In the comments to the last post, commenter "onus probandi" accuses me of a petitio principii by taking for granted that there is truth to be found in philosophy. But begging the question is when one assumes what one ought to or is trying to prove. I was not trying to prove that there is truth. First principles cannot be proven. If they could be proven, they would not be first. First principles are those truths whereby other truths are recognized. They are also supposed to be self-evident, that is, apparent to anyone who understands them. So, when onus says:
we have yet to determine that there is such a thing as 'truth'
I answer: what would a demonstration that there is truth look like? How would you recognize it? What principle could you start with without already assuming that there is such a thing as truth and that it is what is reached in demonstration? The very notion of demonstration presupposes the notion of truth.
"Something is true" is a first principle. However, like other first principles, it can be evinced - not demonstrated - by showing the absurdity of rejecting it. Consider the following proposition:
"There is no truth."
If the proposition is true, then there is truth. If the proposition is false, then there is truth. Even the act of denying that there is truth proclaims that truth exists. "There is no truth" is literally un-believable.
Other statements that are not only false, but self-evidently so:
"Nothing exists." Your claim and the sentence embodying it exist!
"Everything is illusory." Your suspicion that everything is illusory is not illusory, and neither is your mind which considers it: for an illusion is only an illusion for someone conscious of it.
"The world is meaningless." At least something in the world is meaningful, namely your opinion, which is false but not without a sense.
