Should we, human-beings, try to define truth (given truth exists in reality)? Personally, I don't think we should reduce truth to symbols and syllables because I think it will take us into weird semantical/tautological territory where 2+2=5 and water isn't wet ;). I take Frank Ramsey's brilliant inquiry, "What we can't say we cant't say, and we can't whistle it either." Hope everyone is staying safe - cheers!
If we can define truth we know we can know what can be known, this is what is true. Is a handy thing, knowing things. If you know, or seem to know how to do things, you have something others don't, in a general level. Unless we keep changing the definition, wich makes definitions untrustworthy so as bearers of truth. But if you say "pure truth" you can't hold that the truth changes, and that it can be found within complex entities, unless pure truth is a constituent of entities. What is truth or pure truth? That doesn't matter directly with your question, it is a given, it is. And we are too, and things we know are and the things that the things we know know also know other things. Those are things that are, given that the things we know can know other things. It seems to me that there are different acesses to reality, but it, truth or reality, constituts itself the things that are, and so, should humans strive to know what makes things be, or they're groundings? I say that we should strive to know it, because it makes one at ease amdist the things, and things having told us they're 'secret names' may cause us to act knowingly that we act rightly, we do right to the things, so to speak.
What if the truth makes us to act terribly, according to other lenses than that of those that acess or recognise the simpleness of being (truth)? Who is right? The human world is full of lies they nourish us, asking what is truth is a necessity.