Even with people doing good work in understanding Kant (like Paul Wolff), you still end up with the problem that this approach  has kinks that just do not seem to go away.  You could at that point look at Schelling or Fichte which are not Kantian at all, or you could take the Fries approach which is a modification of Kant. [It is not psychologism-using the mind to explain none mind based facts.]

Or you could take the Hegel approach. But that approach is certainly not to the liking of any Kantians. And at lot there depends on which initial texts one takes. For some reason I read the Logic [that part of the Encyclopedia] first and that fit completely into my understanding of Plato and Plotinus. [Ever since then I have never understood the complaints about Hegel.]  

And you could combine both. After all Hegel is mainly interested in building his Metaphysical system. he does not care about the Mind Body Problem. While Kant [and Fries] are involved in that very much so-- in answering Berkeley and Hume.   

[Incidentally, the Fries approach needed a certain amount of development. Leonard Nelson added a bit of clarity to it [as mentioned in Dr Kelley Ross's web site]. But even more so--the Friesian School of Nelson could not deal with the Special Theory of Relativity and even less with the General Theory of Relativity. That includes Nelson himself and all those who followed him until Gretta Hermann.]

There is an obligation to leave the edge of the field for the poor.

There is an obligation to leave the edge of the field for the poor. That is not to touch it at all. This is called "peah". The amount one must leave is 1/60. 

That left over part is not obligated in the presents given to the priest or the Levite [called truma and maasar.]

Let's say however one just goes ahead and reaps the whole field. The second that he jumped the line and cut down the first stalk of the 1/60 the obligation of peah goes over to  the sheaves. Some part of the sheaves he has to leave as peah so as to get up to 1/60 of the whole field.

But what happens to the first stalk of that started the process in the first place? and what happens to the second stalk of the 1/60 part that was the beginning of the transgression of the  לא תכלה "Do not finish harvesting your field, but leave the corner of your field to the poor." Well the second he harvested that stalk, he transgressed that prohibition. So the questions are is the very first stalk still obligated in truma. (For at first it was obligated in truma since it is not "left over". But now all the reaped field is liable to be peah. Does that include the first stalk? And the difference is what is obligated in truma  is called "tevel". Grain that has not had the presents to the priest and Levite separated rom it and thus forbidden to be eaten.) And what about the second stalk? Is it obligated in truma? For at first it was supposed to be peah. But the second he cuts it the obligation of peah goes over to the sheaves--but now it also is sheaf!! And it is peah? So which one is it? 

Tractate Shabat page 139. I quote: "If you see a generation that troubles come upon it go out a check the judges of Israel.

Tractate Shabat page 139. I quote: "If you see a generation that troubles come upon it go out a check the judges of Israel. For no troubles come upon the world except for he cause of the judges of Israel."

So we see the problem that Rav Nahman was referring to concerning Torah scholars that are demons [LeM vol. I perek 12 and 28] was noticed before. 

 The problem is how to tell who is from the realm of holiness and who is from the Dark Side?

And it is not possible to simply say, "Go and learn Torah, and you will see who is giving authentic advice and who is the fraud" because people need immediate advice and do not have the time to go through the entire Shas before they can reach a conclusion.

But you do have an indication if not an absolute proof.. Who encourages you to learn every day Gemara and Tosphot is from the Realm of Holiness. 

[The Dark Side can not stand that people learn authentic Torah.]

And I can see that ones parents often warn one about this problem. But the religious fanaticism that is in people does not let them listen their parents. This is odd since you might imagine that the fifth commandment of the Ten Commandments ought to make a difference to supposedly religious people.

[Parents are often aware of hypocrisy, while young [i.e eighteen years old] are not aware. The young think in fact it is all about learning Torah for its own sake, not for money and power. o they warn their children. But the children are taken in by the propaganda. Thus it is best to listen to the Torah which already told us to listen to our parents. We might be smart, but they know a thing or two about the ral world.

It is hard to know what to make of all this. On one hand, the importance of Torah is clear. On the other hand the religious world is mentally sick. What could be the meaning? I should mention that I was troubled by this for years until I understood that the religious world an d Torah are two  opposites. 

I really did not appreciate the path of the Gra and the straight Litvak yeshiva

 I really did not appreciate the path of the Gra and the straight Litvak yeshiva. Now I am happy that I also was inspired and gained a great deal from the advice and ideas of Rav Nahman of Breslov, but leaving the context of the straight Litvak sort of yeshiva was a mistake. [At least I can see that now.] So while I can not change the past, I can suggest to others that if they have merited to be in a straight Litvak yeshiva, then "count your blessings." Be grateful. You can learn from Rav Nahman's LeM and other books, but one must not be taken off the straight and narrow because of that.

z46 music file

 z46 A minor

Worship of dead corpses would seem clearly to be a problem.

 There is little in the religious world that actually corresponds to Torah. Examples are plentiful. Worship of dead corpses would seem clearly to be a problem. And yet the herem the Gra signed addressing this exact problem is ignored. There are many other examples but open idolatry should seem to be clearly in violation of the Ten Commandments. So why are all the groups that are included in the herem [excommunication] of the Gra thought to be the highest examples of loyalty to Torah? Should not every one of their books be considered to be dirty? No. Rather considered the peak of loyalty to Torah! How much clearer could things be?

 Thomas Sowell on Slavery 

I looked at some of this and I can see his points. After all we know slavery in the Torah is nothing like slavery as practiced. For example if one has only one  pillow, he must give it to his slave. The slave can not be made worse off than the master. That is different from galley slaves. 

[However brilliant Thomas Sowell is I must mention that some of his points are less accurate as noted by Brian Caplan here.   

Besides this it occurred to me that Lincoln had the authority to free the slaves דינא דמלכותא דינא."The law of the state is the law." Though he clearly did not have authority to make war on the South.  Even though the law of the state is the law is applied differently by the Rishonim, still t least we have the Rambam who hold that if a king declares "Anyone who does not pay such and such a tax will be sold as a slave" that is valid. Thus with symmetry, he can declare slaves to be free.  

If that was a good idea or not is debatable. But to me it seems that it was valid. Not only that but a sell under duress is valid. So the fact that the Southern States signed the 14th ammendment under duress does not make it invalid.. The only aspect that one can complain about in the Civil War is that the union of the states was voluntary. So making a war to keep it together, seems absurd. 

And Lincoln's statement, "If slavery is not wrong then nothing is wrong", seems untrue. Maybe slavery is OK if slaves are treated right, while murder is wrong. Or making an unjust war might be wrong?  People get all excited about lots of different things. sometimes justified and sometimes not.

Nowadays I can see the point of the South that in freeing the slaves, there would be perpetual war against the whites. This seems fulfilled nowadays with the continuous attacks against the Constitution and all Western values. It is like letting the German Barbarians into the Roman empire. While at firt things seemed okay, but eventually it was a time bomb just waiting to explode.

Lets say for a similar example that a women agrees to get married to some man. And then at some point she wants to leave? Can he then bludgeon her to death? [As actually happens.]

And so what about the colonies making the war of Independence of the American Revolution? if you want to go with "No taxation without representation". Well from what could that be true? We know the king of England can not make taxes without the consent of Parliament. But the Parliament can make taxes as well as it pleases. And the American colonies were being taxed y Parliament as is the right of Parliament to do so. [And even the king agreed.] Where in the Magna Charta or the Provisions of Oxford does it say every person that is taxed has to have representation? So the Colonies were in rebellion exactly as the South was. What makes one right and the other wrong? If the South was wrong, then so was the American Revolution.