My Path

When I saw the importance of  learning metaphysics and physics in Ibn Pakuda's חובות הלבבות it did not click with me right away. I was at the Mir in NY and was not looking for distractions from learning Gemara. still something of what he was saying must have stuck with me because later when I saw the same thing in the Guide of the Rambam, it started making sense that maybe that was the aspect of learning Torah that I had been lacking. However I really was not sure what to do with the metaphysics aspect of the whole thing.  On one hand the Ibn Pakuda and rambam were clear they were not talking about mysticism. [No offence intended towards the Remak (Moshe Cordovaro) and the Ari (Isaac Luria). It is just that that is not what the Rambam was talking about.] But what can one do with Metaphysics? What could be considered the be fulfilling what the Rambam was saying? Aristotle and Plato for sure. I guess Plotinus also. But what about later on people? To make this short I should ...

It seems to that it is hard to defend faith except from the perceptive of Kelley Ross and the Kant Friesian School. Most of the time it seems to me that the German Idealists are looking to solve the Mind Body problem --or how does knowledge combine reason with facts. But they do not deal with immediate non intuitive knowledge. [Knowledge that you have but it is not based on sense perception nor on logical reasoning.

The main aspects that I recall from my time growing up were the sense of wholesomeness in the USA. There was an amazing amount of love between my parents and us kids  So it is true they they were unique. But that was not in a vacuum. The whole atmosphere in the USA in those days was totally different than it is now. Pretty much everyone spent the weekends on family vacations. [People nowadays will immediately point out that there were cracks. Crimes still happened. But I mean to say that in the USA that was rare. ] It might be that some of that great environment was because I grew up in Newport Beach Orange Count CA. Because after we moved to Los Angeles County, things were somewhat different. Mt dad from what i understood did want my brothers and I to go to a better high school that the one that was in Newport Beach at the time. But I should mention that we did go to a public high school. But judging by what you see nowadays there is no question my parents would have sent us...

I noticed a kind of anti American feeling among immigrants. I could never figure it out. But then the anti americans began to take over the system and things really got out of control.

There is a kind of interplay between DNA and ideals. The USA works to a large degree I think because of both its principles and also because of its principles coming out of many generations of conflict and thinking about politics and religion in England. [Not just the Magna Carta but especially looking at Daniel Defoe I saw this.--In where he deals with the issues facing England in the 1700's] There is a kind of conflict between the facts of DNA and ideals, between Darwin  and the ideals of John Locke. [Hegel would call this process a kind of dialectic between Being and the Absolute Idea. This is a good idea but I think it needs to be taken in context of the post Kant thinkers like Maimon, Shultze, Reinhold.] A lot depends on what kind of people you are dealing with before you can state a priori what kind of system they ought to live under in order to having tranquility and justice and freedom. It is hard to tell. On one hand you can see MacArthur imposing a kind of Ameri...

 Americans traditionally used to have a suspicion (a kind of prejudice) against experts. I share in this to some degree. I think a lot depends on the field in question. For example, in plumbing I would go with the experts.  But there are other field like "Gender Studies" where the experts confer diplomas on themselves and their buddies. Fields that are all just make believe. Philosphy seems to be somewhere in the middle. 

, the 31-page statement is written for Catholic educational institutions. Titled, “ Male and Female He Created Them ,” http://www.educatio.va/content/dam/cec/Documenti/19_0997_INGLESE.pdf “The young need to be helped to accept their own body as it was created…. Sex education should help young people to accept their own bodies.” Sex education must avoid the “pretension” to attempt to “cancel out sexual difference because one no longer knows how to deal with it.” The Catholic Church was doing a lot better when it refused to compromise with secularism. I hope this new step will show that the church is returning to its roots.

The problem with German Idealism is that each one had some important contribution and yet you can not point to any single person as having gotten everything right. To make sense of it I think you have to take all of them. Kant, Maimon, Shultze, Reinhold, Fries and Hegel. You can not simply go back before them because there are simply too many questions that come up. That is you can not simple revert to Spinoza or John Locke etc. But you can not take any single person in the Kantian group either.

I have a great deal of trouble in getting to learn Torah. Certainly no new ideas are coming to me since I stop learning with David Bronson my learning partner. But for what it is worth I wanted just to mention a few random thoughts I had about Bava Metzia page 99. The first thing I think is important is in Tosphot very first question. At first glance it looks hard to understand why Tosphot just does not use the end of the Tosephta that he brings to answer his own question. I mean to say this. Rav Ami in our Gemara on page 99 says one who lends to another person an ax of hekdesh (that was dedicated to the Temple) transgresses the prohibition and the second person can use it.  In the Tosephta it says (as far as I can recall from a few days ago when I had a chance to take a look at that page) that ten people that use an ax one after the other,--they all transgress the prohibition of using hekdesh [an object dedicated to the Temple]. But then it says if one gives it to another, t...

Thanks to “believe all women,” it spiraled to a place where accusations went unchecked and were instantly believed. Some Web sites maintain running lists of accused men, even if accusations are anonymous and/or largely uncorroborated. https://nypost.com/2019/07/14/believe-all-women-makes-the-pence-rule-just-common-sense/

I have had doubts about the Musar movement and the whole Litvak path because of what seems to be a lack of effectiveness. But as for the major goal I agree. But even in terms of effectiveness maybe I am wrong and in fact it accomplishes  to some degree what it sets out to do. My own experience with the people in Musar and the Litvak world has been mixed. So in stead of using the Musar movement as the prime Ideal--in stead I look at my parents as the best approach and modify that as far as i can with ideas from the Musar movement and the Gra and Rav Nahman.

Instead of the Musar [Ethics] idea of learning a lot of Musar during the day--which was what Rav Israel Salanter was emphasizing--I think it is best to start the day with some paragraph of Musar that deals with the specific thing one needs to correct.

. And though my parents were Reform Jews still their general approach to religion was that it is לאו דווקא not really the most urgent thing in the world. More or less their approach was to be self sufficient to be  a mensch to act right and morally in all situations. To stay away from all and every kind of religious fanaticism. To marry a nice Jewish girl. That is there were things to my parents that was most necessary and things that were simply good but not obligatory. Learning and keeping Torah was certainly considered good and great but not in the way of the religious.  It is rather desirable as long as it does not interfere with simple  menschlichkeit ..

I think that the questions that Reinhold and Shulze and Salomon Maimon bring on Kant are answered well by Hegel. That sense perception and logical reason together work towards synthesis.

I noticed that once few years ago in Times Magazine with front page picture "Women Rule". that was from the American women's team winning the Chinese women's team in soccer. But the implication was that women are better than men. To me this seems silly. The difference between men and women seems to depend on the individual. Some women are very talented in certain areas and others are not. Same as men.

Abraham Lincoln said after a certain age you can tell a persons character by their looks. I was in a Na nach place yesterday and they were learning Lesson 47 in the LeM of Rav nahman that says by desire for food one falls into lies. And you can tell who a liar is by the fact of their having an over amount of desire for food. In plain English--fat people are liars.

Rav Shach was not perfect. The thing about the great sages of Israel is that they were not immune from mistakes. But they admitted their mistakes and went on. So it seems to me that his being against going to the IDF[Israeli Army] was a mistake.  Rav Nahman said even great tzadik can make mistakes.[The full statement was this: People say that a tzadik does not not make  mistakes. But if he does then he is no longer a tzadik. But I say a tzadik can make a mistake and even if he does he still can remain a tzadik.]

the Middle Ages I have felt for a long time excelled in certain areas. The ones that I most admire are the areas of philosophy. For some odd reason philosophy fell apart after the middle ages except for a few great exceptions like Kant and Hegel. Most of twentieth century philosophy is in the words of John Searle "obviously false". The problem with the Mideval period in general is the axioms. But the logic is always razor sharp. But after the middle ages the logic is almost alwats circular. They always assume what they are trying to prove--especially Hume.

What is wrong with believing everyone that says they are a victim?

So what is the thing about the USA? Allan Bloom deals with this to some degree and certainly Dr Kelley Ross, Michael Huemer and Steven Dutch are relevant to this issue. It does not seem simple to answer. For the libertarian thing seems right in some ways but not exactly. [As Steven Dutch pointed out.] See Robert Scruton for his very nice critique on the really nutty left wing thinkers that for some odd reason gained good but undeserved reputations. I go with Allan Bloom on this issue to say that it has not been resolved. As he puts it in his book there is this direct confrontation between Enlightenment and Anti Enlightenment which just has come to a head in this generation and there does not seem to be any resolution. [Why Allan Bloom does not mention the possibility that it is a kind of dialectical process that you see in Hegel is not clear to me. He obviously has a lot of respect for Hegel and Kant and yet leaves both out of his analysis.] The USA certainly excels in so ...

Hegel mentions how the object and subject are not able to be known individually. The same as Kant and Shopenhaur. The only difference is that to Hegel to get to objective knowledge is by a dialectical process while Kant and Shopenhaur both hold there is no window into the dinge an sich.

Howard Bloom's Lucifer Principle    brings the idea that units of social information get get into people's head's and then get hardwired. But I go further and claim that these memes are like the Alien that has a protection mechanism that when you try to take it out it sends out some kind of acid that makes things so bad that you dare not touch it. The whole idea of the Lucifer principle has to do with the super organism and is a way of understanding Hegel's more philosophical approach to the State.

I wanted to bring the Maharsha concerning the subject of property that a woman owns before she gets married. [Ketuboth 78]  Concerning an arusa  [betrothed] the Maharsha holds that R Yehuda holds if she sells her property as a arusa [betrothed] it is not valid but if she got it before she was an arusa  [betrothed] and then sells it when she is married then it is valid. The Maharsha brings that this is the exact opposite of the reasoning of the Poskim.. The Maharsha does not bring this so much as a question but as a comment because he does offer an explanation. R Yehuda is going by the time she got the property and the Poskim are going by the time that she sells it. My question at this point is that the very mishna that this is going on on page 78 a is subject to an argument between Rashi and Rabbainu Tam whether the sell that she sells her property after she is married but what she got before she was even betrothed--whether it is valid or not. ...

David Bronson suggests that the Remak is very important and to some degree I have to agree. But he does depend on non intuitive immediate knowledge that you see in the Kant Fries School. See the site of Dr Kelley Ross. [Incidentally I saw that Steven Dutch's ideas are back on the Internet. his ideas about pseudo science are very important.]

David Bronson wrote to me conserning the Remak Rav Moshe Cordovaro: The best introduction to this I think is the Eitz Chaim of the Ari [written by Rav Chaim Vital] but David Bronson thinks the Four Hundred Shekels of silver--also of the Ari is a better intro.” — Actually I never read the Four Hundred Shekels but if you would have asked me two weeks ago I would have answered the Pardes Rimonim of the Remaq. I got it a year and a half ago on the recommendation of the Gra from the Sefer Keter Rosh (the entry on Qabala where he says it’s good to learn the Pardes). It was the most excited I’ve been about a sefer since discovering the Ramban’s Perush al haTorah. The most satisfying and ingenious explanations about the typical questions. The way he takes apart a Zohar/Bahir/Sefer Yetzira with an analytical thoroughness reminiscent of Ramban’s perush.  So what happened two weeks ago?  I got a copy of the Sefer Elima Rabati of the Remaq. Wow. I didn’t know but the Tomar Devor...

The best way to learn Physics I think is to say the words and go on. You can see this in the Talmud tractate shabat 63 and the Musar book אורחות צדיקים and Rav Nahman of Breslov in sichot HaRan Sicha 76. But I admit this is not really geared towards passing exams in university. But the thing that I noticed in Rav Nahman's Sichot HaRan is that in fact he says and repeats the idea that review is only after you have finished the book you are doing once. Not paragraph by paragraph.or chapter by chapter. The idea of just saying the words and going on is treating learning Physics and Math as a positive commandment--just as learning Torah. This is based on Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam. [But you can see this also in the ideas of Rav Nahman conserning the hidden Torah inside the work of Creation] [The major thing in Physics I think is to have one or more sessions in Quantum Field Theory and a few more sessions in String Theory.] [There is also the idea of שיעורין כסדרן sessions ...

Einstein suggested  the knowledge depends both on pure reason and also  empirical observation--not one or the other. This seems to be the approach of Hegel. I mean in his Encyclopedia the part on Logic around part 169 or so[I forget where]. Hegel talks about God as object and then shows how the whole idea of Christianity is to bridge the gap between God as Object and us mankind. Then right away says that is whole idea of true knowledge to bridge the gap between subject and object. This is different from the Kant Fries School of Dr Kelley Ross where you also have non intuitive immediate knowledge.