Do you often think a standard or principle is absolute, or absolutely the same in every context?
Do you think some ideas are "either/or" in all cases? What if there are other options or choices?
Do you think an idea has to apply to "all" and "everything" for it to be valid? What if you don't understand what it means? What if it demonstrably doesn't apply to everything, yet is still a valid idea?

Absolutism and Absolute Polarization

Sometimes we can think something is "either/or" (polar); or applies to "all" or "everything" (absolutist). Sometimes we're right, and sometimes we're wrong.

Let's take the principle of free will.

Free Will "is an illusion..."

Some people want to say there is no free will. Why? Because they are thinking in absolutist terms. For them free will is only "truly free" if anything would be possible. For instance, you can't choose to fly because there is deterministic laws that don't allow humans to simply fly. You might want to do something by your free will, but you can't. Or the fact that there are laws, causality and determinism in existence, means there can't possibly be free will or that would violate the absolutism of how "everything" is deterministic.

A universe of both free will and determinism doesn't exist for them because they are stuck in polarized absolutist thinking.

The same goes for freedom, or control.

Freedom "is an illusion..."

People will falsely claim there is no such thing as freedom, that freedom is an illusion, or that control is an illusion. Why? Because they are stuck in fallacious thinking in pure absolutist terms. In order for there to be freedom, you would have to have the full freedom to do what you want, like in the free will "willusionist" denial. Since we can't go murder someone without consequences to our actions, without a cause-effect feedback, then that means freedom is an illusion.

Control "is an illusion..."

For control, it's that since we can't control everything in reality (given that we obviously aren't the whole fucking universe, duh we can't control everything), then that means control is an illusion.... Only if you're "God" who controls "everything", can control not be an illusion.

Do No Harm "is a delusion..."

Is harm something you want? Do you think trying to reduce harm in life is a good thing? The ideas of "do no harm" and non-violence are all about that. Not violating other free will beings. But, like above, some people think that trying to "do no harm" is an illusion or delusion. Why? Because it can't be applied "absolutely" to "all" and "every" single aspect of our lives. Therefore, living by the principle of "do no harm" is nothing but a delusion, it's not worth pursuing, silly delusion... LOL. Why bother trying to reduce the harm we do... since we can't reduce "all" harm absolutely... Get rid of slavery? Nah, we still have all the other harms around us, why bother striving to remove harm done to others!

Words and Definition Matter

Some people conceive of ideas reflected through words in their own special way. They don't want to look at how the word actually defines something that can be demonstrated. How does freedom actually work? How does free will actually work? How does control actually work? Look at how it's reflected in reality? Nah... Instead, they want to make up their own definition into absolutist or polar terms, and redefine an aspect of our lives as not even existing, as only being an illusion. :P

Nuance of Diversity and Variability

The nuance of how it works in reality is not being looked at, only the absolutist polarized vision of something needing to be applied in an "all" or "nothing" way. Don't get me wrong, sometimes absolutes are reflected in reality. In many cases reality does reflect absolutes and pure polar alignments, but in many cases reality doesn't work like that. There are degrees, grades, levels, variations and diversity to many dualistic conceptual frameworks. Not everything fits into an absolute pure polar alignment. It depends on the context of what we're looking at.

Take Off the Absolute Polarization Lenses, then Put them On Again Later

Just because we put on polarized glasses, doesn't mean we need to only accept the polarized view as an absolute "all" "everything" one way. Sometimes yes, but sometimes no. The pole is one of two sides, and in most dualities there is variability and diversity in between the two poles that forms degree, levels or grades in a spectrum or continuum for measuring between the two poles. In the picture, is the reality really seen when looking through the polar lens? Thinking in polar terms can help us identify the contrasting opposites to a duality, but it can also lock us from seeing more of what 'is'.

False Dichotomies

We can fall for false dichotomies from others (either/or, false limited view/choices), and we can also create them for ourselves and believe things to be this way. A deeper analysis of reality can often reveal how we fool ourselves all on our own by not looking at how something applies in general, letting the anchoring or focusing effect cognitive bias pigeon hole our vision from seeing more that applies.

We can be looking at something from one end or the other, but miss what's happening in between. Life is often black and white, and often gray as well. It's neither just black/white (poles), or just gray (variations). The poles are the opposites used to compare and contrast. Sometimes things can be one the poles (black/white), and sometimes things aren't directly on either, but in degrees between the two ideas/ideals.

---

P.S. Also check out my other post from today: The Trivium Method of Thinking and Learning

---

Thank you for your time and attention! I appreciate the knowledge reaching more people. Take care. Peace.