Objective truths are those that are explained by math and physics. Sometimes I even wonder about that. And really, how much does all that impact on your daily life? We live in our experiences. Maybe all truth is subjective, because it does not exist outside of a subject (the human mind).

Anyway, some believe that subjective truth doesn’t exist. They are reluctant to apply the word “truth” to human thought. (It’s almost like I sense a fear of any who have a different truth from them.) They dismiss the idea that a human mind can have a relationship with truth, a relationship which involves a bigger commitment (and often a passion) to one’s position – "going all in."

For example, we may speak of activists “living their truths” and thus forwarding progress in society.

But of course, sometimes there are questions about the value or rightness of one person’s subjective truth. However, that does not change the fact that the truth is true to the subject. If it fits that definition, it is truth.

The only criterion required to call a human position a subjective truth is that it be true to the subject.

I learned a new word this week - shraddha – a term derived from two Sanskrit roots: shrat meaning "truth," "heart" or "faithfulness," and dha, meaning "to direct one’s mind toward."

https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/5360/shraddha

Shradda -

"is literally 'that which is placed in the heart,' : all the beliefs we hold so deeply that we do not think to question them. It is the set of values, axioms, prejudices, and prepossessions that colors our perceptions, governs our thinking, dictates our responses, and shapes our lives, generally without our even being aware of its presence and power. This may sound philosophical, but shradda is not an intellectual abstraction. It is our very substance."

Ecknath Easwaran, The Bhagavad Gita, Introduction, p. 63 (Nilgiri Press 2007)

There’s not really an equivalent English word. In the Western tradition, the best we can do in a similar vein is refer to our subjective truths. We all have our subjective truths.

If I determine that something is true to me, I’m not sure how anyone else can effectively contradict that (in any case, it would require they call on their own subjective truth).

On that note, watching Bad Bunny’s Superbowl halftime show (the most watched halftime show in its history) – it came to me – the show was an expression of the performers’ truth – and also another truth became apparent – that love and joy can be political acts.

If you missed the show, you can watch it on YouTube -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6FuWd4wNd8&list=RDG6FuWd4wNd8&start_radio=1

Ha ha. I don't disagree. Your quote seems like a perfect situation to use "my truth" (instead of the truth).

Trying to repurpose words for one's own benefit is a pretty common tactic among the manipulative. — Philosophim

Yep.
Given that I have family, a boss (two actually) and employees under me - give me a thought experiment? I can't see where you want this to go. I work in law. We do not have "our truths".

Maybe all truth is subjective, because it does not exist outside of a subject (the human mind). — Questioner

Oh, sure. The Moon is cheese in my mind.

I work in law. We do not have "our truths". — AmadeusD

Of course not. You have might makes right.

Could you explain what you were getting at? It's pretty obscure, and in Law "might" is not relevant. Actually being good at investigation and research is key.

Yep.
↪baker Given that I have family, a boss (two actually) and employees under me - give me a thought experiment? I can't see where you want this to go. I work in law. We do not have "our truths". — AmadeusD

We definitely don’t have “our truths” in law, since its grounding basis assumes strict normative precedent. But we do in our personal relationships. These differences in personal truth, or I should say personal vantage on truth, come out every day in our emotional conflicts with friends, family, work colleagues and strangers. This is not to say that our personal vantage on truth is wildly different from our peers. If this were the case we could never reach consensus in law, science or publicly accepted norms. It’s just that those norms aren’t enough make sense of the more nuanced aspects of personal relations which lead to personal estrangement and political
polarization.

No, not "might makes right." Just the law. But as Gaius Petronius Arbiter said, "What power has law where only money rules?"

Then how about "figuring out on your own terms" what is a mistake and what is fitting in regard to being gay, for example? — baker

I’ve never met two gay people who construe what it means to be gay , or what it means to be mistaken about gayness, in exactly the same way.

I am usually suspicious of people claiming "my truth" or even "the truth". "Truth" or truth does exist, for sure, but it's not private.

BTW, you are correct about "my truth" becoming more common -- in print, anyway. Google Ngram uses the vast corpus of scanned texts to measure word frequencies over the last 400 years. Peak "my truth" was in the 1800s. Then it subsided down to a minimum level. Around 2000 it picked up again -- not to early 1800 levels, but still more than in 1980, say.

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. — Sam26

This seems too harsh though because there are instances where you might say "my truth" to acknowledge the comment is less than universal truth and something you accept based upon personal experience. As in, "my truth is that dogs are vicious" which arises from having been bitten by dogs on prior occassions. That is a qualified statement that doesn't eradicate universal truth, but it concedes it is based upon personal experience maybe not shared by all, but it lets people know why the bias against dogs.

This just makes the point of contextualism, where given proper context words can have differing meanings.

Something along Moore's paradox would be more troubling, like "My truth is that it is raining, but it is not" (or "I believe it is raining, but it is not"). I think Witt considers such statements as contradictions, which might be what you were in a round about way getting at with the misuse of "my truth." "My" implicates a personal belief and "truth" references a belief founded upon agreed upon epistimilogical grounds, which means that "my" "truth" is actually a contradiction because it can't just be "mine" and therefore be a "truth" without something else making it true.

That is, it's not just offensive to suggest there is a "my truth," but it so abuses the term truth that it makes it meaningless because the statement properly understood is per se contradictory.

That is, it's not just offensive to suggest there is a "my truth," but it so abuses the term truth that it makes it meaningless because the statement properly understood is per se contradictory. — Hanover

Exactly this. Its a person using language to manipulate an outcome that they personally want vs using language to clearly communicate accuracy and clarity. The only way to defeat accuracy and clarity, is to attack the words themselves and diminish anyone who would dare use them in that way. Hate, unwarranted moral justification, and self-righteousness of cause are all tools to attack the one who wishes to be clear, rational, and assess the claim honestly.

It’s just that those norms aren’t enough make sense of the more nuanced aspects of personal relations which lead to personal estrangement and political — Joshs

Sure, and that's not in argument I don't think. But attaching hte word 'truth' to it unjustifiably semantically rarefies the concept beyond "my feelings" or "my opinion" which is what we're talking about, and those terms are completely adequate. Entering "truth" into these phrases is dumb, ambiguous and unhelpful. As a couple of responses here show clearly.

Sure, and that's not in argument I don't think. But attaching hte word 'truth' to it unjustifiably semantically rarefies the concept beyond "my feelings" or "my opinion" which is what we're talking about, and those terms are completely adequate. Entering "truth" into these phrases is dumb, ambiguous and unhelpful. As a couple of responses here show clearly. — AmadeusD

Except that I would argue that the kind of truth you would
claim to be beyond mere feelings or opinions is an abstraction derived from those feelings and opinions which never actually transcends them toward some reality independent of the subjective stances which they are based on. Empirical , objective truth creates the factual object by flattening and smoothing over the multitude of opinions which participate in its construction. This isnt a problem when we are working within legal theory or scientific endeavor, since for those purposes we can ignore the variations from one person to the next in the interpretation of the meaning of facts and laws. But it becomes a hinderance when we need to clearly recognize perspectival differences between. persons.

I’m sure when you get home from your job interpreting the law and you deal with your wife and children, you don’t judge their behavior on the basis of strict laws, bit instead try to see things from their perspective. Their ‘truth’ is more than mere opinion, since each of us has to validate our expectations and predictions of how events will unfold against what actually happens. We can make any kind of wild predictions, but some pan out better than others. When our expectations are validated by the actual course of events, we have achieved a provisional truth. But is the mesh between your predictions and the way events unfold in relation to them identical to the relation between my anticipations and how events unfold for me? There will certain be a lot of similarities, but they will diverge enough that I will need to construe how you construe the same events as me.

I think it's related to the rise of "I feel like ..." as an alternative to "I think ..." or even "I believe ..." In 21st America, your feelings are not open to critique. They just are what they are. Your opinions, your thoughts, your beliefs (but not your faith)—these are all open to critique and by saying "I think we should do this," you're practically inviting others to give their opinions or to critique yours. Not the case when you're expressing your feelings.

I very often hear "my truth" among the young folks where I work when they're expressing what is clearly a taste or a preference. ("My truth is that I like Oreo Thins better." They never stop talking about food, I don't know why.) And of course taste is also not supposed to be open to critique.

I think it's all about inoculating yourself against criticism. If what you're about to say is just your feeling, or your taste, or your preference, or your truth, then that's that. People you're talking to are expected to hear what you say and accept that it's just part of who you are. They do seem to enjoy endorsement, though. It's nice when someone shares your taste. But those are the only options.

I won't bother connecting it to the shocking levels of narcissism among young people. Most of their parents seem awfully narcissistic too.

It's all pretty horrifying. I worry about the future my children are stuck with.

It seems to be used in place of "my perception" or "my recollection" which would be more correct usages. — Peter Gray

The ancient phrase "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" refers to a subjective truth. So it's not a new trend.

Most people do not understand the difference between anecdotal and empirical evidence. This is the basic issue. A lack of critical thinking is nothing new.