Just like the existence of macro-nutrients doesn’t disprove the existence of micro-nutrients or the existence of carbohydrates disprove the existence of fats, the existence of one truth doesn’t disprove the existence of another. The fight is rarely one-sided, and discrediting the opposition entirely is rarely wise. “Throwing the baby out with the bathwater” was an odd saying I heard my father share a number of times growing up but it represents the mentality we too often hold when trying to discern truth, all too well.
When we find some in column A we begin to discredit column B, instead of just developing a greater appreciation for column A. Similarly when we find truth in B we begin to question column A. The trick we fail to appreciate, I feel, is that both the truth in columns A and B can simultaneously exist even when they seemingly contradict each other.
It’s another play on terminology, but I prefer to use the word ‘counter-weigh’ instead of ‘contradict’ when finding two truths which don’t seem to align. The understanding that goes with it is that even though I can’t see how they align, even when they seem completely opposed to each other, if they are both possibly true, the more likely scenario is one that has given consideration to both truths and found the required context or paradigm demonstrating how they can both harmoniously co-exist. Once we’re able to filter out the raw truth in each opposing argument from whatever else it’s been encased in, we realise all truth harmoniously coexists. The parts that don’t co-exist either aren’t true at all or are simply irrelevant and inapplicable to a certain context.
The art then, is not deciding which truths to use and which to ignore, but what is the most appropriate balance point between all of the options that gives place for each truth to exist in whatever context it remains true. The wisest decision in any situation therefore always being the one that has found the most appropriate balance after giving consideration to the greatest number of relevant counter weighing options.
Yes, I believe it’s possible to be both a great dad and a great income provider. A great businessman and great philanthropist. Even a politician and honest. It’s just going to be a matter of prioritisation and balance, figuring out the order and degree that’s going to allow you to be the best of both. Some aspects may need to be deprioritised to others, but if such occurs intentionally for the right reasons, that’s a good thing!
Think of it as a crossroads. We often view choices and options as any specific choice to go a particular way equating to the complete forfeiture of the other options. A new perspective however, usually with the added lens of time, can sometimes be used to try and find a way that utilises more than one option, or even all of them, eventually. It simply may require some temporary forfeiture, some backtracking, or maybe even multiple trips etc.
If we appreciate that our personal development is relative to the compilation of truth into our being to create living function, we would be wise to appreciate also that the number of truths required in that process are endless and the process of prioritisation shouldn’t be seen as ‘this or that’, but ‘this and that with the appropriate weight based on importance/circumstance/relevance etc.’ Such might require this before that however certainly the endgame is to house as much truth as possible to be ‘optimally functional’ so as to be capable of optimally addressing all things in our lives.