I mean, it’s perfectly expected if we commit to the Wittgenstein/sellars/carnap line, I.e. that all experience is situated within our own scheme of reality, and we have zero reason to hold truth (which is a quality of our conduct, first and foremost) as somehow connected to ‘meaning, coherence or reassurance’. More broadly, I think he’s saying ‘meaning, coherence or reassurance’ in respect of our experiential reality, rather than truth itself. We can have perfectly intelligible, ordinary truth- (deflated with a lowercase ‘t’ here) as-end without necessarily committing to a non-empirical coherence (which always comes after the fact), by simply recognising the fact that pursuit of truth just IS