I have done alot of thinking lately and I have come across an idea that was puzzled me for weeks. After sifting thru the thousands of religions and philosophies I found it hard to believe that there was only one of them that was compltely right. So I came up with the Idea that there was no answer. When I say that there is no answer I mean that there is and will not be any “true” answer to philosophy, religion, life, space, etc. How could we know if we were right? Everyone has diffrent opinions and came from diffrent backgrounds so it would be impossible. For example, if i asked a few people if a peach was yellow or yelow-orange it would be likely that they have diffrent answers. We can try to be as objective as possible but there is no way we will find a right answer. We may find “a” answer but that doesnt mean that its right. So what I am getting at is if there is a philosophy out there that is directly similar to what I am saying. I am very young and intrested in philosophy but I am not an expert in it. So friendly debates are welcome and if anyone can give me any information on books or articles that are similar to what I am saying that would be great. Thanks!
No, Jailbait, there is no single answer, nor is there any one, single way to describe any given answer. The answer you’ve arrived at in your post has been described in any number of ways by a variety of philosophers - i’m sure the other people here can come up with some apropos names of thinkers for you to read . . . There are no experts anywhere.
Look up relativism. I don’t know any relativist philosophers I can refer you to. There is me, but I’m not famous 
.
Just because we can’t find the answer doesn’t mean that an answer is wrong.
Keep that in mind in the relativist pursuits to figure out what you think of life.
we’re better with a lot of temporary and arbitrary “answers” than we would be with the answer, believe me.
absolute truth is suffocating, so suffocating that its defenders must spend a lot of time trying to convince everyone of its validity in order to forget it at least for a while.
I couldn’t agree more. I take a pragmatic view towards what we ‘should’ believe, as our beliefs are functional insofar as they determine our behavior. The right behavior depends on a lot of things - foremost our current environment and sociopolitical climat. So whatever beliefs are best suited for our particular sociopolitical environment (vis-a-vis whatever behavior comes from them) is the best beliefs to adopt. And of course, all this depends on our individual and unique dispositions, which itself changes through time (as does our sociopolitical environment), so our beliefs ought to change from time to time as well.
I do think the world generally ought to ground itself on some universal belief system that allows differences in more particular belief systems to work together peacefully, but this should be the only function of any universal belief system… I think.
Well, it’s very rational of you to come to the view that certainty is an unattainable holy grail of philosophy. We simply form rational degrees of belief based on our limited amounts of information and pragmatic values e.g. simplicity, conservatism, fruitfulness (for further research), etc. We construct systems and test them generally. If they don’t work out as we plan, we make the appropriate adjustments. Very Quienean, I guess, but I by no means agree with his details of such a viewpoint.
Well, merely because other people have “different opinions” and “different backgrounds” backgrounds does NOT mean it’s impossible to come to an objective answer to a question. Even pragmatists would reject that, though they’d have me carefully define “objective”. There is nothing wrong with admitting there are people that get things wrong. There IS something wrong, however, in saying everyone is right. This is literally to fall into logical contradiction.
My general point is this: subjectivity is inevitable in answering questions, but it doesn’t make the answer ENTIRELY subjective. Radical probabilism, a very cool view, says that we can never be sure about WHAT to believe. But we can AT LEAST be confident on how belief changes should take place (see Richard Jeffrey, Subjective Probability: The Real Thing, 2004/2007). My view is that we should strive for not necessarily BELIEFS that everyone agrees with, but one’s that consist of reasoning and supportive statements that ARE agreeable. This is very pragmatic, but I think it’s the best we can do. Whether we miss objectivity or not actually becomes, on this way, a pseudo-question, a question utterly unanswerable.
Such thinking is a funny phenomenon, on a pop philosophy scale. Almost everyone (me included) will at some point think like you do if they start to get in to philosophy. But a proper analysis renders this kind of thinking, that there are no right answers, not only extremely troublesome but also somewhat bizzarre.
For a start - most people ‘on the street’ do not believe that there is no right answer, and would be offended at the suggestion. Take (as an extreme example) the holocaust. Most people want to say that it was wrong. But what your suggesting is there is no right answer to the question ‘was the holocaust a bad thing?’. This is not too agreeable a position. For this reason, very few philsophers defend it either.
A few people have falsely ascribed your current thought train as a relativist tradition. It isn’t - relativists do not believe there is ‘no right answer’, its skepticism:
“When I say that there is no answer I mean that there is and will not be any “true” answer to philosophy, religion, life, space”
Relativists believe that there are answers - but that those answers change dependng on context. So statements are true or false - but the same statement might be true in one community and false in another. What you are suggesting is that they simply aren’t true or false at all. This, quite definitivly, is skepticism about truth. In fact you’ll find it runs in to difficulties immediately - when you say ‘there is and will not be any “true” answer’ - you seem to be giving an answer that you believe is true, and thus contradict your own theory.
There are defenses and remedies for skepticsm to overcome this objection - but the real question is - do you really honestly believe that ‘murder is wrong’, ‘God loves Samuel Clemens’, ‘Black holes exist’ are neither true nor false?
I can’t stomach the thought, but fair game to those who can - they keep all philosophers on their toes.
I don’t believe the statement “murder is wrong” could ever be true or false. I think murder is wrong, but that’s only because I don’t like to see people needlessly suffer or experience pain and because I personally believe that nearly every person’s life has value, not because I think there is some kind of objective truth about the matter.
Imagine you are standing on top of an impossibly high cliff holding a boulder, and you throw it off the cliff.
On it’s way down, rolling against the side of the cliff, the particles of the rock are fractured and mix and eventually form repeating patterns of rock molecules, which eventually evolve into sentient rock men, existing on this boulder, plummeting down a cliff.
What is the meaning of life for one of these rock beings?
I find this to be a good way to conceptualize and understand the implications of our existence if we are not unlike the random rock beings.
We should never count on finding answers.
I don’t believe in absolutely certain truth, but I don’t think we are anything like the rock either. The rock has no understanding of what it means to roll, to fall, or to be a rock. We have some understanding of all of those things. At the very least, we are aware of something like rolling, falling, and being when we do those things.
Imagine a rock creature, a rock being. Like rock creatures evolving on the surface of the falling rock, beings with understanding like ours.
I assert that we are in a similar position so far as we can guess.
I agree that we are like the rock creature. Nothing like the rock though, other than the fact that I believe we are all physical objects.