The Answer

[super long post!]

My philosophy teacher told me to answer a metaphysics question for this assignment.
"There are no right or wrong answers"
How many times have you heard that? Time and time again this phrase has been beaten into our heads to preserve as sense of individuality and political correctness in society. This same phrase inspires statements that comically challenge whether there can be a wrong answer by taking the route of the inappropriate, it may also cloud over a belief that one may feel strongly about. To be brief, whenever one utters this phrase of having no right or wrong answers they can create any number of different circumstances and thoughts that cannot possibly be tabulated. In a sense, I completely agree with this phrase. I do not believe that there are right answers, and I also don't believe there are wrong answers; but i disagree with the phrase because my belief is that there are no answers, period. There is no meaning to life, there is no definition to reality, and there is no point trying to construct an answer so perfect that it cant be challenged.
The first argument against this remark will inevitably come, and will most likely ask that by saying there are no answers aren't you yourself answering something? My response is no. My "answer" is not a response to the question, it is a product of what knowledge has been given to me and is by no means to be considered the truthful response. In turn, the statement I gave is should only be interpreted as an opinion and nothing more. Our world is created by opinions and not by answers, but the trouble behind this is that people take one of two routes at interpreting this. The first of which being that people neither want, nor have the sufficient amount of knowledge to find the answers they so dearly desire. The second being that today's man wants the authority of being right, even if it is only to himself, which leads the mind to simplify an idea and generate answers which realistically hold no value. Sadly, this is the cause of so much conflict in the world today, because the combination of refusing to understand opinion as just that and having an undeveloped knowledge push people to find comfort in sharing the same belief as others. Having a large backing of support is a very primitive way of accepting "the truth", but simply put: it works. Completing the full circle this link, it is seen that those beliefs that are most backed are also of the more simple, giving way for the fundamentalist thinking to dramatically minimize or distort the individualist nature that everyone prizes beforehand. When people take on fundamental or strict beliefs, it is impossible for them to find a true answer unless it is one which can be found in the narrow corridor which they have bestowed upon themselves, and if your belief is based on anything other than your own genuine thought, how is it that your opinion is the truth? Even if the people who partake in this believe that their opinion is the righteous one, there is nothing wrong with that; but, it is impossible to avoid the fact that this is a problem because it has lead to so many conflicts throughout history. Religion, politics, sports, or you-name-it have all lead the individual opinion to mutate into the uncontested truth, and they all have lead to conflict because of the second point of desire for an answer: being right, and all of us know the terrible feeling of being told that we are wrong. By taking the mentality of the herd, the enforcing nature of "answers" have escalated to a point where it is seemingly impossible to stop because it is much easier to say "I am not wrong" than it is to say "We are not wrong." I do not intend to lecture you on how -ism's are bad and wrong, but surely if one were to realize that not only can there not be an answer, and even more-so that there doesn't have to be one, perhaps one could find more depth in that.
Depth. There is a problem with that word when it comes to finding an answer, and most believe that the truth should have some association with it. But, it is plain to see that this goes against everything that the truth should be. The truth should represent the truth 100%, but this in itself is impossible, which explains how there can not be such a thing as an answer. For example: if I were to say the sky is blue most would agree with me, but at the moment of writing this the sky is black, on a day with overcast the sky is grey, and even when the sky is mostly blue there are white clouds obstructing the blue so it is plain to see that this absolute statement is not absolute at all. Instead of working against the system, to deconstruct it we should work with it, and so lets suppose that the sky is blue. Even under this new thought to find the truth we must acknowledge the fact that the sky is not blue, but has a blue gradient showing an immense amount of colors. If then then the truth becomes a dismissal of differences, how is it that we can provide an answer with absolute truth if our definition of the truth in most cases is so 'loosely based'? An answer can not be found if you gauge it, because the truth can not be put on a gauge, much like it cant be put on a scale. Frequently people try to distinguish one event or object from another by judging it on a scale with 'a' at one end and 'b' on the other. Although we have already determined that 'a' and 'b' can not exist by showing that there is no absolute, a variable 'c' could not possibly be put on this scale seeing as there are too many external things that push and pull the variable in different directions, and to assume that all the possible push/pull factors present are known that would be nothing short of ignorance. An answer of 'c' in relation to 'a' and 'b' is impossible, and the only thing we can ever know is that 'c' is an independent thing no matter how great the influences are, even if it is dependent on a 'd'. The thing we must accept is that even if there it is a truth, we can not define it as the 'd' will always have a link, whether it be an 'e' or a 'j' and this will go on for infinity. The reason why we can never define these things as infinity is because infinity is constantly re-definining itself, and your 'answer' will never be the answer again.
When we think of 'a' or 'b', what do we really think of? Letters? Math? Elephants? No. No matter what we think of, we firstly think of the idea of 'a', the idea that fits in the context under which it is presented. Upon this realization, we stumble upon the last true frontier of having an answer, or the truth. The most reassuring thing that we can have is the constant answers that the laws of mathematics provide us with. Everyone knows that 2+2=4, as its what we've been taught to us for as long as we can remember. What we fail to grasp though, is that 2+2 does not equal 4, the idea of adding two 2s equals the idea of having a resulting 4. The initial example that we were given to understand these ideas was the thought of counting these ideas on our hands; two fingers and another two fingers equal four fingers. Since then, the foundations of math have been drilled in our heads by the educational system in an attempt to make us come up with the next example to provide the next generation with, but again it seems as though we have settled with the simpler of routes. We accepted that it is possible to add four fingers to each other without ever doing so, and yet when we grow up to be rational human beings and we realize that this is not actually possible we don't go back and reassess all the other ideas we have based on this foundation of a thought. Sadly, this is not only applicable to math; language, technology, and science all carry this very same trait of conducting through ideas. In fact, you are reading these words and having analytical thoughts when little do you realize that these words are not really here, their ideas are. What you are reading though, are simply collections of ink that resemble symbols to which you have attached specific ideas to. If we were ever to seemingly acquire all the infinite amount of knowledge to truly create an answer, who's to say that all of the idea-based facts you have acquired could even create a new, absolute idea in the first place?
We all look for answers in life. How will I get out of this? How do I get that? Why? I believe that even though there are no answers, these questions are necessary even if you never formulate your opinion on them. In fact, I believe that these questions are more important than the answers because these questions are a direct reflection of who we are in life and what we seek. These questions give purpose to oneself in one way or the other, and so instead of answering these questions and completing them, I believe it is better to question our questions and add depth to them. By doing so, we are finding the inspiration that was behind them and the ideas that have resulted as a consequence. The truth is relative, and even if reality is the same for all, the truth you know is your truth through your own eyes and perception. From this, you create the world around you simply by observing it and building on the ideas and opinions you have created for yourself. The only answer which can hold any weight is yourself, because you are the only one in your own world at any given point. To go back to the questions of "How will I get out of this?"," How do I get that?" and "why?"; the only answer for these questions is your existence, and how your world will unfold to get you through the question, possibly without ever providing an answer for it.

“Any man who knows all the answers most likely misunderstood the questions”