Religious belief

The specific argument is that the wicked Esau was not with the land. His arguments were philosophical, that is, intellectual. His argument to his father about the type of his upbringing that was irrational, for example, the law of the firstborn, according to Esau's opinion, the firstborn can only be one of the born. First to his mother, if twins were born, there is no firstborn. The older to the older and the younger to the younger. The practice that existed is a realistic question of who is considered the older. Isaac also sees Esau as his older son, not the firstborn.
The question of the generation of the Peleg was a philosophical question, whether there is a reality in the world of heaven, why can't they be there? They were not stupid and they began by trying to understand what the possibilities are and whether there is anything up there. Korach was not stupid and ignorant either, he just didn't understand philosophically why single blue tassels exempt and a tallit that is all blue cannot and will not exempt itself, and so on. In other words, they did not believe in a higher God but in the power of rationality. The struggle of Eve and the serpent is also part of the issue, and that is why I wrote to you.

So what is the question? Let's assume for the sake of discussion that Isaiah made this claim in favor of his birthright. After all, he was the firstborn, and he himself sold the birthright to Jacob. And even if we assume not, what do you learn from this?
We can perhaps tie this to the words of Rabbi Kook in Pri Etz Hadar, where he claims that the Gentiles follow reality in practice and Israel follow the law. Therefore, a parched woman is considered alive among the sons of Noah and dead among us. Also regarding the birthright, we can discuss whether we follow the fact or the law.
I also do not see the need to see a debate between philosophy and faith in the examples below. We can say that both believe and the question is what God commanded. Korach did not mean to claim that the voice of God should not be heard, but that in his opinion God commanded something different.
As a rule, I do not deal with the interpretation of the Bible because it is open to countless interpretations and it is not possible to draw any conclusion from it. These are good examples of this.

Esau did not see himself as the firstborn but at most as the greatest without the privileges of the firstborn
My goal in demonstrating is to prove that the concept of firstborn is not self-evident. Being the firstborn is a purely Torah-based condition and does not exist in philosophy and is not understood by Elias unless he was born first, or perhaps first to both parents. My goal is to understand whether this claim is not from the Haredi world that does not refer to philosophy derived from human thinking that is often in opposition to Torah concepts, such as a divorced woman for a priest who is forbidden to marry him. However, they need a divorce if they want to separate halachically. The mind does not understand why a priest cannot marry a divorced woman and if he cannot, why should he divorce?
Regarding the words of the Rabbi, it is not clear to me whether reality creates law, but as I understand there is no connection between law and reality, it is true that law can be realistic. Does the Torah refer to reality?