If I am understanding your meaning you recognize the inherent flaw is that you believe in inherent truth? Or that your rationalization for being is inherently true if it werent you wouldnt be?
The question is of my reason for being, which is based on the flaw of belief in an inherent truth other than the fact that I exist is inarguable, since my ability to doubt of my own perspective proves I can think, and thus that I exist.
In other words, I believe certain base assumptions are needed for reason, whether you acknowledge them or not, and only one, “I exist” can be proven as 100% true through reason.
If I am understanding your meaning you recognize the inherent flaw is that you believe in inherent truth? Or that your rationalization for being is inherently true if it werent you wouldnt be?
The question is of my reason for being, which is based on the flaw of belief in an inherent truth other than the fact that I exist is inarguable, since my ability to doubt of my own perspective proves I can think, and thus that I exist.
In other words, I believe certain base assumptions are needed for reason, whether you acknowledge them or not, and only one, “I exist” can be proven as 100% true through reason.