you really understand more than you know.

It seems to me that I ought to add one thing about learning whether the Oral or Written Law or Math and Physics. I mentioned already the idea of "Girsa" [saying the words and going on]. But I wanted to add the idea of starting each day where you left off until you finish the book. [That is for the important fast session. The in-depth sessions should be with more review.]
But this depends on the idea that you really understand more than you know. You think that you did not understand. But in fact, it gets absorbed and grows in the secret recesses of your heart and mind and comes to fruition only years later.

Michael Huemer holds that no government is legit. But also he is for capitalism. So for security he would have private firms.
It kind of reminds me of when the Roman Empire fell and who ever could get enough people to back him up made a castle in which people could have protection from the roving bands of robbers that filled the vacuum. And for the security that the lord of the castle provided people worked for him as serfs. I.e the feudal system.

Now I am not being critical of that. After all the feudal system is one stage that led to the Renaissance.
But the  critique that applies is the contained in the Federalist papers. There there is a not a lot of history but they are assuming their readers are familiar with the history of places that bounced back and forth between tyranny and anarchy from the fall of Rome until their days. So they were not happy with the idea of anarchy, or even a weak government.
One point in the Federalist papers was that those who profess to speak for the right of the people always bring about tyranny. Even more recently we have seen plenty of examples--the USSR, Nazi Germany are just two more famous examples of demigods who got power by their constant claim of upholding the right of the people [i.e. Ethnic Germans of the "working class"] against the government.

One thing that might make the American Constitution better than schemes of philosophers is that teh founding fathers were learning from history more than philosophy. The thing is nowadays no one really knows the history that they were learning from except experts in those areas. The warring Italian states ( in Greece) provided plenty of material for the founding fathers of the USA to learn from mistakes of "all power to the people" that goes directly to tyranny; and then that is thrown off again to all power to the people etc.

Tosphot Ri''d right in the beginning of Kidushin

kinyan sudar [acquisition by handkerchief] and kinyan halifin [acquisition by barter] are kind of similar. But there is  a difference according to Tosphot in Bava Metzia 47 and Rav Shach brings in the beginning of laws of marriage that you see the same in the Rambam.

The handkerchief does not need a penny. But for acquisition by barter each thing needs to be at least a penny.
So this provides a simple answer for the Tosphot Ri''d right in the beginning of Kidushin that says if the handkerchief would have a penny's worth the marriage would be valid.
If the handkerchief would be exchanged for the a barter then the marriage would be valid.

This is however a bit awkward. The only thing the gemara actually excludes from being able to marry a woman is halifin/barter. To get this to make sense you would have to say that the Gemara is really referring to kinyan sudar. Now on one hand kinyan sudar is a kind of barter, but still the whole thing is curious.

[For people that are not familiar with these ideas let me just say that the basic idea of the handkerchief is brought in the Book of Ruth and it means the one that is buying something hand over a handkerchief and by that acquires what he is buying. And he can get his handkerchief back. [Or any kind of vessel.] It is like barter in some ways. So for example when I get married at the signing of the Ketubah I would have to hand over a handkerchief and by that acquire the property of my wife for its fruits--not that actual physical property which she still owns. Only the fruit. So when we say מה שקנה אישה קנה בעלה what a woman acquire automatically is acquired to her husband means property that she acquires after she is already married.

if one gets up in the morning and is right away accepting on himself the yoke of Torah, that is that he or she will not listen to anyone and not let anything distract him or her, then on that he he will succeed in Torah;- and according to the degree of commitment, to that same degree there will be removed from him the yoke of the state and the yoke of having to run around for making a living.

Rav Haim of Voloshin [a disciple of the Gra] that it is a well tested thing that if one gets up in the morning and is right away accepting on himself the yoke of Torah, that is that he or she will not listen to anyone and not let anything distract him or her, then on that he he will succeed in Torah;- and according to the degree of commitment, to that same degree there will be removed from him the yoke of the state and the yoke of having to run around for making a living. [note 1]

[This same idea is brought in Avot which is a part of the Mishna]

I want to add to this Physics and Mathematics as brought in some rishonim [but not all.] We know already the opinion of the Saadia Gaon, Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam. However the Ramban [Nahmanides] is less clear."Less clear "means we know he is not thrilled about Aristotle, but what about learning the natural sciences? There the Ramban/Nahmanides  is unclear to me. At least the Rambam we know  what he thinks.

[Few people are aware of this. They think of learning as something you do with a goal in mind of using the learning somehow. They do not see learning in itself as the highest goal. תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם

[note 1] אמר רב חיים מוואלשין דבר מנוסה כשאדם ישכים בבוקר ויקבל על עצמו ביום ההוא  עול תורה באמת  היינו שיגמור בליבו שלא ישמע לשום אדם ולא יבטלנו שום טרדה אזי יצליח ביום ההוא בתורה וכפי גודל הקבלה ותוקף ההסכמה כן יסירו הטרדות והביטולים ממנו 

I must admit I am no where near this great level of service of God, but I just wanted to bring this in the hope of conveying understanding to others and then I hope that like a mirror perhaps a little bit of understanding will enter into me too.

Politics the way it is, as opposed to how intellectuals think it ought to be.

There is an odd kind of dividing line between the way politics really is a the way intellectuals think it ought to be.

Prosperity and freedom  go hand in hand along with the influence of England. The difference between any place that has once been an English colony and anywhere else is striking. The USA Australia, Hong Kong, India etc. [Any place that has once had English law imposed on it by force is now free and prosperous.  Even Japan which had English institutions imposed on it (by the USA) by force is now a first world power. ]

And yet England and its institutions were never founded on deep philosophical ideas.
Even the very existence of Parliament was because Edward I needed money. [Edward I is not my favorite English King.] [Can you imagine if England's institutions had been founded on some philosopher? Right about that. It would be a disaster.]

Is maybe politics is inherently not an exact science. Still how people that analyze it get it so wrong is curious. Why should it be more wrong that other things that are not exact sciences like medicine? Or maybe that is exactly the point? Medicine also tends to be highly subjective.


Edward I needed money. the heads of towns and villages had revenue by not the king. So the king made Parliament so the representative had to give money to the king in order to be able to sit in Parliament. That is no representation without taxation.

[I am not being critical of all people that think of a connection between politics and philosophy.
Kelley Ross of the Kant Friesian school of thought does suggest a connection between Kant idea of individual autonomy and the system of the USA Constitution. That seems to be right.]
Michael Huemer holds from no government but with private property. However this issue was addressed o the Federalist Papers. The idea of separate corporations being in charge of security seems to be destined to be such that alliances are made between them that anyway become a default government based on power and force.

Bell's inequality

Things they just do not have classical values of time or position in space until measured. Because of Bell's inequality it could have been the case that things are simultaneous or that things do not have classical values. Since the first way is not true since we know that Relativity is right so the only thing left is the second.The actual case in hand was thought up by Einstein and it was Bell who showed the predictions of QM are different than classical mechanics. At any rate, we know that time is just this very odd kind of thing. It was already odd with special relativity. It just got even more odd with Bell. Kant thought that reason just can not understand it at all. But with Hegel there is hope since reason can make progress towards understanding.

[How do we know that Relativity is right? By GPS satellites. If Relativity would be off they would be off by a few miles every day.]


The point that lots of people get wrong is they think there is simultaneity.  There was a lecture by Coleman and another by Gell-Mann showing this point that I said up above.

w79 G major   [w79 in midi format]