12.5.20
The Sages said, "The Torah is poison for those that use it to make money." But the entire religious world uses Torah to get money and power.
There are tremendous lessons for life in Torah. The problem is Torah scholars that are demons as Rav Nahman brings in his LeM vol. I, chapter 12 and 28. [There are plenty more references there to this subject, but those two places are the most open about it.]
The idea here is that Torah is perfect, however ושמתם אותם וחז''ל אומרים שסם חיים למימינים בה וסם מוות למשמאילים בה ("The Sages said, 'the Torah is poison for those that use it to make money.'") But the entire religious world uses Torah to get money and power. So you can see right away the trouble.
Since the religious world uses Torah to make money, it is by definition poison. So what ever one might gain from some of the great and important lessons he might learn, the benefits would be suffocated in the poison that saturates it. So to keep Torah, one must stay as far from the religious as possible.
One problem with the religious world stated simply is the idea of "consciousness traps".
I am aware that no one in the religious world cares to hear about the prohibition of using Torah to make money. Still that does not change the fact.
The excuse that the government of Israel needs the religious is false. It is only because the religious vote that they are needed to make a 60 person coalition. If they would not vote, then there would be 60 without them. The way it works is the total votes go for 120 members of the parliament. And why do they vote if not for power and money?
The idea here is that Torah is perfect, however ושמתם אותם וחז''ל אומרים שסם חיים למימינים בה וסם מוות למשמאילים בה ("The Sages said, 'the Torah is poison for those that use it to make money.'") But the entire religious world uses Torah to get money and power. So you can see right away the trouble.
Since the religious world uses Torah to make money, it is by definition poison. So what ever one might gain from some of the great and important lessons he might learn, the benefits would be suffocated in the poison that saturates it. So to keep Torah, one must stay as far from the religious as possible.
One problem with the religious world stated simply is the idea of "consciousness traps".
I am aware that no one in the religious world cares to hear about the prohibition of using Torah to make money. Still that does not change the fact.
The excuse that the government of Israel needs the religious is false. It is only because the religious vote that they are needed to make a 60 person coalition. If they would not vote, then there would be 60 without them. The way it works is the total votes go for 120 members of the parliament. And why do they vote if not for power and money?
"Thing in itself" is not open to reason to Kant. [God, the soul, space, time] That provides and answer for faith. However then to what does reason work for? Things in the area of conditions of possibility of experience. [That will include the synthetic a priori.]
With Fries and Leonard Nelson however, there is knowledge by means of faith, not senses nor reason. [That would have started from Jacobi's critique on Kant.] Hegel would not agree, but rather we can know about God by His own revelation, not by our reason.
But to me it seems back to Kant and Hegel is the way to nowadays and forget about obsolete twentieth century philosophy. [See Robert Hanna about "Analytic philosophy". Searle noted how most of twentieth century philosophy is "obviously false". Kelley Ross clearly simply holds to get to Kant with Fries. But in spite of the value of his amazing approach, still I think that does snot cancel the value of Hegel.]
With Fries and Leonard Nelson however, there is knowledge by means of faith, not senses nor reason. [That would have started from Jacobi's critique on Kant.] Hegel would not agree, but rather we can know about God by His own revelation, not by our reason.
But to me it seems back to Kant and Hegel is the way to nowadays and forget about obsolete twentieth century philosophy. [See Robert Hanna about "Analytic philosophy". Searle noted how most of twentieth century philosophy is "obviously false". Kelley Ross clearly simply holds to get to Kant with Fries. But in spite of the value of his amazing approach, still I think that does snot cancel the value of Hegel.]
The welfare system is just slavery of white people in a different name.
It seems to me that the Civil War was not justified. One major reason for this is that slavery is not addressed in the Constitution. And what powers are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution go to the states or to individuals.
There is however an issue of how slaves are treated. But instead of going to war, it simply would make more sense to treat slaves well.
In any case I do not see much difference between having to get up and go to work or to school and slavery. Slavery only means that people have to work that would not otherwise work as we see nowadays. Baltimore and Detroit show fine examples.
Even Hegel who held that freedom is the reason for the state, still it has to be a kind of freedom, that you do not see when people are on welfare.
There is however an issue of how slaves are treated. But instead of going to war, it simply would make more sense to treat slaves well.
In any case I do not see much difference between having to get up and go to work or to school and slavery. Slavery only means that people have to work that would not otherwise work as we see nowadays. Baltimore and Detroit show fine examples.
Even Hegel who held that freedom is the reason for the state, still it has to be a kind of freedom, that you do not see when people are on welfare.
Besides that, it seems to me that blacks have been enslaving whites for a long time in forcing white people to work for them without compensation. If black people would really be against slavery they would vote against the welfare state. [The welfare system is just slavery of white people in a different name.]]
11.5.20
In terms of how to divide one's learning into two sessions; one the fast one, and the in-depth one.
How to do this in Gemara? I found the in depth session for me is best in the way of repeating that page of gemara with Tosphot many days in a row. But when it comes to Physics, I wanted to bring here a suggestion I heard once from a undergraduate student of Physics. His idea was: ''from the beginning to end; from the end to the beginning; and from the middle outwards.''
Whatever he might have meant, I have found that in terms of review it is helpful to just take where I already am in the middle of the book,- and go towards the beginning. This is is the same idea as just saying the words and going on that Rav Nahman brings in his Conversations of Rav Nahman 76 except the direction is towards the beginning instead of towards the end.
[I did this with a book on Quantum Mechanics by Freeman Dyson. and I found this method helpful for myself, so I decided to share this idea with others that may also benefit from it.]
How to do this in Gemara? I found the in depth session for me is best in the way of repeating that page of gemara with Tosphot many days in a row. But when it comes to Physics, I wanted to bring here a suggestion I heard once from a undergraduate student of Physics. His idea was: ''from the beginning to end; from the end to the beginning; and from the middle outwards.''
Whatever he might have meant, I have found that in terms of review it is helpful to just take where I already am in the middle of the book,- and go towards the beginning. This is is the same idea as just saying the words and going on that Rav Nahman brings in his Conversations of Rav Nahman 76 except the direction is towards the beginning instead of towards the end.
[I did this with a book on Quantum Mechanics by Freeman Dyson. and I found this method helpful for myself, so I decided to share this idea with others that may also benefit from it.]
Daniel Defoe explained that the evil inclination changes form in every generation. He wrote a whole book on that subject. So it does little to combat an old form of evil, when evil itself has changed form. Rather what is needed is the ability to discern.
Certainly religious forms are useful for the evil inclination to use to disguise itself. Yet that does not mean to go to the opposite extreme either.
Certainly religious forms are useful for the evil inclination to use to disguise itself. Yet that does not mean to go to the opposite extreme either.
10.5.20
Dr Michael Huemer brings up this issue: Suppose that all the knowledge of our civilization was about to be destroyed in some great cataclysm, but we have the opportunity to pass on just one sentence to future generations of people.
I thought instead of one sentence I would just say: The Constitution of the USA.
The reason is that even though a lot depends on the DNA of the people in question, still the basic answer to how to create a just and decent society is there. And once you have that, then you can have everything else that people can achieve. [NOTE 1]
[I have thought also about the minimum to transfer: In Math-Algebraic Topology; in Physics -String Theory; Biology- DNA and evolution,: in philosophy- Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, in morality- the Law of Moses and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.]
[NOTE 1] What I mean here is that the Constitution of the USA, probably would differ in details when applied to different sorts of people with different DNA and different values; still the basic structure of government with three branches would still be there. That is you would not have all the power in a Parliamentary system. Rather you would have a string judiciary and strong executive. Plus a bill of rights.
I thought instead of one sentence I would just say: The Constitution of the USA.
The reason is that even though a lot depends on the DNA of the people in question, still the basic answer to how to create a just and decent society is there. And once you have that, then you can have everything else that people can achieve. [NOTE 1]
[I have thought also about the minimum to transfer: In Math-Algebraic Topology; in Physics -String Theory; Biology- DNA and evolution,: in philosophy- Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, in morality- the Law of Moses and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.]
[NOTE 1] What I mean here is that the Constitution of the USA, probably would differ in details when applied to different sorts of people with different DNA and different values; still the basic structure of government with three branches would still be there. That is you would not have all the power in a Parliamentary system. Rather you would have a string judiciary and strong executive. Plus a bill of rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)