The philosophy I have settled on is one called "the Eternal argument". I've already contradicted myself by saying "settled on" and "eternal argument" in the same sentence - such as is the fundamental and rather amusing basis of the eternal argument.

The eternal argument is based on contradiction and pervades both physics/ the natural world as well as language and conscious awareness. It is a circular argument/ cartesian circle from which we cannot escape. There is no resolution as any stance, position or view that you take - as a defined point on the circumference of a circle - has an antithesis, the opposing view - opposite side of the circle, the subject/topic at hand being in the center of the circle. (Newtons third law of motion).

Both are logical and reasonable explanations like the discrete coordinates of any point on the circumference but their relationship to one another is via pi - an endlessly irrational relationship and cannot be logically rectified. This is of course only a figurative analogy it's not to say arguments are physically geometric.

Paradoxes occur at the borders between an assumption that you make about the topic, for example the assumption about "time travel" that "one can go backwards" and its antithesis - a quality which contradicts said assumption eg. "Causality" in the grandfather paradox. If you alter any aspect of either or both assumptions/their core definition or parameters, it is possible for the paradox to be resolved in it's current location but will relocate elsewhere to cause other contradictions set out by the new definitions.

In essence the more rigid and defined you make a description of something in the universe, your arguments or views, the easier it is to contradict them. The eternal argument is reflected in the uncertainty principle in that there is a fundamental limit to the amount of information one can obtain at the same time.

In essence just as it is impossible to locate the position of a particle and its velocity at the same time, it is impossible to locate ones position
in an argument (their stance) and stop the argument (have unanimous agreement) at the same time.

Let the argument begin (/continue).