Written Law and Oral Law, Physics, Metaphysics

To learn the entire Written Law and Oral Law, Physics, Metaphysics is the basic approach of Pakuda and Maimonides. That is the Old Testament, the two Talmuds, the books of Aristotle named the Metaphysics. But the Physics I would have to say must refer to Physics today. Even the Metaphysics of Aristotle I would have to say refers to the subject matter. [i.e., includes Plato and Plotinus. I would have to add Kant and Leonard Nelson.] 

[The way I suggest to finish the two Talmuds is with Rashi, Tosphot and Maharsha. That should be the fast session. For the the in-depth session I suggest to concentrate on individual sugias with the the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.]

[Certainly the Ramban/Nahmanides and many of the other rishonim would disagree with the importance of learning Physics and Metaphysics. Still I have adopted this approach of Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam. It makes the most sense to me.] 

“I CAN NO LONGER RECOMMEND THE VACCINE TO ANY INDIVIDUAL”

 https://www.brighteon.com/d6fab6d3-24b8-4f1e-9bc7-9ab1c1134593

 General Grant was reviewing his troops and came near the closest lines to the Confederate Army. As he did the Union guards saw him and announced to all the soldiers in the vicinity to come  out of their tents and present themselves to the general. General Grant said, :"Forget it. Just let the men go back to their tents."  The Confederate guards had heard from across the battle lines what had been going on. So the Confederate officers called to their men to stand at attention for General Grant. They all assembled and saluted the General and he returned their salute.

The lesson. We are all Americans. We all believe in Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Just we are disagreeing about what is just. 

[This is not to imply that General Grant was right. Rather as is the case with many issues of justice, there is ambiguity. The odd thing is that General Grant stated in his writing down his account of the war, mentioned one justification. That the slaves would eventually reproduce and then since they would hate the whites, they would exterminate the whites. So with that in mind it was important to free the slaves so the nation would be whole. But was that the result? Are now things any different? Is now hatred of whites any less? Is there longer any less desire to exterminate the whites? He forsaw that with enough numbers the result would be that the slaves would attempt to destroy all white people. So is that any different from things now?]  

How much does one do review before going on?

   For myself I found  review twice and go on made the most sense.

I was aware of the approach of Rav Nahman of just saying the words in order and going on. [But that left me with almost zero understanding.] On the other hand Rav Freifeld of Shar Yashuv was emphasizing doing review 10 times before going on. That left me with making no progress. So the review twice approach was what I adopted for many years.  

if Trotsky had been aware of the future, he would never have advocated Marxism.

 if Trotsky had been aware of the future, he would never have advocated Marxism.  His concern was towards the working class. If he had known the fact that to get a loaf of bread one needed to get up at 4:00 A.M.  in the wee hours of the morning to go stand in a line that went half way around the block, he would have dropped his theory and replaced it with capitalism--a theory that results in plenty for the people that in fact work. [His concern was not towards welfare recipients. He would rather have been concerned about the people that were actually working. [You can see this in his writings that all hinge on the concept-that the workers are good and the parasites like welfare collectors are evil.]

And why would taking from bankers and other wealthy people be right? The whole idea of redistribution   is based on movies that portray rich people as having stolen from the poor. But movies are not evidence. Other that that why should there be a prima facie assumption that the reason anyone who has more than another is because they stole it? 

The unity there is in positive transcendence, which is value, where, again, the unity is among things in themselves. What makes this significant is that this seems to show a deep source of faith

 In Kant there is this separation between things and what we can know about them. In the Kant-Fries school it is held that even though there are limits to ''analytic knowledge'' which can be known by manipulating definitions, and empirical knowledge;--still there is a third source of knowledge which is not by pure reason nor by sense perception. Not faith as understood as a third kind of extrasensory perception. So what is reality? 

My  question to Dr Kelley Ross was about this issue. His answer: One idea is that the nature of value is a unity among things in themselves, but is split up by the kaleidoscope of phenomenal reality.  Dilemmas become possible.  The division between mind and body is more like that between internal and external negative transcendence.  The unity there is in positive transcendence, which is value, where, again, the unity is among things in themselves.

What makes this significant is that  this seems to show a deep source of faith

z16 music file

 z16 B Minor  z16 midi   z16 nwc