Philosophically-opinionated or philosophically-dense technical books in logic?

Good evening!

I despise most technical books on logic (and related areas: set-, model-, proof-, recursion-, type- and category-theory) for trying to push an aesthetic of objectivity and impartiality as an object of study which I don't think there exists (but that's part of my philosophical opinion and I would not like for it to became matter of discussion here). I can pardon non-foundational mathematical books for that, as their purpose is exactly not to discuss foundations, but with foundational matters, why maintaining the same tone?

I myself as a teacher find that to be a great source of confusion but also of lack of motivation for students in their first contact with logic: they may disagree or have doubts about the assumptions of how foundations are done (and fair ones for that), but the textbook won't approach that. For that, still today I consider to have never encountered a single book in logic I truly would like to suggest for a beginner neither to a researcher to get an overview of some area.

I would like to see more books treating standard subjects which either enter into very subtle and quality unsettled research-level philosophical discussions (such as Philosophy and Model Theory, by Button and Walsh - and not the same drown-out superficial solved questions of the last century) or fully embrace a radical, well-defined and positive philosophical approach, where the philosophical discussion really beautifully converses with the formalism and the technical decisions, where not only your learn the technical subject itself but also how it relates to some philosophical position.

For instance, I am not asking for merely a work in synthetic formal philosophy (creating a philosophical system using formal tools - because that may not actually help me learn technical subjects in logic to a deep level) neither a technical book underlined by a "negative philosophy" stance (as most books in constructive/intuitionistic logic and mathematics seems to be: they are seem as "classical mathematics minus some stuff I don't like", and for me a negative philosophical stance isn't really a good stance. Constructivism itself comes as a derivation of the abstract idea of classical mathematics, and it's not itself "constructed", from the ground up, from a well-established philosophical stance - for a more positive treatment of constructivism, see Giovanni Sambin's recent work Positive Topology) or merely done in an alternative foundation (such as type theory or constructive set theory). If there was a single sentence that could describe what I want it would be "A non-classical analysis of classical logic/foundations", maybe "A nominalist analysis of current non-nominalist formalisms", "A Platonist's analysis to current foundations (which they think aren't Platonist)", in sum: "An heterodox approach to the orthodox", because of "orthodox's approaches to the heterodox" we are already full of. Does that make sense? At last, I know there are plenty of books in philosophy of logic that could wholly satisfy my needs (and I would love you suggestions) but I really find them too informal or written for a less-technical public. Where is the philosophical discussion on highly specialized and technical research topics in logic?

I appreciate your help!