The best of the philosophers nowadays seem unified that there is a need to go forward to Kant and get out of the insane philosophies of the twentieth century.

Certainly you see this with Kelley Ross [of the Kant Fries School of thought.] But he is clearly thinking only of one possible approach to Kant--that of Leonard Nelson.

Also with Robert Hanna you see this same approach of the need to get back to Kant.

However among the best is Huemer and he seems to be with the Analytic school and specifically G.E. Moore [the Intuitionists.]

So what can you do? I do not feel like discounting completely all the other approaches to Kant. [Marburg, Heidelberg, Gottingen]. I can not even figure out if all of these great people are simply talking past each other. The same points get addressed in only slightly different ways.

And for some reason, they do not seem that interested in Hegel. [Though there is a great spokesman for Hegel, McTaggart] [I also do not feel like discounting Hegel just because he was misused by the Communists.] [Not everyone is happy with McTaggart. They say he provided a good target for those that wanted to attack Hegel. Still he seems like the best defense. Besides that not everything was wrong.]


But of all of these, only Robert Hanna made a detailed study of the shaky foundations of all so called Analytic philosophy of the 20th century.

[As R Hanna noted that not only did it all start out with shaky foundations, but became downright insane after Quine. And then after a good number of people showed Quine to be completely absurd still that made not the slightest dent.]

You can see why people like Ed Feser just want to go back to Medieval Philosophy. But I can not see that because the difficulties there are real--as even Thomas Reid pointed out. No matter how absurd you think Berkeley's idealism is, you still need some way of answering him. And only Kant did that.
[And maybe Hegel also.]

important insight of Rav Shach

I would like to bring an important insight of Rav Shach about a subject that comes up in Bava Kama page 18 and 19. And I would like to add a comment of my own.


Rav Ashi asks, "Is kicking pebbles a change?" The gemara answers this by suggesting by the fact that Rava asks, "Does warning apply to kicking pebbles?"
The way Tosphot understands this I have never been able to figure out but Rav Shach focuses on understanding the Rambam [Damages of money 2:5-6] who says if an animal kicked pebbles which caused damage [not just knocked it its normal way of walking)? In public domain no obligations, but if the injured party grabs 1/4 he keeps it for this is a doubt. If in private domain then 1/4 is obligated, and if the injured party grabs 1/2 he can keep it.

The question is, "Why?"   In the first half the Rambam is saying we do not know if kicking is a "Shinui" (change) from the norm. Then right away in the next sentence he says we do know.

Rav Shach explains this. The question he says if kicking is a shinui and thus becomes "keren" horn and fall out of the category of damages caused by the foot of the animal [hof].

So in the public domain if it is not a change the owner is not obligated in anything. If it is a change and thus "Keren" HaTam which is half damages but here because of the doubt he gets only 1/4.
In the private domain if it is not a change the 1/2 damages would be required to pay for, but if a change then 1/4. And this kind of change can go on Keren [horn] also.

Thus far is Rav Shach. I would like to say that the part about the private domain is clear from the gemara. If we do not know if pebbles by kicking is a change then things are clear. If not, then it is 1/2 damages. If yes then a forth--exactly as the Rambam writes. The question is the public domain. If it is a change and thus keren [horn] it should be that side of the doubt would require 1/2 damages, not the fourth that the Rambam states there. [If it is not a change then clearly there is no obligation at all since it is hof in a public domain.]

The way to answer this is something I noticed a few years ago when I was looking at Bava Metzia page 100. I saw based on the Gemara there that the Rambam has a opinion about Sumchos and the Sages that is more complex than is generally known. The idea is that is a domain that is public we go by Sumchos. There is no prior status {Hazaka}. This is like the Rashbam there on that page.

So that helps us here in Bava Kama. Since the issue is damages in a public domain there is no "hazaka" and in that case we go by Sumchos: Money in  doubt is divided. So here in the public domain only 1/4 of the damages can be seized by the injured party, not 1/2.

However it is clear to me that Rav Shach answers the question about the 1/4 damages in the public domain in a different way. [Though he is not talking about this specific issue openly.] He holds pebbles and thus change with pebbles applies not just to tooth as a well known but even to keren HaTam. So the fact that the kicking of the pebbles is a Keren Hatam in a public domain would go down to 1/4 just like kicking pebbles in the domain of the injured party would go down to 1/4.

So is my answer valid at all? I would have to go back and look up the Gemara in Bava Metzia 100 and the Rambam about Sumchos to see..



__________________________________________________________________________________

An important insight of רב שך about a subject that comes up in בבא קמא page 18 and 19. And I would like to add a comment of my own. רב אשי asks, "Is kicking צרורות a שינוי?" The גמרא answers this by suggesting by the fact that רבא asks, "Does העדאה apply to kicking צרורות?"
רב שך focuses on understanding the רמב''ם who says if an animal בעטה צרורות which caused היזק, not just knocked it its normal way of walking? In רשות הרבים no חיוב, but if the ניזק grabs רביע he keeps it for this is a ספק. If in רשות הניזק then forth is obligated, and if the injured party grabs חצי נזק he can keep it. The question is, "Why?"   In the first half the רמב''ם is saying we do not know if בעיטה is a שינוי from the norm. Then right away in the next sentence he says we do know. רב שך explains this. The question he says if kicking is a שינוי and thus becomes קרן השור horn and fall out of the category of damages caused by the רגל of the animal. So in the public domain if it is not a change the owner is not obligated in anything. If it is a change and thus קרן התם which is half damages but here because of the doubt he gets only fourth. In the רשות הניזק if it is not a שינוי the half damages would be required to pay for, but if a שינוי then fourth. And this kind of שינוי can go on קרן השור also. Thus far is רב שך. I would like to say that the part about the רשות הניזק is clear from the גמרא. If we do not know if צרורות by בעיטה is a שינוי then things are clear. If not, then it is half נזק. If yes then a fourth,  exactly as the רמב''ם writes. The question is the רשות הרבים. If it is a שינוי and thus קרן it should be that side of the ספק would require חצי נזק, not the fourth that the רמב''ם states there. If it is not a שינוי then clearly there is no obligation at all since it is רגל in a public domain. The way to answer this is something I noticed a few years ago when I was looking at בבא מציעא page 100. I saw based on the גמרא there that the רמב''ם has a opinion about סומכוס and the Sages that is more complex than is generally known. The idea is that is a רשות הרבים we go by סומכוס. There is no חזקת ממון. This is like the רשב''ם there on that page.So that helps us here in בבא קמא. Since the issue is damages in a public domain there is no חזקת ממון and in that case we go by סומכוס. ממון המוטל בספק חולקים. So here in the public domain only  forth of the damages can be seized by the injured party, not half.


However it is clear to me that רב שך answers the question about the רבע damages in the רשות הרבים in a different way.  He holds צרורות and thus שינוי בצרורות applies  to שן  even to קרן התם. So the fact that the kicking of the צרורות is a קרן התם in a רשות הרבים would go down to 1/4 just like kicking pebbles in the domain of the ניזק would go down to רביע.

תובנה חשובה של רב שך על נושא שעולה בבבא קמא י''ח וי''ט. ואני רוצה להוסיף הערה משלי. רב אשי שואל "האם בעיטה  בצרורות ועל ידי זה גורם נזק היא שינוי? הגמרא עונה על כך בהצעה שרבא שואל, האם העדאה חלה על בעיטה בצרורות? רב שך מתמקד בהבנת הרמב''ם שאומר שאם חיה בעטה בצרורות ועל ידי זה גרמה לנזק, (לא סתם דפקה צרורות בדרך הרגילה של הליכה) ברשות הרבים אין חיוב, אבל אם הניזק תופס את רביע הנזק אין מוציאים ממנו .אם ברשות הניזק אז רבע הנזק חייב, ואם הניזק תופס חצי נזק אין מוציאים ממנו. השאלה היא "למה?" במחצית הראשונה הרמב''ם אומר שאנחנו לא יודעים אם בעיטה היא שינוי מהנורמה. ואז מייד במשפט הבא הוא אומר שאנחנו יודעים שהוא שינוי. רב שך מסביר זאת. השאלה שהוא אומר אם בעיטה היא שינוי היא הופכת לקרן השור ונופלת מקטגוריית הנזקים שנגרמו ברגל בעל החיים. אז ברשות הרבים אם זה לא שינוי הבעלים אינם מחויבים בשום דבר. אם זה שינוי ובכך קרן התם שהוא חצי נזק, אבל כאן רבע הנזק . ברשות הניזק אם זה לא שינוי חצי הנזקים יידרשו לשלם עבורם, אבל אם הוא  שינוי אז רבע. וסוג כזה של שינוי יכול להמשיך גם על קרן השור. עד כאן רב שך. ברצוני לומר שהקטע על רשות הניזק ברור מהגמרא. אם איננו יודעים אם צרורות על ידי בעיטה היא שינוי או לא, אז הדברים ברורים. אם לא, אז זה חצי נזק. אם כן אז רבע, בדיוק כמו שכותב הרמב''ם. השאלה היא הרשות הרבים. אם זה שינוי ולכן קרן, זה צריך להיות שהצד של הספק ידרוש חצי נזק, לא כהרמב''ם שם. אם זה לא שינוי, אז ברור שאין חיוב כלל מכיוון שהוא רגל ברשות הרבים. תירוץ: בבא מציעא עמוד ק'. ראיתי על סמך הגמרא שם שלרמב''ם יש דעה בעניין סומכוס וחכמים שהיא מורכבת יותר ממה שהיא ידוע באופן כללי. הרעיון הוא שזה רשות הרבים שאנחנו מחזיקים כסומכוס. אין חזקת ממון. זה כמו הרשב''ם שם בדף ההוא. אז זה עוזר לנו כאן בבא קמא. מכיוון שהנושא הוא נזק ברשות הרבים, אין חזקת ממון ובמקרה זה, אנו מחזיקים כסומכוס. ממון המוטל בספק חולקים. אז כאן ברשות הרבים על רקע הנזקים מגיע לניזק רק רבע.

עם זאת ברור לי שרב שך עונה על השאלה על נזקי בעיטה בצרורות ברשות הרבים אחרת. נזק על ידי צרורות הוא שינוי על  גם בשן ואפילו בקרן התם. כך שהבעיטה של ​​צרורות היא קרן התם ברשות הרבים והייתה יורדת לרביע נזק כמו שיניו בצרורות בתחום הניזק הייתה יורדת לרביע  

w91 E Flat Major w91 midi  w91 nwc

Baltimore, Detroit, Newark. You have got to wonder which side was right North or South.

The answer I think lies in the Federalist papers. That is that the Union is necessary but would have happened anyway without war. Going to war over succession, seems like a husband murdering his wife who wants to leave him. It seems unjustified. And that is even if it is better for the family to stick together. The South wanted to leave the Union. Was that just cause for murdering the South? [I forget the exact numbers but counting both sides it reaches close to a million. That murdering the South also seems like a violation of human rights. After all does not murder take away most rights of the victim (except burial)?

Even if you go with the idea that Gra contained the essence of Torah, that does not mean there is nothing to learn from anyone else.

The idea is to collect all the good points of truth, but also to throw out the evil. And this process  needs to take place in every area of value.

The idea was expressed by Steven Dutch: for every science, there are many pseudo sciences around it.
So for every area of value you are dealing with, there is a process of combining the good points that are scattered. There is also a different process of getting rid of the evil.

[I have been thinking of invoking Hegel for support of this idea of mine. That is to refer to this as sublimation. But my my is really a bit more plain--just sifting like you do with wheat grains. Take the good and get rid of the garbage. Hegel is more subtle in that he thinks this process itself brings to the absolute truth--Absolute Spirit [God.]

[The major great and important about the Gra--the major important points are three: the signature on the letter of excommunication, learning Torah, and trust in God.]

There is a network of yeshivas which go strictly by the Gra. I knew the head of the first of this type, Rav Eliyahu Silverman and his father who started the whole thing. This is certainly the best of the best. But Ponovitch, Brisk, and the Mir in NY are certainly also great. The only thing that I am saying is that they would be better of they were going by the Gra in all details, not just some.]

It has been known for a long time that the religious world is sick. It is hard to know why. The fault I believe is not in the holy Torah, but rather just the opposite. The trouble is the Torah of the Dark Side. This was the very reason the Gra put his signature of the famous letter of excommunication. The fact that this was ignored I believe is what has caused all the troubles.
My evaluation here is not based such on simple confidence in the Gra, [faith in the wise] as much as experience. It is no secret that the religious world is off its rocker. [I admit though that it would have been better if I had listened to the Gra in the first place simply based on faith.]
So the idea here is that what is wrong with the religious world is that they have this facade of keeping Torah, but in fact keep anti-Torah--the Torah of the Sitra Achra.

So the best idea at this point would be to reconsider paying heed to the Gra in this area. If that could set things right I am not sure. That might not be enough. But at least it would be a start.
I mean to treat the letter of excommunication as if it had and still has legal validity. [Which it did and still does.] Also may I add by the law of the Torah, the rule about a "Herem" (excommunication) is more strict than "nidui" which is just rebuke. The law of Herem is a great deal more severe.
[But if we would go by strict letter of the law, Rav Nahman would be OK and not in the category of the Herem. See the exact wording and you will see what I mean.]

[side note: There is a network of yeshivas which go strictly by the Gra. I knew the head of the first of this type, Rav Eliyahu Silverman  and his father who started the whole thing. This approach is the ideal of what the Lithuanian yeshiva is supposed to be. Also, Ponovitch, Brisk, and the Mir in NY are certainly also great. The only thing that I am saying is that they would be better of they were going  by the Gra in all details, not just some. Of all of them I would have to say that Ponovitch is the best.]


I would like to bring an insight of Rav Shach of Ponovitch which is a nice example of his crystal clear type of thought.
It concerns a law in the Rambam laws of damages caused by one's property. 1/2 pebbles knocked by an animal that causes damage is usually 1/2 damages. But what if the animal kicked [not just knocked it its normal way of walking)? In public domain no obligations, but if the other part grabs 1/4 he keeps it for this is a doubt. If in private domain then 1/4 is obligated and if the other party grabs 1/2 he can keep it.

The question is, "Why?" Not only does this not seems to follow from the Gemara but also in the first half the Rambam is saying we do not know if kicking is a "Shinui" change from the norm. Then right away in the next sentence he says we do know.

Rav Shach explains this perfectly clearly. The question he says if kicking is a shinui and thus becomes "keren" horn and fall out of the category of damages caused by the foot of the animal [hof].

So in the public domain if it is not a change the owner is not obligated in anything. If it is a change and thus "Keren" HaTam which is half damages but here because of the doubt he gets only 1/4.
In the private domain if it is not a change the 1/2 damages would be required to pay for, but if a change then 1/4. And this kind of change can go on Keren [horn] also.

Can one defend the path of Torah based on Reason? My approach to is that I became aware of some of the questions. But at the same time I also was looking at Spinoza, and discovered Dr Kelley Ross.[Simply because he has a nice analysis of Spinoza.] But then I began to take note of Kelley Ross's other writings. Kelley Ross is more or less based on Kant, Fries and Leonard Nelson.
The idea there is that there is a kind of knowledge that is not through sense perception nor through pure reason. Which would be faith.

However this is not the only possible approach to Kant.


 This approach [Leonard Nelson] is not anywhere near academia nor even near any kind of Neo Kantian approach.
Neo Kantian approaches were mainly three: Heidelberg, Marburg, and Gottingen.
But all Neo Kant and Neo Hegel approaches were more or less dismissed in the West by Frege, and the Analytic school.

An upside down Hegelian-ism however continued in the USSR. The official philosopher of the USSR Ernst Kolman was very much into Hegel. He claimed science was doomed in the West, and only true science was happening in the USSR. That seems funny to me since my own dad was working on numerous inventions for the USA, and the USSR got their hands on inventions from the West only by theft. [The USSR never came up with a single invention. Everything was copied from the West.] In fact, KGB agents had a running name for Silicon Valley: "the laboratories of the KGB".
Kolman slandered a very great mathematician Luzin and was responsible for the Luzin Affair. Kolman ironically fell from favor, and placed in the prison of the KGB for three years, and eventually asked for asylum in Sweden. "Payback is a bitch".


So to me twentieth century philosophy looks pretty weak. As Robert Hanna says "Analytic Philosophy: from Frege into the Trash Bin". The problem with twentieth century philosophy is the obsession with language and the delusion that language tells us anything about reality.

But Hegel also seems a bit awkward.

So by default I would say that Kant is the winner. The only question is how to deal with Kant which of the schools was right? or is right?
[No one else seems to be anywhere near the finish line. However I admit that perhaps new reworking of Hegel might be. It is hard to know. Going back to the Middle Ages also seems to ignore some of the major problems with Mediaeval philosophy.  Even Thomas Reid who noted the problems in Berkeley and Hume did not deny that they had good critiques on Aristotle. ]

[I should add that there is a difference between trying to replace the tzars with communism  which to a large degree I would say was a great improvement. But trying what to replace the Constitution of the USA with socialism is the road to hell.]