After spending quite some time exploring different arguments regarding truth and logic, certain anti-arguments have convinced me that truth and logic simply dont have any actual meaning other than what people randomly give them.
First there is the problem of language definitions.
Word requires a definition. that definition requires more words. Each of those words require more definitions, which require more words, which require more definitions...ect.
this creates unsolvable language definitions problem where all definitions of words can only be circular or undefined, because infinite defining is both useless and impossible.
Undefined definitions are logically useless. Circular definitions are logically useless. For example, saying that "good" is "not bad", and "bad" is "not good", doesnt tell you anything of what "good" or "bad" is. Is a toothbrush bad or good? You cant deduce that from circular definitions.
Because deduction logic in the first place requires established non-circular definitions, but these dont exist. Definitions are always arbitrary, because its impossible to prove a definition by any deductive logic. And definitions are always circular, making any deductive logic which relies on definitions circular as well.
And from problem of definitions, comes problem of truth.
truth can only exist in following deductive argument:
P1. truth = definition of truth
P2. Definition of truth = B
C. truth = B
(B in this case is something we are trying to prove true)
If truth has no proved definition, both P1 and P2 collapse. If definition of truth is arbitrary, then that supports moral nihilism which claims truth is arbitrary, and likewise P1 and P2 collapse by merely changing the definition.
Because the argument for truth faces an unsolvable logical problem: How do you prove that definition of truth is a true definition of truth?
Anyone can come up with any definition, but how do you prove that definition true?
If definition of truth is arbitrary, that supports moral nihilism, and not any position where truth objectively exists.
Some people might say that we get truth from observation. But even if we were to accept observation as definition of truth, the problem comes once we place it in deductive argument:
P1. truth = definition of truth
P2. definition of truth = observation
C. truth = observation
the simple problem with this argument is this: What is "observation"?
Observation itself likewise doesnt have non-circular definition, so the problem is not solved, but extended.
In this particular case, P2 is not only impossible to prove, but it is actually impossible to know what "observation" is, to even begin proving P2., because just like truth, "observation" cannot be defined.
And same problem is faced with word "existence" where existence has no working definition.
And finally, we reach the problem of logic.
Due to Munchausen trilemma, it is logically impossible to prove truth of any claim without facing one of 3 problems:
Infinite reasoning (Each claim requires another claim to prove it true)
Circular reasoning (Claim proves itself true)
Unproved (Claim arbitrarily accepted as true)
All 3 of these support nihilism. Infinite reasoning is impossible, but can also be made arbitrary, by just making up endless reasons for something. Circular reasoning can actually support just about anything, so it is arbitrary as well. And Unproved claim, accepting claim as true arbitrarily, just supports truth nihilism, doesnt disprove it.
Even if we were to accept laws of logic as true, we cannot logically use them to deduce any truth, because deduction requires definitions, and definitions are all circular, making all reasoning essentially circular even when we accept laws of logic.
But laws of logic have their own problem. How do you prove that laws of logic are truth or are used to determine truth?
Because I see claims such as "Laws of logic are used to prove things true", but such claim cannot be logically proved, just arbitrarily accepted.
Finally, argument from contradiction:
P1. Saying that truth doesnt exist is a claim
P2. If truth doesnt exist, the claim "truth doesnt exist" cannot be true
C. Claim "truth doesnt exist" cannot be true.
the problem with this argument is that it is essentially trying to strawman nihilism into a position nihilism doesnt even hold. Nihilism doesnt claim itself to be true. It is claiming that nothing is really true.
So saying that Nihilism cannot be true isnt an argument against nihilism when we realize nihilism doesnt need to be true. It only needs to make everything else not true as well.
However, contradiction exists in truth itself which shows the point nihilism is trying to make:
P1. truth is self-determining or not self-determining
P2. If truth is self-determining, truth is circular
P3. If truth isnt self-determining, something outside of truth determines truth
P4. Outside of truth cannot be true.
C. "truth is circular" is the only claim left which can be true.
And if truth is circular, then we can choose anything we want to be truth, which is exactly the point of nihilism. truth is whatever is accepted as true, it is arbitrary.
So even if truth exists, it exists in arbitrary form, which doesnt disprove but supports truth nihilism.
And definition of truth being arbitrary further supports truth being arbitrary.
If truth is arbitrary, I can choose whatever I want to be true, even contradictive things, so then I can even say Nihilism is both true and not true.
Because law of non-contradiction likewise cannot be proved outside itself or by itself.