Did I? I think you will find that I described the nature of things, which are *parts* of the truth. You could now say that the nature of truth is being that which any finite thing is a part of. But even this isn't really a description of truth, since it doesn't say anything about truth other than that it has all finite things as its parts.
To conclude that ‘things’ are “parts of the truth” you must know what the truth is - otherwise you wouldn’t be able to distinguish if things had anything to do with it.Yes I said in the post that that was the nature of truth. But it wasn't a *description* of truth but of finite things. There cannot be a special description/definition of truth, since it is not a finite thing. Rather, any description of finite things is necessarily also a description of truth.
For something to be considered a part of something it must share certain characteristics and qualities. I can describe a cup as being a ‘cup’ because it shares with other cups defining features. You say that things are “parts of truth”; therefore there must be something about truth that made you look at things and recognize that they were parts of it.
This then brings into question the need you feel to wrap up truth in a veil of mystery by saying, “There cannot be a special description/definition of truth”. In your mind this truth exists and by it you judge things to be parts of it – meaning that you can indeed describe and define this truth and why things lend themselves to be part of it.
Jupiviv, do you have a direct relationship with the truth?