Hegel only published four books

Hegel only published four books even though there were plenty of notes that his students took down at his lectures. The only one of these that I read from the beginning to end was the later Logic. [That is the part of Logic in his Encyclopedia.] While I am no expert, still I had the distinct impression of his approach to be simply a post Kantian Plotinus  --that is simply Neo Platonic philosophy, but taking the three critiques of Kant into account. That is that there is the One , then the Logos, then the physical universe of Being.

 I was happy to see Cunningham agree with me.

But I also can see a lot of merit in the later Kantian approach of Kelley Ross who bases his approach on Fries and Leonard Nelson. He however does modify Fries and Nelson--taking just the best aspects of their approach to build his own system.  [Dr Ross does mention that Nelson made some improvements on Fries and I have to say that I believe that Ross made improvements on Nelson.] [Robert Hanna has an idea of "Forward to Kant", but I think that the Friesian school is an improvement on Kant.] [I should mention that interest in Fries has been a lot more in Russia than in the West. [Fries' book were published from 1967 to 2011. Nelson's from 1970 -1977.]

And while seeing the differences between these two schools, I do not see the big differences. There is of course the "immediate non intuitive issue." But I do not think the differences are as great as either school of thought thinks. [Walter Kaufman wrote a nice piece  on Hegel which I think relates to this issue.] 

Dr Ross is basically a Platonist. That is Plato after the Critique. Hegel is basically Plotinus [ie neo Platonic after the Critique.]

[I might add here that the Chovot Levavot and the rishonim go with Plotinus as you can see in all Musar books up to and including the Ramchal. And thought the Rambam was leaning towards Aristotle, still you can much of the influence of Plotinus in him also. [Besides that the Ari and the Ramchal and Rav Avraham Abulafia all are going with Plotinus--Neo Platonism. But you can see a slight variation on this in Rav Shalom Sharabi [the mystic from Yemen who made his way to Jerusalem.] He holds the order of the higher worlds starts out like Plato [all the higher levels are above. That is vertical.] but in the future they wll be like Aristotle--all the higher levels with be in things --horizontal]

The Musar movement [and in a wider context the Litvak Yeshiva] has the advantage of representing authentic Torah.

 There is reality behind the words of the books of Musar of the disciples of Israel Salanter. It is nor the words of their books, but rather there is the reality behind the words. As the Roman saying goes: "Acta non verba" (Actions, not words). When I learn or hear the Or Israel or Madragat HaAdam there is some aspect of fear of God or trust in God that enters my soul. The reason is that these people  worked themselves to come to fear of God and trust in God. 

The Musar movement [and in a wider context the Litvak Yeshiva] has the advantage of representing authentic Torah. Not just intellectually, but rather in the whole spirit of Torah that permeates the Litvak yeshiva. The rest of the religious world seems very false to me. The façade of Torah, the whole showing off is very foreign to Torah. But more so. It is like the pig that stretches out its hoofs to show that it is kosher, but hides that fact that it des not chew the cud. Or like the idol that was dug up on Mount Grizim which showed that the Samaritans were in fact serving idols. But it was hidden. 

China stealing proprietary secrets that is troublesome.

 The feat of the rover of China that landed on Mars and deployed successfully would be more impressive if the feat had been accomplished without stealing American technology. Or at least they might have mentioned their gratitude to the USA for much technology that was transferred legally to them, and also they might be upfront and say openly they hold from the Marxist doctrine that there is no such thing as copy rights or rights of a capitalistic country as to withhold their secrets from China. After all to a Marxists private property is theft by definition. But at least an acknowledgement of gratitude might make sense, Thus they hold stealing from the USA is a virtue. So why should they be embarrassed? They should be proud that they stole.

Elon Musk acknowledged his debt to Russian designs for the raptor engine. At least giving credit where credit is due.[Even though he did not seal anything. Rather it is the theft aspect of the China stealing proprietary secrets that is troublesome.

 normalization of deviance. That is something that creeps into  straight Torah that should not. That is something that hitchhikes off of real Torah. That is the reason the Gra signed his name on the famous letter of excommunication in order not to let any trace of the Sitra Achra [Dark Side] have a foothold in Torah. You might be aware of it and yet you get used to it. You get to even expect it. Then one day it comes back to bite you. That is we need vigilance to keep out the Sitra Achra in the first place 

a command to learn the wonders of God which are as much hidden in His creation [Physics]

Every time I say the ten psalms that Rav Nahman pointed out for Tikun HaBrit, I am struck by how many times it is mentioned, "Remember His wonders, his miracles and the laws of His mouth." To me this seems like a command to learn the wonders of God which are as much hidden in His creation [Physics] as there are in the revealed Torah. [This idea is mentioned in psalm 77 a few times and also in psalm 105 --also a few times.] You can see this also in the Rishonim that follow the Obligations of the Hearts and the Rambam.

I realize that Christianity is controversial. That is why I do not comment on it much. My own views are likely to be totally unlike anyone else, so why should I write just to annoy people? My views are too far from traditional Christianity to be acceptable to any Christian. And way too sympathetic towards Jesus to be acceptable to anyone that is against Christianity. 

However, it still seems right to me to mention Rav Avraham Abulafia in this regard. That is at least what he writes חותם של יום ששי the seal of the sixth day referring to the sephera of yesod. [ Also: האירו קשריו] That in addition to the Ari at the end of Sefer Breishit he says more or less the same idea.  

Rav Nahman.

 I was in the Na Nach place again today [Breslov] and they were learning a bit of the book of Rav Natan [Collection of Laws] based on the book of Rav Nahman [Collections of Rav Nahman or the LeM as I call it for short.]It is always possible to find fault and something to criticize in the writings of Rav Nahman. But instead, I try to find some way of understanding what Rav Nahman means or his disciple Rav Natan.

איזהו חכם? מי שמיישב דברי חכמים Who is wise? He who finds a way to answer for the words of the wise. [I forget where I saw this statement in the Gemara]

So without further ado let me say what the issue is. Rav Natan is basing himself on the LeM vol II perek 12. [and LeM I:9]. But he adds a bit that is not in the LeM. He says a person was created to reveal the glory of God. I was wondering about this. And after walking outside a bit, I realized that Rav Natan is basing himself on the idea of the Ari [Isaac Luria] that everything was created to reveal the traits of God. [the seven lower sepherot --including malchut which is also known as the Glory of God.] 

You might look in the writings of Rav Moshe Chaim Lutzato to see this expanded a bit.

[This brings up another issue that I might mention. A fellow I know in who also hands out in Breslov Isaac also found it hard to see what is going on in the books of Rav Nahman. So I explained to him that Rav Nahman is assumed a knowledge of Gemara and Musar and the Ari in what he writes. But he also wants his idea to bring good advice to those that do not follow his ideas. But he is not trying to explain the basic structure of Torah ethics.--the big picture. To get the big picture one has to learn Musar.\