The basic approach to the ARI [R. Isaac Luria] that I hold with is the Reshash--Sar Shalom Sharabi. In fact I prayed with the small sidur of the Reshash for years, and later I found the larger one.  But at some point I decided to go on the path of R. Akiva who according to the gemara ''entered into the higher worlds in peace and left in peace.''--Not that I have anything against being in a state of ''devekut'' [attachment to the infinite light''], but rather I felt one needs the proper ''vessels'' to be able to hold the light-or risk breaking of the vessels. 

[I Also agree with the approach to the Ari of Rav Yaakov Abuchazeira and the Ramchal. Rav Yaakov is the simple ''peshat'' [explanation], while the Reshash is Tosphot. The Ramchal fills in some detail and provides a wider context]

The Litvak Yeshiva World certainly learns TORAH pretty well. There are however a few flaws that i would like to point out. (1) THERE is a lot of seeking ''chumrot'' extra restrictions that often have no basis in halacha at all or little basis. And that leads [as it always must] to ignoring actual requirements of TORAH. (2) THERE is ignoring or ignorance of the herem of the GRA. And though I might be blamed on this same account -but that does not make it okay. (Beside that in my opinion Rav Nahman of Breslov would not be included in the second herem in which the actual signature of the GRA appears at the head of the page.) (3) But it still is a nice fact about the Litvak world that there is an emphasis on not adding and not subtracting from the commandments. That much I have to admit 

When a person thinks about things where reason by its very nature is incapable, these same people go nuts.

It is easy for smart people to see the mistakes of the dumb. But they can also fall into mistakes by being too smart. --It is like the parable of the tortoise and the hare. The swiftness of the tortoise was its own cause of being too slow. So in the Midrash we find the mother of Samuel the Prophet praying that her son should not be too smart nor too dumb. Philosophers have at the disadvantage of being too smart==as Kant himself pointed out in that when the mind ventures into areas of things in themselves self  contradictions arise. and Kant applied that insight to the human personality--when a person thinks about things where reason by its very nature is incapable, these same people go nuts.  

You can see this limitation in Hegel where his system does not recognize the limits of reason. [His system can be likened to PLOTINUS, HEGEL starts from the material world and by the dialectic rises to the Absolute  Spirit. But his system ends with what Plotinus would call THE LOGOS. But plotinus did not stop there. There is something higher than logos, i.e. THE ONE.]

Daddy's little princess becomes the grown lying bitch. .If one is willing to give up one's values because of what a woman says, then he never had any values in the first place.

 KING SOLOMON wrote in Proverbs: ''One man in a thousand I have found (that I can depend on), but even one woman in all that I have not found.'' Does that mean that there is no woman you can depend on, or that the number of women that you can depend on is less than 1/1000? AT any rate, it is clear that Solomon-the wisest of all men [as mentioned twice in the Bible-the Book of Kings and Chronicles], did not think that depending on women is a good idea. Then why are marriage laws in the West deigned to ruin men and their children? It must be because people that make the laws do not learn the Old Testament.

My own thought about this is along the lines of Rav Israel Salanter about the importance of learning Musar [books on Morality from the Middle Ages]-for when men or women concentrate on their responsibilities, they are able to overcome their natural evil inclinations. 

The trouble nowadays is daddy's little princess becomes the grown lying bitch. And whose fault is that? The fact that every man will always support what ever is perceived as a benefit to women, or more accurately any woman.     For men's loyalty one to another disappears as soon as a woman is involved.

And the religious world is no different. The religious bit is just a nice disguise. All Torah values go out the window as long as the approval of a woman is involved 

What I recommend is to learn Torah, Math and Physics [as per the opinions of the medieval authorities that held these last two part of the mitzvah of learning Torah] and not give it up because of a wife that demands one to stop. One's values have to be more important than the puzzy pass. If one is willing to give up one's values because of what a woman says. then he never had any values in the first place.  

It is hard to get philosophy right--I mean the big picture. Plato, Aristotle, KANT are certainly on top and I would have to add Leonard Nelson --of the new Friesian School. BUT even Nelson needs a good deal of clarification as per the friesian.com  of Kelley Ross. However it is a huge mistake in philosophy to have run into the vast array of 20th century ridiculous vacuous pseudo philosophies. [However, I still think that Hegel is a worthy rival of even this Friesian modification of Kant.]  

I think it is too easy to be impressed with 20th century Analytic Philosophy-so as a cure for that disease i recommend Robert Hanna's  book on Analytic Philosophy's fall into the trash bin of history along with existentialism, Post Modernism, The Frankfurt School's neo Marxism. i do not claim to have studied all this thoroughly but i did read a lot of it. The flaws in all of it can take time to see but some are more obvious. It does become to people that are interested in ''big picture'' philosophy--to go back to the serious thinkers--not the superficial ones that sound profound.

 The issue with Hamas is simple. They started the war. so war it is --like Sherman's March through Georgia to the sea. Grind the enemy into the dust. [Why did Eisenhauer not send humanitarian aid to German civilians during WWII?  Why Stalin did not send humanitarian aid to the German civilians in the cities who were starving even though they were not at the front line battles? Japan's civilians were literally starving in all the major cities. WHY did MacArthur not send them humanitarian  aid? Or PERHAPS suggest to relocate them?]

destroy the enemies of Israel

 I appreciate that the U.S.A is helping and I certainly agree that is owed because of that, but I do not think Israel should be limited by the goals and policies of the U.S.A..There is no serious difference between Hamas and the rest of the population of Gaza. You can't have a neighbor  who is saying the first chance he gets he will kill you in your bed as you sleep at night. You would complain to the police; and if they refuse to do anything, you would do what ever you could to protect yourself. The enemies of Israel have decided to drive the Jews into the sea, and Israel has the right to refuse them that privilege, --and to put them in a position in which they can not accomplish that goal. Gaza is too close to be able to defend against. Therefore, there is no choice but to destroy the enemies of Israel