Nagarjuna, the second-century Buddhist philosopher, argued that things do not possess fixed, inherent natures — but he applied this insight to propositions themselves, not just objects. A claim that feels obviously true, he observed, derives its apparent solidity entirely from the network of other claims supporting it. Remove one supporting claim, and the 'obvious' one wobbles. This is why certain life convictions survive decades of evidence against them: we don't hold a single belief, we hold a lattice, and challenging the belief at the top without disturbing the lattice beneath it changes nothing. The practical consequence is unusual. When you find yourself returning to the same stuck position — about your work, a relationship, a self-assessment — the useful move is not to attack the belief directly but to find the quieter, more 'obvious' claim underneath it that nobody has ever questioned, because it felt too fundamental to need questioning. That unexamined supporting claim is almost always where the lattice is actually nailed to the wall.

What is the belief you hold about yourself that you've never actually argued for — you've simply treated as the ground floor?

Drawing from Madhyamaka Buddhist philosophy — Nagarjuna