When things do not go my way I wonder what I did wrong. After all this is an open Gemara in tractate Shabat אין ייסורים בלי עוון "there are no troubles without sin."

I figure that my major sins are probably hidden from me since that is the nature of sin--to cloud one's vision. Still, I figure that at least there are a few I am well aware of. And I think that if I could at least correct some of the smaller ones, maybe I could eventually get to the bigger ones.

So I came up with a list of four major sins that I am sure were really sins. Not just from book learning, but from results of those sins. When I went through this process in my mind I think I was in Uman, Then sometime later I decided to add a fifth sin to the list--bitul Torah [not learning Torah when one can]. Or more exactly walking away from the straight path of the Gra and Musar of Israel Salanter. 

The other four I am not sure if I should write down here because they might not be applicable to others. However, I do not think I have really been able to correct the sin of bitul Torah very well. And even to suggest to others how to go about avoiding bitul Torah does not seem simple. To support yeshivas that walk in  the path of the Gra should be the simplest way, or to start one's own group that walks in the path of the Gra.  [There are some places like that. For example the Aderet Eliyahu in the old city of Jerusalem. Then there are Litvak yeshivas which tend towards the Gra to some degree. Those are a mixed bunch. Some Litvak yeshivas are great like Ponovitch and Brisk. [I myself was at Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY and both I think are also very great. Both were learning in depth but in  different ways. Shar Yashuv was like looking at Tosphot through an electron microscope. The Mir in NY was like  looking at Shas in a global way--something like you will see in the books of Rav Chaim of Brisk or the Avi Ezri]    

what is decreed for one will happen anyway no matter what. Navardok [the disciple of Rav Israel Salanter, Joseph Yosel Horwitz]

 So how much effort should one expend to get to his goals? None at at all? Or trust in God? This seems ambiguous. The way the Madragat HaAdam [the disciple of Rav Israel Salanter, Joseph Yosel Horwitz] understands things is that what is decreed for one will happen anyway no matter what. But more often it seems that it is by trust that one needs no effort. Even if this can no be right still it is useful to conceive as if trust takes the place of effort. And does a better job.

[I am not dealing here with the opinion of Ibn Pakuda that one should expend effort, but also trust in God--the very thing the Gra says not to do. But ven Ibn Pakuda agrees that when one accepts on himself the yoke of Torah there is removed from him the yoke of work,

And the "yoke  of Torah" includes Physics and Metaphysics as stated in Ibn Pakuda and Rambam.

problem with the study of history

 The problem with the study of history is that it is most often a subtle means of trying to get people outraged about something or other. It pretends to be "academic", but most often is hiding the evils of the side they like, and exaggerating the virtues of the side they like. [There is almost always some agenda.]

I encounter this often in conversations with people that have heard only one side of some events.  Often I have no opinion one way or the other, but what surprises me is the fact that when people have heard abundant "facts" on one side of things.  So history is the art of getting people to elevate a regrettable and sad occurrence into an outrage.

[I could give examples but, I am sure you can provide plenty on your own from your own experience. It is not that being outraged is "off." Rather that one ought to be extra careful about what to be outraged about=-and to make doubly sure to look into all the facts.] 

[I like to learn history. But I tend to try to do so as thoroughly as I can, and go to original sources as much as possible. Either do it right,  or do not do it at all.] 

 z23 D minormp3   z23 midi   z23 nwc

Michael Huemer on moral objectivism.

Reason, Objectivity, and Goodness" .... Moral objectivism (like objectivism in general) seems to be entailed by the law of excluded middle and the correspondence theory of truth, along with a couple of what seem equally obvious observations about morality:

(1) There are moral propositions.
(2) So they are each either true or false. (by law of excluded middle) (3) And it's not that they're all false. Surely it is true, rather than false, that Josef Stalin's activities were bad. (Although some communists would disagree, we needn't take their view seriously, and moreover, even they would admit some moral judgement, such as, "Stalin was good.")
(4) So some moral judgements correspond to reality. (from 2,3, and the correspondence theory of truth)
(5) So moral values are part of reality. (which is objectivism)"

This seems to me to be important because in fact we find all rishonim [medieval authorities] holding that the goal of Torah is to bring up to objective morality. The simplest place to see this is the Sefer HaChinuch, where he lists all the commandments of the Torah along with some of its laws and details and then also explains the reason for teach particular command.  The reasons  are what Saadia Gaon calls "חוקי בשכל" "laws of reason"

music file z22

 z22 C minor  z22 midi  z22 nwc

za16 midi  za16 nwc

 Even though Fries himself as development of Kant seems to be lacking, still the later development of Leonard Nelson seems a lot better as Kelley Ross makes note of. Still the issues between Fries, Hegel and Prichard seem to be based on the results of their systems in the political sphere. But if we would be looking at political structures , it does  not seem that any of them were right but rather the approach f John Locke. So these must be two different areas of value Plato , Fries and Hegel were very great thinkers in philosophy, but not politics..