faith is a source of knowledge

(1) A flaw in enlightenment philosophy is the attempt to get moral principles from pure Reason.

Pure Reason does not tell us much. It does not even tell us what axioms are "reasonable" to start with.. It is more like a tool to constrain. It can tell us when we are making a mistake. This is the point of David Hume that got this idea from his experience as a teacher of Euclid's Elements (Geometry.) The axioms were not derived by reason. But they were reasonable. The only function of reason in the Elements was to show when some idea could be shown to be in contradiction to one of the axioms.

There might be reasonable moral principles, but they are not derivable by mean of pure reason which can tell us they way things are, not how they ought to be. That is the famous rule of Hume: You can not derive an "ought" from an "is"

(2) What I am getting at is that faith is a source of knowledge that is different from reason. [This is a doctrine of the Kant-Friesian School]. But even those that are adherents of this school often seem to miss out that this is not a form of psychologism. While it is true with Fries that one needs to look into one's own mind to see what the beginning axioms are  that does not mean that the mind knows these things by some kind of implanted knowledge. Rather the mind perceives them but not by reason but by a sort of knowledge that is not sensed nor known by reason. It is non intuitive immediate knowledge.

(3) This was of course obvious in the Middle Ages. The need for faith and reason together was obvious to all. This insight was lost until the Kant Friesian School arose.

 z74 music file

 I must admit that it was not any lack in the Litvak Yeshiva World that caused me to leave. As long as I was in the Mir Yeshiva in NY, things were great. And coming to Israel would not have been a problem also because there was a Litvak  kollel in Safed that I could have joined. Rather I got involved in Breslov. And you can understand how that might come about since Rav Nahman was in fact a great tzadik. Still, the effect on me was to get me off track. [And in spite of the greatness of Rav Nahman, on occasion people that get involved in Breslov do tend to lose the way, close the Gemara]. The best idea is to stick with the Gra and straight Torah of the Litvak world while at the same time to benefit from the important advice and ideas of Rav Nahman.

One  of the great things I learned in the Litvak world: the importance of Rishonim Mediaeval thinkers. [This mainly refers to the commentator of the Gemara, Tosphot, Rashba, Ritva, Ramban, Rosh. etc.].But by implication it also refers to the Musar and world view philosophy of the Rishonim.

Also I learned the importance of review. 

However not enough emphasis was placed on the Gra.

=And that is the only thing I see amiss in the Litvak world- not enough emphasis on the Gra. [for example the letter of excommunication that he signed and yet is still ignored. ]

 

 

 Russia has made it clear that sending advanced weapons to Ukraine will be considered as an act of war. Do we really think we can wipe the floor with Russia?  How well did we do in Afghanistan with the Taliban who did not have 4,000 nuclear weapons. 

And the Russian doctrine of war is that even a conventional attack on Russia will evoke a nuclear response.

How much easier it would be to sign an agreement that Ukraine will not join NATO? Would that not be better than WWIII that the USA is not prepared for.. The Military has made it clear that it main priority is getting  homosexuals into positions of  high rank.

Are we ready for this: 

zh b

 There is something profoundly insightful about Kant's idea that we really do no understand "things in themselves" This was originally derived from John Locke that noticed that some traits are in things in themselves and others are how we react to them. E.g. how they feel our touch. Kant noticed that even trait that we think of as being in things in themselves are really what we add to them. So if you abstract these traits then what is the thing in itself? We do not know. You see this in Physics.  One one hand Physics recognizes mass and charge as very well understood and measurable in the lab. But  as Kant would that that is how we interact with the mass and charge of the electron. But the "bare mass"? The mass that you calculate in the sum of the kinetic energy and potential energy? That bare mass in infinity.  It is hard to understand how the electrons mass can be infinity. So Kant was right that we really do not understand things in themselves. [The "bare mass" is one of the many famous infinities that come up in Quantum Field Theory. Richard Feynman sort of solved the problem by what is called normalization but it is more like sweeping the dust under the rug]