Essentially, the mindset I had when reading Muramasa was a search for "essential truth." That is, I was constantly search for better axioms to describe the entire world. Aah, I'm not philosophy major myself, but hopefully that's enough description to emphasize with what I was thinking.
Zenakusousatsu, subsequently, is framed within the work as a universal axiom. One could say moral relativism is a dominant force; there's justice, but fuck you moral relativism is the one universal truth, there's revenge, but fuck you moral relativism is an objective law of reality. To me, I thought that was it. Holy shit. This is the axiom that describes everything. At last, I truly see. Everything kneels before the zenakusousatsu. Narahara examined other ideologies from every angle and showed how logically zenakusousatsu is the one true axiom. The one that isn't just an ideology; the one that actually accurately describes the world.
However, well, if you have a BA in philosophy you can probably tell how dumb that is. There are no axioms that describe the entire world. Axioms are tools that can be useful, in Wittgenstein terms (maybe) they're tautologies that exist solely as language. Aaah, I read Philosophical Investigations as part of this months-long debate, and pick related really shook me. "What is modified by the rule? What is gained by this assimilation of expressions?" I'm avoiding using subjective/objective here, but it was like shifting mindset away from thinking "there's an objective external world which can be perfectly described by a set of axioms", to thinking "my world is defined by my language." etc etc. Okay, that's getting pretentious, but basically, Muramasa looks a lot better in the former sense than the latter sense.