In the Le.M [Lekutai Moharan] Rav Nachman explains that wisdom tricks people. [There is such a thing a being too smart.]]

Rav Nachman of Breslov said the trait of wisdom spread out [like all the other ten sephirot] until God established a limit for it. You can see this idea in other places in the Le.M [Lekutai Moharan] where R' Nachman explains that wisdom tricks people. [''The main thing is to be simple and straight, for too much smarts tricks a person..]] You can see this same idea in Kant where he wants to expand the role of reason into synthetic a priori [ i.e., what other philosophers call ''universals;;]--but he does place a limit on this role of reason. The limit is that it is applicable only in the realm of possible experience.  [The way to see this is to think of a computer. A bathtub full of computer chips is not a computer. To have knowledge of the real world, one's own computer chips--his way of sensing time space color etc. have to be ordered and structured.[Space and time are the forms of intuition aka sense perception. They are not concepts of reason.] But we do not have sense perception outside of our 3-d world.]

 My basic idea of what to do in these horrific times is to learn Torah. But I should add that I have a very limited idea of what ''Torah'' is--that is only the actual Oral and Written Law. This is like the Rambam wrote, ''Just like one can  not add nor subtract from the Written Law, so one cannot add nor subtract from the Oral Law.''-which is only the actual set of books written down by the Tenaim and Amoraim [Sages of the Talmud and Mishna]. After them, there is no authentic tradition. [The idea here is that just like if one would come along today and claim to prophecy, no one would or should believe him or her because we already have the prophets, and that age is finished. So it is with the Oral Law, that age is finished. So no one could come along after the finishing of the Talmud and claim they found a lost book of the Oral Law, nor make up his own ideas in Torah and call them the Oral Law.]

[Since learning Torah is equal to all the other mitzvot [and out weighs them as shown in Nefesh Hachaim vol 4], thus one ought to take as an obligation on oneself to get through the entire oral and written law, Tenach, the two Talmuds [with Rashi, Tophot and corresponding commentaries], and all the midrashim. Also to have an in depth session in the AVI EZRI of Rav Shach, Mathematics and Physics.] 

The Third Temple.

 The Third Temple is not well  understood by many people including myself. But today, I saw a book by a fellow Izhak Cohen [in a yishuv called Elad] who brings the Rashi and Ramchal on the verses in Ezekiel and does a great job in laying it all out in detail. However to actually build it would require a red cow without which there is no way of getting out of טומת מת [uncleanliness that come from touching a dead body.] [But I imagine nowadays that should be fairly easy by genetic modification]

[I admit to having read Ezekiel, and also seeing the Ramchal without having the slightest understanding until this morning when I looked at that book.]

One of the major reasons the third temple is not understood in the Mishna and Gemara talk only about the second temple. The parts of the gemara that are relevant to the third temple are only the parts about sacrifices

for some odd reason the chapters in Ezekiel which explain all about the Third Temple are almost never studied by anyone.

Of course Muslim would nor be pleased with us Jews for making a third temple, but we are in any case not winning any popularity contests in the Muslim world. Our mere existance is a thorn in their side. Christians also would not be in favor of this because the last chapters of Revelations seem to indicate a third temple that would not be for sacrifices. All the more so Paul is down on keeping the commandments of the Torah which include building a temple. However Paul anyway get into the New Testament for reasons that do not seem valid since he had no first hand information about anything that Jesus never said or did.

advice to school

 Get rid of the social studies pseudo science departments. I do not agree with anything of what the teach. I agree however with art and hard sciences. Also the Old Testament. I would agree with philosophy of Plato, Aristotle and Kant.

 There is one way of learning in depth that I have not mentioned. This is to hold your place where you already are in the book and work around that point. That is to review that page. then go back  one page and then go forward a few more pages.  Then go back a few more pages. But I do not mean this in place of a regular in depth session with review back to the very beginning, nor in place of the sort of very fast learning [called ''girsa'']. 

 Even though the Litvak world is about as close to the Gra as anyone could get, I still find a few things,  amiss. What about the herem of the Gra that is completely ignored? And I find this to be the root of many other things that are amiss. [Nor do I claim to be innocent in this regard. For I do learn the books  of Rav Nahman of Breslov. bBut I do have a reason for that. That is that after looking at a book that contained the original herems including that of the Gra, I noted that Rav Nahman would not be in that category. ]

 I think it is agreed that the Hegelian attempt to replace Aristotelian logic with his own was not successful. Even though there are fuzzy logics,  they have nothing in common with Hegel. The many attempts to discard Kant and the distinction between a priori and empirical truths have also not proven to be valid as Robert Hanna has pointed out. [Michael Huemer however goes along with Prichard and what are called the intuitionists, that school comes from G.E. Moore and to some degree is the beginning of the Analytic School which Robert Hanna has rightfully put into its place. However, I still can not decide the winner. To me it seems like a draw between the Friesian school based on Kant [i.e. Kelley Ross] and Huemer.