Even though learning fast is clearly indicated in the Conversations of Rav Nahman שיחות הר''ן סימן ע''ו I noticed today the LeM I:74 ליקוטי מוהר''ן חלק א פרק ע''ד where learning with understanding is emphasized. This indicates the sort of compromise that you have in the Litvak world of half the day spent on learning in depth and the second half to be spent on fast learning.

 I do not really hold that marriage is a very good thing anymore. Nor do i see it to be in accord or contrary to holiness. Even though the Rambam held the idea of  concubine פילגש was only for kings, most rishonim disagree. 

And if you want to see this in the Old Testament itself, see Chronicles chapter 2 verse 46 concerning Caleb ben Yefuna. And  Caleb ben Yefuna was not a king, and yet had a few concubines. [And he was righteous as it says in the Book of  Numbers after he returned with Joshua--he went totally with God. וימלא אחרי השם ] So have girl friends and even having children with them does not reduce ones righteousness

Marriage nowadays is like being in an airplane that is losing power, and you are handed a parachute. The flight attendant that hands you the chute tells you that it has a 50/50 percent chance of opening.  

 It has been suggested that Clarence Thomas is the life blood and soul of the Supreme Court. After all no one can imagine Roberts to have the kind of influence that Thomas has. And that means the laws that were supposedly protected by the 14th ammendment will be held under scrutiny. [I.e. homosexual "marriage"? is next on the list of things to e noted that are not mentioned in the 14th ammendment.]

 I did not make it my business, but over the years I became aware of  some of the issues revolving around the Shatz. My conclusions were that most of the major doctrines of the Shatz got accepted into the religious world. So you might have noted that I think the religious world is not based on Torah except for show. The real source is the Shaz. But to go into this subject seems to me to be a waste of time and quite distasteful. But it came up while I was today in Breslov, so I thought to mention it here in case anyone needs some direction if they want to do research into this subject.

 There issue of Christianity I thought was in Avoda Zara but today I was at the near by Na Nach Breslov place and saw a book by the son of Rav Odaviah Yoseph [about using medicine on Shabat]]and hebrought up the fact that Muslims are not idol worshipers and the mentioned that famous Tosphot about Christianity and "Shituf" {joining}.  He brings in from Sanhedrin page 63 and the Rema {Moshe Iserles} in the Shulchan Aruch in Orach Haim chapter 156.

{I did not look these up but I guess I was wrong about the location of that Tosphot.}

 

 I am wondering why Leonard Nelson does not come up in philosophy. There might be one reason that Husserl accused him of psychologism. But I think that was not accurate. It might be we look into our minds to see first principles [empirically], but these first principles we know not from empirical evidence but non intuitive immediate knowledge. 

Especially after Husserl himself does not seem so great. [As Michael Sugrue pointed out.] And in fact most of "Analytic Philosophy" seems to be off track as Robert Hanna has pointed out. I only read some of one of his books about  how "Analytic Philosophy" is ready for the trash bin. But his arguments are very convincing.

The only exception I have to Nelson [who is based on Fries] is the complete dismissal of Hegel which I think is too much based on Hegel's politics which was in reaction to the French Revolution.]

Just as a side note I should add here why I think Nelson is important. Part of the reason is public--that is this: There are problems in Kant that I think Fries and Nelson do the best job in answering. I mean even if we would agree with Robert Hanna about "Forward to Kant," those problems would remain. So you can do some modification and that would be with the Friesian school. 

Another reason is personal--while in Safed in Israel I had what many people in history have had- this sort of "Enlightenment" kind of experience. This indicated a whole new dimension of reality that is not available to empirical knowledge nor to Reason. So it made sense to me to see that there is a different source of knowledge besides pure reason or the senses--immediate non-intuitive knowledge.