[good character]

 People that are religious seem to think that they are morally superior to secular Jews. Though I do not know people inner thoughts or motivations, still this seems apparent in their speech and actions. [And experience generally show the opposite.] If you need a kindness, the last person  that will help is religious. Thus to me, it seems the  message of Torah of the prime importance midot tovot [good character] is lost. For me it reached  the point that  what ever damage the religious could do to me, they would do. [These same people asked me to get money for them from John Factor my neighbor because these people were supposedly learning Torah not for money--while asking me to get money from my neighbor John Factor for millions of dollars. Clearly they [and all the religious world ] want money, and especially for the fact of their learning Torah not for money. The hypocrisy shouts out to the heavens.]

Rav Israel Salanter tried to correct this fault, but I have not seen that people that learn Musar are all that more decent than anyone else.

But this is not possible to see or know by learning.  In the religious world all the words are right. But the actual acts of kindness are lacking. [Except to themselves]. It is only the shock of reality, of how people actually act that shoes the religious illusions of  moral superiority to be lacking in all substance.

What the lesson is this. There is something about the religious world that is off kilter. [Seethe LeM of Rav Nahman vol II chapter 8  That even the kindness of the religious  is really cruelty. It is the same kindness of the fisherman that gives a worm on his hook free of  charge to the fish. It is not really from the motivation of kindness that teh fisherman gibes a worm to the fish  but rather to catch it in his hook.  The kindness if of the religious is really cruelty as Rav Nahman puts it in the LeM vol II chapter 8.

outside wisdoms"

 The translation of Euclid [a small part of the actual massive volumes of Euclid] by a disciple of the Gra brings in the introduction that the Gra said "One will lack in understanding and knowledge  of Torah a hundred times in proportion to one lack of knowledge in the seven widoms."

And this is the common opinion among the rishonim that built on Saadia Gaon.  [like the Chovot Levavot.] However there are other rishonim and even geonim that disagree with this.

I take the first approach to be best, but I also recognize the validity and value of the second approach.

Right after writing the above I went over to the Breslov place  and listened to someone reading the books of Rav Nathan [a disciple of Rav Nahman] on  the subject of "outside wisdoms" he disparages those that learn or teach them. But that while going with Rav Hai Gaon and some rishonim like the Ramban that goes with that approach, I still prefer the Saadia Gaon, Chovot Levavot, Rambam approach, which is exactly opposite. 

To my way of thinking it all depends on what one is learning. If we are talking about the social studies departments of universities, well Rav Nathan was 100% correct.  [As Allan Bloom goes into great depth in his Closing of the American Mind]. But if we we would be talking about STEM fields then clearly Saadia gaon and the Hovot Levavot are correct.

 People in the USSR at the end did not want to USSR to continue. However what they got after that was generally not to their liking either. When I would ask people [often the women selling their products at the local bazar how were things during the time of the USSR, they would always answer the same thing: "Better than now." And sometimes they would elaborate: "Everyone was working." Or sometimes even more extensive elaborations. What I generally take that to mean is that you have to take things in perspective. To try and make the USA into a socialist state is to try and take it down. But to compare the USSR to the kinds of chaos that things sank to after the fall of the USSR --well obviously the USSR was better.

To accept things the way they are is a important trait.

 i was thinking about the advantages of having one's own space. But also thinking that the best idea is to accept things the way they are.as long as these things at least least to tolerable and lovable in some degree. To accept things the way they are is a important trait. There can be a point where one must act but it is best not to hurry that point along.

my own approach is that I try to have this balance between Physics, Math and Gemara, Rashi Tosphot.

The Litvak yeshiva world. True that it is the prime example of loyalty to Torah. Especially the verse "Do not add nor subtract." 

However my own approach is that I try to have this balance between Physics, Math and Gemara, Rashi Tosphot. Not that I disparage those that learn Torah all the time. Still I try to walk on this sort of middle path. [All of one's complaints about the straight Litvak world can be balanced by the fact that whatever actions taken against you can be balanced by your own faults that led at it least in half to that very situation.] Besides that see the story of Rav Nahman [the first]about the giants and the mishne lemelech second in authority to the king. the giants that were obstacles in the end turned out to be the very thing needed.

 

It is a subject mentioned in the Mishna, and Gemara itself. Torah with Derech Eretz in one mishna. And there is removed the yoke of derech eretz from all who receive on themselves the yoke of Torah.

I can not really say one or the other is right. It seems to depend on one's root soul

.

[I do however say that that the area of dinge an sich is inherently contradictory as Kant said. So simply going by reason and deciding things based on texts alone is inherently wrong. Rather the basis of Torah is objective morality. So the right path is not the issue. The real issue is how to be a mensch. how to come to the right moral decisions. That is objective morality.

Musar [books on ethics]

 You see in Musar [books on ethics] an emphasis on correction of character traits. The reason I think is this. One might be aware of his own sins and try to correct them. But that leaves the root of the sin not fixed --the kind of fault that led to the sin. And also sins can be hard to identify, and sometimes even if one is aware of them, they might contradict each other. That is the very nature of the spirituality--It does not lend itself well being reasoned about. Thus it is best to work on one's character and by that uproot the source of ones faults. 

I have tried to identify my sins by mean of experience. That is: to see what actions caused problems. This is often easy because one can see immediate results. Other times the results of certain actions can be a long time coming. But in any case, this is better than reasoning from books, for the mind is often highly misleading. One can find anything he wants in any books. This is unreliable.  

 I am not saying what kind of path one ought to take. My father as you can see was more along the lines of what you could call secular, while I went to Shar Yashuv and later the Mir in NY. So what seems best to me is along the lines of Dr Kelley Ross's modification of the Kant Fries school where he shows an array of values. That is to say: I think every person is or can be connected to a certain area of value. Clearly that area is what ought to spend his or her time perfecting. [I do not think Mozart ought to have tried to become a Physicist. Nor do I think he would have been a great one even if he had. Rather he found or was guided by his dad into the area of value that was right for him.]

However I also think every area of value has an opposite area that  one can get pulled into if he or she is not careful. E.g., one who has talent in music must be careful not to be pulled into anti-music.  

[{Also, I think one ought to be balanced. Even if one concentrates on one area, he should also have some balanced with the other areas of positive value.]