There is a kind of ambiguity in politics and philosophy that Kant was trying to solve.

 There is a kind of ambiguity in politics and philosophy that Kant was trying to solve. The idea was to eliminate speculation outside the areas of possibility of experience [not possible experience]. But that does suggest an intersection with politics. We might not know what is true justice? But what ever true justice is, is certainly not outside the area of possibility of experience. The answer of Kant has seemed weak since the first review by a critique on Kant by Schultz, his closest ally. I do not see how any other answer besides Fries is possible, That knowledge is not just from sensible perception or from reason, rather from a sort of core knowledge of immediate nonintuitive knowledge. [Fries and Beneke are thought to be of the empirical Kant first. But if you look at the friesian.com you will see that Fries and Nelson were non-intuitive immediate knowledge first.] But as close to faith his seems, it is not faith--not a sort of knowledge based on extrasensory perception. Rather a source of knowledge that is not based on any kind of feeling or reason.

In the world of politics, the answers of philosophy have been incoherent. Ideas from Kant, do not appear to have brought any kind of clarity. It seems to me that there was a kind of flow from above of philosophy from the period starting from Kant to Hegel. But ideas about politics seem to have been focused into the founding fathers of the USA. So In fact Hegel saw the USA as the State of the Future.

Modern morality the opposite of the morality of the Bible.

 ''Sit underneath your place on the Sabbath day.''[Exodus the parsha of the Mann] שבו תחתיו ביום השבת.Rav Nahman explains this thus: that a person should thinks of himself as lower than his level. Even if he know his level, he should consider himself as less that than.[ LeM vol. I chapter 31]. I have found this advice useful in terms of learning. Instead of thinking I will understand everything perfectly, I rather imagine that in fact I will not understand, but that simply go on in the subject I am learning--whether in Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot Maharsha or Physics, and thus eventually in fact come to understand.

Pride is given too large a place in modern society. This is the opposite of Torah thought in which it is thought to be the worst possible sin to think of oneself as greater that he really is. The sin of Pride.

Modern morality the opposite of the morality of the Bible. [Modern morality is the morality of Satan,] Self Esteem is thought to be the greatest thing. In the Torah, it is considered the gravest of all sins, and that leads one to the bottom of hell.

The Kant Fries school however holds like Schopenhauer that reality itself is irrational. --or beyond reason.

Dr Kelley Ross mentions in his PhD thesis [see https://www.friesian.com/]that there is a sort of ambiguity what is it that the categories are meant to unite, just conceptions  or also perceptions.["A fundamental ambiguity in Kant concerns just what it is that synthesis generates, a structured set of concepts describing the world or our immediate perceptions."] If it would be just conceptions then everything would be OK. But how can they unite perceptions? Well Kant notices this problem himself and claims that because of this problem it must be that perceptions themselves are themselves rational. Structured by reason. [That surely sounds like the exact point of Hegel.]  But Dr. Ross takes a different approach and claims that because of this very sort of problem--that sensations and conceptions are so different there must be  a deeper source of knowledge that both are just two sides of the same coin. [You can also see this as almost implicit in Kant himself if you think of the categories are being like the computer chips that process the incoming information and signals. Then the natural question to ask is, "Who is the user?" The answer: the soul.] 

The Kant Fries school however holds like Schopenhauer that reality itself is irrational. --or beyond reason.

Kelly Ross has a sort of chart. He shows things of value go up from all form with no content ;ike Logic which is formal in that its forms do not  have any content.  If A implies B and B implies C then A implies C. A, B and C have no content. Then he goes up to an area which can not be reduced to pure logic like Mathematics as we know from Godel. So math has more content but less form. numbers have reality. This is the old argument if universals exist. Well it seems that trees exist. Not the concept of trees but actual trees. Michael Huemer brings some proofs of this. One that I recall off hand is that  yellow is a color. Many things have it. So universals exist.

Music and art have more of what is called numinous content. Some sort of value that can not be reduced to a computer program--as we know from the many that have tried to do this with Bach.

Values that involve holiness even more so have less form than that, and even more content. If you continue the progression you would get to God who has no form.

[I should add that the Kant _Fries school is not "psychologism" as Kelley Ross takes some time and effort to point out.]

music file z15

 z15 F sharp minor  z15 midi   z15 nwc

My parents were loyal Americans and believed deeply in the American system of government and my dad spent most of his life supporting the American way of life

 My parents were loyal Americans and believed deeply in the American system of government and my dad spent most of his life supporting the American way of life one way or other. First by volunteering for the United States Air Force at the start of WWII. Then excelling in that service for which he gained medals of honor. [Some of which He did not tell me about  and others he revealed what they were for. One was for the setting up  of a Air Base in France which airplanes that were disabled could come in and be repaired in short order.] Later he contributed to the USA by his work on the U-2 project. He created one of the cameras used by the U-2. Also by inventing the first InfraRed telescope. Then work on laser communication between satellites for Star Wars SDA. In short my parents believed in the American way.

So when I see people like Trotsky, I wonder why the option of the American way did not occur to him as a better way to attain a just system of government?

The answer I have is that the situation was different. It was not a matter of choosing between czarism and capitalism.  Rather it seems to him and millions of Russians that the issue was how to throw off the yoke of the czars.

What this means for today is that, in fact, it would make much sense to look at the Constitution of the USA to see what a just system of government would be like.   Sadly this does not  seem to hold in the USA where the Constitution is nowadays ignored.   

Still, a lot depends n the sort of people the system is meant to govern.

If you think all menial workers are saints and all factory owners are demons that is going to result in a different sort of system than if one thinks that human beings across the board contain a evil inclination --even if they are workers, or black or female.

The shear number of people in the USA that hate the Co Constitution of the USA would have seemed as as terrible people. 

Deterministic Quantum Mechanics: the Mathematical Equations Gerard t Hooft

 Deterministic Quantum Mechanics: the Mathematical Equations Gerard t Hooft

He finds classical QM by means of fast variables instead of hidden variables.

 On one hand it seems like a great philosophical idea. The fulfillment of Einstein's idea that QM is a mathematical device, but not a theory of what is going on inside of stuff.

On the other hand, physics is about black holes and tons of other stuff in such away that at least in physics, it is not thought to be earth shaking or to matter much to what is going on today. 

There are tests of this theory as d' Hooft has noticed.

I think d Hooft's Deterministic Quantum Mechanics really is from String Theory where these fast vibrations can be seen.

Gemara in Avoda Zara 23 side b. Tosphot Rosh Hahanah 13 side a.

Tosphot Rosh Hahanah 13 side a. Gemara in Avoda Zara 23 side b. The Gemara in Avoda Zara asks why were Israel commanded to burn the Asherot? After all the land belonged to Avraham and אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו no one can make forbidden that which does not belong to him. Answer: Israel served the Golden Calf so doing idolatry was OK to them. For if it had been the trees from the previous generations that would have been enough to nullify them, not burn them. Tosphot brings up the point that even though the land belonged to Avraham, the Canaanites were not thieves. They had permission to plant trees. And the trees they planted were owned by them. But when the Gemara in Avoda Zara asks its question, it is referring to the asherot from the previous generations.  So let me try to figure out this Gemara in AZ [Avoda Zara]. I guess it must be talking about trees that were in the land of Canaan before it was given to Avraham. And then the land with the trees were given to Avraham. If so the question of the Gemara makes sense. The trees belonged to Avraham and so even if the Canaanites worshipped them, they could not make them forbidden. Then look at the answer: since Israel worshipped the Calf, therefore idolatry was OK to them. That does not answer the question since an ashera has to be planted as an ashera. It can not be a regular tree that was planted for fruit and then worshipped. [That is from the Gemara itself and brought in the Rambam. Avoda Zara perek 8.] So those trees would not have been forbidden even if idolatry was ok to Israel. So let's say the question refers to asherot that were in the land at the time of Avraham, and then given to Avraham. So now they are asherot of a Israel which are required to be burned. That would be great if that was the answer of the Gemara, but the question nor the answer refer to them. So lets say the question of the gemara refers to trees [or even asherot] that were planted after the land was given to Avraham. Well, then they belong to the Canaanites outright and so the question of the Gemara makes not sense. They can cause to be forbidden that which belongs to them. Possible answer: the Gemara might be thinking since the land belongs to Avraham so the trees do also [that were planted after it was given to him]. Maybe the Gemara is thinking that regular trees also can be made forbidden by being worshipped? 

________________________________________________________________________

תוספות ראש השנה י''ג ע''א. גמרא עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב. The גמרא in עבודה זרה  asks why were Israel commanded to burn the אשרות? After all the land belonged to Avraham and אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו no one can make forbidden that which does not belong to him. Answer: Israel served the Golden Calf so doing idolatry was OK to them. For if it had been the trees from the previous generations that would have been enough to nullify them, not burn them. תוספות brings up the point that even though the land belonged to Avraham, the Canaanites were not thieves. They had permission to plant trees. And the trees they planted were owned by them. But when the גמרא in עבודה זרה asks its question, it is referring to the אשרות from the previous generations.  So let me try to figure out this גמרא in עבודה זרה . I guess it must be talking about trees that were in the land of Canaan before it was given to Avraham. And then the land with the trees were given to Avraham. If so the question of the גמרא makes sense. The trees belonged to Avraham and so even if the Canaanites worshipped them, they could not make them forbidden. Then look at the answer: since Israel worshipped the Calf, therefore idolatry was OK to them. That does not answer the question since an אשרה has to be planted as an אשרה. It can not be a regular tree that was planted for fruit and then worshipped. That is from the גמרא itself and brought in the רמב''ם הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח. So those trees would not have been forbidden even if idolatry was ok to Israel. So let's say the question refers to אשרות that were in the land at the time of Avraham, and then given to Avraham. So now they are אשרות of a Israel which are required to be burned. That would be great if that was the answer of the גמרא, but the answer does not refer to them. [Rather the answer is about trees that were forbidden because Israel served idols. Not to tree that were already asherot and then owned by avraham which already required burning] So lets say the question of the גמרא refers to trees or even אשרות that were planted after the land was given to Avraham. Well, then they belong to the Canaanites outright and so the question of the גמרא makes not sense. They can cause to be forbidden that which belongs to them. Possible answer: the גמרא might be thinking since the land belongs to Avraham so the trees do also [that were planted after it was given to him]. Maybe the גמרא is thinking that regular trees also can be made forbidden by being worshipped? 

תוספות ראש השנה י''ג ע''א. גמרא עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב. הגמרא בעבודה זרה שואלת מדוע נצטוו ישראל לשרוף את האשרות? אחרי הכל, האדמות היו של אברהם ואין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו [אף אחד לא יכול לעשות אסור את מה שלא שייך לו]. תשובה: ישראל שימשה את עגל הזהב ולכן עבודת אלילים הייתה בסדר מבחינתם. כי אם היו העצים מהדורות הקודמים היו מספיקים לבטלם, ולא לשרוף אותם. תוספות מעלה את הנקודה שלמרות שהאדמה הייתה של אברהם, הכנענים לא היו גנבים. היה להם אישור לשתול עצים. והעצים ששתלו היו בבעלותם. אך כאשר הגמרא בעבודה זרה שואלת את שאלתה, היא מתייחסת לאשרות מהדורות הקודמים. אז תן לי לנסות להבין את הגמרא הזו בעבודה זרה. אני מניח שזה בוודאי מדבר על עצים שהיו בארץ כנען לפני שניתן לאברהם. ואז האדמה עם העצים ניתנה לאברהם. אם כן שאלת הגמרא הגיונית. העצים היו של אברהם ולכן גם אם הכנענים סגדו להם, הם לא יכלו להפוך אותם לאסורים. ואז התבונן בתשובה: מכיוון שישראל סגדו לעגל, לכן עבודת אלילים הייתה בסדר מבחינתם. זה לא עונה על השאלה מכיוון שיש לנטוע אשרה כאשרה. זה לא יכול להיות עץ רגיל שנשתל לפירות ואז סגדו אותו. זה מהגמרא עצמה והביא את הרמב''ם הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח. כך שהעצים האלה לא היו אסורים גם אם עבודת אלילים הייתה בסדר לישראל. אז בואו נגיד השאלה מתייחסת לאשרות שהיו בארץ בזמן אברהם, ואז ניתנה לאברהם. אז עכשיו הם אשרות של ישראל ונדרשים להישרף. זה יהיה נהדר אם זו הייתה התשובה של הגמרא, אך התשובה אינה מתייחסת אליהם. [אדרבה התשובה היא על עצים שהיו אסורים מכיוון שישראל שימשה אלילים. לא לעץ שהיה כבר אשרה ואז היה בבעלותו של אברהם שכבר נדרש לשרוף]. אז נניח ששאלת הגמרא מתייחסת לעצים או אפילו אשרות שנטעו לאחר שהאדמה ניתנה לאברהם. ובכן, אז הם שייכים לכנענים על הסף ולכן שאלת הגמרא אינה הגיונית. הם יכולים לגרום לאסור את מה ששייך להם. תשובה אפשרית: הגמרא חושבת מכיוון שהאדמה שייכת לאברהם כך שגם העצים [שנטעו לאחר שניתנה לו]. אולי הגמרא חושבת שאפשר לאסור עצים רגילים על ידי סגידה?