Litvak yeshivas

Even though people do not look on Litvak yeshivas as hippe communes they do have something in common. A kind of attempt to escape from the world and to build a private Utopia.
The flaw in the system is that it is not self contained.

There is unquestionably an aspect of utopia in the whole thing. And when it works--it works well.
And when things are going OK, you never have any reason to doubt that this is the "true path."
It is like me and my stomach. I never noticed how my digestive system is working, until  something went haywire. Same in the Litvak yeshiva world. There are plenty of good reasons to say that it in fact is about as close to utopia in this world than one can get. One learns and follows objective morality and is able to ignore the awful horrifying secular world.
The reason I am asking about it is for the cases when it does not seem to work--like for me. I am no where near being able to do an analysis on this but it begs to be done.
It is like political theory. When a state seems to be abusing people, the tendency is to attack theories that support the state. When on the other hand chaos and crime reign, one looks for justification of the State. 

What I mean is the Litvak yeshiva context was very nice for me for a while, but at some point something seems to have gone off course. And I can have no idea how to account for that.  

u87 u88 u89 music files

U-87 G Major [U-87 in midi] [u-87 nwc]This I converted from MIDI to MP3 by Zamzar which is very different than the google converter. So I deleted a lot of the parts besides the main line and bass. This is based on the fact that in this converter the other parts do not seem to work very well. [here is u-8 in midi format.] u8 nwc  u8 mp3
U-88  [u-88 midi format

u88 in nwc

U-89 B flat major [u-89 midi format\ [u89 nwc]

What I have noticed in Physics and Math is that sometimes there is a key concept that everything revolves upon. I had forgotten all math for a long time and only took it up in Israel after I became convinced that it is not separate from Torah but a part of God's Law.
At the time I bought a small book that had  basic concepts of Math. On one page was the idea of of a tangent function laid out simply. To my surprise, I understood it [only after review]. Then in Hebrew University, someone showed me the basic idea of how to solve an algebraic equation, and [the same person] later the basic idea of a derivative.
Over time, I began to see that for me there were certain points of leverage or focus that made everything else clear.
It might be different according to the person. But for me, I found it useful to identify key points, and review them.


I also think that often a lot depends on finding the right book.
Furthermore, the idea of "Girsa" [saying the words in order and go on--as fast as possible] I think is important in the way it is first introduced in tractate Sabbath [I think around page 63]. ליגמור והדר ליסבר "to finish, and then to understand" [delve into it deeply].

What is Torah all about?

There seem to be  lot of opinions about "What Torah is all about." The Musar opinion of Isaac Blazer [good traits and fear of God] is not the only one. There is Abraham Isaiah  [author of the חזון איש] that the main thing is to be careful about law. The commentary on the beginning of Mishne Torah of the Rambam holds the main thing is to come to the higher awe of God. The Ran of Breslov held it is שמירת הברית [sexual sanctity]. The Torah itself puts a lot of emphasis on coming and staying in Israel in Deuteronomy פרשת היראה.

I think the higher awe of God is certainly among the major goals of Torah. But I can also see that Rav Isaac Balzer was right because I see  most of the books of the great sages of the Middle Ages and also the Reshash [Rav Shalom Sharabi] seconded his motion.

The opinion that the ultimate purpose of Torah is to come to awe of God has an important practical application. For if one merits to this awe of God, he might be tempted to push it off by ignorence of its value. So simply being aware of this idea is important.



The approach of the Gra and his disciple Reb Haim of Voloshin  is that the major way of coming to Oneness with God and Awe of him is by learning Torah. This idea is in fact mentioned openly in the Yerushalmi Gemara in Peah.כל חפציך לא ישוו בה. כל חפצים לא ישוו בה אפילו חפצי שמיים אינם שווים לדיבור אחד של תורה All the commandments are equal to even one word of learning Torah.
[This idea of the Gra I think is quite right.]]

New Left

My basic feeling is to notice the connections between the New Left and the Old Left of 1848. That is the militant approach to impose the dictatorship of the low class on all others. Also I recall that I would also have been a Leftist if not for learning the Old Testament along with the commentary called the Oral Law. In the Oral Law a great deal of Leftist ideas are opposed. For example the emphasis on good traits, working on improving one's own faults instead of the faults of others, and PRIVATE PROPERTY. The emphasis ought to be on personal transformation, not transforming "society." When one improves himself, then everyone around him also improves.

This did not come all at once though. Mainly it was diffused until I started taking Musar more seriously. Then at that time I started to see the whole thing about good traits {midot tovot) and fear of God as being the things that Torah requires above everything else.

(What makes sense to me to learn in terms of politics is L. T. Hobhouse in his Metaphysical Theory of the State. And I might mention that English History in itself gives a great background to understanding the Constitution of the USA.
L. T. Hobhouse in his Metaphysical Theory of the State is important because he brings a great deal of common sense to the issues.)

Bryan Caplan goes into the source of the problem in Hume

Bryan Caplan goes into the source of the problem in Hume in that Hume thinks reason does nothing but detect contradictions. He asserts this over and over again as if it is simple, yet without ever giving any kind of argument for it. It is as if he has packed the jury against reason without giving it a chance to defend itself. (To me it seems obvious that Hume got this idea from his learning of Geometry and saw there that one way reason  functions is to detect contractions.) But as Kant noted reason does more. But how? With Hegel it is by a dialectical process. With Fries it is by non intuitive immediate knowledge [non sensed and not through anything else].

Self defense and Dr Huemer

Dr. Huemer has a nice essay on self defense where he brings new points. Mainly that people have the right to defend themselves, and the police have no obligation to defend anyone as upheld in USA courts consistently.

Dr Kelley Ross also has an essay about this.