Kant and Leonard Nelson

 I was at the beach and talking to people there about the importance of Kant and Leonard Nelson. I mean it is not as if these students are not learning hard things. One girl had read Hegel's Phenomenology. --[If anything at all of Hegel, I think that should be the last.]

[Nelson built on Jacob Fries. This approach has a third source of knowledge besides reason or sence perception; that is ''immediate non intuitive knowledge.'' But it is not infallible it jut gives the categories of Kant as starting axioms that can be modified by evidence --like space and time.]

  But the interesting thing is that one girl was complaining that Leonard Nelson's works are not in Hebrew,-- and that is a valid complaint. After all even when they {Springer Verlag}got around to publishing his stuff, it is all in German. Can you imagine that even in English,  they only published minor works.

  But just for now with my barely functional keyboard, let me give the basic outline.--but forgive me for leaving out the details. The basic point is philosophy in the last 100 years got to be a mess. Marcuse is juvenile. --''Just tear down everything, and utopia will magically appear,'' is his alchemy thesis--really, [And that is the "woke" (i.e. asleep), just Marcuse repackaged. ]] Analytic philosophy was harder to see the flaws until Jeremy Katz. then recently Robert Hanna dealt it the final blow in his book The Fate of Analysis: Analytic Philosophy From Frege To The Ash-Heap of History, and Toward A Radical Kantian Philosophy of The Future, by Robert Hanna, [https://againstprofphil.org/category/not-an-edgy-essay/page/15/].[I think now you need to buy the book. I had read it when it was still on line.] Existentialism was refuted by a child in the audience of one of the great names who was saying, ''What my words mean to me is not what they mean to you.'' So the child asked the natural question, ''So why are you talking? i.e. he is talking because presumably  he want to say something, not nothing. 

So like Robert Hanna says, ''Forward to Kant''. But then you get into the original problem in Kant, and so the modification of Leonard Nelson is needed.

[I also went into the development of  philosophy of the Middle Ages which for us Jews was neo-Plato until the Rambam who turned towards Aristotle. That Aristotelian  turn came from the Islamic world which had one school that was totally into Aristotle. Then soon after the Rambam, Thomas Aquinas also went to Aristotle. But this move towards Aristotle did not hold up under the scrutiny of Bishop Berkley [about the question how perception works,] that led to the conflict between the rationalists and empiricists until Kant found a solution to that dilemma.

  My son. Isaac ben Avraham. was extraordinary in terms of desire to help others and the trait of forgiveness. But I forget the exact circumstances when I saw this, so I did not write about it. I think one event was was we were living together (in the neighborhood of Zichron Moshe) in Yerushalaim when there was some hurtful act of someone that I was angry about, but  Isaac said that there was no point in bearing a grudge. Also, at some point, I was learning the Avi Ezri on Shas of Rav Shach in Uman and lost it, so he sent to me another four vol. set. But later I lost that again --and he sent to me another set. And so on and so forth many times. I would lose the books I had to learn [because of all kind of difficult circumstances I fell into] and every time he would send another copy to me.

my son izhak ben avraham held with in depth learning.

 The thing of the Litvaks is learning in depth. I had a friend who became the acting rosh yeshiva of Chaim Berlin Yeshiva in N,Y. that told me once he saw no point in ''bekiut'' [fast learning-saying the words and going on.] This point was brought home to me over the years --first by Motti Freifeld in Shar Yashuv and later then in Uman when my own learning partner David Bronson refused to "go on" until he got the subject perfectly.

I believe this started with the Gra because it is the most obvious and characteristic thing about the Litvak world that goes with the Gra. I am beginning to think that this sort of learning in depth is the only possible way to get to the light of Torah.

But at the Mir in NY there was the afternoon ''bekiut learning'' which also makes sense to me--but only if done along with some sessions that are done in depth.

I might mention that my son izhak ben avraham held with in depth learning.  

Other lessons I learned from him: (1) exercise, (2) the importance of following the path of the Gra in every detail--including the signature of the Gra on that letter of excommunication. (4) Not to be hard hearted. like it says in Torah about the brothers of Joseph that he pleaded with them but they were hard hearted and sold him. Also with Naval HaCarmeli who was hard hearted when the men of King David asked for help. In fact, this last  lesson seem to me to be the most important one that must learn from the life of my son. (5) Shmrirat Habrit - to keep the laws of the Torah concerning sexual issues like it says in Leviticus  chapters 18 and 20. [ And not to add them what is mentioned there.] (6) Coming and staying in Israel. [This is also mentioned in Torah in the verse in Deuteronomy ""Keep the commandment so that you may come to the Land of Canaan and that you may have length of days in the Land. [Parshat HaYira at the end.] (7) He also had inventions which he never published. so, like my dad, he had an interest in mechanical engineering. 

 Closing of the American Mind  by Allan Bloom suggested throwing out the Humanities and social studies department of universities [unless they get straight]. It is an amazing book tracing the crisis to an essential contradiction in the Enlightenment. But it misses the infiltration of the whole system the universities by the Neo Marxists that is at least one major cause of the problems that he noted.     

Allan Bloom also did not note the movement in the time of Kant to simply make universities into tech schools. Before that time they were theological institutions. So many wanted to change them into what we have today with Humanities and social studies departments. The first idea would have been better. 

Mathematics, Physics and the Avi Ezri

 I would like to recommend review of every lesson in Mathematics, Physics and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach 400 times before going on. This is based on the idea of the Gemara of 400 times review plus the idea of the Gra [the Gaon of  Villna] that one needs knowledge of the seven wisdoms before one can know anything in Torah. He said, ''When one lacks knowledge in any of the seven wisdoms, that lack will cause a lack in understanding of Torah a hundred times more.'' [This I recommend for the sake of my son,  IZHAK BEN AVRAHAM.  And, in fact, Izhak held with lots of review. When I suggested,  ''Just say the words and go on'', he did not agree.] The Physics and Mathematics is brought more openly in the Rambam in the Guide for the Perplexed in the Introduction and later in the parable of a king in his country. \

[The Gemara says, ''Anyone who does not review his learning is as if he buries his sons and daughters.'']

My plan is that after 40 days in a row of learning one page or section that then one goes to the previous page if that first one was not clear, or to the next of it was clear. but that whole should be reviewed 400 times.

ALSO to listen to lectures in Math Physics and the Avi Ezri and Rav Chaim of Brisk from experts.

Also I suggest  some fast sessions to get through the Avi Ezri in total and through the basic core subjects in Mathematics and Physics, and 1/2 page of Gemara, Rashi, Tophot, Maharsha daily to go for the merit of my son, Izhak.

wake up from ''woke''. Intellect can often lead people astray just as much as being dumb--even more so.

 relevant to the new year when people should wake up from ''woke'' neo-Marxism. But I do not know for other how to do so except to close the university humanities and social studies departments.

[i might suggest to learn the philosophical roots of woke in Hegel, Marx, and Marcuse. But that can not work since people can be very smart and still not see mistakes. [''Hegel’s problem is that it is possible to level the charge of insufficiency that he directs at Pyrrhonian skepticism against his own account of the appearance of knowledge.'']  

Intellect can often lead people astray just as much as being dumb--even more so. See Rav Nahman's comments on this in his book the Le.M vol. II

See also this insightful essay: https://newcriterion.com/issues/2000/9/the-difficulty-with-hegel

laws of mourning

   In laws of mourning the second day of festivals count for one day of mourning according to the Rambam. The Ramban asks on this from the law that a bridegroom who prepared the meal and then his father died  first does the seven days of joy and then seven of mourning.. That is even though during the days of joy he must observe private laws of mourning. [That makes a difference since in a case one becomes a mourner one hour before a festival and does even one act of mourning, then the festival nullifies the rest of the days of mourning.

This last point is what Rav Shach brings to reinforce the question of the Ramban.

But I think that three things combine to make the law of the Rambam true. One is that a festival is stronger than the days of joy and thus has power to nullify the mourning completely. See Moed Katan that says a positive command of the multitude nullifies a positive command of an individual. Second.;-the thing that the bridegroom does is private. At no time does he do the open laws of mourning like turning over his bed. Third--nullifying the days of mourning for the bridegroom would mean not having any days of mourning at all 

______________________________________________________________

   In הלכות אבל the second day of יום טוב count for one day of mourning according to the רמב''ם. The רמב''ן asks on this from the law that a חתן who prepared the meal and then his father died  first does the seven days of joy and then seven of mourning.. That is even though during the days of joy he must observe private laws of mourning. [That makes a difference since in a case one becomes a mourner one hour before a festival and does even one act of mourning, then the festival nullifies the rest of the days of mourning. This last point is what רב שך brings to reinforce the question of the רמב''ן. But I think that three things combine to make the law of the רבב''ם true. One is that a festival is stronger than the days of joy and thus has power to nullify the mourning completely. See מועד קטן  that says a positive command of the multitude nullifies a positive command of an individual. Second.;-the thing that the bridegroom does is private. At no time does he do the open laws of mourning like turning over his bed. Third--nullifying the days of mourning for the bridegroom would mean not having any days of mourning at all 

______________________________________________________________________

בהלכות אבל היום השני של יום טוב של גלות עולה למניין ימי אבל יום אחד לפי הרמב''ם. הרמב''ן שואל על זה מההלכה שחתן שהכין את הסעודה ואחר כך מת אביו עושה תחילה שבעת ימי שמחה ואחר כך שבעה של אבלות. זאת למרות שבימות השמחה עליו לקיים ביחידות דיני אבלות. [זה משנה כיוון שבמקרה נעשים אבלים שעה לפני מועד ועושים אפילו מעשה אבל אחד, אזי החג מבטל את שאר ימי אבלות.] נקודה אחרונה זו היא מה שמביא רב שך לחזק את שאלת הרמב''ן. אבל אני חושב ששלושה דברים מתחברים כדי לבאר שאת דין הרמב''ם אמת. האחת היא שחג חזק מימי השמחה ובכך יש בכוחו לבטל את האבל של יום אחד לחלוטין. ראה מועד קטן שאומר מצווה חיובית של הרבים מבטלת פקודה חיובית של יחיד. שנית.;-הדבר שהחתן עושה הוא פרטי. בשום זמן הוא לא עושה את הלכות אבלות הפתוחות כמו להפוך את מיטתו. שלישית--ביטול ימי אבלות לחתן פירושו שלא יהיו ימי אבלות כלל