User talk:April8

Ciao April8!
Thanks for the long and interesting message, which I very much appreciated, especially the explanations relating to your intense chassidic work on Wikipedia.
It has now been a while that I haven't touched the wiki pages, having stopped all translations/articles -- mainly because of my annoyance with the Italian administrators, who kept interrupting with idiotic and nonsensical observations about editing, encyclopedism, pertinence, et al. Superficiality and cretinism imperant! Having worked hard for a month or so, both translating into Italian (and not only on Chassidism), Spanish, Portuguese, and entering new articles in English - I think I've had enough: the rewards don't equal the frustrations. So, it's adiós amigo!--Daubmir (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(but if you wish to discuss further and wider, you can reach me at my blogs from: Daubmir Nadir)

Hi April8, thank you for your thoughtful and considerate comments on my talk page. Regarding my reverts, I cited three reasons: Point of View, Original Research, and Overlinking.

POV = Saying something is the "greatest" is point of view. Saying something is "best-known" is neutral.

OR = I agree with you that we need a page on Sippurei Ma'asiyot. Another editor asked me to write it, but I haven't yet found the time. The reason I deleted your link was because it was red. Sorry. If you really have another page up and running very soon, please feel free to put the link back in so it will be blue from the get-go.

I deleted most of what you wrote about Sippurei Ma'asiyot because it was 1) original research with no references, and 2) wrong. Most people erroneously think of Sippurei Ma'asiyot as Rebbe Nachman's "fairy tales," but they are actually deep, mystical stories that can be read on all levels — pshat, remez, drush and sod. They are not fairy tales, nor were they ever meant to be. After years of teaching profound, kabbalistic lessons drawing on every source in Torah literature (the Likutey Moharan), Rebbe Nachman turned to stories to convey the same message: how to find God. To say that Rebbe Nachman's stories "have roots in midrashic, Kabbalistic and Hasidic parables" is to deny the fact that they are totally original. The only correct line that I saw in your exposition was the idea that Rebbe Nachman's stories influenced secular Yiddish literature — but if that's true, you need a reference. Perhaps after you research the topic, citing sources, you will have something appropriate for Wikipedia.

Overlinking = There is no need to add Reb Noson or Breslov Hasidic dynasty to the "See also" section at the bottom of Rebbe Nachman's page. Ditto for the types of links you added to "See also" sections of the other pages — these links are already embedded in the text. "See also" is for pages that aren't readily identified with the main topic.

Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear April8: I see you are very sincere about your editing, as well as well-read. It would help me, though, if you would be more concise in your posts on my talk page. It's often hard to follow exactly what you're saying when you write so long.

I have a problem with putting "citation needed" next to something that looks like original research because it has no reference. Anyone who reads the page between the time you put it up and the time someone else changes it will then come away with inaccurate information. If you are able to quote sources that say Rebbe Nachman wrote his stories in the genre of fairy tales, then I won't reverse your edits. But if you want to write a fair and balanced article, you must also include the contention that the secular academicians are wrong. This is a basic principle of Wikipedia — please read WP:Neutral point of view. Yoninah (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for creating the terrific template for Jewish Philosophy. I'm presently working on populating the relevant areas with content. Once I reach a *final draft* stage I'll send you a note to see if it is sufficiently compatible with your desires.

Kol Tov - Hayyim Yermiyahu ben Yisrael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimharlow99 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi April8, Please take a look at the template, now populated, and see if it meets your expectations. Additionally, if you have any constructive and helpful comments to improve the Jewish Philosophy wiki entry please let me know. Jimharlow99 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive commentary, April8, Let me figure out how to create tables this evening and I'll get to work on them. Jimharlow99 (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom u'bracha, April8, Thank you for the kind words of encouragement - I'm in the midst of figuring out how to use the table features as well as preparing to submit updates to the wiki bios of the scholars, Rabbis and philosophers cited. Shabbat Shalom, April8.

Hello April8, your upgrades to the introduction are definitely an improvement over previous text- to be certain. I had avoided any segmentation of cultures, but clearly that is an important facet of Jewish Philosophy. What would you say to the following edit of your text?

Aprli8's text The Medieval discovery of Greek thought brought Rationalist Philosophy into Biblical-Talmudic Judaism, and competed for the mainstream with the personifications of emerging mysticism. Both schools would become part of classic Rabbinic literature, though the 15th-century Expulsion from Spain and subsequent developments, brought decline to scholastic Rationalism and co-option of its rigour in traditional Judaism by renewed mystical theology. For European Jews, emancipation and encounter with secular thought from the 18th-century onwards altered again how philosophy was viewed. Oriental and Eastern European communities had later and more ambivalent interaction with secular culture than in Western Europe. In the varied responses to modernity, Jewish philosophical ideas were developed across the range of emerging religious denominations. These developments could be seen as either continuations or breaks with the cannonic Rabbinic Philosophy of the Middle Ages, as well as the other historical dialectic aspects of Jewish thought, and resulted in diverse contemporary Jewish attitudes to philosophical methods.

My suggested edits- The medieval re-discovery of Greek thought, combined with the influences of intellectual inquiry by Averroes and Avicenna, brought Rationalist Philosophy into Biblical-Talmudic Judaism, and competed for the mainstream with the personifications of strictly Tanach/Talmudic scholarship and emerging Kabbalah. All three schools would become part of classic Rabbinic literature, though the 13th-century Maimonidean Controversy, and resultant splits within Jewish Communities, brought decline to scholastic Rationalism since too few understood its scholarly, and often abstract, basis. Mystical theology, and esoteric interpretation of Jewish texts, proved a uniformly simpler means of conveying foundational tenets of Judaism to communities who were not, in general, as well-educated as their Rabbis. For European Jews, emancipation and encounters with secular thought from the 18th-century onwards altered again how philosophy was viewed; this re-invigorated philosophic exploration. Oriental and Eastern European communities had later and more ambivalent interaction with secular culture than in Western Europe. In the varied responses to modernity, Jewish philosophical ideas were developed across the range of emerging religious denominations. These developments could be seen as either continuations of, or breaks with, the canonic Rabbinic Philosophy of the Middle Ages, as well as the other historical dialectic aspects of Jewish thought, and resulted in diverse contemporary Jewish attitudes to philosophical methods.

Whatcha think April8? --Jimharlow99 (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. Or if you have been on Wikipedia for a while, nice to meet you. And especially nice you are a Lubavitcher. (User talk:Debresser)

Your edit "This view is found also in Rationalist Medieval Jewish philosophy..."

NB: It is the common Chabad view that the Rambam was not an Aristotelian rationalist, but was in fact a Kabbalist [1]. Please consider adjusting your change to the Kabbalah article. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message on my German talk page. --Sängerkrieg auf Wartburg, formerly active using the static IP adress 132.187.3.26. 08:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi April8, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 19:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, April! You are right that I removed some of the maps for technical reasons, but some were for stylistic reasons, too. Let me explain.

Wikipedia articles are always about content first, and illustrations are only to complement that content. Illustrations should never be added just for the sake of having something pretty to look at, but also they should never be added to illustrate something that the article does not really cover. In other words, maps and pictures can't be used to convey something, only to supplement something already in the text. Additionally, there is no reason to add multiple illustrations which show basically the same thing, only from a different angle. In such cases, one best illustration should be left, and the rest can be linked to a category in the Commons or wherever else it is appropriate. Finally, images that only have a tangential relevance to the topic should most definitely not be included.

The "technical" reasons for removal included the fact that once the coordinates of a place are specified, our readers can use a great variety of mapping services to study just where exactly a place is located. We shouldn't be second-guessing our readers by inundating them with a bunch of maps to show all kinds of areas near which Lyubavichi is situated, because no matter how many maps we supply, some readers will still not find the one they actually need.

Now, let me go through the images I removed one-by-one and explain why I think each of them does not belong:

• File:Dnepr in Smolensk.jpg. While Lyubavichi is not too far from the Dnieper, it does not stand on it. The picture is thus irrelevant (and potentially misleading!)
• File:Smolensk admin divisions.png. Lyubavichi is not shown on this map, and the map is definitely redundant to the location-specific maps available via the coordinates service.
• File:RR5514-0057R.png. An image of a Smolensk commemorative coin is a fine addition to the article about Smolensk, but it really has nothing to do with Lyubavichi.
• File:Yauza river (Smolensk oblast).jpg. The Yauza is nowhere near Lyubavichi, and the image caption explains that the view is typical of the oblast, which does not at all guarantee that the landscape around Lyubavichi is going to look anywhere close to this picture. A Lyubavichi-specific landscape image would have been fine; this one is not.
• File:Un-belarus.png. This is a map of modern Belarus. It is not helpful for exactly the same reasons why the outline map of modern Smolensk Oblast is not helpful.
• File:Krasnoi.jpg. This picture shows the area of Krasny, not that of Lyubavichi. Misleading.
• File:Old Mаhiloŭ 1, Biełaruś.jpg. Yes, Lyubavichi was a part of Mogilev Governorate in the past, but that's not a good enough reason to show a picture of Mogilev in the article. Consider that the Governorate had hundreds of villages; if we included a picture of Mogilev in all articles about them, would it be of any help to our readers? A picture of Mogilev belongs in the article about Mogilev, and hardly anywhere else.
• File:Minard.png. This map would've been a great illustration of the fact that the Napoleon army went through the village; problem is that it does not explicitly show Lyubavichi.

I hope you see now what my reasons were. You mentioned that you'd be interested in expanding this article once you have some free time. If you do that, it would be greatly appreciated. I don't know much about the Jewish history, but, if you looked at my contributions, you would see that I am very interested in the subject of small Russian places "in the middle of nowhere", so I'd be excited to help with other (non-Jewish) aspects. I just want you to understand that my reasons for cleanup were actually pretty good—we want to give our readers information that is relevant, and the information about related topics should go into other articles, to which we can easily link from the text. This is not to diminish your time, effort, and enthusiasm; it's all about how articles are supposed to work in Wikipedia. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:42, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded the article a little, added an infobox and several sources. Hope this alleviates some pain over the removed images! :))—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:13, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to working with you, April. As for the map in the infobox, I am not sure what the problem is. I know sometimes these maps don't show up due to the image loading problems across all Wikimedia sites, but I don't think there are any problems today. The map shows up just fine for me today; I checked the page in two different browsers. If you experience this problem again and have an ability to make a screenshot, that would certainly be helpful. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:55, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Hey there April8, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:April8. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi April8: Your work on the the two templates {{Teshuva}} and {{Jewish philosophy}} was excellent. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear April8. Thank you for the guidance, but I have come to the realization that wikipedia is little more than a sham disguised as a source of knowledge. The reason for this is that after long conversations with Debresser (another power user or editor), i realized that in the interest of preventing legal problems (i.e., in order to remain legally unresponsible for what appears on Wikipedia), the guidelines are to prefer quotes from secondary sources rather than from primary sources. This is simply ridiculous. It saves Wikipedia from being sued for all the defamation that goes on on its pages, but provides the public with skewed, unscholarly, and most importantly, irresonsible information. If someone cannot be held accountable for what they write they can of course write anything they want. The quotes that appear on Rabbi Ginsburgh's entry are a case in point. The quotes are defamatory, not because they provide a certain interpretation of his views, but because they are simply wrong. The so-called scholar who wrote them has little more than rudimentary knowledge of Torah and therefore cannot even begin to understand what he is reading. Not to mention the fact that most of what is quoted from him is not even an intepretation of what Rabbi Ginsburgh has written, but a ludicrous exposition of the author's own incorrect understanding of very basic Torah concepts. In response, I brought actual passages from Rabbi Ginsburgh's books (which I have permission by the author to do) in order to show how ludicrous the views presented by this so-called scholar are. But, these were deleted with again the sad claim that secondary sources are to be preferred. If I had the time and energy I would make it my personal crusade to have Wikipedia's prestige ruined. With guidelines like these, Wikipedia is already the laughing stock of any serious researcher and academic, but this should be made clear to the general public as well who get a great deal of their information from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgenuth (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi April8, thanks for the article. It is what I was thinking about. Sorry cannot help you with this, kind of busy in real life. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Kabbalah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mizrachi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kehilla (modern) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kehilla

Qahal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kehilla

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Akudim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Laban

Berudim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Laban

Nekudim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Laban

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comments on my talk page.Jimhoward72 (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- -- -- 02:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cabal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cabala

Hermetic Qabalah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cabala

Kabbalah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cabala

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not put links already present in the article text into the see also section. The see also section is _only_ for related links not already in or easily added to the article text itself. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Qliphoth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabala (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jewish mysticism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phenomenology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	You're doing a great job on the article Jewish mysticism. Editor2020 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you may interested on this subject, further info in the following Turkish pages:tr:Hurûfî-Bektâşî inancı 72.192.214.163 (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC) tr:Hurûfî-Bektâşî inancı72.192.214.163 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC) You may use Google translator to convert to any other languages. I think the idea is very similar. Hurufism try to deduce secret meaning of the message of Qur'an by applying some mathematical means on letters. But then they can deduce any meaning want to. e.g. They concluded that Naimi would be the God or prophet. There is also another Hurufism which is used for "Ottoman literature"72.192.214.163 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kabbalah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabala (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jewish mysticism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bereishit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline list of Hasidic leaders is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline list of Hasidic leaders until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kabbalah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Symbolism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edits to Hasidic philosophy. Very nice. A small word of advie, 1. don't use all capitals in headers, per MOS:HEADCAPS. 2. Don't add made up explanations to headers, like "Chabad: Intellectual", etc., as that is not encyclopedical. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question on my talkpage, headers should be as concise as possible. They should not be a summary of the section. So even if you would source the second part of the header, it still shouldn't be there. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U made a whole variety of good points that I agree with (but up to a certain degree in this case). I think however that just titling some of the sub-sections "Peshischa", "Chabad", "Breslav", will cause the section "Hasidic philosophy#Hasidic schools of thought" to likely fall into the one trap I was trying to deliberately prevent it from doing in the future (& the reason I introduced more descriptive additions): Despite me deliberately trying to specify that halakhic/political/social defining views of Hasidic groups should not be described here (by my specifying "orientations in relation to Hasidic Mystical Thought" at the start, & by referring the reader to Hasidic views of Zionism, nonetheless, likely people may try adding other Hasidic dynasty groups sub-sections to the list in "Hasidic schools of thought" (eg SATMAR.....halakhic anti Zionism, VISHNITZ..... hardly different in thought from other groups, TOLDOS AARON..... social customs) - all of which should not be placed here (unless referencing specifically mystical thought dimensions of them), at least in so far as sub-heading sections. Rather, "Hasidic schools of thought" defines the broad camps of profound intellectual differences, namely Popupular Tzadism, Peshischa, Chabad, Breslav, and antinomianist Ishbitz. As footnotes within those sub-headings, eg the solely Kabbalist dimensions of Satmar anti-Zionist Kelipah/demonism/condemnation could be listed under Popular Tzadism (although Satmar is very removed from mystical theurgic Tzadism today. Its origins once lay there), eg Reb Areleh Roth's 20th century extreme social pietism could also be listed under Popular Tzadikism, but only if a theological dimension of it could be found.

As the broad, defining camps into which historical Hasidic thought divided (Popular Tzadikism, Peshischa, Chabad, Breslav, antinomianism especially in radical Ishbitz Rebbe), I agree with your good criticism of my semi-arbitrary self-made terms ("Habad Intellectual Hasidism", "Breslav Imaginative Hasidism", "Peshischa Introspective Hasidism", which reify the differences into falsely rigid absolutes, especially when capitalised!). After considering it, I propose instead the following minimalist sub-heading descriptions, which show at a glance that these (alone) are the main orientations in relation to Hasidic mystical thought, and at a glance why they differ, & what they are. Within these sub-sections detailed theological differences of a whole variety of later Hasidic groups could then be cumulatively added to by others. The sub-title section headings I propose:

("individualism" perfectly captures how Peshischa differs, by rejecting Tzadikism. "introspection" is too ambiguous a term as Chabad hisbonenut is also a different form of introspection)

(Which "Chabad" means!)

(I have a whole cited academic description I will add in the text of that sub-section, that references the special and unique role of imagination -& its poetic art- in Rabbi Nachman's profound thought. It will show that imagination -& its role in ant-rationist faith- is a/the defining characteristic of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav's unique thought, taken from a recent academic book that disproves previous academic descriptions of Breslav. The author shows that Breslav imagination is a specifically mystical -as opposed to faith- position, & connected to Maimonides' view of prophecy, the purification of imagination through Rabbi Nachman's poetic art, & his fight against Maimonidean rationalism)

• What do you think of these minimalistic sub-heading titles? Surely the best & ideal solution!

[NB. PS. Chabad view of Rambam as a closet Kabbalist is beside the point here, & has no academic support, unless one defines "Kabbalah" loosely to include Abraham Abulafia's Maimonidean Ecstatic Kabbalah, which accepted the sephirot as solely psychological categories. My own view, based on a recent Religious Zionist academic who has been sudying the Chabad view of Rambam especially as it culminates in the 7th Rebbe -covered in 2 editions of Beis Moshiach magazine- is that the Lubavitcher Rebbe identified 2 aspects of the Rambam: 1 His conscious intellectual intention - which I believe rejected the sephirot as hypostatic theosophy. In his time Theosophical Kabbalah was an underground proto-form. It got systemised by the Provencial Kabbalists solely to attack the Rambam's Aristotelianist rationalism which they saw as the number one threat, due to its secular misuse. 2 Maimonides' unconscious awareness, by which the greatness of his soul merited to include future Kabbalistic interpretations of his Guide, by Ruach Hakodesh, although consciously unintended -or deliberately rejected- by him. Therefore, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, based on a Chabad tradition, defining the Rambam as a closet Kabbalist was a Spiritual thing to defeat the Kelipah of the Maimonist rational school, & making him a Kabbalist in the Spiritual Worlds. Similarly my view of the origins of the Zohar: academic scholarship has proven it to be a medieval work, but I believe it was revealed through the circle of Moses de Leon by the soul of Shimon bar Yohai, either by direct heavenly mentor revelation, or as gilgulim. In both cases I believe the whole point of Chabad/Kabbalist views is to express absolute Spiritual Truths, not to be material historians. Material world is ultmately illusion. Similarly, my critical view of the documentary origins of the Torah.... Torah is Divine Wisdom in Atzilut, but may have evolved in this world according to Bible critics. Time only properly exists in Material world. All future development/interpretation of Torah was eternally in Atzilut's Eternal Now. Also applying Sanford Drob's philosophical explanation of Kabbalah entirely gets round problem of Bible criticism: Kabbalah's intellectual dialectics shows -according to intellect solely- that G-d creates us, & we create G-d. We draw the Ein Sof from above Being/Non-Being into Existence. So we can create the Divine Wisdom of Atzilut, as Jewish soul -especially of Tzadikim- is G-d revealed. My Bible critical scholarship Neo-Chabad view is Sanford Drob's rational mysticism philosophical Kabbalah structure, added with traditional Kabbalah/Chabad view that the souls of Man are the inner dimension of all Spiritual Worlds, & Jewish souls are the inner dimension of man, & Tzadikim are the inner dimension of Israel, etc..... added with Ishbitz Rebbe's messianic determinist view that from G-d's Upper Knowledge Absolute Truth, we have no free will.....] April8 (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the above P.S. & in view of the opposition of most Hasidic thought to Medieval Jewish philosophy, & all philosophical/critical thinking (Philosophy = human logic wisdom), & the sublimation of it into mythic Kabbalah Theosophy by the Hasidic thinkers (eg Chabad) who did embrace the classics of Jewish medieval philosophy ("Hakira"), I think the page Hasidic philosophy really needs changing to be called "Hasidic thought". Long overdue. The page Chabad philosophy is fine to be so called, as Chabad thought borders on philosophy. Chabad is the intellectual/philosophical school in Hasidism, analysing it by systematic philosophical investigation. Chabad uses philosophy & human logic in order to transcend philosophy. A maamar Chabad is a new revelation from Sinai, not a human philosophical discourse. As an exposition based on Kabbalah, when a systematic thinker among the Chabad Rebbes (especially the Rebbe Rashab & the 7th Rebbe) delivers the revelation of a new maamar (with I believe their soul ascending on high & their eyes closed), no human philosophical logic could differentiate between the intuitive choices of intellectual "behinot" aspects continually made by the Rebbe throughout the maamar. If a great mashpia like Yoel Kahn were to try to invent the same maamar, they would make a whole host of subtle slightly wrong spiritual/divine choices of intellectual explanation/differentiation, because a maamar Chabad is not human philosophy, but a Divinely revealed form of intuitive rational mysticism - Divine revelation wisdom drawn down into human philosophical logic. Calling the other Wikipedia page "Chabad philosophy" is fine, as it differentiates Chabad intellectual Hasidism from mainstream Hasidic thought. But calling that Wikipedia mainpage "Hasidic philosophy" is perversely wrong, in view of the battle by many Rebbes against philosophy. "Hasidic thought" is the correct academic term.

The term "philosophy" does have a looser connotation, & the justification of its use here in the recent rewriting of the main pages on Hasidism: "philosophy" can mean the academically imprecise term for "general outlook", especially as the intellectual content in General Hasidic thought, stripped of its mysticism & kabbalistic myth, with its reduction of Kabbalistic symbols to dualistic philosophical categories (Yesh versus Ayin, Greatnesss vs. Smallness, etc), does resemble philosophy - if philosophy is loosely defined beyond the precise intellectual discipline of the Western philosophical tradition. However, that is an academically rejected extension of the term. Moreover, by calling general Hasidic thought "philosophy", reduces General Hasidic thought to its intellectual content, sidelining the mystical, divine revelatory, & theurgic.

Martin Buber's Existentialist Neo-Hasidic reduction of Hasidic Thought to his Western philosophical expression does certainly academically qualify for the term "philosophy". He is one of the main Jewish philosophical (human wisdom) theologians of the 20th century (along with Neo-Hasidic Abraham Joshua Heschel, & others). So too, my favourite, Sanford Drob's profound Neo-Kabbalistic systematic articulation of the philosophical & psychological content and meaning of Theosophical Kabbalah (via Chabad 'philosophy' profundity contribution) is certainly "Western Philosophy" - he brings Theosophical Kabbalah into dialogue with Hegel, Freud, Jung, Derrida, Wittgenstein etc. In each case, using the subtle tools that are wide enough to embrace paradox of modern & postmodern philosophy and depth psychology, Drob is able for the first time to articulate the philosophical/cognitive/intellectual content of Kabbalah, and understand the intellectual ASPECT of Kabbalah beyond the intuitive understanding of the Kabbalists themselves. In this mutual dialogue, each separate discipline is also enriched and deepened by Kabbalah's mythic, complete divine/human view. Drob welcomes other interpretations of Kabbalah's infinity, beyond his rational philosophical articulation. For him, Shevirah means that Kabbalah's mythic divine revelation/human creation infinity shatters all limited attempts to interpret it in single, fixed, dogmatic ways. All interpretations are true, necessary, but partial, like the One Ein Sof is only revealed/created in the plural Many. [Sanford Drob's http://www.newkabbalah.com]

But, just as original Theosophical Kabbalah doesn't qualify for philosophy (human wisdom) (even Moshe Cordovero's qasi-rational articulation of it), so too original Hasidic thought (excluding Chabad philosophy borderline) doesn't academically qualify for the term "philosophy". Page name needs changing ASAP.

All this is all the more reason that the sub-heading section title "Chabad" in "Schools of thought" on Hasidic philosophy#Hasidic schools of thought page, should include the descriptive term "Chabad intellectualism", & the link

Main article: Chabad philosophy

(helpfully/correctly, but loosely labeled ""philosophy")

& good description of the philosophical/intellectual nature of Chabad thought. Can you use your well respected continual presence on Wikipedia to change the page name from Hasidic philosophy to Hasidic thought? Better than if I did it with my very occasional visits to Wikipedia. If you want, you can copy relevant extracts of this post to the page Talk:Hasidic philosophy#Hasidic "philosophy" or "thought", as that would explain why this change was necessary.

April8 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but if anybody would add another section about a chassidut that is not really a different school, you could always remove it. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though I hardly ever get time to visit Wikipedia. It would be far better if you used your continual presence on Wikipedia to prevent addition of new sections in Hasidic philosophy#Hasidic schools of thought, with such mistaken section additions as "Bobov" (as a sub-heading. Details of Bobov mystical thought should be included under "Popular Tzadikism", as Bobov doesn't consist of a unique new approach/school of thought), or "Satmar"/"Satmar ant-Zionism" (as its own sub-heading. Any mention of anti-Zionism, being non-mystical, should only be made in passing, & within the already delineated Hasidic schools of thought 5 main branches/types/generalities, certainly not as a sub-section, unless maybe there should be one extra catch-all sub-section dealing with the non-mystical thought additions to Hasidism. Maybe that would be the best solution. Perhaps called "Social and Political views", based on Nigleh, & expressly pointing this out. Maybe I'll add such a 6th sub-section......) April8 (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today I'll briefly upgrade the section Hasidic philosophy#Hasidic schools of thought. I'll have plenty further development in days to come. I'll use the sub-heading titles I proposed ("Peshischa individualism", "Chabad intellectualism", "Breslav imagination"), with the text in each section explaining why, with citations. I'm convinced that these are the best sub-heading titles, as they show why & how these are the only main branches of Hasidic thought (in relation to Hasidic mysticism, not peripheral Nigleh additions like ant-Zionism).

A further reason why it's academically necessary to change the title page name from Hasidic philosophy to Hasidic thought (the correct academic term), is that Hasidic thought includes even Peshischa-Kotzk, which expressed themselves only via aphorisms - in no way formal philosophy! (at best ethics expresseed non-philosophically). As I said, also "philosophy" can't even describe Chabad thought (the closest Hasidism gets to philosophy), as it only uses philosophy, ultimately, as a tool for its new mystical revelation. Certainly, "philosophy" shouldn't characterise Rabbi Nachman of Breslav's imaginative mysticism, as he is the most ant-philosophical/rationalist thinker in all Jewish thought! (with a profound mystical understanding & response to medieval Jewish philosophy especially Maimonides).

However, the page's top text should read: "Hasidic thought or Hasidism (Hebrew: חסידות), alternatively transliterated as Hasidut or Chassidus

(sometimes colloquially called Hasidic philosophy for its dialectic and existentialist elements alongside the mystical),

consists of the teachings of the Hasidic movement,..... April8 (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Editor just doesn't get the point. Quite annoying, as a matter of fact." " At the best vague and unsourced. At worst BS." Please explain what was wrong with my edits. I don't understand! I explained on my talk page fully my reasoning why & what I was doing! So, please explain in return.

On the new proposed sub-titles ("Peshischa individualism", "Chabad intellectualism", "Braslav imagination") I assumed that, since after 1 week since I proposed them on my talk page, you made no complaint or comment, I thought that you didn't object to these new ones. Was I wrong to guess as much? It's rather hard to guess the views of someone who hasn't explained them!

I thought my reasoning for these minimal sub-heading descriptions is reasonable, & necessary, as it shows (as I explained) that these are the main typologies/schools of Hasidic thought & why. I'm in the process of developing the text in each section to show the bases & academic citations for these minimal descriptive terms.

On the proposed new 6th sub-section "Social & political views", I thought this could be a good way of fending off the inclusion of eg future sub-section "Satmar" as a school of thought (vis a vie Hasidic mystical thought, which Satmar isn't. Rather, it's the addition of a Nigleh/Halakhic ideology to Hasidism). If you think this extra sub-section isn't justified, OK - maybe my reasoning is wrong. I proposed this as a solution. What do you think?

On the other details of my edits you reversed, was there anything in particular that you disagree with? I'm literally in the dark until you explain, & then hopefully we can come to some solutions. My intent is only sincere, as the page needs a lot of improving, & no one else is doing it (it's almost perverse that I am forced to therefore, when there are plenty more qualified people who could, & don't, improve the page!)

By the way, writing "Outside of original Hasidic mystical thought, latter Hasidic dynasties exhibit a range of ideological views based on Rabbinic Halakha. With decline of mysticism among some Hasidic groups, renewed emphasis on Talmudic learning, and social entrenchment from secularism, additional views were added to Hasidism, particularly in relation to Zionism. These share common ground with non-Hasidic Haredi views of Zionism, ranging from the anti-Zionism of Satmar to the pro-territorialism of Chabad-Lubavitch." - I can see no incorrect facts "BS". So, only "At the best vague & unsourced". Maybe too verbose & vague, OK very rambling! so...

How about instead:

=== Social and political views ===

Additional differences between Hasidic dynasties involve the degree of their self-seclusion from secular society, and their views of Zionism, views shaped by later non-mystical ideological considerations drawn from their encounter with Jewish secularism, and overlapping with non-Hasidic Haredi views of Zionism. Among Hasidic groups, dynasties originating from Aharon Roth sought renewed 20th century piety in isolation from society. They share theological ant-Zionism with Satmar. Chabad-Lubavitch and Breslov seek engagement with secular society as part of Jewish outreach. Lubavitch holds pro-territorial views in Israeli politics.

Is that OK? April8 (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, while awaiting your responses, I'll continue to add to the text on Hasidic philosophy#Hasidic schools of thought, this time with precise academic citations that I have brought with me to the internet cafe. April8 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the 1st of your 2 reversions of my edits, it seems that you have 2 points of divergence from my views:

• The addition of "individualism", "intellectualism", "imagination" to the new version proposal sub-title headings

(this I didn't have prior ability to know, as you didn't object on my talk page in the week after I proposed them! I still maintain that it's far preferable to have these minimal title qualifiers, for the reasons I explained. At least, certainly, our seeming disagreement, doesn't justify "Editor just doesn't get the point. Quite annoying, as a matter of fact", when you didn't object to my new minimalistic title proposals in the week after I suggested them, leading me to think you didn't object to them!)

• The addition of some minimal description in the image captions, related to the meaning of it's corresponding school of thought (this I also didn't have any way of guessing, from your very few, brief comments to me). I also maintain, perhaps in divergence from your views, the benefit of this.

(you also seem to prefer the stylised, artistic image of Schneur Zalman of Liadi, versus my preference for the more realistic life-like version image. At least, I think it's beneficial for the image of Schneur Zalman here, and the image of him on his wikipedia page, should be different, as that confers an additional benefit of variation perspectives)



PLEASE: I need point by point discussion of your views on the above versus mine??, that doesn't leave me in the dark, guessing!
Is my new version of the proposed 6th sub-heading section "social and political views" above, OK??
April8 (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please also respond to my proposal to rename the page Hasidic philosophy with the correct academic term Hasidic thought (with the 1st line text insertion "(sometimes colloquially called Hasidic philosophy for its dialectic and existentialist elements alongside the mystical)"??
April8 (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my point of view, pertinent Wikipedia guidelines regarding section headers mean that we should not add descriptions to what are without them already self-sufficient headers. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK sound good in general, but in this exception, I still think my minimalist description sub-title words are needed to show That, How, & Why these are the only branches/divisions/schools of Hasidic mystical thought. April8 (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And responses to my other questions??April8 (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've still left me in the dark about my other questions (as before), so again I'll have to make assumptions. I'll proceed on the following assumptions:

I won't add the descriptive minimalist terms to the sub-heading titles (Peshischa "individualism", Chabad "intellectualism", Breslav "imagination") - despite my disagreement with you on the matter. At least my citations within the texts will explain (a 2nd best solution).

I'll add the new concise version of my 6th sub-section "Social and political views" written above. It seems encylopedic enough to be good now.

I'll also change the image on this page of Schneur Zalman of Liadi to the more realistic life-like version (for realism & variation). I'll of course leave the (helpfully different) stylised art image of him on his own wikipedia page.

Other than that, I'll proceed cautiously, always mindful of "Big Brother watching me" (but, as per wikipedia guidelines, please assume in my case good intent, not obtuseness. It really isn't in my case, when you leave me in the dark without explaining your replies to my points, then condemn me for being "quite annoying"! I'm doing all I can not to upset you!)

In a few days it seems, without your answer, that I'll have to change the page name from Hasidic philosophy to the correct academic term Hasidic thought (with the added text clause), & explanation on its talk page.

Without further responses from you, it's like waiting in fear from the erruption of a random, unpredictable bas kol!
April8 (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really in favor of the change from "philosophy" to "thought", but also not really opposed. What do reliable source call it? What do academic sources call it? Debresser (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. All serious academic books & research on Hasidic thought calls it "Thought". eg:
The Religious Thought of Hasidism: Text and Commentary, Norman Lamm,
Hasidic Thought, Loius Jacobs,
Hasidic Responses to the Holocaust in the Light of Hasidic Thought, Pesach Schindler
The Candle of God: Discourses on Hasidic Thought, Adin Steinsaltz - who is a theologian of Hasidus, not an academic historian, The others in this list are academic textual historians
Hasidism as Mysticism: Quietistic Elements in Eighteenth-Century Hasidic Thought, Rivka Schatz Uffenheimer
Mysticism and Madness: The Religious Thought of Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav, Zvi Mark
etc etc etc

A search on Amazon for "Hasidic philosophy" (especially looking for academic, rather than popular books) brings:
The Philosophical Library Existentialism Collection: Hasidism, Essays in Metaphysics, and The Emotions, presenting the philosophies of Martin Buber, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre - Martin Buber's Existentialist Neo-Hasidism certainly counts as 20th century Western (Continental) Philosophy, which he achieved by excluding the mystical and Kabbalistic from Hasidism & based himself on Hasidic Tales only (this was the criticism of textual scholar of Jewish mysticism Gershom Scholem)
Also Chabad's The Philosophy of Chabad, Nissan Mindel (Hasidic historiography, rather than academic, more critical treatment of sources, but still useful for an academic to reference cautiously)
etc

ie. Chabad thought is the main branch of Hasidism where the term "philosophy" is particularly relevant - a philosophy of dialectics. However, even in the case of Chabad, academics refer in a formal sense to it as "Habad thought" or either/occasionally as "Habad theosophy" (meaning being based on Kabbalistic theosophical dialectics, as in the book The Paradoxical Ascent to God: The Kabbalistic Theosophy of Habad Hasidism, Rachel Elior) - at least in their titles. Academics do compare Chabad thought to philosophy as a helpful analytical tool, as Chabad uses philosophical method within its mysticism - it borders on philosophy, or uses philosophical rigour to transcend philosophy. So the word "philosophy" is helpful within academic text discussing Chabad. eg Loius Jacobs makes this comparison in his entry on Habad in his encyclopedia of Judaism. eg Joseph Weiss mentions other academic scholarship who compares Chabad to philosophy, though preferring the precise analytical term "mysticism" for Habad Bittul Ha-Yesh, Bittul Ha-Atzmis, in his essay on Habad thought.

Academic books on the Kotzker Rebbe also compare his aphoristic ethics to philosophy, but in this case to a non-cognitive Continental, different form of philosophy: Existentialism. eg A Passion for Truth, Abraham Joshua Heschel, comparing Menachem Mendel of Kotzk to Soren Kierkegaard (the founder of Religious Existentialism). The Kotzker didn't interest himself or his followers in Kabbalistic study (the opposite of Habad), but in ethical introspection in a Hasidic spirit. Therefore, his thought is not close to metaphysical philosophical dialectics (a tool for understanding Kabbalah), but to existentialism (seeking absolute non-rational commitment, self-definition of faith & one's essence) - A very different meaning of philosophy from what Habad refers to by colloquially calling Hasidic thought "Hasidic philosophy".

Apart from the above, there is a colloquial sense to the word "philosophy", meaning Weltanshauung (World view), or the cognitive content of even mystical thinkers. This informal/looser sense of the word "philosophy" is also used within the text of academic studies of Hasidic thought - though not in their formal titles or chapter headings. so, eg the book I cited above: Mysticism and Madness: The Religious Thought of Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav, Zvi Mark uses, as you can see in the following text the words:

"Two hundred years since Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav's demise, his philosophical writings and literary creation remain lively and provocative materials in both Jewish culture and the New-Age movement.

Key elements of Rabbi Nachman`s magic and magnetic force are illuminated in this research, which presents Bratslavian mysticism as a unique link in the history of Jewish mysticism. The mystical worldview is the axis of this book, but its branches stretch out to key issues in the Bratslavian world such as belief and imagination, dreams and the land of Israel, melodies and song."

Now this description, from the back of the book (similar to text within the book) uses the word "philosophy" in a loose sense, in regard to Nachman of Breslav, the most radical anti-rationalist, anti-philosophy thinker in Jewish history! (who responds deeply to a profound knowledge of Maimonidean philosophy). Nachman forbids even Medieval Jewish philosophy classics for his Hasidim, stating that they harm the soul. Instead of intellect, he sees imagination as the key to faith, prophecy, dreams, melody, Torah insights, Divinity. he teaches the need to "discard the intellect", even acting madly, in order to reach any true mystical-imaginative insight into Divinity.

This shows that the text WITHIN the pages Hasidic Judaism and Hasidic thought needn't NECESSARILY remove the present loose/colloquial uses of the word "philosophy" (unless doing so would help bring clarification). Especially in regard to Existentialist Kotzk, & Dialectical Chabad, the text can & should use the word "philosophy" as a very helpful, academically used term for COMPARISON. (at present eg the wikipedia text calls Menachem Mendel of Kotzk "one renowned philosopher from the Peshischa school" - Fine, if it specifically mentions the Existentialist aspect of his thought). However, the word "philosophy" shouldn't be used in the formal Page name Hasidic thought, just as academics don't use it in their book titles. The wikipedia page Chabad philosophy can remain so named, as Chabad is close to philosophy - philosophy comprises the human derived element of Maamarim mystical discourses from the Habad Rebbes. The Revelation-Mysticism derived intuition Divine element comes from above intellect - a "new light from the inner dimensions of Keter RADL"A, & even Higher" in the 7th Rebbe's words in the kuntreis On the Essence of Chasidus. Even Habad, the most systematic, intellectual, philosophical, analytic school of Hasidic thought, shares the mainstream view of Hasidism that the truly great Tzadikim of Hasidism (including in the Habad view all 7 Rebbes of Habad) delivered homiletics, exegesis, Torahs, discourses by Divine revelation (Ruah Hakodesh), with "the Shekhina speaking out of their throat". Because of this, in Habad, even the greatest human mashpias wouldn't be able to deliver a new Habad mystical discourse. They would make subtle spiritual mistakes of intuition, falsely distinguishing between "bechinas"/aspects of Kabbalistic Divinity. Habad thought brings the Divine Intellect mysticism of Kabbalah down into human philosophical intellectual grasp, using human soul psychological experience as the path to understanding. ie Infinite mysticism ("Thought"), not "Philosophy" - but human philosophy intellect is the essential framework into which the revelation descends.

Calling the wikipedia page Chabad philosophy is beneficial, rather than "Chabad thought", as it distinguishes Chabad from the un-philosophical, un-systematic nature of Mainstream homiletic-faith based Hasidic thought. It would, however, be helpful for that Chabad philosophy page to clarify that philosophy is only one aspect of Chabad thought, alongside the mystical-revelatory. Chabad thought itself distinguishes itself from Hakira (Medieval Jewish philosophy), which is human intellect from first principles. Instead, Chabad thought is Divine Intellect brought down into human intellect, via Kabbalistic mysticism.

I'll quote from the entry "Philosophy" in The Encyclopedia of Hasidism, edited by Tzvi Rabinowicz:

"The attitude of Hasidic leaders toward philosophic inquiry & human reason in matters of theology was generally quite negative. Hasidic thinkers generally saw the constructs of the human mind as inimical to true faith, except insofar as they were directly guided by revelation. No works that may be considered truly philosophical were created within the hasidic community.

There were some hasidic writers who made conscious use of the medieval Jewish philosophical classics. Particularly in the Habad school, a certain degree of dependence on the rational tradition was encouraged. Others used Maimonides' writings but sought to interpret them in mystical terms..."

Also, the entry on Habad in Louis Jacobs' The Jewish Religion: A Companion says:

"Because of its special thrust, Habad is sometimes described by modern writers as the intellectual movement in Hasidism. (NB. this is one of Louis Jacobs' English understatements. All texts on Habad, both academic & Chabad's own, make this comparison without failure. eg Jonathan Sacks' entry on Habad in "The Encyclopedia of Hasidism" etc etc! Including Louis Jacobs' own book "Hasidic thought", which states the "intellectual" nature of Habad thought directly, without qualification)....there is some truth in this (another understatement), but it is a little misleading (correct).... it can by no stretch of the imagination be seen as rationalistic. The Habad thinkers build all their theories on ideas given in the Jewish sources & never try to reason out for themselves the basics of Judaism. They never feel the need, for example, to argue for the existence of G-d or that the Torah is revealed truth.

"Although an offshoot of Hasidism, Habad is essentially a movement of its own, looked at with a degree of indifference &, on occasion, hostility, by the other Hasidic masters who, while admiring Shneur Zalman himself, believed that the Habad understanding of Hasidism is too intellectually oriented & too close to philosophy for comfort."

In regard to mainstream, non-Habad Hasidism - the majority of Hasidic Rebbes numerically considered on the page Hasidic thought, "Hasidic thought" & certainly not "Philosophy" is the appropriate page name. Calling mainstream Hasidism "Philosophy" is almost perverse, due to the revivalist emotional faith, ant-rationalist, romantic movement nature of non-Habad Mainstream Hasidism! In the history of Judaism, the swing between Mysticism/Kabbalah and Philosophy/Rationalism oscillates. Early Medieval Spain saw a high point of Jewish Philosophy & Rationalism. Later Medieval Spain of Christian persecution saw a turn to Zoharic Kabbalah. The Haskalah saw a swing to Philosophy & Rationalism. Modern & Post-Modern academia saw a swing to anti-rationalist Existentialism & Academic study of Kabbalah. Mainstream Hasidism saw an extreme turn towards romantic emotional mysticism (Intuitive "Thought" - & in the case of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav, extreme anti-rationalism, rejoicing in logical absurdities of mystical faith). Habad saw a swing towards philosophical Kabbalah....etc. The universal Hasidic mystical dialectics of Ayin and Yesh, found in all Kabbalah based branches, when expressed in non-Habad thought, is faith based, Populist, Tzadikist charismatic, emotional, non-philosophical etc. Unlike Habad's uses of systematic discourses & thinking, mainstream faith-based Hasidism expressed itself using midrashic style homiletics, aphorisms, sayings "Torahs/Vorts". The non-Kabbalistic rational, introspective Peshischa-Kotzk school expressed its spiritual urgency thought via aphorisms, eg The Kotzker expressed himself using short sayings - at best spirituality ethics, expressed non-philosophically.

Martin Buber's Neo-Hasidic world sanctifying philosophy is a version of Philosophical Existentialism, divorced from Hasidism's elements of mysticism, revelation, Ruah Hakodesh, word-nullification, self-annihilation.

Sanford Drob's newkabbalah.com is a profound Rational mysticism & Depth psychology, for the 1st time systematically articulating the Philosophical & Psychological cognitive aspects of Theosophical Kabbalah's Infinitely interpretable Divine myth. He brings Kabbalistic dialectics into open dialogue with Hegel, Freud, Jung, Derrida, Wittgenstein,....... etc Drob draws on Habad thought, but his project extends the intellectual content of Habad to a new stage beyong the dogmatics of Orthodox faith. Drob shows how exremely far Western philosophy has progressed, that it now has tools subtle & sophisticated enough to embrace the intellectual dialectical paradoxes that fill Kabbalah. In Medieval times, Kabbalists saw Maimonidean Rationalism & were extremely opposed to its secularist misuse threat. Hasidism likewise inherited an image of philosophy stuck in the inheritance of the Medieval Jewish Philosophical Classics. This explains why they mostly opposed Philosophy & its related dangers in the Haskalah, absorbing it were they did in Habad into Kabbalah. Now Drob shows that Kabbalists can, at last, Messianically relate to Philosophy & Depth Psychology as supportive dialogical partners (without necessarily compromising faith), because Philosophy has matured far enough, deepened, become non-dogmatic, paradoxical, subtle, to be rectified from the Kelipot.

Both Buber & Drob fully qualify as Philosophy. Hasidic thought does not. It's purpose is far higher than Philosophy. Like Kabbalah, it reveals Divinity, but in the case of Hasidic Yechidah-Atzmus Divine Essence, soul-essence, Messianically drawing down Kabbalistic based mysticism into all parts of Torah, Avodah, daily Jewish life, & the Material World.

• Conclusion: the page name Hasidic philosophy needs changing to the academic term Hasidic thought, with the addition of the words "(sometimes colloquially called Hasidic philosophy for its dialectic and existentialist aspects, alongside the mystical" in the 1st line text. Best wishes

April8 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kabbalistic approaches to the sciences and humanities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aristotelian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Da'as Elyon and Da'as Tachton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Minor esoteric religious terminology in a foreign language - no real evidence of substantial discussion as a subject in its own right - citation, let alone sourcing, is almost wholly absent.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kochos hanefesh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Minor esoteric religious terminology in a foreign language - no real evidence of substantial discussion as a subject in its own right - citation, let alone sourcing, is almost wholly absent.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tohu and Tikun has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Minor esoteric religious subject with no real evidence of substantial scholarly coverage as a topic in its own right - inline citation and overall sourcing is lacking and largely unreliable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]