plausible stories that don't hold up

Solving existing problems under various constrains seems to require a different kind of thinking than wondering through seas of thought. finding fragments of similar ideas, and weaving them into plausible stories. This made me realize that in situations where I must solve real problems within deadlines, the latter approach I've long favored might have been built on shaky ground.

I personally enjoy sitting quietly, drifting between emerging thoughts, finding points that appear different on the surface but reveal similarities when viewed from different dimensions, then connecting them into seemingly coherent narratives.

This form of thinking certainly expands the scope of what I can comtemplate. Yet I've become convinced that such thoughts-which fail to solve existing problems and remain merely stories-eventually limit rather than expand my thinking, preventing myself from reaching the next level of grander, more significant ideas. This happens because my stories don't stand on solid, real foundations but are constructed under axioms I can understand and predict. The world I create this way never surprises me, and worse, I don't event know what I'm failing to anticipate.

To expand my world, I must paradoxically break it. I need to embrace uncertainty fully, letting unexpected events of unexpected magnitude hit me head-on, forcing me to recognize I've been thinking inside a box and pulling me out of it. Only through the experience of my world becoming fagile-as the axioms I've created crumble-can my world truly expand and my thinking become antifragile.

The joy of solving real problems remains valid event for philosophical minds.