Kelley Ross as a philosopher has a thoroughness that surprised me. I had been aware of problems in Torah for a long while. One major problem was: "The difference has to make  a difference." If this one system is true and holy, and everything else is completely false and evil, then that ought to be seen in the traits and nature of people following the true system. If good and evil are simply divided along the normal bell curve, then that is a question. There were personal reasons also. I had encountered enough evil in many religious  people, and their leaders in particular, to raise doubts.
There were also intellectual questions, but these did not seem as serious as the others.
It was right at that time I discovered Kelley Ross's essay on Spinoza. 
That was a shock when I saw the depth. I never saw a modern writer on philosophy come anywhere near it.
But then I saw his major four essays on value, and that was enough to answer all my questions.
[There are other very good philosophers nowadays, but none that get anywhere near Kelley Ross.]
The only thing that bothers me is that he does not seem to have much of  a liking for Hegel.
That never bothered me as long as I never really read Hegel. [I did a drop in NY, but I did not know then what Hegel was talking about. Later with a little more background, I could read Hegel, and see what he was getting at,- and then I started to realize he has a lot that is really amazing ideas. ]
In a nutshell, Kelley Ross is a continuation of Plato, and Hegel is a continuation and deepening of Aristotle.

Even very good philosophers like Edward Feser and Michael Huemer tend to have a certain weakness when it comes to Physics. And that makes a lot of difference.

The most simple way to justify Torah in two words is objective morality. Moral principles are universals that can be known by reason. The Torah simply reveals what objective morality is. It does not claim to make people moral. And Objective Morality has a lot to do with midot (-character). Though it goes into areas of service of God also. But the starting point is midot (-character). If people have bad midot/character, that is a question on them and on human nature. not on Torah.

The main thing in terms of Reb Nachman is to decide what was a reaction as opposed to what was an essential principle.

The path of reaction is not a bad path. That is to identify one's own faults and to strive to correct them. In the absence of some tzadik  that could guide people, this seems like the closest one can get to figuring out in what areas he of she needs to do the most work

You use your best judgement to see what kinds of actions seem to be the direct and immediate causes of bad things to happen to you and you try to work on those areas.

This is I admit a kind of בדיעבד ad hoc [after the fact] kind of scheme. It is not a Pro-Active Approach. But it seems the best thing to do in the absence of any other kind of reliable guide.
Reb Nachman seems to have taken this approach in his being against doctors. It is clear that he was reacting to the dismal state of medicine in his days [though it is arguable if there really has been much progress since then.] Reacting to  a bad situation and making some kind of corrective measure is clearly the idea behind measures taken by the sages to make laws to safeguard the Torah.

The Rambam in the Guide says many of the Laws of the Torah are in fact Divine safeguards against flaws in human nature.

The main thing in terms of Reb Nachman is to decide what was a reaction  as opposed to what was an essential principle.

בבא מציעא י''ד:ב תוספות says the argument between רב and שמואל on page י''ד is the same as their argument as on page ק''א. But on page ק''א the גמרא concludes that there really is no argument because the spoke about different situations. So if on page ק''א there is no argument and on page י''ד there is, how can תוספות say it is the same law in both places?


בבא מציעא י''ד: ב תוספות אומר הטיעון בין רב לבין שמואל בעמוד י''ד זהה לטיעון שלהם בעמוד ק''א. אבל בעמוד ק''א הגמרא מסכמת כי באמת אין שום טיעון כי הם דברו על מצבים שונים. אז אם בעמוד ק''א אין ויכוח ובעמוד י''ד קיים ויכוח, איך תוספות יכול להגיד שזה אותו דבר ואותו החוק בשני המקומות?

To answer this question, it is possible to answer that תוספות holds there is no argument between רב and שמואל on page י''ד  and that that is the exact explanation of their argument on page ק''א. That is  in the שיטת תוספות  ידו על העליונה means he gets the קרן ושבח and ידו על התחתונה means  he gets only the קרן and the first case is when the שדה is עשוי לטעת and the other case is when it is not.


כדי לענות על שאלה זו, אפשר לענות  שתוספות מחזיק שאין ויכוח בין רב לבין שמואל בעמוד י''ד, וכי זהו ההסבר המדויק של הטיעון שלהם בעמוד ק''א. כלומר לפי שיטת התוספות ידו על העליונה אומר שהוא יקבל את הקרן ושבח, וידו על התחתונה אומר שהוא מקבל רק את הקרן.  המקרה הראשון הוא כאשר השדה הוא עשוי לטוע והמקרה השני הוא כאשר הוא לא.

Bava Metzia page 14b Tosphot says the argument between Rav and Shmuel on page 14 is the same as their argument as on page 101. But on page 101 the gemara concludes that there really is not argument because the spoke about different situations. So if on page 101 there is no argument and on page 14 there is how can Tosphot say it is the same law in both places?

I think that there have been others that have thought the idea of a synthesis between Torah and Reason is in some need a revision after the 800 years since the Guide for the Perplexed. The basic problem starts with the fact that 20th century philosophy is obviously false and based on mistaken ideas. The ideas starts out innocuously enough with some good  suggestions from Frege about expanding the category  of a priori. But then it devolved into pure incoherent nonsense. The Ari [Isaac Luria] did not fare much better.
So the first task is to identify what needs to be rejected.

The Nefesh HaChaim of Reb Chaim from Volloshin certainly does a great job in terms of one half of this problem. And The Rambam in the Guide does a great job with the other half. The problem is really how to put both together.
The point almost all religious people are affected by the delusion of moral superiority along with a assortment of various fantasies.. Non religious people have their own set of different kinds of delusions. Finding the right balance is essential,- along with some way of safeguarding that balance.

רמב''ם ה' גניבה פרק א' הלכה י''ד. The רשב''ם holds  בפרק השואל the thief can pay back שווה כסף

The proof of רב שך that the רמב''ם hold by the רשב''ם is hard to understand.
His main point is the fact that the owner of the object can ask for the pieces back.
The point is that if the רמב''ם would be holding like רש''י and the רא''ש that the thief must pay back unbroken vessels or money, then paying back the broken pieces does not fit with that. But the way I see it neither does it fit with the רשב''ם. If he can pay back any שווה כסף Then what gives the owner the right to ask for those piece specifically?

Besides that to seems to me that the רמב''ם states the הלכה openly like רש''י and the רא''ש that the thief must pay back money. If he could also pay back שווה כסף I think the רמב''ם would have to state that.

רמב''ם ה' גניבה פרק א' הלכה י''ד. הרשב''ם מחזיק בפרק השואל שהגנב יכול להחזיר שווה כסף. ההוכחה של רב שך כי הרמב''ם מהחזיק כהרשב''ם קשה להבין. הנקודה העיקרית שלו היא העובדה כי הבעלים של האובייקט יכולים לבקש בחזרה את החלקים. הנקודה היא שאם הרמב''ם  מחזיק כמו רש''י והרא''ש כי הגנב חייב להחזיר כלי שלם או כסף, אז לשלם בחזרה את השברים לא מסתדר עם זה. אבל כמו שאני רואה את זה,  זה גם אינו מתאים עם הרשב''ם. אם הוא יכול להחזיר שווה כסף אז מה נותן לבעל הזכות לבקש אלה דווקא? חוץ מזה  נראה לי כי הרמב''ם קובע הלכה בגלוי כמו רש''י ואת רא''ש כי הגנב חייב להחזיר כסף [דמים] . אם הוא יכול גם להחזיר שווה כסף אני חושב שהרמב''ם יצטרך להצהיר על זה.

Rambam laws of theft. Chapter 1, law 14.

Rambam laws of theft 1:14. The Rashbam holds Bava Metzia פרק השואל the thief can pay back שווה כסף [not just money, but rather anything that is worth money.]

The proof of Rav Shach that the Rambam hold by the Rashbam is hard to understand.
His main point is the fact that the owner of the object can ask for the pieces back.
The point is that if the Rambam would be holding like Rashi and the Rosh that the thief must pay back unbroken vessels or money, then paying back the broken pieces does not fit with that. But the way I see it neither does it fit with the Rashbam. If he can pay back any שווה כסף (anything that is worth money). Then what gives the owner the right to ask for those piece specifically?

That is one way or the other we need to find some reason the owner can ask for the pieces back. But what ever that reason is can not have anything to do with the argument between the Rashbam and Rashi and the Rosh.

This was the last idea I had before I broke my leg. [I called for help and some people called an ambulance and took me to the local hospital.] ]