In brief, how an absolute fact is seen is always relative to the observer.
This leads us having the same fact being seen differently by different observers. — KerimF

I agree, this is my point about the only absolute face I know is the existence of my consciousness. An absolute fact surely has to be objective (if such a thing exists!)

What that led me to conclude was that there certain facts which are consensus, including ones including personal ones like, date of birth, country and some of the structures of one's life. Also, mathematics and basic aspects of geography etc. I think except in rare circumstances it would be pointless to argue against these. — Jack Cummins

I don't think a consensus constitutes an absolute fact, I agree it might not be productive to argue these things we think we know but it is interesting! Because all these things are experienced through our own psyche, we can't objectively challenge them as facts. They could be an illusion we can't comprehend.

I am so limited in my ability to comprehend the complexity of existence, therefore I can't really prove anything except my inability to prove anything!

To my mind the only absolute fact is my own consciousness. The rest can potentially be proven wrong over an unlimited time span. I know for certain (that is my subjective truth) that I experience. The rest of what we conceive to be facts could be explained away.

You've begged the question. It being the case that E is either true or false assumes that there are absolute eternal facts (ie E must be either true or false). Without that assumption you cannot have the premise that E must be either true or false, E might be true sometimes but false others. — Isaac

This kind of sums up my point!

I think the title 'help coping with' implies you don't like the idea, such as I am not solipsistic and don't like genocide, war, capitialism etc. I have to make a choice to take a 'leap of faith' that there are good people in the world. I appreciate this is oversimplifying it but you could try to believe you're not alone. I think this philosophy could be a self fulfilling prophecy of you let it. Spend time with and connect with people and be present to experience the connection (and not skeptical that it's a creation of your consciousness) which seems to me to transcend my individual experience of the world.

I believe we are not intrinsically molevelant creatures and that's the link between free will and morality. We are social creatures that are wired for reciprocal altruism which enables us to survive as a tribe, to share our spoils when the going is good safe in the knowledge when our chips are down, our neighbors will return the favour, this doesn't just relate to food. So free will or no free will, it's in our evolutionary biology to act morally.

Welcome to TPF. We need more life-affirming philosophers me think. :-) — Olivier5

Thanks! Looking forward to seeing what I can learn.

When I point at logical contradictions, it's often because I feel annoyed at a certain facile nihilist approach to philosophy, which consists in disolving a given object of enquiry or concept in the acid of analytical doubt and not building or proposing any other concept in exchange. This approach I call purely destructive analysis, or 'deconstruction without reconstruction' — Olivier5

I totally get this, I'm fairly new to this world and still want to retain some humanistic and spiritual depth to my philosophy. Art, music, love, I wont allow those to be broken down I to nihilistic logical arguements!

It's a philosophy that destroys any possibility of doing philosophy. A philosophy sawing the branch on which it sits. — Olivier5

Couldn't agree more!!

I battle with this everyday! The struggle for balance and wanting to simultaneously learn something new and educate others with my opinion and other perspectives.

That said, it seems to me the language 'gotcha' isn't about learning at all but an ego trip or intellectual one-upmanship. Perhaps something more like the 'have you considered' game might prevent a defensive response and encourage an open forum for learning.

As previously mentioned, what is the primary agenda? I almost never want to engage in conversation with anyone trying to prove they are right as it's simply not interesting.