Hard Problem of Truth

The self-referential paradox of defining truth without being circular. The classic definition is "correspondence with reality." But to check if a statement corresponds to reality, you must already have access to that reality, which is the very thing in question (see: Hard Problem of Reality). All other theories of truth collapse into relativism (coherence: "true if it fits our other beliefs") or pragmatism ("true if it works"), which abandon the commonsense notion of an objective, mind-independent truth. The hard problem is that the concept of truth seems necessary for rational discourse, yet any attempt to ground it leads either to infinite regress or a dogmatic stopping point.

Example: The statement "Gravity pulls objects toward Earth's center." How do we know it's true? We point to evidence (falling apples, orbital mechanics). But that evidence is only valid if we assume our senses and instruments reliably report reality (a truth claim itself). We trust the instruments because of physics (another set of truth claims). The chain never touches bedrock. The hard problem: Truth is the anchor of thought, but the anchor is hooked to the boat it's supposed to be securing. We sail on an ocean of justified beliefs, never dropping anchor in the seafloor of absolute truth. Hard Problem of Truth.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Objectivity

The myth of the view from nowhere. True objectivity would require a disembodied, ahistorical, bias-free perspective completely outside the system being observed. This is impossible for humans. Every observation is made by a situated observer with a body, a language, a culture, and a set of prior beliefs. The hard problem is that while we can approach objectivity through methods (blinding, controls, peer review), we can never fully attain it. The ideal of pure objectivity may be a necessary regulative ideal for science and ethics, but it is also a philosophical phantom.

Example: A journalist aims to report "objectively" on a political protest. But their choice of which quotes to feature, which images to show, and even the word "protest" (vs. "riot" or "demonstration") reflects a subjective framework. The hard problem: Striving for objectivity is crucial, but claiming to have achieved it is often a power move—a way of dismissing other perspectives as "subjective" or "biased." True objectivity might be the process of continually acknowledging and correcting for subjectivity, not its elimination. Hard Problem of Objectivity.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Things

The metaphysical puzzle of individuation: What makes a "thing" a distinct, bounded object? At the quantum level, boundaries are fuzzy. At the cosmic level, everything is connected by fields and forces. Our everyday world of discrete objects (trees, cars, people) is a cognitive carving of a continuous reality. The hard problem is that "thingness" is not a fundamental property of the universe, but a useful fiction imposed by our minds. Where does a mountain end and the valley begin? At what point do the cells from your lunch become "you"? We live in a universe of processes, but we think in terms of nouns.

Example: Is a "chair" a thing? Or is it a temporary arrangement of wood molecules, soon to be kindling or dust? Its identity as a "chair" depends entirely on its function relative to a human sitter. The hard problem: The world doesn't come pre-sliced into things. We do the slicing based on our needs, language, and perception. This makes "things" profoundly relational and unstable. A physicist, an artist, and an ant would carve the same patch of reality into entirely different sets of "things." Hard Problem of Things.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Fact

The dilemma that facts are not raw, uninterpreted bits of the world, but are always "theory-laden." What counts as a fact depends on the conceptual framework you're using. A fact is a statement about the world that we agree is incontrovertible within a given paradigm. The hard problem is that when paradigms shift (e.g., from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics), old facts can become false or meaningless. This means facts are not eternal building blocks of knowledge, but temporary settlements in an ongoing negotiation between observation and interpretation.

Example: For centuries, "The Sun revolves around the Earth" was a brute fact, confirmed by daily observation. The shift to heliocentrism didn't change the raw data (the sun's motion in the sky), it changed the interpretive framework. The "fact" became "The Earth rotates, creating the illusion of solar motion." The hard problem: There is no neutral observation language. What you call a fact reveals your theoretical commitments. A fact is like a piece in a puzzle—it only has a definite shape and place relative to the picture you're trying to build. Hard Problem of Fact.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of the Universe

The ultimate self-containment paradox: The universe, by definition, is the totality of all that exists. Therefore, any explanation for why the universe exists, or how it came to be, must posit something (a law, a cause, a god) that is itself part of or prior to that totality. This leads to either an infinite regress (what caused the cause?), a logical circle (the universe created the conditions for its own creation), or an arbitrary stopping point ("It just is"). The universe cannot explain itself from within; it is the ultimate brute fact, and that unsatisfying brute-fact-ness is the hard problem.

Example: Asking "What caused the Big Bang?" might lead to "A quantum fluctuation in a prior vacuum state." But then, what caused that vacuum state and its laws? If you say "A multiverse," what explains the multiverse's rules? The hard problem: Every explanation smuggles in new, unexplained elements. The universe is like a book that tries to tell the story of its own printing and binding. The final page would have to be outside the book, which is impossible if the book contains all pages. Hard Problem of the Universe.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Everything

The self-defeating nature of a total theory. A "Theory of Everything" in physics seeks to unify all fundamental forces. But the hard problem is that even a perfect physical theory would not explain everything—it wouldn't explain why those particular laws exist, why there is something rather than nothing, the nature of consciousness, meaning, ethics, or beauty. More paradoxically, if a human brain is just a system obeying those physical laws, then the theory itself—and our belief in it—is just a predetermined output of the system. This undermines the very rationality and truth-seeking that produced the theory. Ultimate explanation swallows itself.

Example: Imagine physicists finally write the equation of the Theory of Everything on a blackboard. The hard problem: That equation cannot explain why it, itself, is aesthetically beautiful to the physicists. It cannot explain the feeling of awe they have. It cannot justify why logical consistency is a valid path to truth. It is a description of a meaningless clockwork, in which the clockwork's own description of itself is just another gear turning. A complete theory of the physical world leaves out the theorist, creating a Grand Explanation from which the explainer is mysteriously absent. Hard Problem of Everything.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of the Hard Problem

The dilution and trivialization of the term "Hard Problem" itself. Originally coined by David Chalmers for the problem of consciousness, it referred to questions that resist standard scientific methods due to their first-person, experiential nature. The "Hard Problem of the Hard Problem" is that the term has now been slapped onto every difficult, unresolved, or paradoxical issue in every field, from the "Hard Problem of Biology" to the "Hard Problem of Coffee Making." This overuse drains it of its specific philosophical power and turns it into a rhetorical cliché meaning "this is really tricky." The original, profound mystery gets lost in a crowd of imposter problems.

Example: Someone says, "The real Hard Problem is getting my Wi-Fi to reach the backyard." By jokingly or ignorantly equating a mere technical annoyance with the existential mystery of subjective experience, they trivialize the original concept. The hard problem: When every problem is "hard," none are. The term's power was in its specificity—pointing to an explanatory gap that seems to require a paradigm shift. Its memeification has turned it into just another way to say "this is confusing," robbing us of a precise tool for identifying genuine philosophical frontiers. Hard Problem of the Hard Problem.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026