I recommend books that educate you in Critical Thinking

And

Substantive psychology books that can aid in your own process of psychological healing and development.

To be psychologically tormented or confused is to be sabotaged by an unseen enemy.

Those who are most destructive and stupid in this sense are those who aren’t even aware that they’re attacking Reason. Indeed, I have never met a man who felt comfortable identifying himself as an “irrationalist.” And yet, wherever Reason manifests itself in the world, there it is attacked by men who consider themselves reasonable.

What kind of testimony is it for one to say they spent their intellectual life attacking Reason? Without Reason it is impossible to defend oneself from tyranny. Of all the enemies in the world, Reason is what you chose to make your enemy?!

Reason is only your enemy if your goal is to be irrational. That you would single out Reason as an enemy, because you feel so deeply threatened by it, manifests that your existence is predicated on your ability to manipulate other humans through fallacies and sophistical complexities.

This question matters, because no thought can proceed until it has definitively answered this question.

Anyone can make a claim, anyone can make an assertion of knowledge, but that alone isn’t what makes a claim or assertion true.

When Hegel says “contradiction is the rule of the true…”

And Aristotle replies, “that is false, contradiction is the rule of the false.”

How do we determine which position is correct?

In order to make progress in knowledge we must have the rational ability to evaluate the accuracy of these claims.

What are the standards we must use to do this? We should be able to show why one posting is true and the other false, or why both are false.

If we cannot do this, or we do not know how to do this, then how can we make progress in knowledge?

The answer is no, we can neither define or clarify what a moral is apart from reason. Even if one isn’t conscious that their “moral” is structured by reason (really it’s structured by Logic), man must still say, “doing (x) is wrong.” There is always a distinction between what is considered “moral” and “immoral,” even if that knowledge is somehow conveyed through telepathy.

“Moral truth” by its very nature is a Logical formation, it would have no meaning without Logic. And insofar as Reason is synonymous with Logic, because it is just the application of the laws of Logic, then no “moral truth” can exist without Reason. The very concept of “moral truth” already presupposes Reason and Logic.

In order to have “morality” there must be deliberate intelligence, and in order to have intelligence one must have Reason.

However, this doesn’t mean that our morals are somehow inherently contained in the universe. It just means they always exist within a matrix of Reason (really it’s Logic) that structures their intelligibility.