Authority in matters of legend

peace,
I tried to sort out the arguments (briefly) against authority in matters of thought (as you have raised in your various articles), and I would be very happy to know whether I was up to the task.
A. Authority not granted:

1. The authority of the sages concerns legislation and interpretation. Of course, matters of thought do not concern legislation, so it remains to discuss interpretation. And the argument is – can it be said that the teachings of different thinkers are an interpretation of the Torah or some tradition? Simply put, each thinker developed an independent system, with different assumptions and concepts (apart from basic assumptions such as the reality of God, the creation of the world, the giving of the Torah, the election of Israel, and providence), which does not correspond at all with different systems, and which do not draw from a common traditional source but rather from their own intellectuals or from the philosophical schools in their area.
2. Authority must be given, but authority in matters of legend was never given to the sages (but only "between blood and blood, between law and law," etc.).

on. Conceptually impossible:

1. "Will has no influence over belief," meaning that one cannot force someone to think something; we are forced to believe what we believe. In halakhic terms, the Radbz explains that someone who believes that Moses our Lord was God, and this is a kind of ez, is exempt from punishment, since he is forced to the conclusion of his study.
2. Matters of legend are on the plane of facts, that is, questions of right and wrong/truth and falsehood, and in any case "authority" and "jurisprudence" are irrelevant, because they cannot change reality.

Another thing, I would be happy to refine the explanation of why the field of 'goals and trends' and morality does not fall under one of the above arguments.
thanks!