It's ironic that the question of 'what is relevant?' poses absolutely no relevance to anyone. Questions such as these request personal opinions, rather than actual answers. Different lives hold different experiences, and different experiences yield different opinions to various issues. In other words, what one might consider to be important may have no significance to another. One who has been detrimentally affected by crime will have different opinions to a criminal, especially on the topic of the relevance of justice. If one assumes that the question of 'what is relevant?' possesses a singular answer, which may also be considered true, that answer may be thought of as the truth, [not merely a truth]. (A truth is defined as the truth of an individual, while the truth is the truth of a corporate entity, or simply, the human race). However, most of man lives in denial of the truth, and places his beliefs and trust in a truth of his own, because satirically, he believes the truth is not relevant.
He believes that what is relevant to him is relevant, rather than what is relevant, is relevant. Therefore, man's view of relevance is not relevant, but rather relative - relative to the person questioned.
Nevertheless, the truth still exists, whether man lives in denial of it or not. Since the corporate entity of mankind does not believe in the one truth, but its own truths, man's survival is based on self-preservation, which is essentially built on selfishness.
Before further asking the question of 'what is relevant?' one must ask 'what is relevance?'. Relevance could be the vital importance of well-being to the desired entity, or perhaps the connectedness of two entities, which are said to be relevant to each other. That entity may be an issue or a topic,