Apologies in advance if this has already been discussed, but what do people think about the phrase "My truth"? (Or its variants, "your truth" and "his/her truth"). I don't remember hearing it until about five years ago, but it seems to be gaining increasing traction in both the USA and the UK. Here's an example of it:

It seems to be used in place of "my perception" or "my recollection" which would be more correct usages. However, it implies that the speaker is in possession of the absolute truth, and that therefore, anyone else's "truth" is false, which is both a thought-stopper and conversation-stopper. — Peter Gray

You're absolutely right about this phrase. "My truth" is fundamentally incoherent and is a dangerous retreat from rational discourse.

Truth isn't possessive, although there are subjective truths. Something is either true or it isn't. When people say, "my truth," what they really mean is "my opinion," "my feeling," or "my interpretation," but they're trying to shield their statements from criticism by wrapping it in the language of truth. It's a rhetorical trick that elevates subjective perception to an unassailable status.

This isn't just sloppy language, its epistemological nihilism dressed up as empowerment move. If everyone has "their truth," then we have no truth at all. We're left with competing narratives where facts become irrelevant, and power becomes the only arbiter of whose "truth" prevails. It makes actual investigation, evidence, and reasoned debate impossible. You see this a lot, especially from the radical left, but it's everywhere.

It allows people to make claims without having to defend them, to ignore inconvenient facts, and to shut down disagreement by framing any challenge as an attack on their personhood. It's the ultimate thought-terminating cliche.

We already have perfectly good language for subjective experience: "my perspective," "my experience," "how I remember it," "what I believe." These phrases are honest about their limitations. "My truth" is dishonest, it claims absolute authority while hiding behind the language of personal experience.
This linguistic shift is a broader cultural problem, the prioritization of feelings over facts and the inability to distinguish between respecting someone's experiences and accepting their interpretation of reality as somehow definitive.

If everyone has "their truth," then we have no truth at all. We're left with competing narratives where facts become irrelevant, and power becomes the only arbiter of whose "truth" prevails. It makes actual investigation, evidence, and reasoned debate impossible. You see this a lot, especially from the radical left, but it's everywhere. — Sam26

Wouldnt Wittgenstein treat the phrase ‘my truth’ as staking out a position within a language game? Rather than treating “truth” as a concept with a fixed essence and then indicting “my truth” as a conceptual corruption that smuggles subjectivity into a domain where it doesnt belong, wouldn't he investigate how the phrase “my truth” is actually being used, in what situations it appears, what work it does, and how it functions within particular language-games?

The danger for Wittgenstein of the use of ‘my truth’ is not that “facts become irrelevant,” but that we may lose clarity about what kind of claim is being made and therefore about what sort of response is called for. By contrast, you seem to assume that the philosophical task is to police language against misuse by appeal to hidden semantic rules about what words really mean, as though Wittgenstein thinks there is some kind of ontological essence to the word truth that must be protected from subjective distortion.

However, it implies that the speaker is in possession of the absolute truth, and that therefore, anyone else's "truth" is false, which is both a thought-stopper and conversation-stopper. — Peter Gray

I think it does the opposite. "THE truth" would be a claim of having the absolute truth. "My truth" is what works for me. "Your truth" is what works for you.

I think it does the opposite. "THE truth" would be a claim of having the absolute truth. "My truth" is what works for me. "Your truth" is what works for you. — Patterner

This is a great analysis. I've heard the phrase before when two people disagree, one might say "well live your truth." Which is a nice, non-confrontational way to say "you do you, and I'll do me." Which basically means: "While I'm probably not going to do or believe anything you say, it doesn't concern me if you do. Your comment or concern has been noted. Have a nice day."

That sounds about right.

If everyone has "their truth," then we have no truth at all. We're left with competing narratives where facts become irrelevant, and power becomes the only arbiter of whose "truth" prevails. It makes actual investigation, evidence, and reasoned debate impossible. You see this a lot, especially from the radical left, but it's everywhere.
— Sam26

Wouldnt Wittgenstein treat the phrase ‘my truth’ as staking out a position within a language game? Rather than treating “truth” as a concept with a fixed essence and then indicting “my truth” as a conceptual corruption that smuggles subjectivity into a domain where it doesnt belong, wouldn't he investigate how the phrase “my truth” is actually being used, in what situations it appears, what work it does, and how it functions within particular language-games?

The danger for Wittgenstein of the use of ‘my truth’ is not that “facts become irrelevant,” but that we may lose clarity about what kind of claim is being made and therefore about what sort of response is called for. By contrast, you seem to assume that the philosophical task is to police language against misuse by appeal to hidden semantic rules about what words really mean. — Joshs

Sure, Witt would look at use, but looking at use is exactly why “my truth” is often problematic. In language games where we investigate, correct, and learn, true is answerable to shared criteria, evidence, defeaters, and of course the possibility of being wrong. When someone says “my truth” in a way that keeps the prestige of truth while stepping outside the criteria, that’s not an innocent language game. It’s a move that changes the rules and then pretends nothing changed.

And to be clear, the fact that something is inside a language game doesn’t give it automatic validity. That move only tells you the kind of claim being made and what standards, if any, it’s meant to answer to. A language game can be coherent and still mistaken, sincere and still unjustified, useful for expression and still not truth aimed, or even manipulative. So “it’s a language game” is a classification, not a stamp of truth.

I’m not appealing to hidden semantic rules or trying to “police” words by fiat. I’m pointing to a plain grammatical fact, viz., if a claim is insulated from challenge, correction, and evidential pressure, then it’s not functioning as a truth claim. Call it experience, perspective, commitment, trauma narrative, moral stance, whatever, those can be legitimate. But if you insist on calling it “truth” while refusing the conditions that make truth claims accountable, you’re not clarifying, you’re trading on ambiguity.

So yes, the danger isn’t that “truth has an essence.” The danger is that “my truth” is often used to blur claim types on purpose (or as a result of ignorance), it smuggles an avowal or a demand for recognition into the logical space of inquiry. And once that blur becomes standard, investigation and debate don’t just get harder, they get undermined, because the ordinary meanings of true, evidence, and mistake stop doing any work.

Yep, we can believe “anything goes” until Nature or another human resist.

That sounds like the OP says - a stopped on rational discourse and a retreat from a potentially fruitful discussion. To me.

It seems wrong to use 'truth' for what has been outlined there. "my opinion" did just fine prior to 2016. It is misleading to usurp the word 'truth' into that complex.

N-gram

However, it implies that the speaker is in possession of the absolute truth, and that therefore, anyone else's "truth" is false, which is both a thought-stopper and conversation-stopper. — Peter Gray

Taking your truth to mean in your experience totally demystifies usage if it is taken as a common phrase rather than one issuing from a philosopher. Experience is much stronger than a perspective or an ordinary opinion.

None of it implies anything whatsoever about philosophically technical truth or 'absolute' truth, where truth is presumed to be a true.

Apologies in advance if this has already been discussed, but what do people think about the phrase "My truth"? (Or its variants, "your truth" and "his/her truth"). I don't remember hearing it until about five years ago, — Peter Gray

I think variations of this have been circulating for many years. I can recall it from decades ago. It probably originated in psychology and self-help movements, and was later taken up in identity politics.

More importantly: The recent trend which matters to those of us who are alive.