USA. But that came about with almost zero input from philosophy. Few had even heard of John Locke.  They simply did not want Parliament interfering with their internal affairs. And when the King refused to back up the colonists, then that was the end of their loyalty towards George III.
The Constitution had mainly to do with the evolution of English Law.

Philosophy on the other hand seems to build these castles in the sky that have nothing to do with reality.

When I was in high school I saw  a film about the black plague. And from my reading about history I have an idea of what plagues were like. This seems to be different.
It might not be made by Communist China in order to cripple the economy of the USA, but it might have been a convenient chance to do so.

I mean to say that I grew up during a time when there was a kind of rivalry between the USSR and the USA. And in spite of attempts, and even many people of good will on both sides, still there was still the reality of each side hoping the other would go down.

I would not be surprised if China was thinking along the same lines--to see the end of the capitalistic West. 

w78 G Major  [w78 in midi format]

Robert Hanna suggested a way to differentiate between different Kantian  and Husserl approaches. Strong and weak. So in terms of "dinge an sich" (things in themselves) there might be the strong transcendental,-- we can not know not even if they exist. The weak approach might be: They exist, but we do not know anything about them.  Hegel would say to this we do not know now,- but we will in the future.

You actually see this in Rav Nahman [Breslov] in the left out parts of the LeM {Hashmatot} where he says that when Reason was first created it was expanding without limit. And then God set a boundary for it. So that boundary can be itself expanding.

[Robert Hanna was not the first to notice the problems with 20th century philosophy. It might have been Allan Bloom. In any case I saw this first in the blog of Dr. Kelley Ross, who is also suggesting a kind if "forward to Kant" but in particular the brand of Leonard Nelson and Fries. However I can see that Hegel and other people after Kant had some good points. And a further confusing issue is how does anything in philosophy relate political structures?]

[Kant had a few people after him and Fries was one of the least popular. However he does have a justification for faith that makes sense to me.]

Laws of Slaves. Section 5. law 3 in the Rambam. Letting a slave go free in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri

The basic idea of letting a slave go free comes from a Gemara and is brought in Laws of Slaves. Section 5. law 3 in  the Rambam. Kinyan Sudar [handkerchief] does not work to the Rambam. but it does to the Raavad. [Normally letting a slave go free is by a document, or money, or injury. So what about exchange? or Handkerchief?  The handkerchief might work if it has a penny's worth.  This seems to be an argument between the Rambam and Raavad. But neither makes a distinction if the handkerchief is worth more than a penny!]
This comes directly from a Gemara where in fact someone tried to let his maid servant go by throwing a vessel at her. He threw it and said "by this you are let go". Rav Nahman [of the Gemara, not of Breslov] said that does not work. And the Gemara concludes the reason is because the vessel belonged to the owner.
So if it had belonged to the maid servant she would have been freed. So this looks like a straightforward proof to the Tosphot Ri''d that marrying by means of a handkerchief would work of the handkerchief is worth more than a pruta/penny.

What makes this hard to understand is that barter itself ("halifin") does seem to be in the category of money since it works only if each object is worth more than a penny. And that is not the same as with acquisition by handkerchief.

So could Lincoln legally free the slaves? It seems to me that it was not legal simply because the Constitution granted to Federal government only specific powers.  If he had powers granted by the Constitution that however would have been Okay. But it seems that that was not one of the powers granted to a president. As for the war itself, that I guess has been argued about but it also seems almost as clear as the first point--but not as clear. After all it seems not to be within the right of the Federal government to force the states to stay within the Union. It also seems like over stepping the bounds of the powers granted by the Constitution.