by saying the words one can come to understanding.

There is a way to learn Physics and Mathematics even if one is not talented. See the LeM of Rav Nahman volume I perek 12. על ידי אמצעות הדיבור יכולים לבא  לתבונות התורה לעומקה. "By means of the word, one can come to the understanding of Torah to its very depths." That means that by saying the words one can  come to understanding. Even if very talented people in these subjects do not need that approach, still this method can help everyone get better. 

[Similar to Conversations of Rav Nahman 76. This idea is also mentioned in the Sefer HaMidot of Rav Nahman in the perek on Learning.]

Izhak bn Avraham empasized review along with just saying the words aand going on. That is that one sould review after finishing a whole chapter or book. To listen and learn from an expert from someone who knows the subject well is important as mentioned in the book of Rav Nachman that since we have lost the doing, at least we should hang on to the hearing.

z55 music file

 z55 A minor midi z55 nwc 

Wisdom of the Greeks

 Wisdom of the Greeks is disparaged in the Gemara. One fellow asked R. Ishmael when to learn it [after he had already gone through the whole Torah.] Answer: when it is neither day nor night as it says "You shall think in the Law day and night."

So for Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam to hold that learning Physics and Metaphysics is important and even a part of Torah, it takes a jump of faith in the Rishonim [mediaeval authors].

Otherwise looking at the face value definition of "wisdom of the Greeks" would seem to refer to these very same subjects.

But I must add here that it has never been a problem for me to go with the rishonim [mediaeval authors] even when they seem to differ from the simple explanation of the Gemara. 

[I was thinking to show why the Rishonim diverge from the simple explanation of the Gemara. But first I would like to say that it is best to have simple faith. After having faith, it is good to have support for faith. Reasons are also good for understanding in what direction you want your faith to follow. After all one has control over what he believes to some degree. After all you can not  believe that you can skip and jump to the moon. But there are many other cases where you can rationally choose your beliefs.[when evidence is not conclusive and you can choose where the weight of the evidence goes.]

Ibn Pakuda and other rishonim hold Physics and Metaphysics are part of Torah. Why? Because they explain the "Work of the Divine Chariot and the Work of Creation"  as referring to these two subjects.

(The "Work of the Divine Chariot and the Work of Creation" are called "great things" and "the discussions of Abyee and Rava" are called small things. [R. Yochanan ben Zakai was praised for knowing these things ]) 

Dr. Kelley Ross shows that all one needs to reconcile Friesian philosophy with Relativity is Kant's Empirical Realism.

In terms of Relativity, I have to think this over but right now it seems to me that it is sad that the New Friesian School of Leonard Nelson seems to have diverged from Fries. [On the other hand Nelson wanted to be safe from accusations of ‘psychologism’ [note 1] that were thrown at Fries. So he kept the Friesian structure but held the categories are a priori as being not sense based and not reason based (immediate non intuitive) in a strictly axiomatic way.[And that fact of not being based on the senses is what makes it a priori thus in keeping with Kant] So you can see the motivation of Nelson. But it seems to have led to wrong conclusions. Dr. Kelley Ross shows that all one needs to reconcile Friesian philosophy with Relativity is Kant's Empirical Realism.

After all, Fries held that the categories of Kant do not have to be a priori. [Contra Kant]. Rather they can be justified in away that is not by reason nor by  the senses. but by "immediate non intuitive knowledge.". And this point seems to have been missed by Nelson who held that Relativity and especially GR (General Relativity) were just not right. And in a very ironic way it was Reichenbach who held strongly of Relativity and defended it by means of dividing Kant's apriori into two. One is the normal necessary apriori not based on observation. The other is subject to modification by empirical evidence.--Isn't that exactly Fries's approach exactly?!

.

[note 1] the mistake of identifying non-psychological with psychological entities. For instance, philosophers who think that logical laws are not psychological laws would view it as psychologism to identify the two] 

Matisyahu [the father of Judah the Maccabi] broke the statue of Antiochus because of the problem of idolatry. And in the world of Reform Judaism there is a remarkable lack of idolatry.

The major reason that Matisyahu [the father of Judah the Maccabi] broke the statue of Antiochus was the problem of idolatry. Not national identity. Not religious freedom.

For some reason this problem of idolatry does not seem to be much of a problem to most people--even though it is the most fundamental principle in the Torah. You can certainly see plenty of idolatry in the religious world [which is certainly the reason the Gra signed the famous letter of excommunication]. At least in the world of Reform Judaism there is a remarkable lack of idolatry [even though  I can see other problems there.]

Robert E Lee

 Robert E Lee was in Washington D.C. to testify at Congress. During that time one of his former slaves, Amanda Parks, came to visit him, but just missed him since he had just left for Virginia. So she wrote to him. She asked him if he is angry with her. He answered, "I do not know  why you should ask if I am angry with you. I am not aware of your having done anything which would give me offence. And I hope you would not say or  do anything what was wrong .While you lived at Arlington\ you behaved very well..."That letter says volumes about the amazing character of Robert E Lee. It is tragic that people step on his memory that do not nor ever could measure up to his boot  straps.

I might mention here that Arlington was owned by Robert E Lee, but during the war it was confiscated by the Northern authorities to make it into a graveyard.

My question and the answer of Dr. Kelley Ross. [His answer is that synthesis is not a function of non intuitive immediate knowledge. But I guess my thought was "Who is the user?" Who is doing the synthesis?" {The person who has this knowledge and who does the synthesis.] }

Dear Dr. Ross, ..... Immediate non-intuitive knowledge does the job of unification. But I would like to ask if you agree with this. ... Kant wants to show that our intuitions [things that we see or hear] can only have unity if the categories (where, how, when) unite them. But the doubt is how does this work? If I go into a field and collect flowers and put them into a basket, the basket puts them together-- but does not make them a unity.

Kant answers this question by showing that intuitions have to have the capability to be able to be united by the categories. And he shows that the categories can only unite concepts and intuitions but not make them out of scratch. So he shows that both require the other. The categories and the intuitions are dependent one on the other.

The question is this still seems to leave the flowers in the basket. So I am thinking that this must be one of reasons for the principle that there is a deeper source of knowledge, non intuitive immediate knowledge that unites the categories with the intuitions. [That is the idea of the Kant-Friesian School]

 Dear Mr. Rosenblum,

Kant's idea of unity involves the categories, but only because the categories are used in synthesis.  So the unity of consciousness, or the unity of experience, is the result of an activity.  When the activity stops, then consciousness and synthesis stop.  As in sleep.

Sleep is an issue overlooked by all the Rationalists and Empiricists.  Only Locke seems to have noticed, when he answered Descartes by saying that he had not "thought" at all last night.  But even that wasn't enough.  Sleep would stop the flood of sensory input, but neither Locke nor any Empiricist addressed how that would happen.  Indeed, nobody could explain how you could be hearing the refrigerator running all night, but normally not be aware of it.  Even while you're awake.  That the mind choses, preconsciously, what to admit to consciousness is a psychological truth never noticed by philosophers.

Not even by Kant.  But, because of Kant's theory of synthesis, an explanation was ready at hand, if needed.

Non-intuitive immediate knowledge is really a different issue.  To the extent that "categories" like cause or substance are known non-intuitively, then they are in fact available for what Kant wants in synthesis.  But Kant was not very clear how that works.  He was emerging from his earlier thinking that synthesis was a conscious activity, involving concepts.  However, consciousness is produced spontaneously, and the forms that it embodies are used without awareness.  We notice things like time, cause, or the duration of substances on reflection.

"Concepts" and "intuitions" do not on the ground need to be united, because synthesis has united them already.  Further action, consciously, will match further concepts to experience, but that is a fallible process.  

[I should add here that Kant has the imagination is what is causing synthesis. [CPR 78/B103]--I think that is where it is. [Might I suggest that is a round about way to talk about the soul.] (This in Kant is the level that is before or under consciousness]. It is imagination in Kant which produces  consciousness.] 

I also wanted to add that the categories are exactly what Fries thought were not apriori but empirical and subject to revision. And that left him vulnerable to the attack of "psychologism." That attack missed him, Still this accusation continued even up to Leonard Nelson who also was attacked for the same reason.