Robert Hanna is right about "Forward to Kant"

 Robert Hanna is right about "Forward to Kant". I mean to say that Analytic School [starting from Frege] while thinking to improve on Kant, really missed the boat. They detracted, not improved. [Of course, it was not just Robert Hanna that noticed this. It started with a fellow by the name of Katz that  I think was the first to see the gigantic holes in the Analytic School.] 

But let's just say we would all go back to Kant. Would that not leave the same problems that existed in the first place that the people after Kant tried to deal with? My feeling about this is one important school is that of Kelley Ross [The Friesian School] who bases his approach on Fries and Leonard Nelson but is  an advance on both. [His advance is think is largely based on Gretta Hermann.]

But on the side of this there is Michael Huemer [based on the Intuitionists--Prichard, Ross]. While based on the Analytic tradition , still it seems impossible to ignore Huemer. 

And further the is still the elephant in the room which is impossible to ignore--Hegel. Though sadlly he does not seem to have any spokesman outside of the turn of the last century McTaggart and Cunningham.

[The Communists certainly love to take stuff and ideas from him to build up their totalitarian societies. But there does not seem to be any real engagement with Hegel per se. [I mean just try to listen to social studies professors that try to defend communisms as the peak of freedom and prosperity. I guess that is easy to do nowadays when the street long lines to buy a loaf of bread in the USSR are all forgotten.And the idea that the USSR stood for freedom beyond absurd.\

Lashon Hara slander

 Robert E Lee said after the war that he could not think of that anyone could have been a  better president of the South than Jefferson Davis. So you see that Robert E Lee was very careful about Lashon Hara. For it could not have gone unnoticed by him that the leadership of the South was disastrous. [Sam Hood made a general? And the fact that Jefferson Davis made a speech in which he laid out the military plans of the South--publicly --and which was published in Northern newspapers. General Sherman could not have been happier.]

So Robert E Lee was aware that Lashon Hara is also on truth. One must not say negative things about anyone unless there are fulfilled seven conditions. One of which is that there must be some benefit in saying so. So General Lee obviously reasoned to himself that if he would have stated his real opinion of Jefferson Davis what possible benefit could anyone gain from that?

A lot of times you hear that people that are religious ask for money because they are learning Torah. This seems odd.

 A lot of times you hear that people that are religious ask for money because  they are learning Torah. This seems odd. One reason is the source the Gra brings to the mishna in Avot "not to make a shovel of Torah to di with"--i.e to gain profit from. The source the Gra brings is from the prohibition of ""meila'. That is using something holy to make money from. For example someone says this ox I am  going to bring as a fire offering. Well the ox then is forbidden in use. So if someone uses it--lets say they plow with it. They transgress this prohibition. This applies in three categories. Presents to the Temple. Animals dedicated as sacrifices. Oaths. [As the law is like R.Meir who says יש מעילה בקונמות.

To use something holy to gain personal benefit or profit is a sin

To use Torah to make money is the same as if one took the ox and plowed with it and say I am not really plowing. I am simply walking with this ox that just happens to have a plow attacked to its back--a dn I am just taking a walk in my field.

[TheRambam brings this same point in Pirkei Avot chapter 4.]

Yet in some circles you hear all the time how their group is good by definition

I think self identity with any group is a sort of idolatry. One is supposed to be a decent human being. That is to follow objective morality. While group identification seems to be very different from this. Every group has good and evil. Yet in some circles you hear all the time how their group is  good by definition. Once I hear such talk, I make my exit as soon as possible. This is because this is highly wrong and immoral.

 I am not saying my previous blog entry is a very complete answer for the Ran. Rav Shach wants to say that there is a way to explain the apparent ] problem in the words of the Ran. [Rabbainu Nisim]. On one hand that "This is forbidden " is forbidden because of an extension of "this is forbidden like a sacrifice" And that does seem impossible because of circular reasoning. "This is forbidden" because of extension [you add the words this is forbidden like a sacrifice. And yet "This is forbidden like a sacrifice" is forbidden because it is part of the law of neder which is simply "This is forbidden"

The answer of רב שך to explain the ר''ן would be to separate the law of extension from the main law. But if this can fit in the ר''ן seems doubtful. {Whether this could fit in the ר''ן or even the רמב''ם does not really seem to work.] However I have reached a state of "fallen mind" and am not really able to spend time learning.--though I should because of the command of the Torah.. Still I mull over this difficulty in the Ran and Rav Shach-hoping for some answer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I am not saying my previous blog entry is a very complete answer for the ר''ן. The answer of  רה שך is to say that there is a way to explain the apparent ] problem in the words of the ר''ן. On one hand that "This is forbidden " is forbidden because of an extension of "this is forbidden like a קרבן". And that does seem impossible because of circular reasoning. "This is forbidden" because of extension. [You add the words "this is forbidden like a קרבן." And yet,"This is forbidden like a קרבן" is forbidden because it is part of the law of נדרים which is simply "This is forbidden"ץ

התשובה של רב שך להסביר את הר''ן תהיה הפרדת חוק ההרחבה מהחוק העיקרי. אבל אם זה יכול להתאים לר''ן נראה מסופק. האם זה יכול להתאים לר''ן או אפילו לרמב''ם לא באמת נראה שזה עובד.

הלחם הזה אסור לי" לר''ן ורמב''ם הוא נדר העיקרי

  "This loaf is forbidden to me" to the ר''ן and רמב''ם is the main נדר vow. So why אם he says, "This loaf is forbidden to me like נבלה," is permitted? Because when one says, "This is forbidden to me like such and such a thing" the "such and such a thing" has to be something that can be forbidden by a נדר or like someone who says, "This loaf is a מתנה for the בית המקדש". [Things presented to the בית המקדש are forbidden in use.] [This is a special law. For you might ask what is the difference  between "This is forbidden to me" and "This is forbidden to me like נבלה"?] [This is not like the other ראשונים that hold the real נדר is when one says "This is forbidden like a קרבן" and the only reason, "This is forbidden to me" works is as a extension [יד]. However the very well known question on the ר''ן at the very beginning of נדרים מסכת is that at first glance he seems to contradict himself. At first going like the רמב''ם and then going like תוספות on the very same page. רב שך says that for the actual law of נדר is without attaching the prohibition to anything else [as the רמב''ם says] but for the language to make clear what he means [as is necessary for נדרים] he has to say 'like a קרבן. This to me seems like a very good answer to show that the ר''ן does not contradict himself. However the remaining question is that the actual language of the ר''ן does not seem to accept this explanation. What I mean is that the ר''ן  says in מסכת שבועות the reason you need "like a קרבן" is because הקדש עושה חליפין if one says this animal is like that קרבן, that is valid.[זה תמורת זה חל  ] The second animal becomes a קרבן also. This me this seems like a contradiction to the idea of רב שך [in the beginning of הלכות נדרים] [However a further point is that if the main נדר is ''This is אסור לי'' then it is hard to see that the very words ''this is אסור לי'' would be thought not to count as a נדרת, and only valid as a short way of saying ''this is forbidden as a קרבן'' when ''this is forbidden as a קרבן'' is only forbidden because it is thought of as an extension of the main concept of נדר.]  

The way to answer this is thus: There is a difference between the description of something and the thing itself. The נדר itself is valid not because of  התפסה בדבר הנדור. Rather, the oath is valid in itself. But the language has to mean directly that he is forbidding to himself something that is not forbidden. And he can not do that by saying, "This is forbidden to me "because that might as well mean he is saying something not true. It sounds as if he is saying it is already forbidden"

_______________________________________________________________________________

/"הלחם הזה אסור לי" לר''ן ורמב''ם הוא נדר העיקרי. אז למה אם הוא אומר, "הלחם הזה אסור לי כמו נבלה", מותר? כי כשאומרים, "זה אסור לי כמו דבר כזה", "דבר כזה וכזה" חייב להיות משהו שאפשר לאסור אותו על ידי דיבור או כמו מישהו שאומר, "הלחם הזה הוא מתנה בשביל בית המקדש ". [דברים המוצגים לבית המקדש אסורים בשימוש.] [זהו חוק מיוחד. כי אתה עשוי לשאול מה ההבדל בין "זה אסור לי" לבין "זה אסור לי כמו נבלה"?] [זה לא כמו שאר הראשונים האחרים שמחזיקים את הנדר האמיתי הוא כאשר אומרים "זה אסור כמו קרבן ", והסיבה היחידה," זה אסור לי "פועלת כהרחבה [יד]. אולם השאלה הידועה בר''ן בתחילת נדרים היא שבמבט ראשון נראה שהוא סותר את עצמו. בהתחלה הולך כמו הרמב''ם ואחר כך הולך כמו תוספות על אותו דף. רב שך מתרץ את הר''ן כי החוק בפועל של נדר הוא מבלי לצרף את האיסור לשום דבר אחר [כפי שאומר הרמב''ם] אבל כדי שהשפה תבהיר למה הוא מתכוון [כפי שהוא הכרחי עבור נדרים] עליו לומר "כמו קרבן". זה תשובה טובה מאוד להראות שהר''ן אינו סותר את עצמו. אולם השאלה שנותרה היא כי נראה כי השפה בפועל של הר''ן אינה מקבלת הסבר זה כל כך. מה שאני מתכוון הוא שהר''ן אומר במסכת שבועות הסיבה שנדר צריך "כמו קרבן" היא כי הקדש עושה חליפין. [אם אחד אומר שהבהמה הזאת היא תמורת הקרבן הזה, זה תקף. [זה תמורת זה חל].  הבעל חי השני הופך גם לקרבן. זה נראה לי כמו סתירה לרעיון של רב שך [בתחילת הלכות נדרים] [אולם נקודה נוספת היא שאם נדר העיקרי הוא '' זה אסור לי'' אז קשה לראות שעצם מילים '' זה אסור לי '' נחשבות  תקפות רק כדרך קצרה לומר '' זה אסור כקרבן​'', כאשר '' זה אסור כמו קרבן '' הוא אסור רק כי הוא נחשב כהרחבה של הרעיון העיקרי שלנדר.] 

הדרך לענות על כך היא: יש הבדל בין התיאור של משהו לבין הדבר עצמו. הנדר עצמו תקף לא בגלל התפסה בדבר הנדור. אלא הנדר תקף כשלעצמו. אבל השפה צריכה להתכוון ישירות לכך שהוא אוסר לעצמו דבר שאינו אסור. והוא לא יכול לעשות זאת על ידי אמירת "זה אסור לי" כי זה יכול גם להישמע שהוא אומר משהו לא נכון. זה נשמע כאילו הוא אומר שזה כבר אסור

_________________________________________________

/

The person that proved Fermat's last theorem [Wiles] gave a talk [published in Quanta Magazine] in which he claimed everyone can learn Mathematics. The way that I see this as possible is by the path of learning of Rav Nahman by saying the words and going on. [People are accustomed to this in Torah learning where it takes a lot or review until you understand. So people do not usually expect to understand the sugia (subject) at first. They simply say the words, and come back to it. I  understood that the way one gets the idea after lots of review. I see this as applicable in Mathematics also. "Say the words and go on. Even if you do not understand at first , you will eventually understand. And if a few things remain hard to grasp, well so what? for the greatness of lots of learning goes above everything. [Conversations of Rav Nahman paragraph 76.]]

[But why learn Mathematics--you surely will ask. For me the answer is simple. My father encouraged my interests in Mathematics and Physics. So while I did no understand nor understand at present why this is important, I have the obligation of כבוד אב ואם Honor of one's father and mother. And  Confucius said the very fact that you are not walking on the path of your parents means (by the very definition of that term) that you are not honoring you father and mother. [It does not matter if they said to do so.

But for others that have not had parents that encouraged this let me mention some of the Rishonim that held from this. One would be the Gra who said any lack of knowledge in any of the Seven Wisdoms creates a lack of Torah knowledge times 100. [That is the quotation in the Intro to Euclid in Hebrew by a disciple of the Gra.] Other Rishonim would be Ibn Pakuda, Binyamin the doctor and the Rambam.