Anti Enlightenment started almost at the same time as the Enlightenment. And Allan Bloom claims that this difficulty is what is at the root of the malice and sickness in the universities.

But he leaves out Kant and Hegel. Why? [I think that he must have thought they did not solve the problem-- even though clearly both meant to.]

I wrote all this before so why am I repeating this? Because of an added thought that Friedrich Jacobi  was on the opposite side of the Enlightenment and it was his idea of faith [or immediate knowledge [not through reason] and not through the senses] that was a target of Hegel.
This is in spite of the fact that both Kant and were trying to get to God--the Absolute Spirit.
But they thought that subjective faith was not the way.

The other interesting thought is that the root of this difficulty in some way I think was even back in the Middle Ages when the conflict between Reason and Faith was a major issue. But in the Middle Ages it was thought that there must be a way to synthesize them.

W81 G minor  [w81 in midi format] [w81 nwc]

w80 in mp3 format   w80 in midi format [w80 nwc format]

Rav Nahman of Breslov had a wealth of great ideas and advice but his main emphasis was on medicine for people's soul's. Medicine is not the same as food. So while Rav Nahman has great advice for particular problems, that does not mean to simple decide "to be Breslov". You might ask what is wrong with that? The problem is it is like a kid walking into a pharmacy, and picking out all the different medicines that have pretty colors.  Is there any question about how long this would last?

That is why I tend to emphasize the Gra and the Musar approach of Rav Israel Salanter in order to have an idea of the basic structure of Torah. Then within that context, Rav Nahman can be very helpful.

I learned a lot from my experiences at Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway and the Mir. And I learned a lot from the great sages, Rav Freifeld, the founder of Shar Yashuv and Rav Shmuel Berenbaum. I mean to say it was not just book learning, but also I stuck around these great sages and thus learned a lot by osmosis.

[However it was not until later when learning with David Bronson, that the basic in depth learning approaches of Shar Yashuv and the Mir began to sink in.]]

[Rav Nahman emphasized learning fast and Litvak yeshivot emphasize learning in depth. So what is best in balance. To have some sessions fast and others in depth.]

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.