Pluralist and monist

I assume you heard about harmonism in class. I think almost everyone who has spoken on this issue refers to it, but in different formulations. 1. Harmonist. He says that the tastes are true and their weight varies in different circumstances. There is one truth that is composed of all the tastes. 2. R. Hutner wrote at length about this, whose words were quoted at the beginning of the book ‘Between Years of Generation and Generation’. For example, regarding the manner in which the planks of the Tabernacle were placed on carts, there is a disagreement in reality. His claim is that the disagreement is in the interpretation of the verses, and the wording of the verses allows for both interpretations. Therefore, in reality, it is certain that only one was right, but they are not dealing with reality, but with the interpretation of the verses, and in this case, both. 3. Because it empties the concepts of truth and the words of the living God. Breakfast also gives me strength and helps me with this, and so does the comfortable chair on which I sit. Of course, if he also means that the tastes of all sides are correct and thus help me reach a correct conclusion, then he is also a harmonist. 4. In light of the Gemara in Gittin 6b (A fly found and did not observe, but a fly found and observed) it seems that this is certainly possible. Again, this is harmonism. On its face, this is unlikely. There is no reason to think that several reasons arose simultaneously, each of which necessitates death. In reality, only one was right, but as an interpretation of the verses or as an educational requirement, there can be truth in each of the possibilities. From all of this, you will understand that there is no point in engaging in all these methods before clarifying the matter at the conceptual level. This is where almost everyone who has dealt with this who has not preceded it with a conceptual analysis is mistaken. The conceptual analysis leads to harmonism, and this has two consequences: 1. Once I have reached the conclusion that this is the truth, what is the point of engaging in the words of all the commentators on the matter? I already know the conclusion. 2. Considering the principle of grace, it is possible to understand that almost everyone who has dealt with this actually intended harmonism, but each time from a different angle.