The Morality Quotient.  In secular society it is thought that the Bell Curve is invalid. When people are stupid, that is thought to have nothing to do with violence. To some degree this is correct. There is also the Morality Curve. Someone can be dumb, but highly moral. And that morality can even bring one to higher intelligence than even natural IQ. "Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom" [Proverbs]

This you can see in many very intelligent women that after they get divorced spend the rest of their lives trying to hurt their ex husbands. They ate blissfully uncaring the traumatic effect this has on their children whom they ruin by their constant lashon hara [slander.] They could not care less if they ruin their children --just as long as they get to hurt their ex-husbands.

 Where Hegel disagrees with Jacob Fries is in the area beyond science. That is--the area beyond what can be tested experimentally and verified in the laboratory. The question is metaphysics.  How to get to it? [How to get to an area that is liable to be tested experimentally?] [Both Hegel and Fries agree that it is possible to get to.] To Fries one can get to this area by means of immediate non-intuitive knowledge. A sort of knowledge that does not depend on reason nor on sense perception. To Hegel, one gets to this area of knowledge by reason itself.

[To Kant only also areas beyond  experiment are available  to human knowledge, bur only those within the conditions of possiblility of experience. []Eg., God the soul, morality, etc.] But to Kant and Fries even areas beyond the conditions of possible experience are open. To Fries that is by immediate non intuitive knowledge. To Hegel it is by Reason itself. 

From where do you see this. From Hegel's own idea of what the Phenomenology is about. It is a Wissenschaft a science--not in the sense of natural science but science of what is beyond that. 

 You do not really know what is going on in the souls of other men. What do people gain by learning Torah in the kollel system? Sex--(i.e. a shiduch), money as their salary for learning Torah, power over others when what they want they claim is the authority of the Torah. Who is to say that they do not want these these things? Maybe they do. And if they do then that is Torah shelo lishma, Torah not for its own sake. And on Torah  not for  own sake we learn יערוף כמטר לקחי לשון הריגה "My teaching flows like rain" Flows is the same verb root as "kills". I.e., my teaching kills those who are not worthy. That means not only those that learn Torah not for its own sake but also those that listen to them.

 

 The essential flaw in China is the lack of people's confidence in Communism and totalitarian structures of government. That is to say, it is not external measures or lack of power and genius on the part of China that is the Achilles heel. Rather the very fact that Communism is not believable to the average man. Tell to the average guy that whatever he owns is theft and exploitation. Most will not believe that.

This was the reason for the fall of the USSR. Not from external pressure, but from simple lack of confidence in a 19th century variation of some obscure economic theory. '

[Das Capital by Marx would sit in book stores in the USSR for years collecting thick layers of dust.]

Robert E Lee

 I think the best way to understand the Civil War is by the principle of separation of powers of Montesquieu. I mean to say that even though this principle is used in understanding of the separate branches of government (Executive Judicial, Legislative), I think the exact same principle applies to why the founding fathers gave only limited powers to the Federal government and all other powers were reserved for the States.

So they saw the States as essentially in the same sort of category as a separate branch of government that had all other powers that were not specifically given to the Congress or the other branches of Federal government.

So the question was  if the Federal government was given in the Constitution the power to prevent a state from leaving the Union. Since it would be hard to make such a case, Robert E Lee concluded that the South was right.

[I have heard other arguments but they do not seem to carry much weight. especially once the South a]saw that the North was violating the Supreme Court's ruling about runaway slaves, it was clear the north was actively violating the Constitution.]

Heisenberg when he really wanted to know, he could easily work out the value.

Heisenberg.  There was a very influential thesis by Paul Rose that Heisenberg tried to help the Nazis get the A Bomb. I mentioned before that I think that clearly he did the opposite. This paper by Carl Meyer shows in detail what I have thought for a long time--that Heisenberg easily could work out how much U235 was needed, and yet always over estimated it in conversations to show that it was impossible for the Germans to get that much. [Han complained to him that his estimates varied from 50 kilos to 2 tons.] Albert Speer specifically asked Heisenberg about it and came away saying the Heisenberg convinced him that it was impossible.[Besides all this, it ought to be noted that the paper by Paul Rose has a flawed analysis of how to get to the critical mass. It was not written by an expert in atomic fission.] 

Besides that, in his 1939 paper, he ignored the actual question that was asked to him "If it is possible to make a bomb out of Uranium?" Instead, he spent the entire paper discussing making a nuclear reactor to create energy. [He did mention twice the idea of explosives in his 41 page paper- with no approximations, nor math. He just said pure U-235 would be needed for that.]

But at Farm Hall, when asked how much was needed? He gave a lecture on Aug 14 1945 and came up with the 6.2 square centimeters value. I.e. when he really wanted to know, he could easily work out the value. When he did not want to know, and wanted to discourage others, he came up with fanatic amounts that were impossible to get.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2001/02/08/heisenberg-in-copenhagen-an-exchange/