Nietzsche said the objective — scientific — approach to history was psychologically and ethically devastating to men.

Let me confess a flaw in my own self. Not the major flaw-but one of many. I have a seemingly unquenchable thirst for history. {But not USA history. Rather what is Roman and European history.}
Some people have rightfully questioned what is the value of learning history. Especially the Rambam and Nietzsche. (Perhaps my own desire for this kind of knowledge comes from a will to understand the present day world.)

Nietzsche said  the objective — scientific — approach to history was psychologically and ethically devastating to men.
 The Rambam said it is straightforward Bitul Torah. After all what is history? What people did? Who? Lincoln or maybe some lowly Southern soldier?  Causes and effects? Who knows? All history is worth is just relaxation time.
 and even that might not be good since the authors might very well have some agenda up their sleeve--as they usually do.
Slavery. Except now the blacks are the masters.

If you are a white American, over the course of your lifetime the federal government will, on average and on your behalf, transfer $384,109 of your wealth and income to a single black individual According to the data derived from the 2014 federal budget

Over the course of an average 79-year lifespan, a white individual contributes a net $220,805 to the system, whereas over the course of an average 75-year lifespan, a black individual receives a net $751,200. However, since there are 4.6 times more whites than blacks in the USA, the black share has to be divided among the various contributors to sort out a one-to-one comparison.


Kant we know discovered galaxies which is a great accomplishment in itself. But credit also goes to him in the revival of the old Platonic concept of two levels of reality. The dinge an sich an phenomena. So on one end of things space and time are just artifacts of recognition. Ways we perceive things in themselves. This we know from the fact that nature violates Bell's inequality.

But if that is all we knew then for all we know reality might be non-local. But we already know locality from GPS global positioning satellites that have to be set  to account for Special Relativity and General Relativity [The satellite moves fast around the Earth so its clock goes slower by 7 seconds. It also is far out from the gravitational pull of the Earth so its clock goes faster by 45 seconds. So it has to be set to go slower every day by 38 seconds.
Therefore nature is local and subjective-- Nothing has objective time or position until measured.

July 4, 1776

There are a few aspects of nation building that people have forgotten or ignored. Some like Brett Stevens rightfully focuses  on the ethnic group. That is true. But there is also the social meme which is just as important. [For example the Ten commandments.] The founding fathers of the USA ere very much aware of two other factors that you see in Herodotus and Thucydides. The advantage of having a large nation or empire. When Cyrus and Darius were the kings of Persia there was little that could stand in their way. It was to the advantage of every small nation or group they encountered to join in. The only other alternative was total annihilation. This the founding fathers knew well and so tried to create a strong large nation. But the opposing tendency you see in Thucydides. Individual factions pull things apart. When one or several groups are intent on destroying some other group, this tends to weaken the whole.
[Ethnic ties did nothing to save Attic Greece. Nothing. Each group sought to ally itself with Sparta or Athens according to its perceived advantage.

Thus when women are intent on punishing the white man, this affects the entire nation. It does no good when bad blacks and mad muslims get into the act of trying to bring down the USA.
Against these kinds of people there is no protection. Thus in Israel also religious  Sephardim that are intent on punishing every Ashkenazi they encounter does even more damage to Israel than muslims.

The founding fathers sought to alleviate this problem by making religious differences irrelevant to politics.

So what I am saying to be short, the best idea at this point is to be grateful to God for President Trump and to do everything possible to support his agenda to Make America Great Again.

The USA was founded on two memes the Bible and the Constitution. The best idea is to strengthen both of these principles.

The USA was founded on two memes the Bible and the Constitution. The best idea is to strengthen both of these principles. Though the Bible was not to be a political issue, because it was considered to be private and personal, not public, still that does not make it any less relevant to the bedrock foundation of the USA and more or less that the family. The family is also private and personal. It should not be public. But it is none the less essential for the health of the USA.


 The only thing is that to Plato knowledge was of the forms.To Kant the Dinge An Sich is where knowledge does not go.

In terms of Kant, he was right about space and time being forms of intuition in terms of the plane of existence of the dinge an sich. That mainly comes from Bell's inequality. (The electron has no time or position until measured.) However in terms of forms or universals as Plato understood that there is knowledge. In terms of space and time in the plane of existence of phenomena--they do have object existence. Simply put --reality is radically subjective and local [causality]

Incidentally I think that is one of the great  insights of Kant to see that Space and Time are forms of intuition --preceding Bell. But there is where you need Hegel because Kant put all universal into the subject which seems to be a problem as Hegel noted. [So I tend to look at German Idealism as each one complementing the other--not being in opposition but rather filling in gaps in the other;s arguments.]


In my view, Kant is 100% correct about the world being an artifact of our minds.

    • Avatar


      To Kant things exist, independently of the mind but universals--character depend on the mind. Kant made this clear but the Neo Kant school missed this point. Dr Kelley Ross does bring out this point. The trouble is that Kant does not distinguish between different kind of universals. To him. the Schrodinger Equation and space and time have the same status. Hegel rightfully was critical of Kant on that point, and I think he was was 100% correct for doing so. So Kant made great progress after Hume and noted that 5+7=12 has nothing to do with the definitions of 5 or 7. But after that, he did not make differences between kinds of universals- and neither does Hegel for that matter. The astounding fact is that there was one person who did make this kind of distinction--Aristotle.


    My basic idea of what Torah is about is two things: Good character and devakut [attachment with God.]. Thus anything which leaves to either of these results, I consider good.

    The trouble with the devakut thing is the tendency is for self deception. People that are part of a religious tradition believe they are good because they are part of that tradition. Not because they actually are good or decent people at all. And the more spiritual it is the more there is a tendency to let in a surge of immorality,. People begin to believe they are Divine. A small part of large creek in an ocean of divinity. Especially their leaders they think of as divine. Worship of their leaders in not uncommon. The great leader thinks his unrelated wishes are Divine Revelations. They have no law but their own will and twist the holy Torah any way they please in their pretense to be knowledgeable. There is no stopping their grossest desires. The thin film that divides religious fervor from passion and delusion is dissolved. and  erased. 
    Not being Christian might make it hard to muster arguments for it, but things go by scaling factors. I noticed a lot of Christianity is pretty good--mainly the medieval thinkers and mystics. Aquinas, Anselm, St John, Abelard. There was some Scottish fellow also around 800 AD who was a pretty deep thinker. And obviously Boethius and St Augustine. I can not imagine what could be the motivation to jettison all that. The only thing I thing Christianity got wrong was the antinomianism thing of Paul. Also the Trinity seems to be a mistake.


    Gemara Ketuboth 83b,Rav Shach

    I  do not have much to add. And I do not actually have a Gemara to be able to look anything up.
    But right now I would like to add some clarity to an idea that Rav Shach has concerning the Rambam in Laws of Marriage chapter 23 halacha 3.

    I had two points. One is if I remember the Gemara Ketuboth 83b  correctly then I have away of showing with much force how the way Rav Shach says the Rambam understands it comes out much more forcefully than I think he puts it. To put it as bluntly as possible the  way our Gemara reads makes no sense. So in the first place it never made any sense to bring a question from t to the Rambam.
    The other thing I wanted to show was simply to show how Rav Shach explains the Rambam and how it fit beautifully with the version that it seems Rashi must have had and the Rambam also.
    That is I wanted to show how important it is that the Gemara means the husband leaves over from the fruit. For if that is the right way to read the Gemara then the Rambam comes out perfectly because he anyway has removed himself from the fruit. So the only thing it could mean is the he lacks some right in the fruit.

    So with no further ado let me say over what I think the Gemara says there [Ketuboth 83b]. A question was raised. A husband removes himself from any right to the fruit of the fruit. Has he remove himself from the everything--that is also the fruit, or not? It must be he removes himself from everything because if he did not remove himself from the fruit and he eats it then from where comes the fruit of the fruit? But then according to that reasoning what about the Mishna that says (I am guessing here): R. Yehuda says he always eats the fruit of the fruit. [That is when he removes himself from the fruit he still eats the fruit of the fruit. How can that be? So it must means some of the fruit was left over. So in our case some of the fruit was left over.
    From this Gemara the Rosh asks on the Rambam הלכות אישות כ''ג: ג and R. Akiva Eigger says it is a unanswerable question on the Rambam. And Rav Shach does answer it and to me the answer to so blatantly right that I can not see how anyone could have asked on the Rambam.

    In short, the Rambam says when the husband removes himself from the fruit land is bought with it and he eats the fruit of the fruit. The question of the Rosh is that that does not fit with the gemara at all. The Gemara is clear that she has let over from the fruit and if that happens then land is bought with it an he eats the fruit of the land. It can not mean he left over from it because he has no right to it in the first place after he removed himself from it.  That is the question of the Rosh.
    Rav Shach shows how there existed another version of the Gemara that Rashi is trying to avoid. But you can see in Rashi that the original version was this: They asked if he removes himself from the fruit of the fruit does he eat the fruit?  It must be yes  because otherwise from where would the fruit of the fruit come from? Answer. he left over.

    Frankly I can not see how any other version of that Gemara could possibly make any sense. From just think about it in the version we have with Rashi. The Gemara is bothered by from the the fruit of the fruit would come from if there is no fruit (that is he eats the fruit)? That means it should be perfectly happy with the opposite scenario of his eating the fruit of the fruit but not the fruit. But then that is the exact thing the Gemara asks on! The beginning of the Gemara does not and can not fit with the end. The only reasonable version is that that Rav Shach suggests.And if that is the case then we are left with the original question what could it mean he leaves over from the fruit if he anyway removed himself from it? So to make sense of  this the Rambam had to say the the husband lacks ownership in the fruit. He can eat it but he does not own it.


    Both Hegel and Dr. Kelley Ross deal with the issue of Christianity. Hegel is certainly trying to support Christianity. He was not that different than Aquinas in his goal. His means to that goal however were very different. Dr Ross takes an approach based on Kant and Schopenhauer. But both approaches come from the Middle Ages of attempting a synthesis between Reason and Revelation-which to me makes the most sense. The trouble with Christianity is when this balanced approach was thrown out the window by Martin Luther. (No offense intended since he did have some good points also.) In any case it seems the obvious thing to do would be to get back to that balanced approach of the Middle Ages instead of the modern approach which could be considered thus: Fanatic Christians on Sunday morning and Fanatic secularists the rest of the week.

    The modern day approach simply leaves out too much of the Mediaeval period which leaves out a major brick in the edifice of Western Civilization.

    The lack of balance sometimes you find in individuals that go entirely in the direction of religion or entirely secular-or you get this combination of Sunday morning as opposed to the rest of the week.

    The trouble in the Jewish religious world is it is hard to see through the facade of righteousness into the inner rotten core. The whole show and dance about supposed;y keeping the Torah is really a trap meant to ensnare innocent naive people.

    The major rot really began with the Shatz and his false prophet Nathan from Gaza, but the basic principle of human idolatry seeped in.
    So in an highly ironic way the only movements within Judaism that are kosher are the two that do not make a scene of of it that is Reform and conservative Judaism, and Religious Zionism.