Thanks for commenting!

The paradoxical self-contradiction of statements like "knowledge can never be absolute" is the point of my argument (if you can even call it an argument). If you take my perspective seriously, you'll realize that the "categorical" statements I make are contextualized with a dualistic framework of scientific (doubt) vs religious (faith) approaches to reality. And, more specifically, my whole article is intended to transcend that natural duality which taints these epistemological topics.

I state clearly that "I won't go so far as to tell you what you should do" because I would never 'demand that everyone accept my hubris.' When I write "we can't know anything but our own viewpoint" you can take that as a moral imperative that I impose upon you, or you can take it literally and realize that I'm making a paradoxical claim about my own experience, not yours.

The contradictory nature of my argument is a meta-representation of the intersection between the Liar Paradox, the Knowability Paradox, and an interpretation of Gödel’s theorem that suggests a necessary incompleteness of axiomatic systems. In other words, logical systems seem to be incapable of perfectly describing themselves. It doesn’t mean that there’s no truth in the universe, just that there are limits to perspective-based information processing (e.g. human perception is finite).

Although I differ from Thomism in that I believe logic and science have limits, my views are not that far removed, particularly when it comes to the metaphysical division of perceptual reality into reducible form and indescribable substance.

How do you define "perspective"?