problem with the study of history

 The problem with the study of history is that it is most often a subtle means of trying to get people outraged about something or other. It pretends to be "academic", but most often is hiding the evils of the side they like, and exaggerating the virtues of the side they like. [There is almost always some agenda.]

I encounter this often in conversations with people that have heard only one side of some events.  Often I have no opinion one way or the other, but what surprises me is the fact that when people have heard abundant "facts" on one side of things.  So history is the art of getting people to elevate a regrettable and sad occurrence into an outrage.

[I could give examples but, I am sure you can provide plenty on your own from your own experience. It is not that being outraged is "off." Rather that one ought to be extra careful about what to be outraged about=-and to make doubly sure to look into all the facts.] 

[I like to learn history. But I tend to try to do so as thoroughly as I can, and go to original sources as much as possible. Either do it right,  or do not do it at all.] 

 z23 D minormp3   z23 midi   z23 nwc

Michael Huemer on moral objectivism.

Reason, Objectivity, and Goodness" .... Moral objectivism (like objectivism in general) seems to be entailed by the law of excluded middle and the correspondence theory of truth, along with a couple of what seem equally obvious observations about morality:

(1) There are moral propositions.
(2) So they are each either true or false. (by law of excluded middle) (3) And it's not that they're all false. Surely it is true, rather than false, that Josef Stalin's activities were bad. (Although some communists would disagree, we needn't take their view seriously, and moreover, even they would admit some moral judgement, such as, "Stalin was good.")
(4) So some moral judgements correspond to reality. (from 2,3, and the correspondence theory of truth)
(5) So moral values are part of reality. (which is objectivism)"

This seems to me to be important because in fact we find all rishonim [medieval authorities] holding that the goal of Torah is to bring up to objective morality. The simplest place to see this is the Sefer HaChinuch, where he lists all the commandments of the Torah along with some of its laws and details and then also explains the reason for teach particular command.  The reasons  are what Saadia Gaon calls "חוקי בשכל" "laws of reason"

music file z22

 z22 C minor  z22 midi  z22 nwc

 Even though Fries himself as development of Kant seems to be lacking, still the later development of Leonard Nelson seems a lot better as Kelley Ross makes note of. Still the issues between Fries, Hegel and Prichard seem to be based on the results of their systems in the political sphere. But if we would be looking at political structures , it does  not seem that any of them were right but rather the approach f John Locke. So these must be two different areas of value Plato , Fries and Hegel were very great thinkers in philosophy, but not politics..

The actual career of my dad at TRW. TRW made the Vela satellites that had X ray detectors

 The actual career of my dad at TRW. TRW made the Vela satellites that had X ray detectors. That was one of my dad's specialties.  He had invented a supper sharp copy machine [called the copy-mate machine which he had a patent on and had a factory making it in Newport Beach CA.] based on x rays. Before that he invented the infrared telescope. 

So from 1965 and on he worked at TRW making the satellites that used x-rays. Then they used his expertise in infrared detection to make the the Infrared satellites of the  Defense Support Program (DSP).

Later after the launch of those satellites he worked on laser communication between satellites. That was the only time that I actually came with him to TRW to see the actual lab where he was making the laser apparatus to be used for satellite communications and links.

Then at that point the event of the KGB infiltration into TRW happened [that the movie  The Falcon and the Snowman  was based on.] So that was the end of government contracts for TRW (until the 1990's),-- and my dad quit his job there.

 Tosphot in Gitin page 4. First opinion: R. Elazar holds witnesses that see the giving of the  divorce doc. or the actual event of kidushin  alone count. עדי מסירה כרתי Then the second opinion is this is only for gitin and kidushin, not documents about money. Why? Because one can say he is obligated even though he is not, and by that become obligated. So two witnesses on a document ought to be enough to cause the document to be valid. 

What does this mean?  That a document of gitin and kidushin is valid, but  for the event to happen we need witnesses of the act. That is what it seems like at first glance. But Rav Shach askes that that ought not to be so because Rav Jeramiah says the Mishna where two gitin were mixed up and so each is given to both women one after the other-that mishna can not be like R Elazar. Rav Shach says if the gitin are valid, then why not? [ R Jeramiah means  both have signatures on them and those are definitely Lishma. What makes that mishna not like R Elazar is that those those signatures could not make the act of gitin valid because they are not witnesses of the act of divorce. The point of Rav Shach is the documents themselves are valid and all that is needed is two witnesses to see the giving of them over to the two women then why should that not be like R. Elazar? After all there is not reason the witnesses of the act need to be Lishma. So it must be the documents themselves are not valid even with valid signatures on them unless there are witnesses that see the act.] So it must be that in gitin and kidushin without witnesses seeing the actual event, the doc. itself is not valid.

[Avi Ezri Gitin perek 1. halacha 13] 

I am wondering about this because witnesses on the doc. itself in general ought to know for whom it is being written. So why not also witnesses of the actual event? [And in fact Rav Shach himself writes this idea later in Perek I halacha 23, that is that the witnesses need to know what is going on. They need to read the get and to know whom it is for.---not in exactly those words, but that is the idea.] That is I am thinking perhaps the first way of Rav Shach is the right way. That the doc is valid with signed witnesses but for gitin we need also them to see the act. That is I am saying that the עדי מסירה witnesses of the act also need to be lishma. and if so then the first way of Rav Shach is right. See Avi Ezri chapter I halacha 16 about what the witnesses need to know.

[I know I am not explaining this in detail. Maybe I will get a chance some other time. I was just writing this to jot down the basic idea of my question. In the meantime you might look at the Avi Ezri itself where Rav Shach explains his reasoning that the witnesses of the act do not need "lishma". That very assumption is what got me thinking that maybe they do! After all they need to be able to read the document.]

_________________________________________________________________

תוספות in גיטין page 4. First opinion: ר' אלעזר holds witnesses that see the giving of the  divorce doc. or the actual event of קידושין  alone count. עדי מסירה כרתי Then the second opinion של תוספות is this is only for גיטין and קידושין, not documents about money. Why? Because one can say he is obligated even though he is not, and by that become obligated. So two witnesses on a document ought to be enough to cause the document to be valid. What does this mean?  That a document of גיטין and קידושין is valid, but  for the event to happen we need witnesses of the act. That is what it seems like at first glance. But רב שך askes that that ought not to be so because רב Jeramiah says the Mishna where two גיטין were mixed up and so each is given to both women one after the other,  that משנה can not be like ר' אלעזר.  Then רב שך says if the גיטין are valid, then why not? [ [רב Jeramiah means  both have signatures on them and those are definitely לשמה. What makes that משנה not like ר'  Elazar is that those those signatures could not make the act of גיטין valid because they are not witnesses of the act of divorce. The point of רב שך is the documents themselves are valid and all that is needed is two witnesses to see the giving of them over to the two women, then why should that not be like ר' Elazar? After all there is no reason the witnesses of the act need to be לשמה. So it must be the documents themselves are not valid even with valid signatures on them unless there are witnesses that see the act.] ] So it must be that in גיטין and קידושין without witnesses seeing the actual event עדי מסירה, the doc. itself is not valid. אבי עזרי גיטין פרק א. הלכה י''ג. I am wondering about this because witnesses on the doc. itself in general ought to know for whom it is being written. So why not also witnesses of the actual event? That is I am thinking perhaps the first way of רב שך is the right way. That the doc is valid with signed witnesses but for גיטין we need also them to see the act.

תוספות בגיטין דף ד'. דעה ראשונה: ר' אלעזר מחזיק בעדים הרואים במתן השטר והאירוע של קידושין בלבד עושים חלות הקידושין או הגט. עדי מסירה כרתי. הדעה השנייה של תוספות היא שזה רק עבור גיטין וקידושין, ולא מסמכים על כסף. למה? הודאת בעל דבר כמאה עדים דמי, ועל ידי זה להיות חייב. אז שני עדים במסמך צריכים להספיק בכדי לגרום תוקף למסמך. מה זה אומר? שמסמך של גיטין וקידושין תקף, אך בכדי שהאירוע יקרה [חלות העניין] אנו זקוקים לעדים של המעשה. כך נראה במבט ראשון. אך רב שך שואל כי זה לא צריך להיות כך משום שרב ירמיה אומר את המשנה שבה התערבבו שני גיטין ולכן כל אחד מהם ניתן לשתי הנשים אחת אחרי השנייה, כי משנה זה לא יכול להיות כמו ר' אלעזר. ואז רב שך אומר שאם הגיטין תקפים, אז למה לא? [רב ירמיה אומר ששניהם חתימות עליהם ואלה בהחלט לשמה. מה שגורם לאותה משנה להיות לא כמו ר' אלעזר הוא שאותן חתימות לא יכלו להפוך את מעשה גיטין לתקף מכיוון שהם אינם עדים למעשה הגירושין. העניין של רב שך הוא שאם המסמכים עצמם תקפים, וכל מה שצריך הוא שני עדים כדי לראות את מסירתם לשתי הנשים, אז למה זה לא יהיה כמו ר' אלעזר? אחרי הכל, אין שום סיבה שעדי המעשה עדי מסירה צריכים להיות לשמה. אז זה חייב להיות שהמסמכים עצמם אינם תקפים אפילו עם חתימות תקפות, אלא אם כן יש עדים שרואים את המעשה] אז זה חייב להיות שבגיטין ובקידושין בלי עדים שראו את האירוע בפועל עדי מסירה, השטר עצמו אינו תקף. אבי עזרי גיטין פרק א. הלכה י''ג. אני תוהה לגבי זה מכיוון שעדים על המסמך עצמו באופן כללי צריכים לדעת למי הוא נכתב. אז מדוע לא גם עדים לאירוע בפועל? כלומר אני חושב שאולי הדרך הראשונה של רב שך היא הדרך הנכונה. שהשטר תקף עם עדים חתומים, אבל בשביל גיטין אנו זקוקים גם שהם יראו את המעשה