a kind of knowledge that one knows but not by sense perception and not by reason.

In the Kant-Fries-Nelson school of thought there is a kind of knowledge that one knows but not by sense perception and not by reason. But this is not emotion either. Nor by structures imbedded in the brain

There is a tendency to understand Fries as ''psychologism'' [all in the mind[. And if that would be all there is to it, then I would not be impressed. But the way Dr. Kelley Ross understands and explains that school in a different way that made a lot of sense to me.

But there is a sort of conflict between this school of thought and Hegel-- which to me seems unjustified since they are dealing with different subjects. Hegel does not deal with how we know things. Empirical versus a priori. Rather with the very structure of reality itself.

So to me both the Kant-Fries and Hegel schools of thought seem important. Kind of like Plato and Aristotle are important, but not that we ought to choose between them. There is something to learn from both.

[As for the best of present day thinkers I would have to go with Dr. Kelley Ross at the Kant Friesian web site .]

music file x69

 x69 mp3 D major [x69 in midi]  x69 nwc

What was the story with me and philosophy?

What was the story with me and philosophy?

Even in high school I was fascinated by issues in philosophy. But that was soon enough after WWII that you did not find Kant, Hegel or any German philosophers in the library or book stores.

So I studied in my spare time the available authors. [That is when I was walking by the book stores on the way to the public library after school to wait for my dad to pick me up after his work day.]

But one way or  another, I got the idea that British-American philosophy was not going anywhere. Just a vacant lot. Empty and meaningless.

[However when I did get to Shar Yashuv in NY [a very great Litvak yeshiva] the rosh yeshiva did encourage me to continue my secular studies. So on the side, I did study some of the existentialists.

I did see the Ramchal [Rav Moshe Chaim Lutzatto] had a lot of depth. However, I still look at the issues as being somewhat unsettled.

In any case, looking at the rishonim, some like Aristotle and some do not. Still, my impression is that philosophy is important, but not after Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus [Neo Plato].

[In my view, Kant and Hegel fit into Plotinus. I see Hegel as a modified form of Plotinus]

 

But seeing that the Gra in fact went through Shas at least once, it is safe to say that that excommunication is valid.

The idea of a "neder" [vow] is different from an oath [shavuah]. The difference is that a vow is derived from the way one would vow something to the Temple. That is you would say "This animal I am vowing to be a peace offering." Or you might say, "I am vowing this chair." In that case you would bring the chair to a representative of the Temple [Gizbar] and they would sell it and the money would be used for the Temple. The whole idea of a vow comes from that. That is you can say, "This loaf of bread is a 'Karban' [sacrifice] to me". Or even less. You might say, ''This loaf of bread is forbidden to me'' and not even mention a sacrifice. You can even have "yadot nedarim" {extensions of vows}. That is where one does not even use the right words, or some broken version of the word.

So when it comes to a "herem" [excommunication], the same kind of set of laws applies. That is, that interacting with an individual or a group can be made to be forbidden. For example, I might say to myself, "so and so is herem to me." So then all interaction with that person is forbidden. But then you get the issue of the herem that the Gra signed.   [There were a few. The Gra signed the second one]. However in order to have the authority to make a decree of excommunication one needs to have gone through Shas Talmud at least once. Not anyone can make a valid excommunication on a group that makes it in fact forbidden for anyone to have any connection with that group. But seeing that the Gra in fact went through Shas at least once, it is safe to say that that excommunication is valid.   

And in addition to this I ought to make the point that one is obligated to remove a stumbling block in front of people. אל תעמוד על דם רעך/ לפני עוור לא תיתן מכשול. So if one is aware of this problem and yet ignores it or pretends that it doesn't exist. that in itself transgressing. One does not get off scot-free  by a plea of lason hara/ slander. It is not lashon hara to warn someone of a danger to their body and soul.

[By the way I do not think it applies to Rav Nahman of Breslov. You can see why yourself by looking up the actual language of the herem.]]

Socialist Student Gets DESTROYED on Live TV. she already knows that socialism can not pay for what it promises

 

I could not help but laugh the whole day. When asked how would she pay for all the "benefits" she said in answer: the USA is the "the bastion of capitalism and its success", and will not run out of money! So she already knows that socialism can not pay for what it promises. Only capitalism can do that.

WASPS [White Anglo Saxon Protestant]

WASPS [White Anglo Saxon Protestant] seem to have what you could say is a guilt complex. Anyone that attacks them and their values they see good in. Anyone that stands up for them is suspected of some deep sin like "racism". I saw how the USA was this really amazing wholesome society until political correctness started taking over. A cure to this problem seems unlikely on a large level since at least a good half of the WASP populations in the USA are self destructing. But for individuals I think there is hope. The Ten Commandments.

[I might add two things. One is this idea of going out to a field or forest often to talk with God as one talks with a friend. That would not be prayer exactly, but more along the lines of speaking with God from the inner depths of one's heart.  Another idea would be along the idea of Rav Israel Salanter who started the "Musar Movement" which means to learn books of ethics from the Middle Ages. [For Protestants that would mean to learn the more ancient texts like Augustine and Boethius.] 

[Actually I am not sure if WASPs are self destructing or if there is some kind of genocide that is going on against them in a subtle way--like the schools from kindergarten and onwards convincing children that WASPs are the cause of all human sufferings.] 

tribal identity is evil

 Even though I can see that tribal identity is evil, and leads to evil, but people believe it absolves them from sin. I guess I never made it clear on this blog that I do not think that tribal identity is a good thing. Rather to me what makes Torah interesting is that it teaches what is natural law. What is right and what is wrong. That is how the rishonim [mediaeval authorities] understand it. Not one rishon holds that the laws of the Torah are right because they were commanded. Rather that they are commanded because they are right. [And that in itself does imply a hierarchy of values.

[This is not just in the rishonim but in the Gemara itself. In the Sefer haChinuch [from a disciple of the Nahmanides] there is brought down the rational reasons for every commandment. But the Gemara itself apparently thinks these reasons are obvious because the only argument in the Gemara is if we go by the reason or the literal meaning. To R Shimon ben Yochai Bava Metzia pg 119, we go by the reason. But even to the sages (that disagree with RS),there is no doubt that we know the reasons for the commands. The only thing they disagree with is that even so we go by the literal meaning. If there are deeper reason the Gemara holds they fall off when the open reason does not apply. Otherwise there would be no cause for disagreement. RS himself would hold the literal meaning always holds since we never not the deeper meaning. And that is exactly what the sages would have claimed. But they did not. Rather. they said even though we know the reason for the law, still we go by the literal meaning.

[The main problem of knowing what is objective morality is not simple. Reason alone can indicate anything. Even group identity. So to answer this, the Torah what revealed to tell us what is objective morality.] 

[However even in Torah, there is a law that an individual can judge from the Torah. It is only a decree from the later sages that only three can judge. See Rav Shach in the laws of the Sanhedrin.  And even a court can make mistakes. And if one is aware of their mistakes and still judges according to the Sanhedrin he is held liable because he should have known better that to depend on a mistaken court. And their mistake can even include the things judged by the 13 principles as we see in Rav Shach in laws of mamrim--that if one court decides based on the 13 principles and a later court sees otherwise they can reverse that decision.

Rav Shach says that Ra Abahu and Rav Acha agree that one can judge from the Torah. This answers an apparent contradiction in the Rambam that  the Kesef Mishna [Rav Josef Karo] brings up. And in fact you have to say this because right in the Torah itself there is a sacrifice for when the Sanhedrin is wrong. And in the Mishna we have that if one depends on the Sanhedrin in a law even though he knew the true law, he is obligated.