It has been suggested that Clarence Thomas is the life blood and soul of the Supreme Court. After all no one can imagine Roberts to have the kind of influence that Thomas has. And that means the laws that were supposedly protected by the 14th ammendment will be held under scrutiny. [I.e. homosexual "marriage"? is next on the list of things to e noted that are not mentioned in the 14th ammendment.]

 I did not make it my business, but over the years I became aware of  some of the issues revolving around the Shatz. My conclusions were that most of the major doctrines of the Shatz got accepted into the religious world. So you might have noted that I think the religious world is not based on Torah except for show. The real source is the Shaz. But to go into this subject seems to me to be a waste of time and quite distasteful. But it came up while I was today in Breslov, so I thought to mention it here in case anyone needs some direction if they want to do research into this subject.

 There issue of Christianity I thought was in Avoda Zara but today I was at the near by Na Nach Breslov place and saw a book by the son of Rav Odaviah Yoseph [about using medicine on Shabat]]and hebrought up the fact that Muslims are not idol worshipers and the mentioned that famous Tosphot about Christianity and "Shituf" {joining}.  He brings in from Sanhedrin page 63 and the Rema {Moshe Iserles} in the Shulchan Aruch in Orach Haim chapter 156.

{I did not look these up but I guess I was wrong about the location of that Tosphot.}

 

 I am wondering why Leonard Nelson does not come up in philosophy. There might be one reason that Husserl accused him of psychologism. But I think that was not accurate. It might be we look into our minds to see first principles [empirically], but these first principles we know not from empirical evidence but non intuitive immediate knowledge. 

Especially after Husserl himself does not seem so great. [As Michael Sugrue pointed out.] And in fact most of "Analytic Philosophy" seems to be off track as Robert Hanna has pointed out. I only read some of one of his books about  how "Analytic Philosophy" is ready for the trash bin. But his arguments are very convincing.

The only exception I have to Nelson [who is based on Fries] is the complete dismissal of Hegel which I think is too much based on Hegel's politics which was in reaction to the French Revolution.]

Just as a side note I should add here why I think Nelson is important. Part of the reason is public--that is this: There are problems in Kant that I think Fries and Nelson do the best job in answering. I mean even if we would agree with Robert Hanna about "Forward to Kant," those problems would remain. So you can do some modification and that would be with the Friesian school. 

Another reason is personal--while in Safed in Israel I had what many people in history have had- this sort of "Enlightenment" kind of experience. This indicated a whole new dimension of reality that is not available to empirical knowledge nor to Reason. So it made sense to me to see that there is a different source of knowledge besides pure reason or the senses--immediate non-intuitive knowledge.

 I do not know if this is good advice for other but I have found reviewing a Torah lesson in the major book of Rav Nahman  forty days in a row to be helpful to solving problems that are mentioned in that particular Torah lesson. This advice was first suggested  to me concerning the  lesson LeM II;:44 and II:86 about not seeking extra restrictions. Then LeM I:61 concerning the need for clarity when two different directions are open to one. Then LeM I:6 about finding one's proper spouse. (That did not really work after forty days, but rather I figured that I had been without a wife or girl friend for so many years, that I would just keep on learning that Torah lesson  daily until some sort of breakthrough would occur. And that actually worked. But I had read that Torah lesson daily for almost a year until it did.) Now I am hoping to learn LeM I:72 about how to avoid evil thoughts. 

 Since it seems unlikely that Putin will accept a treaty that would require him to give up already conquered territory it makes sense to allow Ukraine to join NATO already.  After all there is no reason to think they can fight without help. And Russia does seem to be  a threat at this point to the Western Alliance.

Besides that, at this point it is Russia, China, Iran in an alliance against the USA. It makes no sense to let them succeed.

Perhaps I should add that I found the people of the Ukraine to be in general extremely good hearted people. [The problem is the small minority of criminal elements.] 

And I should add here that once the Ukraine is encircled  which is almost the case already, it will be hard to defend. So to join NATO would be the only means that I can see of protection.