Ha!

Well, "obviously" everything that I know must be truth; otherwise it would be mere belief. But for everything I think I know, there's someone that believes different. In that light, it seems unreasonable for anyone to think they have access to truth.

So truth seems to be reduced (or elevated?) to something we can never reach, and only aspire to. It makes it into some kind of metaphysical object, whose nature can't be empirically established.

I think it's best to avoid talking about truth, when trying to do philosophy. Just do the reasoning, and draw some conclusions if you can.

But what are these conclusions worth, then? How do you accept that the premises and reasoning are solid? Where does it go from "this table is wooden" (an example used in this discussion somewhere; let's ignore the linguistic problems) to "but that truth is manufactured"?

> I think it's best to avoid talking about truth, when trying to do philosophy. Just do the reasoning, and draw some conclusions if you can.

Yes, let's throw all of epistemology into the trash

Wouldn't be the first time a field of philosophy has been trashed. The logical positivists did their best to trash metaphysics (I think rather effectively).

Epistemology is theory of knowledge; it's a statement in epistemology (one which you might disagree with) that knowledge and truth are not the same thimg.