Clarity In Ambiguity

There is an epistemological side to irrationalism, where someone thinks that a logically necessary truth is false or unknowable, that something unknowable is knowable, or that something false is true.  Even when they think about genuine truths, whatever adherents of irrationalism believe will be tied in some way to assumptions.  There is also a metaphysical side to irrationalism, where someone thinks that contradictions are possible, whether they think it could be the case that, say, the natural world or God could nullify logical axioms.  As intertwined as metaphysics and epistemology are, for no one could know anything without epistemology and there is nothing to know without metaphysical truths, it is common for non-rationalists to confuse one for the other, mistaking perception for the reality beyond that perception or vice versa.  Some of them might believe and insist that, in truth, everything is unclear, potentially an illusion, or subject to change.

Nothing is or possibly could be metaphysically ambiguous in this sense since logical axioms are inherently true and since they underpin everything, though some things are epistemologically unknowable in light of human limitations or are blurred strictly on the level of subjective perception--and yes, some things could change, but not logical truths.  This is not ambiguity in the truths, concepts, or objects themselves, and ambiguity is not the same as nuance or complexity as it is--some logical truths, despite always having a kind of very fundamental simplicity, are very multifaceted in how they hinge on or connect to other logical necessities, but there is no ambiguity in this.  Something either follows from a truth or idea or it does not.  Each individual idea is true and verifiable in light of human grasp of those logical necessities or not, and where something is logically possible but unknowable for humans (like whether or not other minds exist).

Even aside from just realizing the nature of logic itself and how the logical truths that govern all things are not in any way ambiguous, the idea that most or all things are unclear in a metaphysical sense, or "grey" as opposed to "black and white," is self-refuting.  This, too, would be a "black and white" truth, as would every individual instance of an issue being "grey" on either an epistemological or metaphysical level!  In fact, although this idea is contradictory and thus inherently false, everything about the issue of epistemological ambiguity or complex emotions (the latter form of ambiguity being more of a metaphysical issue, not a specifically epistemological one) is true by logical necessity.  Ambiguity is ambiguity; complexity is complexity, and only certain things logically follow about these issues and the things related to them.

Furthermore, non-rationalists are more likely to deny or ignore metaphysical clarity and the absolutely certain, intrinsic truth of logical axioms as they brush up against even genuine epistemological ambiguity.  Overlooking or rejecting the objective clarity that is present even in ambiguity, for logical axioms govern even the nature of challenging perceptions and logical axioms cannot be escaped, they flee from the only parts of reality that are clear in themselves.  What is true by inherent necessity--so that being false would still require it is true--is not ambiguous, nor could it have been the case, either on the level of epistemological inquiries or metaphysical truths themselves.  At least the fact that not even the most complex, frightening, or genuinely epistemologically ambiguous things (such as if a table one is looking at exists materially or only as an image in one's mind) can contradict logical axioms means something can be known about everything, and every other truth, known or unknown, could only be clear except in some cases on the level of subjective perception.