Quigga wrote: For me, everything is true at the same time. Truth is relative yet absolute.
It's good, indeed important, that one is always willing to examine and question 'established truths'. Is a tenet, an assumption, a theory, a hypothesis (still) valid? Or does examination, with reference to observations, data and/or arguments, indicate that it needs to be revised? Although that's not the same as rejecting the tenet, the theory etc. just because you don't like its consequences/implications. If the idea has facts and arguments to back it up, then you need to come up with
stronger facts and arguments to counter it.
You seem to be saying something else. Still, your standpoint is increasingly
en vogue. 'Alternative facts', 'there's no such thing as truth', 'you can present all the 'facts' you want but I feel/know the truth is different!!', 'keep throwing alternative explanations into the mix until people only perceive a murky porridge, will believe anything and nothing' (a Putin specialty), etc. etc.
---- 1. 'Princess Diana died in an accident caused by a drunk chauffeur' / 2.' Princess Diana died in an accident caused by the British secret service' / 3. 'Princess Diana is still alive, living somewhere in secret.' (There's that well-known study showing that some people have no problem simultaneously believing both 2. and 3. are true).
I know it's a really tricky issue. Maybe the future belongs to people who think like you. "Truth is relative yet absolute" sounds to me more like Orwellian "doublethink" than wisdom.
Or am I misinterpreting you, doing you a disservice?