With John Locke and the American Constitution there is a basic principle that all men are created equal. . People are born with different DNA. And the humans have never been equal and never will be.

 With John Locke and the American Constitution there is a basic principle that all men are created equal. . People are born with different DNA. And the humans have never been equal and never will be.
The way to resolve this conflict is the original idea of equality in the French Revolution is that people should be equal under the law. That is there should not be one set of law that applies to one class and a different-set that applies to a different class. But not that all people are born with equal talents or traits.

But if the French Revolution contributed any original idea of good idea that already was not contained in the American Constitution is hard to know. To me it seems all based on Rousseau which is really half baked place to start from. [The General Will as opposed to objective morality and objective rights of individuals.]

Leonard Nelson wanted to have a new beginning of the Socratic approach. But that would be hard to duplicate. Especially because of so many levels and sub levels in the Socratic dialogues.

The main question about Socrates is how did he know what line of questioning would lead the person he was addressing to the exact opposite conclusion what he started out with?

How can you learn a method that seems to depend on intuition?

However on the other hand Hegel thought that any concept, if one thinks deeply enough about it has to lead to some opposite place from where it starts out from until by force it is lead to a higher level. And then that same process starts again until one reaches Absolute Spirit.
So perhaps it was more than intuition of Socrates but an ability to probe into the facts.

Police Lives Matter.

What seems to be the problem with the religious world? (*Besides the fact that they are all crazy.)

What seems to be the problem with the religious world? (*Besides the fact that they are all crazy.) The answer seems to be staring me in the face, though I could not see it for a long time. It is a Midrash that brings the statement of R. Meir about learning Torah for its own sake brings one to great things? They ask "But how can that be? For R Yohanan said, 'One ought to learn Torah even not for its own sake because by that one will come to learn Torah for its own sake.' And the Midrash answers (that question of the contradiction between R. Yochanan and R Meir) that R Meir was saying like R Akiva that one who learns Torah not for its own sake, it is better of he had never been born. (I.e. the Gemara concludes that this is an argument between Tenaim, not between R Yochana and Amora and R Meir. That is an argument between an amora of the Gemara and a tana of the mishna is not possible.])
Now if there had been any distinctions between kinds of  "not for its own sake," then that would have been the obvious answer. So clearly the sages did not see any distinctions. Whether it so for money or whatever the reasons maybe, it is all the same to them. To R Yohanan it is OK and to R Meir and R Akiva it is not.
So of the law is like R Meir and R Akiva, that would seem to explain the issue.
The custom is to make differences between types of "not for its own sake" in order to excuse the custom of extortion of the state to make the state pay for yeshivas. That seems to be a problem 

It got to be that even among people that went along with the approach of the Gra that secular studies were not accepted unless in order to make money. But this does not distinguish among different kinds of secular studies. Most of what is taught in universities is in fact quite worthless. However the many Rishonim including the Gra did hold that the natural sciences are important. But since not everyone is really up to the level of being a physicist so they go into the pseudo sciences. And then try to convince others that what they are doing in in fact some deep wisdom. [Go check up among all students in universities who has the lowest IQ. That ought to tell you something.]

[The Gra said that lack of knowledge in any of the seven wisdoms would result in a lack of understanding of Torah a hundred fold.]

Man made pseudo wisdoms are not the same thing as the wisdom of God as revealed in the work of Creation.

I wanted to express the greatness and importance of following the path of the Gra. That is mainly the idea of straight Torah with no additions nor subtractions. But even though the Gra is known, the whole "spirit of Torah" that you find in Litvak yeshivas is not known. Even after it is known , it  is hidden.

I am not saying I had the merit to follow the straight path of the Gra for more than a few sweet years in Shar Yashuv and later at the Mir. [Both great Litvak yeshivas.] But I go with this idea that even if I can not be what I ought to be, at least I can help others by showing them the path of authentic Torah.

People that protest against the police in the USA, truly love and believe in the police.

People that protest against the police in the USA believe in the kindness and upright moral character of the police. They truly love and believe in the police. How do you know this? Because they know if they would have walked to a militzia officer in a Communist Russia and insulted him, they would have left without any of their teeth. Only in America do the police show constraint and understanding and moral responsibility.