What did Jesus mean when He told his followers to heed those who sat on the Chair of Moses in Matthew 23:2?
It must be he held from keeping the Oral and Written Law of Moses.

[Another reference would be the story of the poor man and rich man that both died. The poor man saw the rich man in Hell. He asked the poor man who was in Heaven to give him a drink of water. But there was a gap between heaven and hell that was not possible to pass. So the rich man asked at least to go back to earth to warn others about the problems that he was encountering in Hell that resulted from his not sharing. But the answer was : They have the Law and the prophets. Let them go and study and keep them. So the rich man said, "They would listen if one would rise from teh dead and warm them." And he was answered, if they will not listen to the law of Moses and teh prophets then even if one would rise from the dead and warn them they also would not listen."
So there is no indication that the Law is no longer invalid.

I also noticed that Dr. Michael Huemer wrote some critique about Communism [which to me does that where the Democrats want to go] https://spot.colorado.edu/~... His point is that not just that Communism leads to many unfortunate results like Venezuela,--but that it has a false assumption in its very core. [The Labor Theory of Value that how much value something has is because of how much work went into making it. Clearly it is absurd. If someone works twenty hours making a pin needle, not one will but it for $50. Yet the LTV is the source of teh idea that the owner of the factory extracts extra value from the workers.]
Huemer is basing himself to a large degree on G.E. Moore. That is a school called the Intuitionists that hold the reason recognizes Moral Values

The Kant Fries School of Dr Kelley Ross has a different kind of critique based on Kant's idea that people have self autonomy. That is authority ought not be imposed on people except for the bare minimum of getting a working state.

My own complain against communism and socialism has always stemmed from one basic starting axiom. "Thou Shalt not Steal". Stealing from the rich to give to the poor, has never seemed to me to be any different from stealing period. 

I must say that there is a lot going on in the world that if you look closely seem to cast doubt on the core concepts of mass and forces.

For instance the four forces (Gravity, Electro-Magnetism, Strong, Weak) do not seem basic, but rather seem to stem from Quantum Mechanics. What I mean is in Quantum Field Theory if you solve things like electrons going around a Helium atom you have a phase inside the equation which has to disappear before you get to an actual physical solution. But the fact that it is still there forces there to be three of the four forces,-- and maybe even Gravity.

Another thing I mentioned a few days ago is the infinite mass that always shows up in any particle. [I mean the bare particle by itself is a whirling conglomerate of infinite waves. The particle that is measure in the lab is not the bare particle. [I mentioned there that this seem to show a kind of Kant kind of idea that the actual "thing in itself" is hard to understand. At least it is not so simple. Hegel thought there is access to the "thing in itself" by means of a dialectical process.] 

w61 G Minor

Corona 19

Corona 19 tends to spread to two people. [i.e. 1 2 4 8 16 32 ...] That kind of expansion  grows fast. So the rate of spreading is like atomic fission. That is why governments are shutting down. It is serious, but not in the same way that people understand. Also it has incubation up until 14 days.

In any case this gives one a good chance to stay home and get through Shas [the Two Talmuds], Rav Shach's Avi Ezri,  Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, and Algebraic Topology which most people are behind schedule in any case. This certainly gives one a chance to catch up.

A major goal in Hegel was to come to freedom. Not all that different from Leonard Nelson.

Kant and Hegel. See Walter Kaufman on Hegel which shows that a major goal in Hegel was to come to freedom. That is not how his system was used later by Marxists.
One thing you always know about Socialism is that it is always trying get to "equality" by means of force.

Analytic Philosophy came about more or less as a response to the many unhappy movements that seem to have based themselves on Hegel. [WWI also got a lot of people to doubt Hegel].

Leonard Nelson took a Kantian direction. Somewhat like Hegel in building on his predecessors [Kant and Fries] but went beyond.

Nelson sought axioms on which to base philosophy and morality. Somewhat like David Hilbert thought to do with Math and Physics.

Sometimes axioms disagree with what Reason recognizes as objective moral principles. [E.g. It is wrong to torture people for the fun of it.] So finding true axioms is important, but should not be used against facts.
To me it seems the starting axioms ought to be the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.
That is certainly how the sages understood the Ten Commandments as being the core principles behind  many other laws.

In any case it is clear that both Hegel and Nelson saw Philosophy as something that is built up over time and reaches definite conclusions. But Axioms did not place any role in Hegel. Rather his building blocks were the dialectic.

In any case, I tend to see both Hegel and Nelson as having things important to help me shape my world view. [CAN these three things work together? I.e. Common sense reason that recognizes moral principles, axioms and the dialectic?]
It is harder to see how Hegel got to be used by so many pernicious movements being basically a traditional Christian and Capitalist. [However I did find it odd that in former USSR areas when I asked people how things had been under the USSR as compared to now the answer was always "It was better then." And sometimes they went into details. It seemed to me that the Russian experience was different than the WASP [White Anglo Saxon Protestant] that founded the USA.

The odd thing is philosophers generally have a very high IQ. The highest IQ in universities are the people in Physics. (The lowest are the one is psychology departments. If you ever wondered why are psychologists so stupid and malicious, this might help answer your question.)
So it is curious that philosophers get so much wrong in subjects like time and space. Either they want to take down natural science since "we can not know anything" [according to their theories of post modernism]. Or they want to "help science."
People in Physics might naturally say, "Thanks anyway for your help. We would rather do without it."[i.e. "Leave us alone."]
Okay, so why is this? Most of the professors are very smart. It can not be they are missing this.
I would like to suggest the path of learning of  "saying the words and going on." [Called" girsa".]
If people would do this with Physics and Math--even if their major is in philosophy, they would surely not be ignorant about physics. There would be less confusion about Relativity and QM.