musar books on ethics from the middle ages

 in musar there is given the idea that midot tovot are the prime obligation. good character. this helps to a large degree in understanding the of what the Torah considers to be of primary importance and what is secondary. but the main effect of musar nowadays is only in the area of hashgafa [world view] but not o much in translating that into action. but even that alone --that establishing a firm foundation of what is important in Torah is also of great importance.

Kant is in need of modification.

 

  Kant is in need of modification. That can be like Kelley Ross or Michael Huemer. i.e. the Friesian school [Jacob Fries, Leonard Nelson] or the intuitionists [Prichard]. You  have to start with the realization that Kant was too  much influenced by David Hume. Hume limited the scope of reason way too much. He was a teacher of Euclidian geometry and so though that reason can only see contradictions where they exist.  He repeats this claim many times without a shred of evidence or proof. Kant accepted this. But reason has another function. It perceives universals. They are qualities that things have in common like trees. the universals that i refer to here are the very things that Kelley Ross calls ''forms'' in his distinction between content and form. That makes up his theory of value where some things like pure mathematical logic are pure form with sentences A and B that have no content but can stand for anything.  Then you have math which has more content but less form since it can not be reduced to pure logic are Godel showed us. Then you have music and art which have more content but even less form until you get to God who has no form at all but is pure content. But these areas of perception are what Michael Huemer would bring into the category of area where things are partly known by reason--or being reasonable and empirical perception.

Robert Hanna has pointed out the poverty of modern philosophy and the way forward to Kant, -but that still leaves the problems inherent in Kant. Thus one needs either the Friesian School or the Intuitionists. 

 I have been thinking about my son Izhak and thought about how the story of Henry II relates to this. For when Henry II realized when he was losing everything that it was the blood of Thomas Becket that was crying out from the grave that was the root cause. So it is with all of us that Izhak was asking help, and no one wanted to help.

But there is also the importance of learning the valuable lessons of his life. For myself  I would like to concentrate on learning in depth that he emphasized. I would also like to set time to go through the two Talmuds with the basic commentaries and midrash, but at this point in time that does not seem to be of immediate possibility.]   [Why is learning Torah important? You can see the reason in the Yerushalmi כל חפצים לא ישוו בה  all the mizvot are  not equal to [even] one word of Torah, [chapter I of Peah]. I put in the extra word ''even'']

[I should also add that Physics and Metaphysics is a part of learning the Oral Law as Ibn Pakuda hints to and the Rambam write openly in the Yad (Mishne Tora) and the Guide.]

The problem with mysticism

 The problem with mysticism is that it attaches itself  to Torah. When you have people that are true tzadikim that may have mystic intuitions that is not Torah, even when these intuition are true, [which mot often they are not]-still that is not Torah.

[I do believe Rav Nahman had great insight and was a great tzadik. But "Torah" does not mean insight. Torah means the Written Law  and the Oral Law as contained in the two Talmuds and Midrash. "Torah" is not open to anyone adding to it at whim. But that is exactly what the religious do.]

 If you look at the chapters in Deuteronomy [5-12] about idolatry you will see why the Gra signed the excommunication.  Idolatry can be Jewish. What makes it to be idolatry is the worship of any being besides God-- the First Cause.--not dead tzadikim, [or live ones either.]

 One thing I understood from my son, Izhak is that one ought not add to the commandments in regard to the chapters vayikra Leviticus 18 and 20 and that adding to these prohibitions means subtracting.

As regards to the actual subject--adultery means sex with a married woman. You can see this in vayikra Leviticus 18 and 20. Chronicles I chapter 2 verse 46

[See responsa of the Radvaz and Maharam of Egypt.--beside the already well known treatment of this in Rambam, Ramban, Raavad and in the Shulchan Aruch.]  

 Rav Nahman did not hold of learning philosophy at all even, -- of the great sages of Israel,  To some degree that make sense. But utter ignorance leaves one to prey of the many glittering ideas out there that with the most cursory examination fall to pieces. You need  sense to know what to learn.

  My suggestion is Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Leonard Nelson [a Jew that started a new sort of approach to Kant.]

[rav nahman was right about everything else. in particular he said not to learn the guide of the rambam and i can  see his point.

what is more I would like to recommend the two treaties of government by john locke