My old school philosophy is *weak* (the "oldest" philosopher that I'm at all into is Roussea, out of the sheer obligation of having to love a guy who writes thousands of pages on how he hates books...with Bertrand Russel being my favorite and more emblematic of the "era" of philosophy i'm more familiar with). Anyway, I seem to recall the central tenent of the passage(s) you're describing as being a starting point for many philosophers to make the claim that there is an absolute and universal truth to everything, ie, *nothing* IS false but can only be PERCEIVED as false because, as is obvious, a falsity can not exist because everything that exists is, (again) obviously "there" and thus true. From here it was a philosophical hop, skip and a jump to "the only untruth is a human's attempt to conceive truth", which spawned many a great rant for my boy Rousseau and later every critic and philosopher who took up arms against the Enlightenment in his image. That, as I recall, was the philosophical significance of that stepping stone.