Anyone who affirms the premise: There is no Truth., thereby enters the banal but powerful grip of ontological contradiction, ergo, "There is no Truth", says, It is true that there is no truth.

If one followed Russel and excluded self-referential sentences, that would allow us to operate on this or that task, but it would not answer for the ontological question. What is most simple, and what is against the times each one wants to be praised by, is the power of what we are done with as soon as we here it, i.e., the call to the whirlpool. What would be seen if we entered it? The foundation of the human being, as world essence? Apology for an interpretation of existence? Foundational metaphysics of "stand points" or a single side of the many-sided crystal of a 'perspectivilism' of life-giving lies?

Whoever, in marked unconscious superciliousness clams not to love truth evades the question about truth, as what is there to deny in the denying of truth. Whoever breaks their brain over mere paradox doesn't let the question burn out the depths of their body and soul. Ergo, such questions are only for the few called and chosen.