Hegel thought that the idea that reason needed to be confined to areas of possible experience meant it was empirical. Which invalided Kant's point.

 Hegel thought that the idea that reason needed to be confined to areas of possible experience meant it was empirical. Which invalided Kant's point. (That reason can be synthetic a priori.)  Hegel thought that by a process he called "dialectic" reason could progress beyond areas of possible experience in the dinge an sich. [But his dialectics did not progress as science in which a priori and empirical evidence work together but rather dialectic in finding contractions in the concepts themselves until one gets to the Absolute Idea, the Logos of Middle Age philosophers. ] Fries answers this question in a different way saying that there is non-intuitive immediate knowledge. And the intuitionists like Michael Huemer hold the whole question is ridiculous in the first place since why limit reason? Based on some misconception of Hume? [about the idea that reason can only tell your what is already implicit in definitions.

This results in my idea that each of these three schools has a good point  and ought to be part of the cannon of philosophy --Kant-Fries. Hegel. G.E. Moore.    

[Another aspect of Kant that is hard to understand is the core idea that the categories unite the intuitions [the sense perceptions]. As Kelley Ross points out that this is an important point. A bathtub full of computer chips is not a computer. You need all the functions of the mind  to process the information. But my question is "Who is the user"?

.

Conversation 76

In the Conversations of Rav Nahman is brought how he would go through four pages of the large Shulhan Aruch of Rav Karo during the time when people would start to gather in the morning to pray until they started praying. [At a normal pace of reading that would take about 2 hours if you take about 40 minutes to get through one page with the Magen Avraham and Taz plus the other commentaries. But lets say that in his days the large Shulchan Aruch did not have all the smaller commentaries, just the two on the sides [Shach and Taz and their parallels in the other volumes.] Still it would take at least an hour. So we know that Rav Nahman was reading more than fast. He was reading very, very fast. 

Ok you might say, that was because he was smart. But that is not the point. The point in Conversation 76 is that everyone ought to learn fast. As it says there "All you need in learning is to say the words in order and then to go on. And if you do not understand right away, eventually you will understand [by reviewing the book again and again.] And even of you never understand, so what? For the greatness of a lot of learning goes above everything else." לא צריכים בלימוד רק האמירה לבדה, לומר הדברים כסדר וממילא יבין ואם אינו מבין  תיכף יבין אחר כך ואם יישארו כמה דברים שאינו מבין מה בכך כי מעלת ריבוי הלימוד עולה על הכל

[However in Torah learning, I could not do things in exactly that way. In fact, in Litvak yeshivas the morning is for in depth learning, and the afternoon for fast learning. However this advice of Rav Nahman I found to be the only way I could get any Mathematics at all. For lots of review in Math made no sense to me. If I did not understand at first, then review did nothing. It did not matter if it was lots of review, or a little. So the only way I could get into math at all was by this method of Rav Nahman, and in fact, eventually I would start to get the idea (just like he said). That maybe does not make me a Peter Scholze or Fesenko, but I certainly understand a lot more than if I would not have learnt at all.

to object to some crime.

 There is a positive aspect to "be מוחה" to object to some crime. You can see this in the events of the concubine of Giva [in Book of Judges] where the whole tribe of Benjamin was considered guilty because they did not object. Also the Gemara goes into this in Gitin in the events of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza.

So I continue to object along the lines of the Gra and Rav Shach even though it is clear to me that I will not be listened to.  I do not do this on my blog since here, the whole idea of writing is in order to explain things that can be understood. But the fact of the Gra and Rav Shach objecting to evil is not understood and impossible to explain to people. The only people that were trying to warn others were the Gra, Rav Shach, Rav Israel Odesser of Breslov. But they were ignored\. 

music files. z11 z12

 z11 B Minor  z11 midi  z11 nwc

z12 mp3  z12 midi   z12 nwc

I found home work frustrating when I was in high school. I could not get home until after 600 PM each evening. And by that time I was pretty much tired out from the whole day. [I had two choices: I could walk home or wait for my dad to pick me up after his work at TRW. [Those are the people making satellites.] The result was always  that I was too tired to do much homework.] So when I got to Shar Yashuv in NY and the Mir, I was thrilled because of learning what has great value [Gemara]. And the atmosphere in a Litvak yeshiva tends to be highly conducive towards study.  I was a fish in water. 

[I ought to mention that the rosh yeshiva, Rav Freifeld, did ask me to also go to Brooklyn College, but I felt I could not divide my attention at that point.]

If I could today somehow manage to combine learning Gemara and also Physics and Math, I would do so.   

American Indians were generally at war with each other.

American Indians were generally at war with each other. Nor was slavery a foreign concept to them. They generally enslaved other tribes when they had the power to do so. [e.g. the Shawnee tribe would roast the captured men alive,  eat them and enslave the rest. The women generally were the commandants that would choose who would live and who would be digested.] So when a certain tribe of  Germanic tribes called Anglo-Saxon came, that was not particularly a new thing. Just more of the same except in one detail.  [See the  Ohio Frontier by Douglas Hurt published in 1996]

In Ohio the first Indians were destroyed by the Iroquois. So the Shawnee and other tribes chased them out until they in turn were chased out.  

the evil inclination of religious people is a "dibuk" i.e a demon

 Rav Nahman said the evil inclination of religious people is a "dibuk" i.e a demon that takes hold of their minds that they can not get freed of even when they want to. You can see this in a lot of religious people. Some sort of insanity takes hold of them that even they must realize to some degree is really lunacy. But that realization does nothing to free them.