So we can defend Musar [that is the importance of learning Mediaeval books of Ethics] According to my last blog entry because it shows the underlying meaning of the Oral and Written Law. Plus it gives a good idea of the actual world view of Torah without distorting it to promote some agenda.
There are other reasons and I am not sure this minute how to state them.
I need I think a bouncing board like when you play tennis by yourself you have something to knock the balls against back to you.
The bouncing board I want to use is the book Plato not Prozac.
In the first chapters, Lou Marinoff, (the president of the American Philosophical Practitioners Association) mercilessly attacks, for good reason, the dominating establishment of psychiatric therapy and counseling -- its premises, views and accomplishments. He rightly believes that this pseudo-scientific occupation has no reasonable credibility left for anyone, not even its self-serving practitioners who have become so influential in our society.
But his answer of paying for philosophical counseling seems to be exact thing that Socrates was complains about with the sophists.
But a dubious trivialization of Torah to use it in the same way or as a substitute for psychology has disturbing resemblance to modern day cults.
So what I suggest is this idea that became the modern day Lithuanian yeshiva. In spite of the problems you have with all institutions there are some institutions that have an overall good effect. The fact that by the Bell Curve most of them will be mediocre does not provide an argument against any institution.You have rather to look at the basic values and see if they correspond to Reason--that is objective morality.
Philosophy in the way mentioned by Plato not Prozac is not a good approach. But still the author has a very good idea about the fact that philosophy helps to bring to truth by helping us separate fiction from non fiction. The approach which I think is best would combine Musar [Ethics] with the Philosophy of the Middle Ages [like the Guide of the Rambam of the book of Saadia Gaon the אמונות ודעות, Cresca, Albo, Aberbenal, etc.]
The idea of Socrates was in good measure continued by Plato and Aristotle. And Socrates wanted to find out what is right living--not happy living. And he demolished all attempts define right living in pseudo intellectual ways. This gives us a good hint to what the Rambam was thinking. He thought that Torah tells us what right living is and that the idea of the Torah could be defended even in a debate with Socrates himself in person. But he also knew Socrates would be able to demolish any attempts to justify Torah by pseudo intellectual means. And he knew the philosophy is important in order to discern what the actual message of Torah is. He was aware on the attempts of delusional people to redefine Torah in accord with their delusions.
_________________________________________________________________________________
There are other reasons and I am not sure this minute how to state them.
I need I think a bouncing board like when you play tennis by yourself you have something to knock the balls against back to you.
The bouncing board I want to use is the book Plato not Prozac.
In the first chapters, Lou Marinoff, (the president of the American Philosophical Practitioners Association) mercilessly attacks, for good reason, the dominating establishment of psychiatric therapy and counseling -- its premises, views and accomplishments. He rightly believes that this pseudo-scientific occupation has no reasonable credibility left for anyone, not even its self-serving practitioners who have become so influential in our society.
But his answer of paying for philosophical counseling seems to be exact thing that Socrates was complains about with the sophists.
But a dubious trivialization of Torah to use it in the same way or as a substitute for psychology has disturbing resemblance to modern day cults.
So what I suggest is this idea that became the modern day Lithuanian yeshiva. In spite of the problems you have with all institutions there are some institutions that have an overall good effect. The fact that by the Bell Curve most of them will be mediocre does not provide an argument against any institution.You have rather to look at the basic values and see if they correspond to Reason--that is objective morality.
Philosophy in the way mentioned by Plato not Prozac is not a good approach. But still the author has a very good idea about the fact that philosophy helps to bring to truth by helping us separate fiction from non fiction. The approach which I think is best would combine Musar [Ethics] with the Philosophy of the Middle Ages [like the Guide of the Rambam of the book of Saadia Gaon the אמונות ודעות, Cresca, Albo, Aberbenal, etc.]
The idea of Socrates was in good measure continued by Plato and Aristotle. And Socrates wanted to find out what is right living--not happy living. And he demolished all attempts define right living in pseudo intellectual ways. This gives us a good hint to what the Rambam was thinking. He thought that Torah tells us what right living is and that the idea of the Torah could be defended even in a debate with Socrates himself in person. But he also knew Socrates would be able to demolish any attempts to justify Torah by pseudo intellectual means. And he knew the philosophy is important in order to discern what the actual message of Torah is. He was aware on the attempts of delusional people to redefine Torah in accord with their delusions.
_________________________________________________________________________________
