Most of what you think and say are things you picked up from others

 Most of what you think and say are things you picked up from others. They are not original thoughts. That is why there is this idea of Rav Nahman of talking with God while being alone and trying to get in real contact with who you really are, and talking with God from your inner essence, not just what you have heard from other people. 

Why is authenticity important? After all if one is thinking of it as being important because I picked up the idea from the existentialists, then it in itself is not authentic.

The reason is that there is a discernable limit how much one can pick up until his whole inner essence gets erased. You can see this in undergraduate of high school papers which are often a large mixture of clichés.

You can hear this in people's conversation where almost every word is some "buzz word"  they picked up from he media or friends. 

I admit even after learning the existentialists I was not very impressed until I heard Jordan Peterson point out some of the good points that some of them brought up.]

I should mention in terms of Rav Nahman, that he was highly suspicious of doctors.

 I should mention in terms of Rav Nahman, that he was highly suspicious of doctors. [See Conversations of Rav Nahman, paragraph 50] And there is plenty of reason for that. However I also want to mention that in Uman there were great doctors. [Not trained during the time of the USSR, but later under Capitalism.] They were amazing at diagnosis and treatment. During my last period there, I had broken my foot by being chased by dogs outside of Sofia Park. I had not known how serious the injury was and collapsed on the street. Passersby called an ambulance, and I was brought to the local hospital. [Immediately given tests to see in anything else was wrong and then a bed, and never a word was said about payment.] The doctor, Sergei Alexivitch, and the whole group of doctors and nurses did an amazing job. The woman in charge of anesthesia was supper careful about not over doing it, but gave only local anesthesia-(instead of general which she realized could have been dangerous).  A nurse, Irina, held my hand to give me encouragement the whole time of the operation. [He is a young doctor who took his training after the USSR in the Institute at Dnieper. I would not have agreed to an operation if the doctor had been the same one that had been there during the time of the USSR  because even among the general people that doctors had a reputation as terrible. But not all that were trained during the period of the USSR were like that. I had experiences with older doctors also there that were highly competent.] 

The degree of care, concern and quality of care was astounding.

[That was just one example, but there is more to say because I was hanging around in that area because of my learning partner in Gemara, David Bronson. I should mention here also that the level of learning that  received from David was not less than Rav Shmuel Berenbaum at the Mir in NY, or Rav Naftali Yegger in Shar Yashuv.\

 As far as the vaccine is concerned see: 

Sonia Azevedo, a mum-of-two had no prior health conditions and hadn’t had any adverse effects after getting the Pfizer jab.

A 41-year-old health worker in Portugal suffered a “sudden death” just two days after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. According to the EuroWeeklynews, Sonia Azevedo, a mum-of-two had no prior health conditions and hadn’t had any adverse effects after getting the Pfizer jab. Sonia worked at the Institute of Oncology in Porto before she collapsed on New Year’s Day. An autopsy is expected to be completed in the coming days to establish the cause of death.

I should mention that near Uman is a hospital called the regional hospital that I went to also. That was after my foot injury I had been in bed and so my intestines were not moving as if I had been walking around. So I had abdominal pain and went to that regional hospital. The medicine they recommended for me worked within a about two minutes after taking it. And that was my general experience with doctors in Uman. They knew exactly what to recommend for what ever my problem was. They were extremely\ competent\. 

 x70 D Minor

x70 midi file x70 nwc

Rambam Laws of the Sanhedrin chap. 2 [paragraph 10]

Rav Shach says that both Rav Acha ben Ika and R. Abahu [in tractate Sanhedrin page 3] hold that one person can judge a case. [Meaning cases between two individuals.  The issue before Rav Acha and R Abahu is judging cases of civil law that come up between people. Not only that, but there can be cases where even the great Sanhedrin is wrong and has to itself bring sacrifices for making wrong judgments in cases involving karet [cutting off.] In those cases, if an individual knew better than the Sanhedrin then he is required to bring his own sacrifice, for he should not have followed the Sanhedrin when it was wrong. Thus we learn that objective morality does not depend on what the Sanhedrin says or on what anyone says. Objective right and wrong means that what is right is right, no matter what anyone says.]

At any rate, there is a debate between Rav Acha and R.Abahu if one person can be called a "court of law" [beit din] for laws that relate to a court of law, like admission before a court is different than admission outside a court.

You can see the point of Rav Shach right away in the Rambam Laws of the Sanhedrin chap. 2 [paragraph 10] where it says that a court of law is not less than three people even though one person can judge a case. Some rishonim (mediaeval authorities)[e.g., Rashba] thought that  means the Rambam poskined/decided like Rav Acha but Rav Shach says that to both Rav Acha and R Abahu, one can judge but to R Abahu he is not a court of law.    The proof that Rav Shach is right is that the Rambam writes, "If one judges that is Ok from the Torah, but from the words of the sages we need three. And two that judge, their judgment is not a judgment." If the Rambam would be poskening like Rav Acha ben Ika, then he would say two that judge, their judgment is a judgment. [To R. Abahu their judgment is not valid and that is what the Rambam wrote there so it does look at least in this place that the Rambam is going like R Abahu.] So he goes like R. Abahu and that shows that even R Abahu holds that one can judge from the Torah but is not considered a court of law.

However clear this might be in this place, still Rav Shach brings a few questions on this idea that I think would have given reason to the Rashba, the Ran, and the Keseph Mishna to say that the Rambam in fact poskined like Rav Acha. 

The question of Rav Shach about his own idea is this: R. Abahu holds "mixing of paragraphs" [eruv parshiot] so that all civil law needs a court of law of three. One is not a court of law to him. Then why is Iraq/Bavel [Babylon] can a civil court judge only cases of admissions or loans? That we can understand to Rav Acha who makes a difference between them and cases of injury or theft which are cases the Torah says needs a court of three people with ordination from mount Sinai. [That is the authentic ordination.] But To R. Abahu all cases are like that, and are judged in Iraq [anywhere outside of Israel] only because of the courts there being representatives of the court in Israel. But to Rav Acha there is no representation. They judge because they are a court --just not one that can judge cases where the Torah requires explicitly three judges with the authentic ordination which can not exist outside of Israel.

What is an issue here for me is that "mixing of paragraphs" [eruv parshiot] comes up in Bava Metzia  circa page 98. It seems if we hold of such a principle in one place we ought to hold of it elsewhere also.  

Government is something that is better not to get involved with.

 אל תתוודע לרשות "Don't be known to the government" [from Pirkei Avot]. Government is something that is better not to get involved with. However from the time of Socrates and Plato, it has been a subject of philosophical debate, but better not to be involved with. It does not really help you to be a better person, or gain good character or even get anywhere in life. it might be a subject of debate and perhaps there is some point in trying to apply reason to government, but when that happens the results are the opposite of reasonable.

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