The conclusions that are the most true are the ones you arrive at from multiple starting points.

If you handpick the assumptions in an argument you can prove anything. Study philosophy and you will find many compelling cases for conflicting conclusions because the core assumptions were slightly different.

There are, however, rare cases where different points of view cannot all avoid drawing the same conclusion. These are the few conclusions that hold weight beyond their own context.

The expression of one of these greater truths that first captured me was Hume’s conclusion that induction relies on itself for proof and is therefore a logical fallacy. However, the greater truth beneath this statement was also recognized in Descartes’ “I think therefore I am”, and the Buddhist sentiment that life is suffering.

These are all different ways of expressing the transience of human existence. Each one of these statements is concluding that anything can change at any time.

Hume strips away induction, our basis for perpetuating the past into the future.

“I think therefore I am”, is all Descartes is left with after implementing radical doubt. All he could conclude was that on some level he existed, but he could not prove anything else did.

The basis for the Buddhist statement that life is suffering is impermanence. Because there is joy and change suffering is impossible to avoid.

Each of these conclusions were drawn by very different people in different times and cultures and they are not the only ones. When there are many voices shouting their beliefs to differentiate themselves it is worth looking at the commonalities they cannot avoid shouting.