Objective truth. Objective morality.

The Left denies these things.

For that reason I have thought to try to find some philosophical approach that would make sense to me. The best I could come up with was a draw between Leonard Nelson [Kant Fries], Michael Huemer [that is the intuitionists] and Hegel. All believe in objective morality, but after that point, I can not see who is right. I think Kelley Ross of the Kant-Friesian school is the best, but I can see some areas where the other schools of thought are a little better.

[I might try to do more work in this but I am not smart enough to enter into a debate among titans. Still the little I can grasp goes like this.

The problem in the Intuitionist school based on GE Moore was pointed out by Robert Hanna.

The difficulty I have with Kant goes back to his very basis in Hume. All reason can know is contradictions? Really? Who says?

The difficulties with Hegel are a little harder to define. Off hand it seems some English people solved many of the problems like McTaggart and Cunningham.

Still if I would have to choose, I would go with Kelley Ross of the Kant-Friesian School.

 Allan Bloom [Closing of the American Mind] pointed out the problem is the universities. After young people hear Marxist stuff for years it sinks in. It becomes hardwired as Howard Bloom pointed out. [Lucifer Principle]

To me it seems that if the founding fathers had known about this future Marxist threat to the USA, they might have come up with a solution.

 x34 B flat major  x34 midi   x34 nwc

This might need editing but I am not sure. So I am presenting this as it is.

 x32 D major  x32 midi  x32 nwc

 x36 D major mp3 file  

x36 midi

x36 nwc

 Rav Nahman of Breslov has in one section of the LeM vol II ch 8 that one ought to seek after a true tzadik. While I can see the point of this, but the problems are the straight forward frauds which are the vast majority. And the people that imagine to themselves that they a have "Ruach Hakodesh" so they are not willfully defrauding others, but are close to that. Then there is the most insidious category of people the Sitra achra (dark side) gives miracles to and reveals things in to to gain acceptance and to be able to trick people after gaining their trust.

Can you by these facts deny the validity of all faith healers? I do not think so. 

Rather what I think is this. That one ought not to go after tzadikim. If one merits to it, the tzadik will come to you. but if you go around searching for one, it is 99.9% guaranteed you will find (and be funding) a phony;--  or even worse, perhaps agent of the Dark Side.

I think there is one true tzadik or one true faith healer among thousands of frauds. The best thing is to seek to serve God by by Torah and prayer and good deeds. Then if one merits to be close to a true tzadik then that will  happen.

 Reasons for mitzvot is from the Gemara itself. Bava Metzia page 119 and all rishonim like the sefer haChinuch.

And the reasons are not thought to be mysterious. After all that is the whole point of the argument between R. Shimon ben Yochai against and the sages. he says when the reason does not apply the commandment itself does not apply. If the reason for any command was mysterious then there would be n place for the opinion of R Shimon ben Yochai.

[That is the characteristic of  all arguments in the Mishna. They disagree only about the specific point they are talking about. R Shimon holds we go by the reason for the verse. The sages say we go by the literal meaning. But there is no argument if we know the reasons.

So the commandments are to bring to these basic things: good character traits, peace of the country, to minimize the physical desires, to get rid of idolatry.

In short this could be called natural law of what Rav Saadia Gaon calls חוקי השכל. [Laws of Reason]

So no where in the rishonim do we find Divine command theory. [That is the theory that says: the mizvot are good because they are commanded. Rather they are commanded because they bring one to good.]