I think that the subject of Meta-Physics is important but I have not come to any sort of clarity about what approach is best. From what I can tell there are three major schools, Hegel, Leonard Nelson and the Intuitionists. [GE Moore, Prichard.]

It has already been noted by very great philosophers the problems with 20th Century philosophy. E,g, Robert Hanna.. Michael Sugrue.

[See the criticism of Analytic Philosophy by Robert Hanna and the criticism of the existentialists by Michael Sugrue ] but what is left standing after all the bullets have settled? Mainly these three that I have mentioned.

Now I see Dr Kelley Ross is not updating his blog anymore. This makes me very sad for I have gained greatly from his insights in the Kant/Fries/Leonard Nelson approach. Even though Many think Kant can stand on his own, I can not  see it. I think Kant needs the modifications of Fries and Nelson.

I should mention that the Kant-Fries approach made a lot of sense for me in terms of its idea that there are truths that can not be known by reason or empirical knowledge. This idea was to provide a foundation for the Kantian categories. But with Dr Kelley Ross got expanded towards the experience of the Divine. But it looks as though his writings are now lost.

 

This would definitely be "climate change."

 I imagine that people are not afraid of nuclear war with Russia. I am not sure why this is>I used to think that that the end of the human race would have been a issue of concern. So to try and establish some kind of  accord is far from people's mind. 

But on the other hand, an accord was established--those were the Minsk accords which were ignored by the Ukraine. So I guess if the words of the Ukraine mean nothing, they would understand force.

But instead of the Minsk Accords people think that a nuclear war with Russia would be okay. I truly do not see this. I have a  certain degree of hope for mankind. I would rather not see the Human Race melt away in an hydrogen bomb fireball. 

This would definitely be "climate change."

I mean there are already US forces in active duty in Ukraine. So would perhaps Moscow think that the USA is a legitimate target?  And who says that Russia would not respond? And if you think this is some kind of moral crusade to defend the innocent, you have not had any experience with the Ukraine.

Peel half of the potatoes or half of (each) potato?

 

In Ukraine even the churches have armed guards.

 A concentrated nuclear war would not be the end of all mankind. But it still ought to be considered a sufficient risk that would prevent France and NATO to stop sending troops to  attack Russian soldiers. And besides the unstated principle here is that Russia considers this war to be justified. And though no one in the West cares to take that into consideration, still it is what Russia thinks. Not just because  of Ukraine always being a part of the Russian Empire, but also because the criminal elements have taken over. You can not really see this from the West, but if you have ever been there, you know exactly what I mean.

In fact there is no such thing as one united Ukraine. Anyone can tell you that there are two distinct Ukraines. One is the well known bandits --the people that have theft and murder deep inside their DNA. The other are the vast majority who are close to angels in their good character. The trouble is that it is always the bandits that get the power and control. Thus without Russian rule the place becomes a nightmare even for the average Ukrainian. This is the reason even the churches there need armed guards. There is just a bit too much of the wrong kind of element.

 While at the Mir in NY I heard once from the head of the kollel there a musar "shmooze" on Tuesday night. He is the grandson of the Mashgiach of Ponovitch. And that was the very start of his giving a Musar talk on Tuesday night. It was devoted to the subject of "to bear a yoke with your friend".That is one of the 48 means by which Torah is acquired. He had heard from his grandfather that that is the most important of them all.