baali teshuva

 I can see that problems that arise for baali teshuva are a result of the Patrician Plebian dynamic. That is they think that they are accepted into the religious world as equals [because of the love bombing and Shabat table façade], but then are treated as disposables to be disregarded when no longer of use. [For clarity: baali teshuva means newly religious.]

 There is a sort of depth in Tosphot which I feel is being forgotten in even the great Litvak yeshivot like Ponovitch or the Mir. The reason is that the emphasis in in depth learning has gone in the direction of Rav Chaim of Brisk. While that in itself is worthy and great, still the effect I think is to lose sight of Tosphot.

And one thing I can definite say about Tosphot: it is hard. It is nothing like the Rambam while at least in a  superficial reading you can get the idea. And even if you learn it with the commentaries and even Rav Chaim of Brisjk, you can still get the idea more or less. That is totally different than Tosphot where the depth clear since even to get the basic idea takes tremendous work. And it is not clear how to penetrate into the depth of Tosphot anyway. Unless you have a learning partner with a genius IQ like I had for awhile in David Bronson. Or you have a rosh yeshiva like I had in Shar Yashuv, Naftali Yegear. Otherwise what can one do? The only approach that I found to be workable is to review that same Tosphot every day word for word for about 40 days in a row. Eventually with that I found the depths of Tosphot began to be revealed.

 z48  z48 nwc

 I have been looking at the news and I feel a lot of issues would be clearer to people if they would know about faith and reason.. Since the Enlightenment, some philosophers have sought to find morality in reason alone with no input from the Bible.  Of course not all philosophers have gone this path. Hegel for one sought to justify faith by means of reason. He was to Protestantism what Aquinas was to the Catholics. [Though I hesitate to state this so openly, since Left Hegelians saw him differently. I admit my understanding Hegel is mainly based on just one thing--the Logic as printed in his Encyclopedia. I think most people's understanding of Hegel comes from their reading of the Phenomenology. ]

A different approach  to faith comes from the Friesian School which I think is just as great as Hegel even though the principles are quite different. There you find a sort of knowledge which is not based on the senses and not based on reason. ["Reason" in this context means to derive one thing from another. It is not the same thing as when Prichard, G.E. Moore or Huemer think of reason as that which recognizes universals. This is an expanded idea of reason.]

 

 I find Physics is easier to understand in the equations rather than the verbal expressions. Time travel to me would be ok if that would fit the equations; that is, if there would be negative mass. But we do not find negative mass, and so that is that. The same thing goes for a lot of the interesting things in Physics. The equations seem to me to express things a lot clearer than when the idea is stated in words.

However in math, I find the opposite. If I hear a lecture in math, that almost always makes things more clear to me than if I just read the material.