Consider the following argument:

> 
> If want to know that something is true, I need to first know what
>  is truth. If I need to know what is true, I need to find the truth. 
>  (Is there any other way to know about truth?) BUT If I want to
>  find something, I need to know that thing. and to know something I
>  need to find it.
> 
> 
> *Corollary:* Truth is impossible to find.
> 
> 
> 

I am a newbie to logical thinking though I am a programmer. 

It's the kind of reasoning which came up to my mind. How could I more precisely reason about this problem?

---

**UPDATE 9/8/2017**

From 
Politis Philosophy GuideBook to Aristotle and the Metaphysics
I found this passage / Answer

"To search for an explanation is to search for the answer to a
‘Why?’ question (dia tí; ‘Why?’). But we can only ask ‘Why?’ questions if
there is something that we already know or something that at least is
already evident to us. This means, **Aristotle argues, that we can search for
explanations only if, to begin with, there is something that we know, or
that is evident to us,** directly and without this knowledge involving a
search for explanations. **And he argues that such direct and non explanatory
knowledge is, precisely, sense perception."**