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.

It's just another nonsense trendy phrase that those that use it only do so because it is trendy isn't it?

There are plenty of American phrases which make no logical sense at all.

One primary example being: "I could care less" which of course is just a contraction of "I couldn't care less". I have heard other variants of this like "I give a shit" which I have deduced in the context is that they don't give a shit.

Those are just variations of the older double negative of "I didn't do nothing" aren't they? As in it isn't about the content but the sentiment and the way it is said rather than the logical consistency of the words.

I am not sure how "my truth" came about but it seems to be on the back of the #metoo movement and wokeism and the idea that one must not discredit a statement and it is true for them so must be respected. I guess in the same vein that anyone's gender must be respected? Seems to come from the same camp. If someone is none binary or trans or whatefer that is 'their truth' that one must not do the violence of not acknowledging.

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. — I like sushi

I don't think they don't know, it is just that they don't care in the context of informal communication. I am sure they would be able to tell you the difference if pressed on the matter.

It is about saying something to fit in to the group. Being logical doesn't usually factor into that unless you are in some hard science circle or whatnot. It is like slang language, I don't think people who use colloquialisms are policing each other for the rational substance of what they are saying to one another.

The broader ideal being promoted is that of tolerance of diversity as this phrase is born out of the Leftist soup so to say it is 'your truth' it is (virtue) signalling your support for diversity. Whether it is 'true' or not is not relevant, but rather that you show you are the type of person who promotes tolerance and diversity.

We can disagree here. Too many people are lazy, stupid or both when it comes to basic critical thinking.

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. — Srap Tasmaner

Have you asked anyone whether their feelings about an issue have changed and what made them change? What if they respond that their feelings express their personal assessment of the meaning of something, and they can reassess the basis of that assessment such as to change the resultant feelings? Would you respond that their personal assessment must be open to critique from the vantage of third personal criteria of objective empirical truth in order to be valid?

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. — Srap Tasmaner

To label a generation as narcissistic is to stop construing their ways of framing situations and start condemning. It replaces an inquiry into how people are organizing experience with a global judgment that forecloses reconstruction. Such labeling may itself be a defensive maneuver. It protects the speaker’s own construct system from challenge by treating unfamiliar forms of self-expression as moral failure rather than as alternative ways of making sense of social life. The rise of “my truth” may not simply be narcissism run amok, but evidence of people experimenting, sometimes clumsily, with ways of owning their constructions while navigating pluralism. The task, then, is not to shame those experiments, but to ask which ones expand the range of anticipation and which ones constrict it.

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. — Joshs

It's interesting that you should mention estrangement. "My truth" seems to be particularly prevalent in that area, especially by adult children who have chosen to estrange, rather than the parents. See, for example, this video of one "life coach" interviewing another about family estrangement. I think the phrase "my truth" is used at least three times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwZ2jk_rkLY

Its a person using language to manipulate — Philosophim

You really need to shrug off this sense of victimization.

I am sure when people speak their truth, they are not thinking about you.

We can disagree here. Too many people are lazy, stupid or both when it comes to basic critical thinking. — I like sushi

You will hear no argument from me as to the laziness and stupidity of society at large. I just feel that that accusation would be misplaced in this particular instance.

It is not that they don't understand 'my truth' is logically wrong; it is that they don't feel it is relevant but more that the sentiment is what is relevant.

"My truth" is more about some narcissistic thing of saying what I say is important and you must hear it and believe it. I think that is what it is about, the 'me me me' mentality. If someone says "I am speaking the truth" then it does not give them an ego boost like 'my'.

Incidentally I had a discussion about this exact same thing a couple of years ago with someone. He was saying how "that's your truth" used to be used pejoratively to basically say "you're full of shit" but it now has the opposite meaning of "hear me and take me seriously".

"My truth" is more about some narcissistic thing of saying what I say is important and you must hear it and believe it. I think that is what it is about, the 'me me me' mentality. If someone says "I am speaking the truth" then it does not give them an ego boost like 'my'.

Incidentally I had a discussion about this exact same thing a couple of years ago with someone. He was saying how "that's your truth" used to be used pejoratively to basically say "you're full of shit" but it now has the opposite meaning of "hear me and take me seriously". — unimportant

Would you agree that none of us will ever experience truth with a capital ‘T’, that naive metaphysical sort of truth that was so popular a century or two ago? And what we have instead are theoretical constructs like the sort that our sciences generate, constructions which can only be falsified by not exhaustively proven? And that what we call scientific facts or truths are beholden to theoretical frameworks which are likely to be falsified at some point? If so, then each generation has its own set of scientific theories, and can in a certain sense be described as embracing its own truths in comparison to other eras.

Furthermore, I as a lone scientist might come up with a novel theory that only I have subjected to test. Do I say that the facts organized by my theory are my own truth, a truth derived from my novel framework of interpretation, or do I wait to declare them true until they have been replicated by many other scientists? It would seem to be the latter, but when a consensus is reached among a majority of scientists concerning the truths generated by a theory, do all those scientists interpret the meaning of the theory in exactly the same way, or does each adherent to those truths retain a slightly different perspective? In other words, does each scientist retain their own variant of the truth?

Isnt this even more the case with political, spiritual , ethical, psycho-sexual and gender attitudes? Do any two people interpret the meaning of these domains in exactly the same way. And what are the implications of this for navigating the day to day conflicts among family, friends and strangers? Should we scoff at the idea that the source of interpersonal conflicts and disagreements is often the result of different perspectives on the truth of situations? Do we then look to find the one objectively correct interpretation that must apply to everyone? Or do we recognize that each individual perspective is a valid datum that must not be discarded when trying to reach between-person understanding?

Would you agree that none of us will ever experience truth with a capital ‘T’, — Joshs

Well it seems you are implying science is 'useless' because it can't find truth 100% capital T.

I don't think science claims 100% certainty but it is very useful as the best guess. It has provided lots of things, like the machine you are typing with now, so it isn't all a case of total relativism, where "I am a little teapot short and stout" has as much truth value as Newtons laws of gravity, like you are implying.

I am not interested if it tells the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, if it allows us to manipulate the world to our own ends better then it serves its purpose.

You, on the other hand, seem to be making the 'all or nothing' argument.

But it becomes a hinderance when we need to clearly recognize perspectival differences between. persons. — Joshs

You are talking, in this entire post, about feelings and opinions. I have addressed that explicitly and carved it off from what we're talking about. THose are simply not truths. They are feelings and opinions. It is true that the person thinks/feels/believes what they do - and there's no issue there, as I said. Its calling it "truth" that's a problem. It rarefies those feelings into something we are not able to argue against, despite empirical evidence to the opposite in many cases. Even within law a subjective impression needs to be reasonable. So even in a system which leaves space for this particular type of disagreement, it requires a certain benchmark to be "valid". And I think that is correct, to avoid people making claims against reality and saying its "their truth". I hope that is now clear that I'm not arguing what you are saying in this reply.

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. — Joshs

I can't quite make sense of this, I don't think. Either their expectations meet reality, or they do not. They have opinions which they can put forward, and I can do what I do with those - or they can, as is almost always hte case, submit to an investigation whereby between us, we understand the facts of hte matter as against our perspectives. Our perspectives are what is being adjudicated against reality. I would appreciate if you could elaborate in terms that congrue with what's being put forward here - namely, that your description is precisely hte one I am trying to avoid using for the reasons I've put forward.

I am not interested if it tells the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, if it allows us to manipulate the world to our own ends better then it serves its purpose. — unimportant

I am in complete agreement, and that was the point I was making. Science works, not because it is truth with a capital T, but because it allows us to predict events in a useful way in spite of the fact that each participant in the enterprise of science contributes their own perspective on the meaning of what is called true. But if we ignore these variations in perspective by attacking the validity of one’s ’own truth’ , we degrade our ability to manipulate the human world to our own ends.

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.
— Joshs

I can't quite make sense of this, I don't think. Either their expectations meet reality, or they do not. They have opinions which they can put forward, and I can do what I do with those - or they can, as is almost always hte case, submit to an investigation whereby between us, we understand the facts of hte matter as against our perspectives. Our perspectives are what is being adjudicated against reality. I would appreciate if you could elaborate in terms that congrue with what's being put forward here - namely, that your description is precisely hte one I am trying to avoid using for the reasons I've put forward. — AmadeusD

Let me quote Thomas Kuhn:

A scientific theory is usually felt to be better than its predecessors not only in the sense that it is a better instrument for discovering and solving puzzles but also because it is somehow a better representation of what nature is really like. One often hears that successive theories grow ever closer to, or approximate more and more closely to, the truth. Apparently generalizations like that refer not to the puzzle-solutions and the concrete predictions derived from a theory but rather to its ontology, to the match, that is, between the entities with which the theory populates nature and what is “really there.”

Perhaps there is some other way of salvaging the notion of ‘truth' for application to whole theories, but this one will not do. There is, I think, no theory-independent way to reconstruct phrases like ‘really there'; the notion of a match between the ontology of a theory and its “real” counterpart in nature now seems to me illusive in principle. Besides, as a historian, I am impressed with the implausability of the view. I do not doubt, for example, that Newton's mechanics improves on Aristotle's and that Einstein's improves on Newton's as instruments for puzzle-solving.

But I can see in their succession no coherent direction of ontological development. On the contrary, in some important respects, though by no means in all, Einstein's general theory of relativity is closer to Aristotle's than either of them is to Newton's. Though the temptation to describe that position as relativistic is understandable, the description seems to me wrong. Conversely, if the position be relativism, I cannot see that the relativist loses anything needed to account for the nature and development of the sciences.

I am in complete agreement — Joshs

I don't think so. You have quite sneakily appropriated what I wrote to be that science is its own relativism just like 'my truth' so they are 'equal'.

Just because it is not 100% truth that doesn't make it the same as someone saying their own opinion, as the good sir @AmadeusD is patiently explaining to you.