the mother often is intent on getting her children to hate their father.

 Children of this generation have a difficulty in fulfilling the commandment of "Honor thy father and thy mother." The reason is that the mother often is intent on getting her children to hate their father. The The best way to deal with this issue I think is to determine according to objective morality , who is actually good and who is not. [The children are not asking who is without flaws. Rather they ought to ask who is lying. That often is easy to find out. [People that lie about small things will lie about larger things.]] And once they know that bit of information, it is simple to decide which parent to honor and which one to ignore.] 

For women or men with their own sorts of evil inclinations I have a recommendation. Since we all have large evil inclinations that we know are problematic and we really are not sure what to do.  My recommendation is to work on little things that you do know--like not to speak lashon hara [slander] and not to lie. I think if you hold to these two things with exactitude then that will lead many other areas getting straightened out.

Slander is as is well known forbidden to say even for truth. Obviously to lie is much worse. But even to say something true that is negative about someone you need some conditions. To have seen it yourself. To be sure it was wrong according to the Law. To intend some benefit. To rebuke the person privately. To not exaggerate. That no worse thing will be the result that if it was tried in a true court of the Law.

So it always is worthwhile to think about what one's mistakes were.

 In the book Gates of Repentance [by Rabbainu Yona of Grondi] is brought the idea that repentance fixes things in the past. That is to say you might have found yourself in a situation that you realize is a result of past mistakes. So according to Rabainu Yona, if one regrets the past mistakes and accepts on himself now to do better, that reaches back into the past. It makes those mistakes as if they never were. And thus the results of those mistakes disappears. 

So it always is worthwhile to think about what one's mistakes were. This is not a way of getting downtrodden , but rather a way of getting rid of the effects of one's mistakes.

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.