There is something fascinating about Truth, which is that most of the people we speak to have an idea. Either, the curret conclusion of theirs is that ''truth does not exist, since it refers to an objective vision of the world'', or that ''truth exists but contextualized to a canvas'', or that ''truth exists but is unreachable by use humans''. To the question ''does truth exist?'', seems to exist two possible exclusive answers: yes xor no. Now, of course, one needs to define each term of the question for that one to make sense.
No matter how we try, it seems (being careful here) that every yes-no question formulated in natural language can be teared down to eventually end up having both answer as valid, depending on how the terms in the question are understood. Examples. Taking the famous question stated by Leibniz: tomorrow, there will be a battle or there won't be a battle. ... Or, I think therefore I am. Yes or no? ... Which eventually leads to the following question: every yes-no question can be answered by yes and no given a different interpretation of their terms. This one is a bit tricky, since it leads to a paradox.
Opposite to truth is silent. As anything that could be spoken, could eventually
A consequence of post-truth consensus is the inability to discriminate and order opinions: since there is no absolute referential, every position can be self-centered and therefore eventually deemed equal to other positions (where equality is the relative distance of the opinion to the referential).
If truth exists, where to find it? Politics? Social interactions? Science? What are now called fake news, are they really sharing some space with any objective truth?
If therefore we agree that some truths exist, what is the necessity to privilege those before their opposite untrue counter facts? The opposite of truth is usually refered to as ''bullshit''.