Rule 1: There is Truth

There is truth regardless of viewpoint and I define it as a position whose nature excludes one or more other positions. (See formal definitions) From a practical standpoint, it is the foundation for any predictibility and is useful for avoiding pitfalls that hamper or endanger our navigation in life, among other things. If there is some reasonable predictibility in life, there is truth. The academic viewpoint is not more valid. Instead, it attempts to include the impractical, improbable and imagined, which is seldom useful to most people.

Some argue its existence, but to do so they must first presuppose its antithesis. In other words, any assertion first asserts there is truth. For example, the assertion "there is no truth" has a problem: it asserts that it is true. Attempts to cloud this is to make nuances through various qualifying adjectives like "absolute truth" or "relative truth." However, if the answer to the question "Is that true?" is "Yes," then they refuted their own agruement. An answer of "No" negates the assertion itself. Which begs the question why make any assertion at all if the there is no truth. More importantly, it has no practical use.

Any "differences" has to do with the exclusionary nature of a given truth. More on that in another post.