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'']. 

 no one is asking my opinion, but it seems clear to me that Gaza ought to be flattened. i mean, they have had plenty of chances to become peaceful. they were always saying that if they could have their own area then that is all that would be needed for peace..since they got it all the have done is to try to make war against Israel.  fool me once-shame on you. fool me twice shame on me

 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. 

to get through the two Talmuds

Simchat Torah is the best time to make a commitment to get through the two Talmuds with all the commentaries-every day to do a few pages with Rashi, Tosphot and Maharsha.  Beside that to do a few in depth sessions with the Reb Chaim of Brisk [Chidushai Harabam] and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.

the Talmud asks since only the light of Torah can bring a person to the revival of the dead, [as is mentioned in the verse -טל תורה מחייה אותו that the dew of Torah will ring a person to be revived at the time of the revival of the dead] then how can women merit to a portion in the next world [since women are not obligated in the commandment to learn Torah -    so they get no reward by doing so]. The Gemara answers by bringing up their children to learn Torah and waiting for their husband to return from the study hall.

 I was looking at the Gate of Intentions by Rav Chaim Vital about Sukot, and it mentions there the importance of repentance on the night of Hoshana Raba. [The 7th day of Sukot after midnight] That is when the memo is given to the angels that was sealed on Yom Kipur. There it says there is still hope to repent before the angel of judgment gets the memo. But how to repent or on what to repent is the question. The most obvious answer is to learn Musar [books of ethics].  This is because every person is on their own path and can't know what they are doing wrong except by seeing what others do wrong. כל הפוסל במומו פוסל, all who cancel cancel with their own defect. SO only by seeing what is wrong with others, can one see what is wrong with himself.