Allan Bloom in Closing of the American Mind says as per the title, but shows its deeper roots as being from the ambiguity of what is the ''self''. His solution is more or less along the lines of what you would call classical education. [HE especially recommends The Republic of PLATO.

[I am not clear as to the reason for The Republic since to my mind, the shorter dialogues seem a lot more powerful. But that might just be because of my short attention span. I tend to have the same sort of preference in music for short and to the point rather than long build ups.]

That book Closing of the American Mind is a definite masterpiece, In particular his analysis of the whole problem.--and his solution.

[Even though Aristotle is also great but for what Allan Bloom is aiming at,,- the opening of the American mind,- I agree that nothing could compare to Plato.

Learning Torah tends to be neglected for the fact that many things are substituted for Torah. What defines ''Torah''? The Rambam wrote in his letters  כשם שאין תוספת וגירעון בתורה שבכתב כמן כן אין תוספת וגירעון בתורה שבעל פה. ''Just like there is no adding or subtracting from the written Torah, so is there no adding nor subtracting from the oral Torah.''

That means the actual books that were the redaction of the oral law written down by the sages of the Mishna and Gemara. These and these alone have the right to be called ''Torah''. And learning them is called learning Torah, Later books might have insights and interesting ideas--but they are not ''Torah,''

 In the Eitz Chaim of Rav Isaac Luria, in Shaar HaNukva chap 3 I noticed that keter of Yaakov, which is the tefilin of Yaakov is parallel to wisdom, understanding, kindness and power of Israel.--and thus is parallel to Israel down to his feet. In that same paragraph, he states that keter Yaakov starts at the beginning of the two lower thirds of tiferet of Israel.  I was in the Breslov place looking at this for a while, and then it occurred to me that this refers to the very famous Drush haDaat that is missing in the Eitz Chaim itself, but found in Rav Shalom Sharabi's Nahar Shalom where the whole distinction between the lower and higher daat is made clear. So this particular paragraph in the Eitz Chaim clearly refers to the lower Daat. 

[I have not been looking at the Ari for a while, but then I noticed that Rav Nahman says in Sefer Hamidot '' עלידי עיון עמוק ביסודות התורה יכןלים לפקוד עקרות ולרפאות חולי חזק. by means of depth learning in the secrets of Torah, one can bring about that barren women give birth and to cure a strong illness.'' So I decided to take a look at the Eitz Chaim. 

[I do hold with Rav Nachman because if you look at the actual letter of excommunication signed by the Gra you will see it can not refer to Rav Nahman. In this regard in fact it is helpful to see the Sefer that collected the five letters of excommunication with the transcripts of the testimony given in Villna. [In that book the testimony appears in affidavit form, not as actual testimony in beit din. At any rate, these letters of excommunication were and still are valid  but they do not refer to Rav Nachman who was teaching his own revelation and insights.]

לא תעשה לך כל תמונה ''Thou shalt not make to you any image'' and i ask what is it that you see when you walk into any religious building--images. but not for beauty rather for religious intent.,

In Torah, there is a particular emphasis on not doing idolatry. [especially in the beginning  of Deuteronomy] And this is the reason I avoid the religious world. I consider the entire religious world to be worshipping dead people, and not God. But they attempt to hide this by a distraction. They emphasize rituals. By means of misdirection, they get away with the fact that it is not God who is the center of their worship.

Here is a proof for Tosphot as opposed to the Rambam and the Ran. 

For to Tosphot, the reason to say, ''It was written and signed before me''  [בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם] is a קולא leniency. We are being lenient to allow the שליח  to say this instead of requiring a full validation of the signatures.הקילו משום עגונה

To the Ran and Rambam, the reason to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is a חומרא.We are being extra strict and taking an extra precaution for a worry that really should not be  a worry.

But two gemaras in Gitin page 5 seem to show that Tosphot is right. For there we have a teaching: ''One who brings a divorce [get] from outside of Israel and does not say  בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם one must validate the divorce [get\] or else it is considered as null and void.'' The gemara asks from this on Rabah. But no matter how the answer for Rabah turns out, in both answers the final result of the teaching is clear that without validation, the divorce is null. So validation is not just an extra precaution. It is a absolute law. Only because we want to be lenient for an woman with a husband  do we allow  בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם  to stand in for validation. but without that . validation is an absolute requirement.

__________________________________________________________________

Here is a proof for תוספות as opposed to the ר''ן ורמב''ם. For to תוספות the reason to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is a קולא. We are being lenient to allow the שליח  to say this instead of requiring a full validation (קיום) of the signatures.הקילו משום עגונה

To the ר''ן and רמב''ם the reason to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is a חומרא.We are being extra strict and taking an extra precaution for a worry that really should not be  a worry.

But two גמרות in גיטון דף ה' seem to show that תוספות is right. For there we have a ברייתא: one who brings a גט  from outside of Israel and does not say  בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם one must validate the גט or else it is considered as null and void. The gגמרא asks from this on רבה. But no matter how the answer for רבה turns out, in both answers, the final result of the ברייתא is clear that without validation the גט is null. so validation is not just an extra precaution. it is a din. only because we want to be lenient for an עגונה do we allow  בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם  to stand in for validation. But without that. validation is an absolute requirement.

הנה הוכחה לתוספות בניגוד לר''ן ורמב''ם. כי לתוספות הסיבה לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם היא קולא. אנו מקילים לאפשר לשליח לומר זאת במקום לדרוש אימות מלא (קיום) של החתימות. הקילו משום עגונה לר''ן ולרמב''ם הסיבה לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם היא חומרא. אנחנו מחמירים במיוחד ונוקטים אמצעי זהירות נוסף לדאגה שבאמת לא צריכה להיות דאגה. אבל נראה ששתי גמרות בגיטין דף ה' מראות שתוספות צודקים. שהרי שם יש לנו ברייתא: המביא גט מחוץ לארץ לישראל ואינו אומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם צריכים לאמת את הגט, אחרת הוא נחשב בטל ומבוטל. הגמרא שואלת מכאן על רבה. אבל לא משנה איך תתברר התשובה לרבה, בשתי התשובות, התוצאה הסופית של הברייתא ברורה שללא אימות הגט בטל. אז אימות הוא לא רק אמצעי זהירות נווסף. זה דין. רק בגלל שאנחנו רוצים להיות סלחניים עבור עגונה, אנחנו מאפשרים בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם לעמוד במקום אימות קיום. אבל בלי זה. אימות הוא דרישה מוחלטת. הרמב''ם מחזיק בשיטה שמעיקר הדין אין חשש זיוף אלא בגלל חשש שמא יבוא הבעל ויער על הויוציא לעז על הגט השליח צריך לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם . זה בסוף פרק ז' בהלכות גירושין

 I was in Breslov yesterday and I heard someone learning Zohar. I did not say anything to him about the question of it's validity because I think that some  parts are taken from earlier documents of mystics that were later incorporated into it. Still at the same time he was learning Zohar, I was learning the part in the major book of Rav Nahman about גם בהתקרבות להשם יש יצר הרע של התלהבות יותר מדאי (Also in coming close to God there is a evil inclination of overdoing it.--getting overly fanatic.) And that you see with people that get involved with Zohar.

[The main  issue with the Zohar is the phrase 'even though' עם כל דא which is a phrase from the middle ages. It is used all over the Zohar. It was made by the Ibn Tibon family to replace an older form of saying 'even though' which was אף על פי or אף על גב/ So it was not written by R. Shimon ben Yochai.]

While it is true that many great sages held of the validity of the Zohar, still this historic information was not available at the time.

 Rav Nahman says in the Le.M  vol I:72 that even in coming close to God one needs to be wary of ריבוי אור [excess light or excess excitement. ] This I think accounts for the fanaticism of the religious world

[The same theme is brought in the LeM vol II chapter 5:7 and  chapter 9] 

But in addition i thin the problem with Torah scholars that are demonsa adds to the issue. And that aspect of things is brought up a lot more in the LeM , but not in just so many words, The only times you see this in the LeM explicitly are in Lem I 12 and LeM I 28.