Logic says that we should never assume anything.

For the moment that we do assume something we fall into ignorance. Yet I think we must assume that truth is real for even if truth did not exist, wouldn't it be true that truth did not exist? Certainly such a claim couldn't possibly be true. It's a contradiction. Truth cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Such a claim is illogical. Yet I've fallen into a trap. For my very use of logic assumes that truth exists. And my very use of contradictions as a means of proving that something is illogical appeals to the presupposition that contradictions cannot possibly be the truth. Yet if there were no truth then contradictions wouldn't need to be truth. It could very well be a contradiction and there would be no problem with it. Therefore truth cannot be logically proven or disproven for the very use of logic already presupposes that truth is true. It seems that we are at a standstill. If you remember my prior writing on perception, you'll recall that our entire ability to perceive anything is dependent upon 3 separate but complimentary processes: observation, logic, and faith. Were any of these three processes to be missing then we would lose our entire ability to perceive anything objectively. Observation would be useless for though we could see something, it could just as well be that what we really see is something else. Logic would be useless because we'd have no reliable observations to base conclusions off of. Worse yet whatever conclusion we have would have no meaning since there would be no one true conclusion. Faith would be useless because we would have no one thing to have faith in. Instead we'd have faith in a world that is without denition. In other words we'd have faith in an unfaithful world. Let us take a moment and dene truth. Truth is the inherent reality of all things. It exists a priori apart from even existence itself. But let us also acknowledge that is only possible to dene truth if truth actually exists. This is because it's only possible to dene anything at all in this world if truth exists. If truth does not exist then there is no one true denition. If truth does not exist then all things are true and no things are true. It may seem strict and rigid to believe in truth. Surely the world is more uid than that. It continually evolves. It is ever changing. It has no master. How could it possibly have a boss i.e. truth to tell it what to do? Couldn't it do whatever it wants to do including exist in contradictory manners. As you read these words many of you have a gut reaction. You snicker at how idiotic such a claim sounds. Yet that is only because we have taken this moment to look at this phenomenon under a microscope. So many of us passively look at the world through fuzzy lenses and in those instances it's quite tempting, necessary even to believe that truth does not exist. It's tempting for both the faith lled spiritualist and the skeptical atheist. The spiritualist rightly identies that reality is beyond our comprehension and therefore chooses to abandon logic in favor of faith. But faith without logic is merely ignorance. The skeptic on the other hand holds so dearly to logic that he questions everything. Since he refuses to admit the shortcomings of logic and the necessity of faith he holds on to the belief that one day his precious logic will answer his questions. (He of course is unaware that he has just made a leap of faith.) Both make a fatal error of holding on to faith to the point where they abandon logic, and even when observation stares them straight in the eye and reveals the absurdity of their conclusions they refuse to acknowledge it. This is because they no longer believe in just one truth. Though the evidence convicts them

they stand convinced that somehow there conclusion may also be true. There is a problem with this conclusion. There can only be one truth. The reason why we are able to use contradictions to prove that something is not true is because contradictions show that something cannot possibly exist within the same truth as another thing. There are a great deal of things that are seemingly contradictory but under closer inspection we see are in fact still true. We call these things paradoxes. But upon closer inspection we see that the two are in fact compatible and therefore we say that we have reconciled the two. For example, before we talked about the static nature of truth. If truth were real then it would seem that the world would be unable to change since it must follow truth. Through observation we see that the world is not static. It is constantly changing. This looks like a contradiction therefore we can say that there is no one truth. But upon further inspection we see that this is not a contradiction. It is merely a paradox. Yes the world is ever changing. But the fabric of it is unchanging. The physical laws which all matter follows has not changed. Gravity, radiation, and magnetism all work precisely the same as they did millions of years ago. Yet our world is complex enough that the world itself is able to change. Truth therefore does not necessitate that the world be unchanging. It merely necessitates that truth itself is unchanging. Threrefore there is no contradiction. There is merely a paradox which upon further investigation we can easily reconcile. Perhapse we are satised that truth does exist. But the question still stands: Is it really worth it to pursue truth? And even if it is worth it we must also consider Is it even possible for us to grasp truth? Outline; There can only be one truth. If truth exists then the world is evolving yet still constant.