@Pepijn Sweep,
I don't know what "truth" means, so I won't reflect on the original statement.
I would use the word "happiness" instead, whose meaning, though equally vague, is nevertheless more vivid.
I do not want to generalise, but it seems to me that philosophy always fails to make a thinking person happy. Every attempt to find satisfaction in philosophical reasoning is in vain.
In science there are moments of happiness, when a question
finds its answer. Of course, further questions follow, but one is somehow certain that no question has no answer. This in turn guarantees more happy moments.
The problem is that language suits better to practise science than to articulate one's disability to practise philosophy as a science.
It seems that philosophy does not provide knowledge, because philosophy is unable to formulate questions. Thus philosophy always goes side by side with dissatisfaction and hope for happiness.
There might be people talking nonsense here. But it is only because their language has begun to show them its outer limits. Instinctively they come in hope to overcome the disability to express themselves. In fact, without knowing this, they are here in order to look for ways to come to grips with the burden of language and thus
rise above philosophy.
