Iiuc the Rav did Not disagree about hashkafa being important but rather
felt that it was derived from halacha. R Rosensweig from RIETS usually
gives an introduction to each tractate that he teaches at outlining the
underlying philosophical underpinnings that carry through or perhaps
stem from Halacha
In my most recent blog post, I discuss the difference between Brisk
and Telz on how halakhah related to hashkafah. My usual quick example
(the one I used in Widen Your Tent):
To R' Chaim, the laws of baalus define the concept of property. As
RJR attributed to RYBS, above. To R' Shimon (begining chapters of
Shaarei Yosher sha'ar 5), property is a natural concept which halakhah
then mediates.
The other issue I raised was whether pesaq is a fact finding mission
or a legal interpretation one. I attributed the former position to
Brisk, which is why they have Brisker chumeros and cheshash for
the latter.
From those bases, I went through how RHS and I ended up with such different
ways of tying tzitzis.
1- I take aggadita into account when choosing among shitos that have
no resolving pesaq. As precedent, I use the AhS's account of Rashi vs
Rabbeinu Tam tefillin in the period of the rishonim, when both were worn,
vs after the publication of the Zohar, which endorsed Rashi's shitah on
aggadic grounds.
2- To RHS, both the dinim for lavan and for tekheiles are equailly real,
even if we don't have pesaqim for tekheiles. For R Shimon or the AhS
(or nearly any acharon or poseiq I could think of who wasn't influenced
by Brisk), the dinim for lavan are more real, and one ought not be machmir
in tekheiles at the expense of the accepted pesaqim in lavan.
If you still want to read the post, it's currently named "Bottom to Top"
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/bottom-to-top>\. I was thinking of the
bottom line practice of tzitzis vs the top-layer halachic meta-meta-issues.
But the post ought be renamed, and likely will be.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha