Rav Nahman was very much against learning philosophy and that approach is very much like that of some mediaeval authorities (e.g. Ramban/Nachmanidess).  But this is clearly an argument among the Rishonim. So I have at least some opinion to depend on.

Thus I would like to bring Kant in support of faith. I mean that questions on faith often come up and the answers are not satisfying. To this I answer the when one ventures into the realm of dinge an sich, contradictions arise automatically. what are things in themselves? They are both things stripped of all characteristics supplied by human minds, and starting axioms of reason. and furthermore Kant adds that this applies not just to abstract reason but also to individuals and societies

I see great importance of this approach of Kant and in particular in the Kant Fries school of thought. but i do not share the distain for Hegel that seems to permeate all neo Kantian schools.

Hegel thought that by the dialectic, it is possible to get beyond the limitations of pure reason and empirical reasoning. He did not deny the problem of the ''thing in itself,'' but rather thought that this process, it is possible to get beyond it

I would like here to take an opportunity to recommend a particular modification of Kant by Jacob Fries and Leonard Nelson that I think is the best approach in Philosophy even though this also needs a bit of tweaking the variables because the absolute position of Newtonian space and time can not be the fundamental starting place of all possible human reasoning. While Leonard Nelson was right that you have to have starting axioms without which Reason can not start, but Newton's space and time are not them. rather you have to start with Maxwell's equations of electro magnetism and the speed of light being constant.     [If only nelson had realized this in time, the whole Friesian school might have fared better, --in particular Bernays saw right away that the Friesian school needed to deal with Einstein in a more constructive way. IF anyone has the time i highly recommend the phd thesis of dr kelly ross on the friesian approach.    

 Rav Nahman states the importance of true tzadikim [saints] but also brings u the problem of people that are famous for being great tzadikim but in fact are agents from the dark side, In one Torah lesson Rav Nahman calls these phony tzadikim  מפורסמים של שקר [famous frauds] and Rav Israel Odeser said ''If famous then a fraud''.

[That means that people that are famous a being holy and righteous you must know that they are frauds ]

 Rav Shach and all gedolai Torah [Litvak great Torah scholars] in Israel were against  any kind of situation in which Torah learning was combined with secular learning [as I noticed today in a newspaper that was quoting a few letters of Rav Shach to that effect.]and I can see the point of this. But the way I see things, all the social studies and humanities departments of all universities should be thrown into the trash.[Also look at The Closing of the American Mind  by Allan Bloom who reaches the same conclusion.]

my son Izhak

 Even though my son Izhak held with learning in depth, still he recognized the importance of Rav Nahman who strongly held with  the approach of fast learning ["just say the words in order and go further" אין צריכים בלימוד רק לומר הדברים כסדר וממילא יבין    ם "In learning one only needs to ay the words in order and then he will automatically understand and if he does not understand right away, he will eventually understand; and if after all of that, there are still left some things he did not understand, so what? For the greatness of a lot of learning goes above everything else." so one needs a balance, deep learning in the morning and fast learning in the afternoon. This is the compromise that most Litvak yeshivot have arrived at after a few hundred years of experience. he even mentioned in his bookthe importance of being with rav nahman from uman on rosh hashana and rav nahman definitely emphasized the importance of ''girsa''-saying the words in order and going on as mentioned in tractate shabat pg 63. however i have taken the approach that being in israel is mre important than being in uman.

Gitin 73, Rambam Laws of divorce 9:18 and 19 that is: "Things in the heart are not things". The case is when one says: "This is your divorce if I do not get up from this sick bed", and some unexpected event happens like a lion eats him. There it is a doubt if the divorce is valid. Also there is a case when one sells something  and states that the sale is valid even if an unexpected event occurs like a band robs it. But then some event occurs that is so rare that no one could have  thought of it. Then the sale is not valid and the buyer gets his money back.  My question is "Things in the heart are not things". so why should it make a difference if the even was expected or not? The answer must be like Tosphot [ketuboth 97b]] that there are cases when it is clear from the circumstance [אומדנא דמוכח ]that the intention  of the seller is clear,

Later note. However Rav Shach understands that the cases in giving a divorcee document are not dependent on ''Things in the heart" because  the statement "This is your divorce if I do not recover from this illness" can mean either that the husband is establishing the time of the divorce, or it might mean that it is a condition. And if it is a condition, it would include an unusual event. It would not matter what was in the heart of the husband. But if so, then how does one explain the case of selling a field under all conditions, and then when some unusual event occurs, the sale does not go through? Tht i clearly a condition and yet the sale is not valid

______________________________________________________________________

גיטין ע''ג ע''א, רמב''ם הלכות גיטין ט:י''ח י''ט that is: "דברים שבלב אינם דברים ". The case is when one says: "This is your divorce if I do not get up from this sick bed", and some unexpected event happens like a lion eats him. There it is a doubt if the divorce is valid. Also there is a case when one sells something  and states that the sale is valid even if an unexpected event occurs like a band of robbers robs it. But then some event occurs that is so rare that no one could have  thought of it. Then the sale is not valid and the buyer gets his money back.  My question is "Things in the heart are not things". so why should it make a difference if the even was expected or not? The answer must be like תוספות כתובות צ'''ז ע''ב that there are cases when it is clear from the circumstance [אומדנא דמוכח ]that the intention  of the seller is clear

Later note. However רב שך understands that the cases in giving a גט are not dependent on ''Things in the heart" because  the statement "This is your גט if I do not recover from this illness" can mean either that the husband is establishing the time of the divorce (שעה אחת לפני מיתה), or it might mean that it is a תנאי. And if it is a תנאי, it would include an unusual event. It would not matter what was in the heart of the husband. But if so, then how does one explain the case of selling a field under all conditions, and then when some unusual event occurs, the sale does not go through? That  clearly a condition, and yet the sale is not valid

גיטין ע''ג ע''א, רמב''ם הלכות גיטין ט: י''ח י''ט. המקרה הוא כשמישהו אומר: "זה הגט שלך אם אני לא אקום מהמיטה החולה הזו", ואיזה אירוע לא צפוי קורה כמו אריה אוכל אותו. יש ספק אם הגירושין תקפים. כמו כן, יש מקרה שבו מוכרים משהו וקובעים שהמכירה תקפה גם אם מתרחש אירוע בלתי צפוי כמו להקת שודדים שודדת אותו. אבל אז מתרחש אירוע שהוא כל כך נדיר שאף אחד לא יכול היה לחשוב עליו כגון הנהר שהיה משקה אותו נפסק. אז המכירה לא תקפה והקונה מקבל את כספו בחזרה. השאלה שלי היא "דברים בלב הם לא דברים". אז למה זה צריך לשנות אם אירוע היה צפוי או לא? התשובה חייבת להיות כמו תוספות כתובות צ'''ז ע''ב שיש מקרים שברור מן הנסיבות [אומדנא דמוקח ]שכוונת המוכר ברורה.

אולם רב שך מבין שהמקרים במתן גט אינם תלויים ב''דברים שבלב'' כי האמירה 'זה הגט שלך אם לא אבריא מהמחלה הזאת' יכולה להיות משמעות או שהבעל קובע את זמן הגט (שעה אחת קודם מיתה), או שאולי זה אומר שזה תנאי. ואם זה תנאי, זה יכלול אירוע חריג. לא היה משנה מה היה בלב הבעל. אבל אם כן, אז איך מסבירים את המקרה של מכירת שדה בכל התנאים, ואז כשמתרחש אירוע חריג כלשהו, ​​המכירה לא יוצאת לפועל? ברור שזה תנאי, ובכל זאת המכירה לא תקפה

Rambam laws of acquiring 11 laws 8 and 9. Rav Shach brings there the Rema [Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 207 law 4] that there are some Rishonim that hold that we say, "Things in the heart are not things'' in buying and selling, but not in the case of a gift. I think this opinion comes from the Gemara Ketuboth page 79b. There, there is a case of a woman who became a widow, and she wanted to remarry. But she did not want her next husband to get possession of her property, so she wrote a document giving it all to her daughter. Then she got married and divorced, and came to the court of Rav Nahman asking for her property back from her daughter. Rav Nahman tore up the document, and so she got her property back. Thus we see "things in the heart are things" in the case of a gift. 

I am being a bit short here. For to Tosphot [ketuboth 97b]  there are cases when one needs to state the conditions. There are other cases when it is clear from the circumstance [אומדנא דמוכח ]that the intention  of the seller is clear and he do not need to state the conditions of the sale openly. and there are other cases when a sale is final, no matter what the intentions were. But the case of the Rema is that even when you can not tell from the circumstances what the intentions were, [circumstances pointed in that direction but were not absolutely clear [אומדנא דמוכח ], still by a gift we say ''things in the heart are things.''

This opinion that we say thing in the heart are things for gifts can not  come from Bava Batra 146b because there there are circumstances that show his intention. That is how Rav Nahman shows that the opinion of the Mishna [that when there are circumstances that show his intention we say things in the heart are things] comes from from R Shimon ben Nuri. But the Rema needs a proof that for a gift we say things in the heart are things even when the circumstances do not show it. 

 Gitin 73, Rambam Laws of divorce 9:18 and 19.  The case is when one says: "This is your divorce if I do not get up from this sick bed", and some unexpected event happens like a lion eats him. There it is a doubt if the divorce is valid. Also there is a case when one sells something  and states that the sale is valid even if an unexpected event occurs like a band robs it. But then some event occurs that is so rare that no one could have  thought of it. Then the sale is not valid and the buyer gets his money back.  My question is "Things in the heart are not things". so why should it make a difference if the even was expected or not? The answer must be like Tosphot [ketuboth 97b]] that there are cases when it is clear from the circumstance [אומדנא דמוכח ]that the intention  of the seller is clear,

   

______________________________________________________________________

רמב''ם הלכות מכירה י''א הלכה ח' וט'.There רב שך brings  the רמ''א שלחן ערוך חושו משפט ר''ז ס''ק that there are some ראשונים that hold that we say, "דברים שבלב לא הווי דברים  in buying and selling, but not in the case of a gift. I think this opinion comes from the גמרא כתובות ע''ט ע''ב. There there is a case of a woman who became a widow, and she wanted to remarry. But she did not want her next husband to get possession of her property, so she wrote a document giving it all to her daughter. Then she got married and divorced, and came to the court of רב נחמן asking for her property back from her daughter. רב נחמן tore up the document, and so she got her property back. Thus we see "דברים שבלב הווי דברים" in the case of a gift. 

I am being a bit short here. For to תוספות כתובות צ''ז ע''ב 97b]there are cases when one needs to state the conditions. There are other cases when it is clear from the circumstance that the intention  of the seller is clear and he do not need to state the conditions of the sale openly. and there are other cases when a sale is final, no matter what the intentions were. But the case of the רמ''א is that even when you can not tell from the circumstances what the intentions were [circumstances pointed in that direction but were not absolutely clear [אומדנא דלא מוכח ],  by a gift we say things in the heart are things   ---------

This opinion that we say "things in the heart are things" for gifts can not  come from בבא בתרא קמ''ו ע''ב  because there there are circumstances that show his intention. That is how רב נחמן shows that the opinion of the משנה [that when there are circumstances that show his intention we say things in the heart are things] comes from from ר' שמעון בן נורי. But the רמ''א needs a proof that for a gift we say "things in the heart are things" even when the circumstances  do not show it/

______________________________________________________________________

גיטין ע''ג ע''א, רמב''ם הלכות גיטין ט:י''ח י''ט. The case is when one says: "This is your divorce if I do not get up from this sick bed", and some unexpected event happens like a lion eats him. There it is a doubt if the divorce is valid. Also there is a case when one sells something  and states that the sale is valid even if an unexpected event occurs like a band of robbers robs it. But then some event occurs that is so rare that no one could have  thought of it. Then the sale is not valid and the buyer gets his money back.  My question is "Things in the heart are not things". so why should it make a difference if the even was expected or not? The answer must be like תוספות כתובות צ'''ז ע''ב that there are cases when it is clear from the circumstance [אומדנא דמוכח ]that the intention  of the seller is clear

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

רמב''ם הלכות מכירה י''א הלכות ח' וט'. שם רב שך מביא את הרמ''א שלחן ערוך חושן משפט ר''ז ס''ק   ד' שיש ראשונים שגורסים שאנו אומרים "דברים שבלב לא הוי דברים" בקנייה ומכירה, אבל לא במקרה של מתנה. אני חושב שדעה זו באה מהגמרא כתובות ע''ט ע''ב. יש מקרה של אישה שהתאלמנה, וכן היא רצתה להתחתן בשנית. אבל היא לא רצתה שבעלה הבא יקבל את הרכוש שלה, אז היא כתבה מסמך שמסרה הכל לבתה. ואז היא נישאה והתגרשה, ובאה לבית הדין של רב נחמן ובקשה רכוש בחזרה מבתה. רב נחמן קרע את המסמך, וכך היא קיבלה את רכושה בחזרה. כך אנו רואים "דברים שבלב הוי דברים" במקרה של מתנה.

 

אני קצת מקצר כאן. כי לתוספות כתובות צ''ז ע''ב יש מקרים שצריך לציין את התנאים. וישנם מקרים נוספים בהם ברור מהנסיבות שכוונת המוכר ברורה ואין הוא צריך לציין את תנאי המכירה בגלוי. ויש מקרים אחרים שבהם מכירה היא סופית, לא משנה מה היו הכוונות. אבל המקרה של הרמ''א הוא שגם כשאי אפשר לדעת מהנסיבות מה היו הכוונות, במתנה אנו אומרים דברים שבלב הם דברים.

דעה זו שאנו אומרים "דברים שבלב הם דברים" למתנות אינה יכולה לבוא מבבא בתרא קמ''ו ע''ב כי יש נסיבות המעידות על כוונתו. כך מראה רב נחמן שדעת המשנה [שכאשר יש נסיבות המראות את כוונתו אנו אומרים דברים שבלב הם דברים] באה מר' שמעון בן נורי. אבל הרמ''א צריך הוכחה שבשביל מתנה אומרים "דברים שבלב הם דברים" גם כשהנסיבות אינן מראות זאת. 

היינו הנסיבות הצביעו בכיוון זה אך לא היו ברורות לחלוטין [אומדנא  שאינו מוכח

גיטין ע''ג ע''א, רמב''ם הלכות גיטין ט: י''ח י''ט. המקרה הוא כשמישהו אומר: "זה הגט שלך אם אני לא אקום ממיטת החולה הזו", ואיזה אירוע לא צפוי קורה כמו אריה אוכל אותו. יש ספק אם הגירושין תקפים. כמו כן, יש מקרה שבו מוכרים משהו וקובעים שהמכירה תקפה גם אם מתרחש אירוע בלתי צפוי כמו להקת שודדים שודדת אותו. אבל אז מתרחש אירוע שהוא כל כך נדיר שאף אחד לא יכול היה לחשוב עליו כגון הנהר שהיה משקה אותו נפסק. אז המכירה לא תקפה והקונה מקבל את כספו בחזרה. השאלה שלי היא "דברים בלב הם לא דברים". אז למה זה צריך לשנות אם אירוע היה צפוי או לא? התשובה חייבת להיות כמו תוספות כתובות צ'''ז ע''ב שיש מקרים שברור מן הנסיבות [אומדנא דמוקח ]שכוונת המוכר ברורה.

 I do not agree with most of modern education, I my mind the thing to concentrate on are Mathematics Physics and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach  But I would also agree to learning Mechanical Engineering -which after all was what my father father majored in in school. But you might ask, "What if I am not talented in Math?" To answer that question I have mentioned that to some Rishonim, learning Physics and Metaphysics is in the category of learning the Oral Law.  [These would be Rishonim that were going by Rav Saadia Gaon Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam] That means that it is a mitzvah to learn them whether one i talented or not.