Rav Israel Salanter began the Musar Movement with the awareness that to be a mensch [good character] is a main thing-- even though this might not be clear from a straight reading of the Oral and Written Law. to be aware of the importance of 'midot tovot' good character really takes faith in the Rishonim. But this message has been lost in time. Even in the great Litvak yeshivot where Musar is learned, this emphasis on good character traits has been lost while religious fanaticism has taken its place [or all sorts of other weird ideas]. What ever happened to straight Torah? The best idea therefore is to renew the Musar Movement--but this time not to mix it with foreign ideas. Just straight Musar of the Rishonim [and the books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter that go along with that approach.] 

And remember what the Rif and Rosh wrote about "Outside books" ספרים חיצונים [that one loses his portion in the next world by reading]-books that explain the Torah in ways other than the Midrash of the sages. Most religious books come under this category. 

Why Rishonim are important is that in philosophy and logic the Middle Ages excelled in rigorous logic even though the axioms were often faulty. After the Middle Ages even the best of  authors were often guilty of circular logic..

 Even though there is a lot to be learned in the Litvak world, I think that the essential flaw is making use of Torah for the sake of making a living. But if that would be all that was problematic I would say one could depend on the Beit Yoseph in his commentary on the Rambam where he defends this practice. But where I find the problem is that it leads to the attitude: "I deserve your money because in my merit the whole world stands". I mean, this sort of odd attitude of the religious that they are somehow superior beings that the rest of us low-lives are supposed to support.

[However I must make an exception for the great roshei yeshivot that I knew, Rav Friefeld of Shar Yashuv, and Rav Shmuel Berenbaum of the Mir.--who were really sincere and dedicated to Torah for its own sake.]

review once per day for a long extended period

I had heard that in Breslov, there was this idea of review forty day in a row of that specific Torah lesson that relates to one's problem. To a large degree this idea of review once per day for a long extended period of time seemed to help me in understanding in  other areas besides the book of Rav Nahman. For example the Hidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk. When I would read through one section one day several times, that never seemed to help me understand as well as if I would just read it through once and then the next day read it through again-just once. And thus continue for a few weeks.[That was when I did not have my learning session with David Bronson where we went through Reb Chaim in his usual painstaking word by word sort of way.] 

I also found this in Physics and Mathematics. I would take one subject and review it for forty days in a row and that helped a lot more than review one day many times.

 I do not see anything wrong with slavery. You have it in Exodus and in Leviticus. In Exodus it discusses the laws concerning a Hebrew slave. Six years he serves and is let go in the seventh.  In the end of Leviticus, it also goes into the laws of a Hebrew slave that sells himself in order to pay for a a debt. Then it also brings the law of a gentile slave--who must not be let go of. 

In the New Testament also this issue is brought up several times. There the exhortation is for  slaves not to rebel but rather to serve their masters faithfully.  No where is it suggested that a owner of slaves should let them go.

Beside this I might mention that one who does  a favor for someone who does not appreciate it is as he threw a stone at Markulit, an idol that its worship was by throwing stones at it. Few black people feel gratitude towards the USA. Just the opposite. Most are determined to destroy the USA.

 In the LeM of Rav Nahman of Breslov, there is brought the importance of learning with understanding. [Le.M vol. I chapter 74.]. /This seems to disagree with Conversation of Rav Nachman chapter 76. But I did notice today that the chapter in the LeM is not saying to be sitting  on the same page for a long time. Rather the implication is by learning fast, one can come to deep understanding.  

But this does not seem to be the Litvak Path. [Lithuanian Yeshivot based on the Gra.]    I recall Rav Shelomo Freifeld emphasizing reviewing  everything that one learns ten times.

And over time I discovered that people that do not get the deep learning approach of the Litvak Yeshivot right away when they are young, never get it afterwards. But on the other hand I realize it takes a lot of fast learning to discover what one ought to concentrate on.

 z79 music file

 I find insights in the great philosophers when I get a chance to read them. But I am not saying everything they said was right. One example I recall from a few years ago was when I was reading Hegel and noticed when he wrote that matter is energy--point blank relativity! Another  time I was reading Hobhouse  in his critique on the Metaphysical State. [That was an attack on people that were building  a co we do not know nception of such a state and to do so were borrowing some ideas from Hegel.  Some of the attacks were true but one I recall was that Hegel had said matter is gravity. I do not remember exactly this minute what Hegel had said but it seemed to me to indicate that matter bend space and creates gravitational waves .

I might look this up to give you a better idea of what I mean. 

Another  place I noticed where a great philosopher had a great idea was where Kant said we can not know matter itself, only 0characteristics. Matter in Quantum Field Theory by itself is well understood. It is the "m" in the Lagrangian density or the Hamiltonian. But when it interacts it becomes infinite-an absurd conclusion.
 

I find also in tzadikim that it is not always the best idea to follow everything they say but rather to find the things that make the most sense and leave off the rest. 

And Leibniz said something similar about the followers  of Descartes -that they were not following his path by following every word he said. That in fact dishonored him. It was more people like Spinoza that were following his path  of rigorous logical inquiry that were really following his path.

You might say the same about Rav Nahman.