25.5.20
The straight pure essence of Torah that becomes revealed through the Gra
To follow the path of the Gra is the only way to get in contact with the essential essence of Torah.
I have no idea why this but I have seen this. It seems to be like playing the violin or repairing shoes. Learning Torah needs a teacher. So it is not just a matter of learning the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Haim of Brisk or the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. It does seem to require the atmosphere of Litvak yeshiva. But what happens when you are not exactly accepted in such a group? After all, Litvak yeshivas are highly selective.
I have no idea about what to do in such a situation, but I simply mean to raise the issue which comes up more often than is known. [And I agree they are right to be selective. But that does not help to know what to do for those that are outside. What I imagine is even if one does no merit to learn, at least to hold onto truth of the straight pure essence of Torah that becomes revealed through the Gra.]
[The best idea that I can see is to try to get through the Avi Ezri and Hidushei HaRambam at least ("derek girsa") saying the words and going on.]
I have no idea why this but I have seen this. It seems to be like playing the violin or repairing shoes. Learning Torah needs a teacher. So it is not just a matter of learning the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Haim of Brisk or the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. It does seem to require the atmosphere of Litvak yeshiva. But what happens when you are not exactly accepted in such a group? After all, Litvak yeshivas are highly selective.
I have no idea about what to do in such a situation, but I simply mean to raise the issue which comes up more often than is known. [And I agree they are right to be selective. But that does not help to know what to do for those that are outside. What I imagine is even if one does no merit to learn, at least to hold onto truth of the straight pure essence of Torah that becomes revealed through the Gra.]
[The best idea that I can see is to try to get through the Avi Ezri and Hidushei HaRambam at least ("derek girsa") saying the words and going on.]
24.5.20
atomic bomb on Hiroshima
My impression of the issue of using the atomic bomb on Hiroshima is that (1) the Supreme War Council of Japan was not unanimous in bringing a peace proposal to the Emperor. [It could not bring such a proposal unless it was unanimous].
[The military had a few aces up their sleeves: new technology and advanced planes and biological weapon facilities. So four of the ministers wanted to continue the war. Two wanted peace. Tojo, the prime minister wanted peace, I seem to recall.] (The Supreme Council had six people. The prime minister, foreign minister, chief of staff of the army and minister of the army, chief of staff for the navy and minister of the navy.]
(2) The idea of giving a demonstration I always thought was ridiculous because in fact the USA gave a demonstration, and that certainly was not enough to bring a surrender.
(3) The war consul did not convene after Hiroshima. Tojo [foreign minister] sent a special message to get in contact immediately with Molotov to press the idea of being a go between between Japan and the USA. That is --the previous proposal of keeping the Emperor in place and in charge of everything. But this proposal would never have been accepted since the emperor was in fact in charge of the military. That was the very thing the USA blamed the war on.
(4) What caused the War Council to convene? Not Hiroshima. Not Nagasaki. It was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. [They convened immediately after the news of the Soviet invasion came in.] The news of Nagasaki came only during the time the consul was meeting.
So what caused the consul to send a surrender proposal to the Emperor? Certainly not Hiroshima. Maybe a combination of Nagasaki with Hiroshima, plus the Soviet invasion, plus the obvious fact at that point that the Soviets were not going to be bringing any peace proposals to the Americans. Just the opposite. The Soviets at that point wanted their own piece of the pie. So that is what caused Japan to surrender--not even the fact of the Soviet invasion, but the fact that Molotov was not going to be a go between. Soviet intentions became crystal clear after a millions troops crossed Japaneses borders.
[I might add here that but continuing the war with Japan would certainly have meant the USA army being transferred to the Far East. If we think in terms of Iwo Jima or Okinawa, every square mile of Japanese territory claimed 1,000 American lives. But Iwo Jima is a tiny coral island. Can you even begin to guess the casualties of an invasion Japanese soil? [Just count up the square miles and multiply by 1,000. That is American lives. Japanese lives that would have been lost you have to multiply by a factor of many times more. And they were certainly getting a warm welcome ready for the Americans with massive military build ups in the area (Kyushu) they expected the American would come into.]
[Of course none of the above have anything to do with why people condemn the USA for fighting back. The reason people mention ''Hiroshima'' is to see if you are a good person. If you say it was OK, then you are evil. The same issue with slavery. It is not to decide the issue. The issue is to decide if your a decent person. If you defend it by lets say self determination then you are still thought to be evil. After all, no nation except England and the USA outlawed slavery. It was a part of the legal arrangements of every nation. It is all about "virtue signaling".
They always approach Hiroshima as if it was just out of the blue that Truman decided to use the bomb.
[The military had a few aces up their sleeves: new technology and advanced planes and biological weapon facilities. So four of the ministers wanted to continue the war. Two wanted peace. Tojo, the prime minister wanted peace, I seem to recall.] (The Supreme Council had six people. The prime minister, foreign minister, chief of staff of the army and minister of the army, chief of staff for the navy and minister of the navy.]
(2) The idea of giving a demonstration I always thought was ridiculous because in fact the USA gave a demonstration, and that certainly was not enough to bring a surrender.
(3) The war consul did not convene after Hiroshima. Tojo [foreign minister] sent a special message to get in contact immediately with Molotov to press the idea of being a go between between Japan and the USA. That is --the previous proposal of keeping the Emperor in place and in charge of everything. But this proposal would never have been accepted since the emperor was in fact in charge of the military. That was the very thing the USA blamed the war on.
(4) What caused the War Council to convene? Not Hiroshima. Not Nagasaki. It was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. [They convened immediately after the news of the Soviet invasion came in.] The news of Nagasaki came only during the time the consul was meeting.
So what caused the consul to send a surrender proposal to the Emperor? Certainly not Hiroshima. Maybe a combination of Nagasaki with Hiroshima, plus the Soviet invasion, plus the obvious fact at that point that the Soviets were not going to be bringing any peace proposals to the Americans. Just the opposite. The Soviets at that point wanted their own piece of the pie. So that is what caused Japan to surrender--not even the fact of the Soviet invasion, but the fact that Molotov was not going to be a go between. Soviet intentions became crystal clear after a millions troops crossed Japaneses borders.
[I might add here that but continuing the war with Japan would certainly have meant the USA army being transferred to the Far East. If we think in terms of Iwo Jima or Okinawa, every square mile of Japanese territory claimed 1,000 American lives. But Iwo Jima is a tiny coral island. Can you even begin to guess the casualties of an invasion Japanese soil? [Just count up the square miles and multiply by 1,000. That is American lives. Japanese lives that would have been lost you have to multiply by a factor of many times more. And they were certainly getting a warm welcome ready for the Americans with massive military build ups in the area (Kyushu) they expected the American would come into.]
[Of course none of the above have anything to do with why people condemn the USA for fighting back. The reason people mention ''Hiroshima'' is to see if you are a good person. If you say it was OK, then you are evil. The same issue with slavery. It is not to decide the issue. The issue is to decide if your a decent person. If you defend it by lets say self determination then you are still thought to be evil. After all, no nation except England and the USA outlawed slavery. It was a part of the legal arrangements of every nation. It is all about "virtue signaling".
They always approach Hiroshima as if it was just out of the blue that Truman decided to use the bomb.
There really is no reason to think that "reason" is infallible.
Let's say we are learning the Critique of Pure Reason or Hegel which deal with what pure reason can tell us. [That is where Kant says that pure reason can tell us more than when there are self contradictions [as per Hume]. He shows reason can show us synthetic a priori which is the same things as universals.]
But there is no claim that reason is infallible.
So how does reason recognize things. Not by implanted knowledge, nor by recollection but by probability. [The implanted knowledge was refuted by Husserl].
The kind of probability here was discovered by Thomas Bayes.
Dr Michael Huemer shows this in his web site
Let's say we are learning the Critique of Pure Reason or Hegel which deal with what pure reason can tell us. [That is where Kant says that pure reason can tell us more than when there are self contradictions [as per Hume]. He shows reason can show us synthetic a priori which is the same things as universals.]
But there is no claim that reason is infallible.
So how does reason recognize things. Not by implanted knowledge, nor by recollection but by probability. [The implanted knowledge was refuted by Husserl].
The kind of probability here was discovered by Thomas Bayes.
Dr Michael Huemer shows this in his web site
In Yore Deah the Rema brings that learning Physics and metaphysics is a part of learning Torah,. Even though the is a famous note from the Gra on this Rema in Yore Deah, I was one day in the Yeshiva of the Gra in the old city of Jerusalem and saw an extended commentary on the notes of the Gra. On that note it was brought that it was inserted and not at all from the Gra. [Before the notes went to the printer someone inserted this comment that supposedly shows that the Gra disagreed with the Rema on that point.]
One surprising things the Gra wrote is "The root of the souls of gentiles is from heaven and the root of souls of Israel is from the earth." From what I recall this is from his commentary on Shir Hashirim chapter two [right at the start of the chapter]. So the idea of superiority because of birth seems to be in accurate.
I saw a similar idea in Rav Luria on Genesis in a verse on the three sons on Noah.I.e., that their root was from the three names "I will be" אלף הי יוד הי. אלף הא יוד הי. אלף הה יוד הה.
I saw a similar idea in Rav Luria on Genesis in a verse on the three sons on Noah.I.e., that their root was from the three names "I will be" אלף הי יוד הי. אלף הא יוד הי. אלף הה יוד הה.
Even though I learned a lot of very great lessons from the teachings of Rav Nahman of Breslov still I have to admit that the only way to get to the pure essence of Torah is through the Gra [Rav Eliyahu the Gaon of Vilna]. And you can see this yourself any time you talk to anyone in Breslov. When anyone in Breslov wants to show that so and so is a great Torah scholar, they never say "he is so great and you know this because he learned in a Breslov yeshiva". Rather they say "he is a great Torah scholar, and you know this to be so because he learned in the Mir." [Or they say it in present tense as in reference to people that are at present in the Mir either in the Mir in NY or the Mir in Israel.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)