Reason integrated with Faith --Athens and Jerusalem was a great achievement of the Middle Ages.

So you can see how faith without philosophy leads to absurd results. But philosophy without faith also tends to lunacy.

So the question is how to get the right balance. I think that Kant, Kelley Ross [based on the Jacob Fries and Leonard Nelson] and Hegel are the best when it comes to philosophy.

That is to say: people that came before Kant all seem to have some sort of difficulties with either pure reason or empirical evidence.  Spinoza and Leibniz were great, so were John Locke and Hume. But each system has problems. To me it seems the best solutions are in Kant, Leonard Nelson and Hegel.

But philosophy after these three took a nose dive. To show this I recommend Robert Hanna's books showing how Analytic Philosophy misunderstood Kant and went off into directions not very well thought out. As for Continental philosophy the same goes. As John Searle puts it : "Twentieth century philosophy is clearly false". 

The point of philosophy is to see the big picture. What is it all about? But the idea that Natural Science needs philosophy is not so absurd as it sounds. After all there are tons of pseudo sciences nowadays tha masquerade as legitimate science. E.g. Psychology.  It is by definition pseudo science since there is no conceivable observation that could falsify it. Climate science is another doozy.  

 In the religious world, it is thought that if you can change the words, then you can change the reality. How do you see this? Well, one example is idolatry. If you can call worshipping dead people "going to kivrei tzadikim (graves of  tzadikim) that somehow changes the reality.

Magic to force God to do your will, you no longer call it "magic" rather "yichudim" unifications. And that is somehow supposed to change the reality.

But this is not confined to the religious. In California you call prisons "houses of corrections." They are not houses of corrections. Nobody gets corrected. They get imprisoned. And usually come out much worse. So perhaps we should call them houses that take mild criminals and turn them into hardened criminals.

mobile phone and wireless radiation"

 The truth about mobile phone and wireless radiation"

Zohar was written in the Middle Ages.

In the Nefesh HaChaim of Rav Chaim of Voloshin you can see the importance of learning Torah. [That is in the last part, part 4, of that book. ]

And this message was received by me loud and clear in Shar Yashuv in NY. And even until today I hold by with this message. But I consider that "learning Torah" is limited to what we actually know to be the Written and Oral Law. You can't just add what you want, just your own personal thoughts, write them in Hebrew and then call it "Torah". Which means the 99.9% of what is called "Torah" nowadays is deception. 

What is the Written Torah? That is clear-the Old Testament. The Oral Torah is also clear. The books written after the destruction of the Second Temple --at which time the entire Oral Law was collected and edited by the sages of the Mishna and Gemara. So what comes later can not be called the Oral Law. However, some of what comes later can be included in a secondary way when it is just commenting on the two Talmuds or Midrashim. But not when some jerk makes up his own "stuff" and calls it "Torah."

Zohar was unknown until the time of Moshe DeLeon. He claimed it was from R. Shimon ben Yochai.. But so what? What would you say if the Talmud was unknown until the Middle Ages, and then someone claimed they had discovered it? Would it now be thought to be the Oral Law? Of course not.

Besides that עם כל דא [translation of עם כל זה although] was invented by Ibn Tibon.[Although in the time of R. Shimon ben Yochai was אף על פי או אף על גב] So the fact that עם כל דא  is all throughout the Zohar shows it was written in the Middle Ages.

    

[This is not meant to dismiss the great mystics, Avraham Abulafia, the Remak Moshe of Cordoba and Rav Isaac Luria. And even if the Ari and Remak got inspiration and ideas from the Zohar that does not contradict their own authentic mystic visions.] 

doctors. While I was in Uman and had a need for doctors, God brought me to very good doctors. Both in the local city hospital and also in the County Hospital. [bolniza rayona].

 Rav Nahman of Uman has a whole section against doctors in Conversations of the Ran perek 50.  And this is good advice. However there are exceptions. For some reason, while I was in Uman and had a need for doctors for all sorts of problems, God brought me to very good doctors. Both in the local city hospital and also in the County Hospital. [bolniza rayona].

pfizer-inoculations

 https://rumble.com/vqx3kb-the-pfizer-inoculations-do-more-harm-than-good.html

Robert E Lee always changed his strategy

 I think I have figured out the approach of Robert  E Lee. He never said as much but looking at the battles of the Civil War I begin to see a pattern. It is this: Robert E Lee always changed his strategy --on purpose. He knew the Union generals had studied at West Point and knew very well all the different chess moves. For that very reason General Lee made sure to change his strategy at every  turn. If one time it was a straight phalanx then the next time her reversed it.[Eg the second battle of Manassas.]  Take a look and you will see that the one thing that was predictable was that he was unpredictable. He meant to keep the Union generals off balance.  

This is one of the major reasons that General Grant saw right away when he became the head of the Army of the Potomac that the only possible way to defeat Lee was by shear numbers. Without that, the Confederates would predictably win at every turn. [At the beginning of the war, the South predictably won at every battle. Only around when Grant took charge, things turned around.] 

I should say here that the whole thing seems sad to me. I can not see that freeing the slaves was legal or legitimate. It just unleashed a fifth column against the USA that has been trying to destroy Constitutional Government ever since then.