No, logic is just a tool used to help us process/convey information. AJ, I get the feeling you feel truth is relative (on a side note I've been meaning to reply to your PM. I apologize for not doing it in a more timely manner and L-RD willing I will). Something isn't true just because it works that's called pragmatism; neither is it true just because it feels good which is subjective nor is it true just because its 'my truth.' Futhermore, truth is something that corresponds to reality therefore it does not yield to size and strength of the latest lobby group or popular demand. Truth is more than merely just a matter of opinion or preference. Something is true even if everyone denies it.
That's the thing though, the truth, while some may claim it to be universal...is actually based on perception. It's all relative to a person's perception.Granted, there may be a general view/perception of the world that is common with people, but when I look around and observe and see that what WE as a culture and/or country view as truth and right and so on....is viewed as wrong. It comes down to which theory on truth do you believe; do you believe the consensus, pragmatic, correspondance, coherence, constructivist, or pluralistic.
Interesting....there is no universal truth. First, your statement that you just wrote out essentially saying there is no universal truth well there's at least on thing true here: the statement that you just wrote that there is no truth. Let's look at that for a moment. If your essential statement 'there is no universal truth' is true, it's false, and if it's false, it's false. So if your statement 'there is no truth' is false, then it's false. But even if it's true that there is no truth (only perception which I'll get to) then it's alos false, because that becomes a true statement, which nullifies it.
This is what we call a self-refuting statement. Here's an example, “I can't type a word of English.” or “All generalizations are false.” Since I wrote that I can't write in English yet here I am writting in English which of course would be self-refuting. Your statements are self-contradictory. They self-destruct. My statement that I can't type a word of English and your statement that 'there is no truth' defeat themeselves.
Let's look at that phrase "there is no truth" Descartes said, "I can doubt everything, but the one thing I can't doubt is the fact that I am doubting." He came up with a dictum: Cogito, ergo sum, or "I think, therefore I am." I must exist if I'm pondering my existence. Someone who states that there is no truth must exist, and so it's true that at least one individual, the one uttering the statement, must exist.
Time must also exist, by the way. Time must exist to express a sequence of words, the sequence being "There is no truth." The word "is" must come after the word "there," and the word "no" after both of them, and one can only come after the other if there's time, with present, past and future. So time must exist as an objectively true thing, because this statement was written with words in temporal sequence.
The statement itself is a proposition, so propositions must exist. That's a truth. It contains tokens, words that are tokens of ideas. The concept of truth, the concept of negation expressed in the word "no," must exist as ideas and be true as existants, things that exist.
There has to be the concept of unity, the idea that the four words work together in a sentence, and plurality, the distinction of the four different words. Space must exist to differentiate one word from another, separating the units.
If the statement itself that there is no truth is true, then its opposite must be false. If there is no truth, then it is not the case that there is truth. Therefore, the law of non-contradiction must exist and be true. That statement is also distinguished from all of its contradictions, so the law of identity must be true.
There's at least one sentence that exists, because you just wrote it. That must be true. There are English words, and grammatical relationships between the words-- subject and predicate. That must be true.
The numbers one through four must exist because there are four different words. So addition must be true, because you add those units up and get the number four. The alphabet exists. Parts of speech exist, like nouns and verbs.
As you can see even before you write your statement out there is several things that are true. There is no way that these can be false either considering the given statement, 'there is no (universal) truth'.