Berkley made some good criticisms on Aristotle's theory of perception. [see Thomas Reid.] However this question seemed to have led philosophy down a never ending rabbit hole starting with Kant. After Kant there were numerous attempts to bridge the Mind Body gap. One very good attempt  is the approach of the school of intuitionists. This seems good to me because it avoids one fallacy of Hume--that reason can only tell about contradiction based on definitions. And these critiques of Berkley and Hume formed the basis of all Philosophy subsequent to Kant. [Taking away the false assumptions of Hume, topples the whole structure of German philosophy]

The Intuitionists (Prichard, Ross, Michael Huemer) hold we have direct aware of reality, not just of what is confined between out two ears  and that reason can do more that perceive contradiction --it can know universals  

 It does not help anything in the USA to point out that the Left is advocating forces of chaos because that that is the whole point. They do not want power for queers, or woke, or blacks. They want whatever can and will help to bring chaos so that that they can step in and take power. It is a page out of Lenin's playbook.

 i went into Breslov and there was a fellow who I explained my views about government faith and reason in short and so I thought to bring a bit of that here.

But the subject is complicated. It starts with saadia gaon. faith and reason were firmly established in his book  Faiths and Doctrines. and this balanced approach was universal during the Middle Ages. The Enlightenment broke this bond. You could be for faith or reason but not both. Then Kant came along and found a road that cuts reason off from reality. This I found to be unreasonable until I discovered the Kant Friesian school.

As for government, John Locke is the model for the American Constitution while Rousseau for the French. Hegel recoiled from the French and tried to find a different approach but also came out with a totalitarian kind of model. In the trajectory  of ideas Kant also is not far from the French either.   Rather it i the Friesian modification of Kant that I think is a valid development from John Locke as one can see in the Friesian school of Kelley Ross

 I just can not see why the ultra religious in Israel do not want to serve in the IDF. Except perhaps that the ultra religious even before there was a state of Israel did everything they could to stop it. I guess it just snowballed from there.

I can not imagine any halachic reason for them not to serve. Learning Torah --while it i the most  important of all commandments-does not provide an exemption from doing any commandment. הכל יוצאים למלחמת  מצווה אפילו כלה מחופתה

87 year old Jewish woman from Poland.

 i saw a story today in a newspaper about an 87 year old woman from Poland. At four years old she and her family were in a ghetto. But at some point her family realized they needed to escape so they got out and went around to the local village asking for refuge. Every door they knocked on was slammed in their face until they reached one farm family who took them in their attic for two days and then because of the danger the farmer moved them to the upper part of the barn where they stayed for 2.5 years. Then when the Nazis were closing in, the farmer told them they needed to leave the barn and go into the forest. They were there for  a few days, but starvation drove the mother and one son to go back into the village and ask for a piece of bread. Then this daughter who stayed nearby to watch saw her mother and brother gunned down by one anti-semtite farmer. Then she and her remaining brothers went back to the original famer and he took them in again until the end of the war.

Of course, if that farmer who took in this Jewish family had been discovered, it would have been an immediate death sentence for him and his family. Be kind.

Medicine was medieval and a lot of it still is.

In the Conversations of Rav Nahman [of Breslov] is brought a long tired against doctors. But Rav Aryee Kaplan pointed out that this was  written when even oxygen was unknown. Medicine was medieval, It was all about balancing the four elements. However the same warning of Rav Nahman still applies today There procedures that are time tested and well known. These are okay. But new experimental things are not. My parents warned me not to take any medicine that has not been on the market for at least 50 years.

Medicine is still all about "balancing the four elements" except they use a different terminology in order to hide what they are doing: i.e., correcting chemical imbalances

 Even though to just say the words of what you are studying does not take the place of in depth learning "Iyun", I still think it is important. You can see this in the LeM of Rav Nahman vol I section 74 where he specifically goes into the importance of in depth learning/iyun. This clearly is not meant to disagree with Conversations of Rav Nahman  76 [Sichot HaRan section 76].

And though Rav Nahman meant this for learning of Gemara, it also applies to Math and Physics.

[I have mentioned before that these are called "secular" by mistake. They are not secular, but rather the wisdom of God embedded in the Work of Creation.] you can see this most of all in Mishna Torah of the Rambam laws of Talmud Torah chapter 3 where he brings the law to divide one's learning into three parts: (1) Tenach [Old Testament.] (2) Oral Law (Mishna). (3) Gemara and the Rambam  adds there  "in the category of Gemara are the subjects brought in the first four chapters of Mishna Torah". [Physics and Metaphysics.]

Those four chapters are Aristotelean Physics and Metaphysics