You speak of relativism, often associated with nihilism and postmodernism, in which everything seems somehow blurry and indifferent? Why do you deliberately misunderstand that? Quite valuable knowledge came from the fact that a person discovered his own bias and only when you can startle yourself at yourself and even see and allow such a thing to happen, that your fear of yourself is nothing other than the religiously formulated "splinter in the eye", you do not need to look at a moral relativism, because such reproach earns you nothing, except that someone says to you that you are mistaken in your assumption about his world view.

Why do you need an absolutely objective truth, if not as justification and crutch, to express some form of superiority?

Isn't it enough, instead of citing absolute objectivity, for you to communicate just as well with what potential you have? The desire to find a consensus, especially with difficult interlocutors? What people have said with absolute conviction and pure objectivity has not turned out very well in the history of mankind.

Have you ever succeeded in describing, convincing, pacifying when you talk about objective truth?

Can you admit that in times when you don't know what to do, you need refuge or guidance and leave it at that. It's not just you, it's everyone else. Better talk about what helped you personally.

May you be well.