My philosophy of Existentialism professor is a 100% die-hard post-modern Nietszchiean (is that a good categorical description?). He brought up the whole, "there is no truth" and it's being logically consistent, and he explained why. I'm going to lay it out, and then just ask for comments.

He said that yes, logically it breaks down. You can say "There is no truth" and then say "that's a self refuting statement" and such. But he said that's one category, one thing, but there's a whole other category or thing- the two don't relate. He said in the other, you look at the set of true things, and it's empty.

So basically, he's saying that logical and "the set of things" are totally different (or are/can be in different categories or realms or something). one doesn't have to do with the other. Hence if that set of true things is empty, then there is no truth. Comments, please. And I'm sure you're wondering how the terms are defined and such, but since I don't have them defined yet, I'm just going with what he stated- remember, he's post-modern and Nietzchiean

My philosophy of Existentialism professor is a 100% die-hard post-modern Nietszchiean (is that a good categorical description?). He brought up the whole, "there is no truth" and it's being logically consistent, and he explained why. I'm going to lay it out, and then just ask for comments.

He said that yes, logically it breaks down. You can say "There is no truth" and then say "that's a self refuting statement" and such. But he said that's one category, one thing, but there's a whole other category or thing- the two don't relate. He said in the other, you look at the set of true things, and it's empty.

So basically, he's saying that logical and "the set of things" are totally different (or are/can be in different categories or realms or something). one doesn't have to do with the other. Hence if that set of true things is empty, then there is no truth. Comments, please. And I'm sure you're wondering how the terms are defined and such, but since I don't have them defined yet, I'm just going with what he stated- remember, he's post-modern and Nietzchiean

Pieces of knowledge, reason, or wisdom are not truths, they are certainties. However, in order to have wisdom, we have to first assume knowledges and reasonings to be true. All the while, we have no truths, only relative truths, which is sort of taking away from the definition of truth. Unless you want to have some sort of transitory truth and agree with Keats in his Ode to a Grecian urn where truth is beauty and that's all ye need to know. I'm for that!

I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Is that a "knowledge".

It's knowledge of a human convention, which is different than knowledge of the physical world, like knowing that marble is made out of metamorphosed limestone. That my name is Paul is a different sort of truth than that I am a Homo sapiens.

Ssoooo...what about my original question. What might my proff could've meant? I might ask him, but I don't want him exasperated with me for bugging him (but, if course, that's one of the reasons he's here, right?).

It might be better to ask the professor to explain his argument to you, and if you ask him, I am sure he will take the time to run through it again.
The logical problem of saying "There are no absolute truths" has been approached from many directions, and not just in Nietzsche studies, so there are many different attempts to solving the problem.

There is no logical or any other problem in saying there are no absolute truths. I am happy to say it (oops, write it) since I believe it is true that there are no absolute truths. What is the problem? I did not say that it is absolutely true there are no absolute truths.