This. Philosophy is the grandparent of math. And if there is a point to math, then that there always has to be a proofable point. I think the problem is a cult

This. Philosophy is the grandparent of math. And if there is a point to math, then that there always has to be a proofable point. I think the problem is a cultural conflict between sub-concious problemsolvers and "concious" problem solvers. The later expect a algorithm , step by step instruction from the former, who when this is demanded, use there subconcious to produce a plausible story. When asked for there inspirations to deduce the process yourself, you get a crows nest of shiny things, bits and pieces, not making a reasonable whole - but they infuriatingly at the end of day do. Why not accept that there are things you can not directly communicate with and if you are hellbent on becoming such a thing, there is no step-by-step instruction.