With Hegel there is a connection between areas of value. Even in the same area he says"content is itself the Idea as the unity of the Notion and reality."
With the Kant Fries School of Dr Kelley Ross the areas of value are independent.
So with Hegel the living with balance makes more sense. That is devoting let's say one hour of time to Gemara and another hour to Physics, and another to Music, etc until in one day you have covered all the areas of value. But with Dr Kelley Ross, it would make more sense to concentrate on the one area of value you need the most the whole day.
For me it seems better to divide the day into small sections. To concentrate on one area alone for me seems to work against that very area in itself. But I think that is simply a quirk of my own personality. I can see there are people that can concentrate on one area alone and gain great expertise in that area. But that does not seem to work for me.
There is great value in the Kant-Fries School of Thought. Still there are a few problem areas. One is implanted knowledge. There does not seem to be any reason to believe that implanted knowledge corresponds to truth in any sense. And it does not does not seem to be the approach of the Rambam either. True that even natural law needs to be revealed, but once it is reveled, the veil of perception is taken away and then reason perceives it. Also the whole approach of Kant is absolute based on Hume, and Hume never showed that reason only can perceive contradictions as Dr. Bryan Caplan makes clear.
With the Kant Fries School of Dr Kelley Ross the areas of value are independent.
So with Hegel the living with balance makes more sense. That is devoting let's say one hour of time to Gemara and another hour to Physics, and another to Music, etc until in one day you have covered all the areas of value. But with Dr Kelley Ross, it would make more sense to concentrate on the one area of value you need the most the whole day.
For me it seems better to divide the day into small sections. To concentrate on one area alone for me seems to work against that very area in itself. But I think that is simply a quirk of my own personality. I can see there are people that can concentrate on one area alone and gain great expertise in that area. But that does not seem to work for me.
There is great value in the Kant-Fries School of Thought. Still there are a few problem areas. One is implanted knowledge. There does not seem to be any reason to believe that implanted knowledge corresponds to truth in any sense. And it does not does not seem to be the approach of the Rambam either. True that even natural law needs to be revealed, but once it is reveled, the veil of perception is taken away and then reason perceives it. Also the whole approach of Kant is absolute based on Hume, and Hume never showed that reason only can perceive contradictions as Dr. Bryan Caplan makes clear.
To me it seems there is a lot of good in the Hegel approach.
The Ari and Rambam do have as a matter of fact a kind of progression towards the Divine Light anyway. That seems kind of curious because normally we understand the Divine Light --when it is the real thing from the Realm of Holiness-to be a simple gift from God. That is why the Ari and the Rambam seem hard to understand. They both definitely say the approach towards God goes by stages. The Arizal even warns about jumping the gun in a few places that are relatively unknown. [Which is itself curious because it seems to go against the beginning of the Eitz Chaim. That Introduction to the Eitz Chaim is in fact the reason people learn it without being prepared. Still as I mentioned once I see no contradiction. Rather being prepared simply does not mean what most people imagine it to mean.]
The Ari and Rambam do have as a matter of fact a kind of progression towards the Divine Light anyway. That seems kind of curious because normally we understand the Divine Light --when it is the real thing from the Realm of Holiness-to be a simple gift from God. That is why the Ari and the Rambam seem hard to understand. They both definitely say the approach towards God goes by stages. The Arizal even warns about jumping the gun in a few places that are relatively unknown. [Which is itself curious because it seems to go against the beginning of the Eitz Chaim. That Introduction to the Eitz Chaim is in fact the reason people learn it without being prepared. Still as I mentioned once I see no contradiction. Rather being prepared simply does not mean what most people imagine it to mean.]
