That’s interesting, so where does your worldview come from?

Exactly the same place the worldview of the Maharal or Maimonides came from: my own reasoning.

I liked that.
But isn’t that starting from scratch?
The Maharal had many thinkers to build on, and so did Maimonides (the Sages, Aristotle, Avicenna, Averroes).
Don’t you have some Torah scholar most of your wisdom comes from?

I do too. All the scientists and philosophers who ever lived. Were Aristotle or Avicenna greater Torah scholars than Kant and Einstein? Or maybe they received some hidden tradition from Sinai that didn’t reach Einstein or Kant? Why can Maimonides build on that collection of gentiles and his own reasoning, while I can’t build on other gentiles and my own reasoning?

Yeah, honestly, you’re right…

My problem is that I dress the Torah in my own personality, Shai’s, and I ask myself whether Moses would agree with me that this really is his Torah, or whether I’ve invented a new Torah for myself.
If we’re talking about Torah scholars, it’s reasonable to assume they’re closer to the “spirit of the Torah” than I am, or than Kant…
So maybe it really is better to stick to Jewish sources, because I might stray from the spirit of the Torah?

My claim is that there is no such thing as the spirit of the Torah when it comes to morality. Morality, by its very nature, is universal.

A. Who was talking about morality? The Maharal didn’t write a book of ethics.
B. It’s true that morality is universal, but people still often make mistakes about it, and the Torah can illuminate the eyes of those seeking morality and guide them toward correct moral recognition (the universal one). And not only the Torah itself, but also Torah scholars who have toiled for the sake of Heaven in investigating morality and refining it from all sorts of misleading considerations, can guide the learner toward moral recognition.

“To stray from the spirit of the Torah” can be interpreted on the moral plane or the intellectual one. In both contexts these are universal claims (because facts are facts and don’t depend on society or on a person).
As I’ve written more than once, I don’t see significant added value in the Torah and its commentators with regard to either of those two kinds of claims. Just as they use their own reasoning and various sources of influence, so do I, small as I am. Whoever disagrees with that, that’s perfectly fine. I was asked for my opinion, and that’s my position. That’s all.

For someone who hasn’t dealt with it much, your knowledge is pretty extensive.

Indeed. Concentrated, high-quality thinking.

So then what are the commandments?
Facts? But they change depending on the periods of time (or maybe only their application changes, in which case there’s no question)?
And if not facts, then what? Just an interpretation of reality,
and not part of fixed reality?

I didn’t understand a word. What are you asking about, and what is the question?

The commandments are not facts but norms. That doesn’t mean they are morality.

I’m asking about the relationship between the commandments and the above issue of unchanging “facts.”
Are commandments facts?
What I mean behind this is that if the commandments aren’t factual, meaning not part of fixed reality, then they become (I hope I’m not saying nonsense, I’m just starting out) part of existentialism, where their whole role is just to be an interpretation of reality.
My basic assumption is (maybe that’s the mistake): what is factual is in the essence of reality.

The commandments are neither reality nor an interpretation of reality. They are commands of God. What does that have to do with existentialism?

Wow. That was supposed to be a clarification? It’s really an English-English dictionary.

Ah, now I get it. He asked whether the commandments are objective or whether they are our interpretation.
His “basic assumption” (in his words) is that what is objective belongs to fixed, unchanging reality, and yet the commandments do change.

If by objective you mean the thing in itself, the essence, then exactly.
“And yet the commandments do change” implies they aren’t essential to us.

How do you infer that? What do you mean by “the essence”? The essence of what? What does “essential to us” mean? Why would that mean it has to be unchanging? Spell out the claim.

Please write out the claim of mine you’re referring to, and then spell out your question, or where you see a contradiction or problem.