Reference for study

Absolutely. The problem is that before reading Truth and Unstable (and certainly after), I can't find a sufficient criterion to reach a sense of truth about something. I don't know if it's because I can't separate truth from certainty or not, but I couldn't understand what the difference is between a person who performs logical procedures on an axiom that he brings from internal intuition - an illogical place (= lives according to an axiom that must be acted upon according to logical procedures + the axioms on which he contains the logical axiom) versus a fundamentalist who acts directly from axioms that he also chose from intuition. That is, both models end up directly living their internal axioms and the fact that one of them also has the axiom that must be used logically does not make a fundamental difference between them in this respect.
If you could clarify this point for me or refer me to one of the places where you deal with this in detail, I would be very grateful. Right now, just as I don't attach much importance to other people's axioms because they have no basis, I can't seem to attach importance to my own axioms either.

And for our purposes - reading and thinking enter into systems that still fail to give me an answer because from what I understand, an axiom by definition is something illogical - meaning it cannot be achieved by logical means. The question is how to approach dealing with axioms when, on the one hand, they are illogical by definition, so there is no way to convince or be convinced of one axiom or another, and on the other hand, I fail to attribute too much importance to internal intuition.

And in our case - reading and thinking cannot help me since I am trying to deal with axioms and am currently in a problematic place since I have understood that axioms are an unreasoned thing - that is, it is impossible to convince or be convinced by logical means, but on the other hand I also fail to attribute importance to my inner intuition.
And if we take it one step further - even the logical thinking and the foundation I am looking for are caught by my axiom that there is such a thing as proof and logic works, so it is lacking. My question is how to approach dealing with axioms in such a subjective world.

I explained truly and unsteadily that the difference between a fundamentalist and a syntheticist is whether his axioms stand up to logical test and scrutiny of his thinking. This is how axioms are adopted and how they are abandoned.
I have nothing to say to someone who does not accept his own intuition. In what terms do you want an answer if you have no solid foundation on which to build?

You'll agree that I'm not sure.. But if we go back to the axioms for a moment - I'm trying to understand the essential difference between the fundamentalist and the syntheticist. I'll try to formulate the question that bothered me again (although it's likely that I didn't understand your answer to the difference and you didn't understand my question..).
Using logic as a regulator for axioms is also an axiom, isn't it? That is, in the end, both types act directly according to their axioms and it seems that the only difference is belief in different axioms and then it seems that we're back to speaking in the language of narratives? That is, one is not preferable to the other…

I read it again and I think I understood your question well and you didn't understand my answer. I'll explain again.
Everyone has axioms that they adopt not on the basis of logical argument (since there are no more basic axioms). On the other hand, if there is a way to adopt axioms (I attribute this to intuition), then in the same way they can also be given up. This is what is called putting your axioms to the test of common sense (= intuition).
The fundamentalist, once he has decided on his path, is not willing to put it to a critical test. From his point of view, it is not based on intuition but on something beyond reason (whatever the meaning of this expression is. In my opinion, it is empty of content). Therefore, he is also not willing to put it to the test of intuition and common sense and he clings to his axioms as if they were absolute truth.
In other words, the fundamentalist believes that he has absolute truth and the syntheticist believes that he does not.