In NY I did not like the NY Times much. I preferred the NY Post and NY Daily. They fell in quality after around 2000 but then recently seemed to be getting better. In any case the Times always seemed slanted to me to the degree that I could not stand reading it. It felt like reading the Pravda.

Something similar with the Haaretz. Even at a meeting with a reporter from Haaretz I felt the force of "Politically Correct"  in his complete refusal to acknowledge any evidence that went against the basic "Party line". Yediot I found a lot better,  and yet quality there too fell after 2000. Maybe it picked up recently like the NY Post. I am not sure.

U-73 C Major   [U-73 midi]  [U-73 nwc]

To some degree I can see the process that Hegel calls dialectics  in how Relativity was discovered. The basic idea of Hegel was if you take some concept and just go with it taking it as far as you can, you will eventually end up with some kind of contradiction. That is more or less what Einstein did. He simply took Maxwell's equations and asked what would happen if you took them for a moving body? That in fact led to a problem in the equations themselves, unless you took the speed of light in a vacuum be constant in all frames of reference.  And in fact at that point in time there was the result of the Michelson/Morley experiment indicating just that. [Though I got the impression that that experiment was not very important for Einstein's results which him came to even without it.] And after that Einstein just took the next logical step in asking what would happen in an accelerating frame of reference? And then came up with his idea that a person in free fall would not know he is in an accelerating frame of reference. But to get the equation for that, Einstein needed to do some more work. But still the basic process of reasoning was more or less straightforward.


[As pointed out by McTaggart, the dialectics of Hegel is not meant to be separate from observation. That. in fact, had been a critique on Hegel that was answered by McTaggart, and also I think that it is more or less clear in Hegel himself. --In his treatment of immediate knowledge.]

I have to say that I see a lot of parallels between Plato and the Kant.Fries system and also a strong connection between Hegel and Plotinus [Neo Platonic]. [Dr Kelley Ross wrote that the Rambam is pretty much a straightforward Neo Platonist, so that puts him somewhat closer to Hegel in that regard. [In Kelley Ross's web site there is an essay which presents a case that the Rambam was in fact close to the Kant Fries approach --which does seem to be right in the areas he points out there.]

[Popper puts to much blame on Hegel. When Marx and Lenin openly rejected the major points of Hegel I can not see how Hegel is to blame. Besides that Hegel was supporting a system like that of the USA.  The Estates  wanted to go back to feudal laws against the constitution proposed by the Prussian Monarch which was saying equal rights under the law! So Hegel supporting that constitution was actual supporting something close to the USA constitution].

my search for truth

In my search for truth, I believe I came upon a remarkable theory of the Kant/Friesian approach of Kelley Ross and Leonard Nelson. But that is in terms of philosophy. I do not think that can substitute for the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach nor of Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Pnei Yehoshua,, and R Akiva Eiger,.Aruck LaNer These are separate areas of value.
Getting philosophy and politics right is just as important as Gemara.

For a long time I was unaware of German Idealism. Most philosophers  nowadays think they can by- pass it as irrelevant. In the meantime twentieth century thought is astoundingly empty of meaning and reason. I do not think you can bypass German Idealism, but nor do I think it is the strongest basis for politics. In terms of Politics, I think English thought --John Locke, De Foe, Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson are a lot better as you can see in the papers they wrote to convince NY to vote for the Constitution.

[In terms of Hegel, however, I do not share the general disdain  that some of the German Idealists held for him. I can see that in Russia, the Marxists were dealing with different kinds of problems than the founding fathers of the USA were dealing with. The thing about the USSR is that the czar and the later USSR had to deal with a totally different kind of population than WASP's  {White Anglo Saxon Protestants}. That means that things and ideas that worked for the newly formed USA could not work for Russia.]

In any case, I feel that Leonard Nelson deserves a lot more credit than he is usually given-- and that goes for the German Idealists also. [Somehow I imagine that Nelson's books have not even been translated. And that is surprising and sad.]

The idea of  balance of values is one that I got from my parents. Under their guidance I went to publc schools -which in those days were much better than now. My parents definite advocated a balance of values.

[In the USA there seems to have been a default position that everything and anything slightly related to German Idealism was out and out wrong. This even penetrated high school. You could not even find books old or new in that area. It was almost as if Kant and Hegel never existed. To replace that vacuum all kinds of really dumb stuff was suggested.] 

Nowadays the trend seems  a lot better. There is Dr Kelley Ross, Michael Huemer, Edward Fesser and others. The dark pit of insane twentieth century philosophy seems to be in the past--thank God.

"Seeking for truth" was a big subject when I was growing up. In any case truth is not what you know, but how you live.

"Seeking for truth" was a big subject around (in high school) when I was just entering my teen age years.
For some this was the age of the rise of many movements that laid claim to the "Truth."
On my own I did some reading on this. It seems to me today that a great deal of my motivation was internal as well as external.

I did not know anyone in particular who went deeply into Hindu or Buddhist religion, or the different gurus around then. But there were plenty of people that went that way (to their own later regret).

Philosophy at that time was well known to be empty of meaning, so no one that I knew went in that direction.

I did my own reading of Plato, Dante, Spinoza and a compilation of about 1000 Chinese philosophies.

[Neither in book stores nor the public library, nor the high school library were Hegel, nor anyone representing Idealism. However I do recall I think one book of Kant in the high school library.
The philosophical fads in those day  were ridiculous vacuums --but no one knew it at the time.]

Today I think avoiding these kinds of movements that lay claim to "the Truth" is the first step towards "the Truth". Truth lays in living a moral life, talking with God in one's own language, the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have other do unto you.

[To some degree I can see why there was no interest in Hegel or any part of German Idealism. But the philosophies that attempted to replace that were empty wallets. You can see this in Dr. Kelly Ross's web site where he goes into detailed about the failed philosophies of the twentieth century. Dr Michael Huemer also goes into some detail about that.]

In any case truth is not what you know, but how you live.

In terms of knowledge, nothing is immune to disproof. Lots of things people were 1000% sure of turned out to be false. [Frege's self evident axioms, the world is the center, etc, ] Even in your own life you can see this in things you thought you remembered in 100% certainly that later you found out were wrong. The mark of truth is that it s fallible as Popper said.  It must be falsifiable.

Maimonides and Saadia Gaon went a long ways in getting the ideas of Plato and Aristotle as considred a part of "The Truth." I feel today a similar effort is needed to get Kant, Hegel and Leonard Nelson also to be lifted from the pit of obscurity  into the light.

Hegelian Idealism

Hegel has had a curious history. Hegelian Idealism was totally gone by 1850.  Marx and Kierkegaard also disagreed with Hegel about most major points but still adopted his methods. Now these two philosophies of Marx and Kierkegaard  encompass a large part of the globe. And a great deal of twentieth century philosophy is a kind of struggle to escape Metaphysics. Is not it time to give Leonard Nelson and the Kant/Fries approach due consideration?

Opposed to the Idealism of Kant and Hegel is most of 20th century philosophy.

A great deal of twentieth century philosophy is  really quite horrible. As Dr John Searle put it "It is obviously false"--that is referring to the linguistic (British-American) and analytical (continental).

But never the less getting it right is still important.


[In high school I was very interested in philosophy but thankfully I did not go into it as a profession or even a hobby.  I guess I did not see much going on there of any value.

Allen Sokal and Allen Bloom already made these points. But you can see this for yourself when present day philosophers say anything that even vaguely is related to science. That is one  area you can see they went off the path of sanity.]

The places and people you might think to go to to learn Torah are actually Trojan horses.Torah scholars demons.

The Ran from Breslov had a good point in emphasizing the fact that many times the places and people you might think  to go to to learn Torah are  actually Trojan horses. Traps laid out by the Dark Side to entice people.

This to a large degree goes along with his emphasis on private service towards God. However there are some good a holy places that I am thrilled and very happy about that I went to like the Mir in NY and also Shar Yashv of Rav Friefeld.

The problem  is that authentic Litvak yeshivas are rare. However dens of the Dark Side are common.

So the best  is to learn Gemara Rashi Tosphot and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach at home unless one happens to be in an area like NY where the great Litvak yeshivas are located --or Bnei Brak.

Reb Nahman had a great deal of other important points, though for some reason when people get involved a bit too much in his books they tend to lose perspective.


Still this idea of Reb Nahman is not commonly known. But it comes often in the writings of Reb Nahman himself. For example in Volume I "the reason why people argue and make problems for those who fear God is because they (the problem makers ) hear Torah lessons from Torah scholars that are demons. שדין יהודאיים תלמידי חכמים. As a source the notes on bottom of the page say to look up the Zohar in Pinhas which I did not find there (though I did not look hard.). But this is a subject which comes up in the Ari. In any case it ought to be more well known
How many homes would be spared, how many lives would be save from ruin if this lesson was more well known and people would know to be wary and on guard?
[This theme is brought up also in the Rambam concerning people that make money off of Torah.The Rambam says they have no portion in the next world which means they lose their holy soul. That is in fact quite close to what Reb Nahman says in different words.]
The fact is that most people do not have much knowledge in Torah and thus are easily conned and deceived. And no one stands up except Reb Nahman to warn people.

It is interesting to note that the people who were with קורח  (Korah) who argued against Moses were the heads of the Sanhedrin. Some things just keep on recurring.




In any case if one is learning at home, the thing to do is to get one Gemara and concentrate on it for a year with the Maharsha and Tosphot. Then to get one or two of the major later on אחרונים that deal with that particular Gemara. Most often that will be the Pnei Yehoshua., if you choose Ketuboth or the Bava's or Shabat. There is also a very great edition of R.Akiva Eiger that collected his works along the seder of Shas. Also the ערוך לנר.  The Avi Ezri I think should just be learned in order independently. [That is in its own order, not according to the order of Shas. Just learn it from the beginning to end, and then review many times.]

Even though this is not a popular message, still judging from Yeravam ben Navat who refrained from the truth because of fear of losing his popularity and support, I would say that even at the certainty of losing popularity one ought to say the truth.