The specific argument is that wicked Esau was not an ignoramus; his arguments were philosophical, meaning conceptual. His claim to his father about the type of his education was that it was not rational. For example, the law of the firstborn: according to Esau, a firstborn can only be the one who is born first, first to his mother. If twins are born, there is no firstborn. The older one gets seniority and the younger one gets juniority; the custom that existed was a factual question of who is considered the older one. Isaac too sees Esau as his older son, not as his firstborn son.
The question of the Generation of the Dispersion was a philosophical question: if there is a reality in the world called heaven, why shouldn’t they be able to be there? They were not stupid, and they began by trying to understand what the possibilities were and whether there was something up there. Korach too was not stupid or ignorant; he simply did not understand philosophically why individual sky-blue fringes exempt, while a garment made entirely of sky-blue wool cannot exempt itself, and so on. In other words, they did not believe in a Supreme Being but in the power of rationality. The struggle of Eve and the serpent is also part of the issue, and I wrote to you about that.

So what is the question? Let us assume for the sake of discussion that Esau made that claim in support of his right as firstborn. But he was the firstborn, and he himself sold the birthright to Jacob. And even if we assume not, what do you learn from here?
It may perhaps be connected to Rabbi Kook’s words in Pri Etz Hadar, where he argues that the gentiles follow actual reality, while Israel follows the law. Therefore, a convulsing animal is considered alive for the descendants of Noah and dead for us. So too regarding the birthright, one can discuss whether we follow the fact or the law.
In the later examples as well, I do not see any necessity to view this as a dispute between philosophy and faith. One could say that both believe, and the question is what the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded. Korach did not mean to argue that one should not listen to the voice of the Holy One, blessed be He, but that in his view the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded something different.
In general, I do not engage in biblical interpretation, because it lends itself to countless interpretations and there is no way to extract any definite conclusion from it. These are good examples of that.

Esau did not see himself as a firstborn, but at most as the elder, without the privileges of a firstborn.
My purpose in these examples is to prove that the concept of the firstborn is not self-evident. To be a firstborn is only a Torah category, and it does not exist in philosophy and is not self-evident, unless he was born first, and perhaps specifically first to both parents. My aim is to understand whether this claim is not one from the Haredi world, which does not relate to philosophy derived from human thought, even though it is often in tension with Torah concepts—for example, a divorced woman is forbidden to a kohen, yet they still need a bill of divorce if they want to separate according to Jewish law. Reason does not understand why a kohen cannot marry a divorced woman, and if he cannot, why they need to divorce.
Regarding Rabbi Kook’s words, it is not clear to me whether reality creates law; rather, as I understand it, there is no connection between law and reality. True, the law can be realistic, but does the Torah relate to reality?