15.5.20
I really see history a little different than Hegel. He certainly looks for the overall direction of history and believes that The Absolute Spirit reveals Himself in history. However he sees the peak as the Prussia under Frederick William III. On one hand that makes sense because under the different kings of Prussia from Fredrick the Great and down until WWI, Prussia had a nice combination of order with freedom. And Hegel certainly sees Freedom with Reason as being the goal of the Absolute Spirit. [Freedom is not just lack of constraints, but also not less than that. So if there is any external constraint ,that is not freedom. Rather means there is no external constraint but there is internal constraint ,e.g. as when a person makes goals for himself and then constrains himself to fulfill the, That is freedom.]People that used [and use] Hegel to support totalitarian systems were not going with Hegel, who was 100% a conservative. Private property and family values.]
But I just can not see Prussia in the same light as Hegel. To me, it seems clear the the real organic development of freedom really happened in England with the Magna Carta, and later in the USA with the Constitution of the USA and with the Federalists Papers which show the reason behind the Constitution.
Though nowadays I admit that the cause of freedom in the USA has taken a hit. So when I think of the type of unique combination of freedom with reason that Hegel was thinking of, it makes more sense to refer this back to a somewhat earlier period. Nowadays things do look different.
But I think that Hegel would see modern developments as being some further development of freedom. [In some way that is not clear right now.]
Though nowadays I admit that the cause of freedom in the USA has taken a hit. So when I think of the type of unique combination of freedom with reason that Hegel was thinking of, it makes more sense to refer this back to a somewhat earlier period. Nowadays things do look different.
But I think that Hegel would see modern developments as being some further development of freedom. [In some way that is not clear right now.]
G. Lemaitre: "If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time."
Lemaitre writes in his article in Nature May 9, 1931: "Now, in atomic processes, the notions of space and
time are no more than statistical notions ; they fade
out when applied to individual phenomena involving but a small number of quanta. If the world has
begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and
time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the
beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible
meaning when the original quantum had been divided
into a sufficient number of quanta. If this suggestion
is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little
before the beginning of space and time."
That was the article in which he proposed an expanding universe.
But the interesting thing is this goes along with the idea that the fact that Nature violates Bell's Inequality does not violate Special Relativity. Rather [like I mentioned before this] that things simply do not have values of space and time until they interact with something else.
It is not that there are hidden variables. The Aspect Experiment cancels out all hidden variable theories. But I am not thinking of branes of String Theory either because these are themselves just higher dimensional strings. (You need them so an open string can attach itself to something,) Rather what I am thinking of is some sub-layer that exists underneath space and time.
That was the article in which he proposed an expanding universe.
But the interesting thing is this goes along with the idea that the fact that Nature violates Bell's Inequality does not violate Special Relativity. Rather [like I mentioned before this] that things simply do not have values of space and time until they interact with something else.
It is not that there are hidden variables. The Aspect Experiment cancels out all hidden variable theories. But I am not thinking of branes of String Theory either because these are themselves just higher dimensional strings. (You need them so an open string can attach itself to something,) Rather what I am thinking of is some sub-layer that exists underneath space and time.
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.]]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)