The approach to Kant called the Friesian School does not engage with the major interpretations of Kant. It sort of stands alone  ''Take it or leave it.'' as you might hear when you go to buy at the supermarket.

I think this isolates this school  from academia, and also makes it hard to place in the Kantian Spectrum.  

I mean  to say that the major interpreters of Kant are Cohen [Marburg school], Allison, Strawson, Sellers. [The later Cohen diverged from Kant.] And besides them there are the many approaches influenced by Kant--like the later Cohen. Where does immediate nonintuitive knowledge [of the Friesian school] fit or not fit with all this?  In what areas do they agree and in what areas disagree and why? 

 In the approach of the Gra there is an emphasis on the "Seven Wisdoms". Rav Baruch of Shkolev was a disciple of the Gra who wrote a small translation of Euclid and in his introduction quotes the Gra: ''Anyone who lacks any knowledge of the Seven Wisdoms will lack in understanding of Torah a hundred fold.''

Bur what can this mean? The Seven Wisdoms is a well known concept of the Middle Ages. [grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music ]The emphasis on learning them is found in some rishonim  besides the Gra, but certainly not all.

[My approach to this is to emphasize Mathematics, and Physics but Astronomy I feel not ready for until I have a good grasp on General Relativity, QFT and String Theory. For the ultimate test of Strings will have to be in the distribution of the stars and galaxies.

[Even if Physics is hard, I figure that with the approach mentioned in the Gemara about review 400 times, it must get clearer after a few hundred times.[That is the story about the amora who used to review each lesson with his disciple 400 times. Then once his student was not concentrating so that amora reviewed the lesson another 400 times.]]

why not to believe everything doctors say

 Radithor-- or why not to believe everything doctors say--especially about new treatments, This was wifely prescribed by doctors. This was given to a well known athlete who had a minor  discomfort.  After taking it he felt great.  It had all the properties that were advertised. It relieved pain, made him feel great, and gave a tremendous boot of energy  So he kept on taking it until after some time his jaw fell out. It turns out the main ingredient of Radithor is Radium. [radium is radioactive.]

[This is the true story about about Eben Byers]

 I have always strived for monotheism even though I admit that I miss the mark by a wide margin.

See Deuteronomy 13 and the general chapters in that area. There is a lot of emphasis on not serving any other gods besides God the one First Cause with no form nor substance and is not a composite. Just to give you a few examples--Anyone you see that has served other gods, you should stone to death. A city that idolatry is wide spread,... you should burn to the ground and kill all its inhabitants. Any prophet that even gives true of his prophecy and works miracles you should kill. [not by stoning.]  

So once the Gra made it clear with his signature on the letter of excommunication what is included in the prohibition of idolatry, it should be clear. that signature is sadly ignored by all, but I still feel that at least I ought to pay attention to it. 

But why is the Gra ignored-because of the mixture of Torah with money. People make their livings off of Torah and so can not see straight. 

Sadly enough i did not merit to learn Torah.  though I did have a few great years in two very wonderful Litvak yeshivot, still i did not appreciate that enough. Still the amazing thing is that even after I gave up learning for years, somehow God ha mercy on my soul and sent to me a great learning partner in Uman, David Bronson. Sure he had learned in Litvak yeshivot in Israel, but also he had it in his blood. it came naturally to him what it means "knowing how to learn."[and I sort of began to get the idea after learning with him for a few years. in fact you can see some of the fruit of our discussions in two little books I put together after our learning sessions.[chidushei hashas] chidushei bava metzia]]but I still have not got the idea very well. ut it does help me a lot when I get a chance to look at Rav Shach's book the Avi Ezri

In reference to what  I wrote about the difference between the Raavad and Rambam in Rambam forbidden relations 3:8 I brought the idea that the Raavad derives his approach from the Mishna כיוון שנכסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק and thus all the more so if she did not have sex yet with her husband and committed adultery she is choked, not stoned. And the Rambam would derive his law from the gemara in Ketuboth 45a נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק where it seems to imply that if she did then have sex with her husband after the adultery that she is stoned.

Rav Shach says that in the view of the Raavad the important thing is that the Chupa was by mistake. She tricked him into thinking she is a virgin. To the Rambam the important thing is the sex with her husband was by mistake and she tricked him at that point. This would explain why the Rambam put more weight onto the Gemara in Ketuboth while the Raavad put more weight onto the Mishna.______________________________________________________________

In reference to what  I wrote about the difference between the ראב''ד and  רמב''ם in  רמב''ם איסורי ביאה פרק ג הלכה חI brought the idea that the ראב''ד derives his approach from the Mishna כיוון שנכסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק and thus all the more so if she did not have sex yet with her husband and committed adultery she is choked, not stoned. And the רמב'''ם would derive his law from the גמרא in כתובות מ''ה ע''א נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק where it seems to imply that if she did then have sex with her husband after the adultery that she is stoned. רב שך says that in the view of the ראב''ד the important thing is that the חופה was by mistake. She tricked him into thinking she is a virgin. To the רמב''ם the important thing is the sex with her husband was by mistake and she tricked him at that point. This would explain why the  רמב''ם put more weight onto the גמרא in כתובות while the ראב''ד put more weight onto the משנה.___________________

בהתייחס למה שכתבתי על ההבדל בין הראב''ד לרמב''ם ברמב''ם איסורי ביאה פרק ג הלכה ח' הבאתי את הרעיון שהראב''ד שואב את גישתו מכיוון המשנה "נכסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק", ועל אחת כמה וכמה אם היא עדיין לא קיימה יחסי מין עם בעלה וביצעה ניאוף והיא נחנקת, לא נסקלת. והרמב''ם היה גוזר דינו מהגמרא בכתובות מ''ה ע''א "נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק" ושם נראה שזב רומז שאם עשתה אז יחסי מין עם בעלה לאחר הניאוף ש היא נסקלת. רב שך אומר שלדעת הראב''ד הדבר החשוב הוא שהחופה הייתה בטעות. היא רימתה אותו לחשוב שהיא בתולה. לרמב''ם העיקר יחסי מין עם בעלה היו בטעות והיא רימתה אותו באותו שלב. זה יסביר מדוע הרמב''ם שם יותר משקל על הגמרא בכתובות ואילו הראב''ד שם יותר משקל על המשנה

 the most obvious thing about the Litvak Yeshiva [based on the Gra] is the aspect of learning in depth. (Learning "Beiyun") . This is not the same as in something like math where the basic concept is extended. In the Litvak yeshiva the way one learns is by going deeper.

I admit I did not get this for years. i did not see the difference between going deeper and going broader. so after I had finished Ketuboth in Shar Yashuv i went to the Mir and the first half year there i learned Nedarim. but then they started Ketuboth and I said to myself ''I already did ketuboth.'' and did shabat instead. but I did not realize that even though  had in fact finished Ketuboth with Tosphot and Maharsha and even a lot of Rif Rosh and Tur, that is not at all "learning in depth." That is learning a lot but not in depth.