Question

In Be’er HaGolah, First Well:

“And therefore it asks there (Eruvin 13b): since ‘these and those are the words of the living God’ equally, why then was it said that the Jewish law follows Beit Hillel? And it answers: because they were easygoing and humble, etc. And this matter is that the reason given for Beit Shammai, on account of intellectual sharpness, for they were extremely incisive, is as weighty as the reason given for Beit Hillel. But regarding those who are insulted and do not insult in return, about them Scripture says (Judges 5:31), ‘But those who love Him shall be like the sun going forth in its might.’ And we explained elsewhere at length that this trait is the trait of complete simplicity. Therefore their words are fit for Jewish law, for Jewish law is simple intellect. And the intellect is drawn after the trait a person possesses, and when he is insulted, he has the trait of simplicity, and is drawn after simple intellect, which is fit for Jewish law, as you will understand these words of wisdom. Therefore the Jewish law follows Beit Hillel, because their words are fully connected to simple intellect.

And know further that gentleness and humility are traits fitting for Jewish law, for Jewish law is the straight path, which does not depart from uprightness, and it goes entirely toward God, may He be blessed. Therefore this matter is called ‘halakhah,’ and we have already explained this at length. And the traits of gentleness and humility are especially fitting for this. For every force and power goes out in the strength of its force to one side, outside of uprightness. But one who is gentle and insulted cannot be said to veer forcefully to another side, outward. Because of this, the words of Beit Hillel are fit for Jewish law, even though in terms of wisdom Beit Shammai were wiser (Yevamot 14a), and grasped matters to the point that their words too were the words of the living God. Nevertheless, מצד themselves, Beit Hillel, because they were gentle and humble, were fit for uprightness. Therefore their words were established as Jewish law. And this too is very correct. But the first explanation is primary and clear, when you understand.”

I thought that what the Maharal writes here—that they preferred Beit Hillel’s view because of their simple intellect—is very similar to the principle of Occam’s razor. Chronologically, the Maharal came after him, so maybe he was influenced by him?
I also wanted to ask whether it is correct to use the principle of simple intellect specifically in Jewish law, as he writes in the second explanation, or whether it would also apply in non-halakhic reasoning.
Thanks!