Ultimate truth, really?

So here is something I know to be true in two independent ways:

<omitted because it is not important for this discussion>

One way is my proof. The other way is somebody else's proof, which was published before I was aware.

If I had been aware, I would probably not have produced my proof.

But, as a matter of fact, I am not happy with my proof or their proof.

So I am trying to get a proof better than both.

Why am I doing this if I already know it is true, in two independent ways?

Because I don't think the two existing proofs capture the real reason why this is true.

I think I have a better way to explain/understand why it is true.

Mathematicians do this **all the time**.

If anybody is telling you that mathematicians only care about what is true, they are utterly misguided.

We always want the best proof. And if not the best proof, another way to understand the same thing from a different angle.