my view is that there are at least two ways of thinking. 1 is creative, and intuitive, the other is more logic based...I don't think you have to favour one over the other, the thing which is important to me is a a toing and froing between these ways of thinking, a kind of dialectics, which you can follow externally and internally....

I agree but would like to sketch it out a little bit more. I think since language is expression of thought it is a good tool to illustrate.
Language needs to integrate/map new occurances in the real world(creative/analogical thinking) while maintaining a certain stability of words in order for them to be used as comunication tools(conservative/logical thinking).
Analogical thinking is characterized by creating a context/story that allows to link two concepts and /or integrate new concepts. F.e. Gold=yellow, Sun=yellow theerefore gold is/stands for the sun. Or gold=yellow, honey=yellow honey=liquid gold. Here the story is given via the same colour yellow.
Common form Poetry
Logical thinking is characterized by defining somethings and then deducing based on this definitions while maintaing formal correctness. F.e. Man defined as Mortal, Socrates defined as Man, ergo socrates is Mortal.
Common Form Scientific Paper
The balance of this varies from person to person, and within a person depending on circumstances like age.
The variance between persons can be seen via the political spectrum where the left is rather integrating and the right is rather conservative(Us political compas).
The variance within a person can be explained as follows. A joung child needs to still integrate more and has less concepts/words that are well established therefore it is rather open torwards new stuff (integrating) while the old person has used concepts that one got used to that helped surviving for a long time and therefore tries to rather conserve this seemingly good concepts. Thats why people start left and become more right during their life.

it has to do with motivation — Nasir Shuja

is a bit of a simplification. A big enough motivation to connect two concepts via a rather complex story/contex can be achieved for any two concepts. However one should be carefull with only focusing on motivation since reality tends not to bend torwards your motivation. But you aknowledge that. I also think it makes a hughe difference what the topic is and as long it is yourself I don't see to big of a problem.

Nice. I agree with all of the above

"Believing in yourself" is a different sense of the term than "Believing that there is a refrigerator in your kitchen."

Yes of course. I don't mean to start a discussion about the types of belief. I'm more interested in this type of discussion which I'll repost from disqus. Basically philosophy is a wonderful and endless amalgam of knowledge but it has a particularly limited purview at times. I'm interested in a balance between those types of thought. I'm also interested in these fubdamebtal mysteries because they seem all to be related. Maybe we can find a better, unified theory; most discussion on this site seems to be about irrelevant details here and there.. it bores me

:
Just bc I have logic doesn't mean I know how to use it or that it can solve my enotionem problems. I regard logic more as a loosely defined structure to ensure a relative efficacy of communication if yhe situation permits, not as a God. The truths of logic /math are eternally true, as are existential facts, but ultimately do those things resolve anything for me? I'll respond to your q about the problem of life here.. let's see what comes out..

Suffering and beauty are cyclical. Problematic. Existential meaning is relegated to the unknwn.
The arbitrarity of deontological moral good and evil. Problematic. Intention is what matters in communication for example. It is relegated to the unknown
Logical semantics is context derived. Problematic. Truth is relegated to the unknown.
The brain - what separates my body in the act of seeing from the object I am seeing and naming? Problematic. Metaphysics snd heirarchy of mind (what is a thought, what is a sensation) are relegated to the unknown.
Experiences that fall outside the range of predictive logical empiricisms. Problematic for causal and metaphysical theories. Causality (including/lumping in our relative perception of time, from the mystical to the simple theories of strings that haven't been verified yet - to take the inverse) is relegated to the unknown.
The nature of the subconscious. It influences us as if a machine, forming beliefs by virtue of past possibly deterministic experiences, in a chain onwards. Influences action problematically. Free will is relegated to the unknown.
So on and so forth.
There is a lot of unknown, a lot of fundamental mystery that all gets lumped together into a blob together. If anything this negstively derived mystery makes me see a lot of my life experience and desires and actions from a certain perspective - that they have to do with this slowly self revealing fundamental mystery which is not separate from life and the here now (samsara-nirvana non duality), but which is simultaneously beyond it (final liberation).

This has happened countless times brcsuse of some past trauma
I have a panic attack.
My thoughts go:
Too much torture
Why is this happening
Why is there so kuch suffering
Why does the beauty come do immensely and leave so soon snd leave me in another type of misery (love I mean, haven't been so successful there)
I try to stop my thoughts by logic.
My answer is I have no idea to any of the above points. 
I see I don't know (basically anything), and that further scares me.
I see this is all caused by my thoughts.
Over s course of years they learn and fade.

Hence I integrate the problems of philosophy into my emotional subconscious because the panjc state is an existential crisis. But I also am able to see past it. Which is even more mysterious. I don't feel philosophy should be treated as an abstract game anymore.. we need to make it practical.

Yes of course. I don't mean to start a discussion about the types of belief. I'm more interested in this type of discussion which I'll repost from disqus. Basically philosophy is a wonderful and endless amalgam of knowledge but it has a particularly limited purview at times. I'm interested in a balance between those types of thought. I'm also interested in these fubdamebtal mysteries because they seem all to be related. Maybe we can find a better, unified theory; most discussion on this site seems to be about irrelevant details here and there.. it bores me — Nasir Shuja

I'm primarily interested in philosophy in the vein of "I believe there is a refrigerator in my kitchen."

To what end?

As an alternate methodological means (an alternate to science) of observing and analyzing the world, including us and our relationship with the rest of it.

I appreciate that. I don't have as much time for that anymore as I'm preparing to farm, but it'll always be there to some degree for me. We all need it to some degree, if we want to make sense of our lives and our community. I like the psychological-neurological approach as far as that goes because as we gain knowledge of our individual snd collective psyches, we will understand why philosophy is the way it is better. For example in the realm of beliefs I came to the discussion of voluntarism not from an abstract path, but a concrete one - I sat and realized my belief formation had a very psychological origin and did not seem to me to be really in my control. All the rest of the prior topics I try to see pragmatically. Maybe if we investigate our lives snd see psychological causes, we will all come to different conclusions, and that explains why philosophers often differ; or maybe it is more like how you approach it and it is entirely contingent to logic.

A problem I see with the comments in this discussion is the same problem I see with all discussions containing the words "believe" or "belief."

I am never sure of what the speaker means when using those words...particularly the "I believe in..." format.

Here are several uses of the words that obviously have widely different meaning values.

"I believe in myself."

"I believe in God."

"I believe at least one god exists."

"I believe no gods exist."

"I believe I'll eat leftovers tonight."

Nasir, first of all, I find the first part of your essay title compelling...but the second part falls flat (for me.)

Belief has nothing to do with fact or faith...

Okay...can't think of any reason to object to that observation.

...it has to do with motivation.

Does it?

I guess it depends on how you are using the word "belief."

Your "I believe in myself" (you used it a couple of times) is unclear to me.

Can you help me with that?

I don't really mean believe in myself. I mean more the amalgam I mentioned. Belief in myself seems to just be a catchphrase, which is how I intended it. Sorry for the ambiguity.