I've been thinking about Pyrrhonian arguments. I wonder if you could help with something:i. Either there is truth or there is no truth.ii. If there is truth, there is truth.iii. If there is no truth, there is truth.iv. Hence, there is truth.(i) is an instance of the law of the excluded middle; (ii) is self-evident; (iii) follows from the fact that if the proposition that there is no truth is true, there is a truth; (iv) follows from (i) – (iii). I've always considered this a really secure argument.But the skeptic is going to point out that we must assume there is truth in order to argue that there is truth (e.g. the premises need to be true for the conclusion to follow), and therefore fall into circularity.
S. At times and in possible situations in which we do not exist, truth does not exist either.