Is demanding a one-size-fits-all truth the sign of maturity or a kind of childish tantrum in the face of perspectives that don’t fit neatly into the established norms? — Joshs

The former, as far as I'm concerned, without question. It is the child who refuses to accept their position is wrong because they want to hold on to it. It is the religious impulse in the species that grasps onto empirically false beliefs. It is immature historically and individually. The idea that Questioner is putting forward is one which requires stay in intellectually infancy for life, and encouraging others to do the same, never transcending one's emotional reaction to the world around them. It is the stuff of nightmares.

I think here you've moved from the concept of 'truth' to 'norms'. They are not the same, and even if you think they are, we are not discussing this topic in that light. So the above is both slightly disingenuous (as in does not accurate represent what's been said, not suggesting it contradicts what is "true"), and probably so easily answerable its hard to grasp the point of asking, other than to rationalize behaving that way. I really enjoy how most of your replies to anything are open-ended and don't quite land on claims as such. It's cool. But in this case, it comes across as prevarication.

In your rush to push forward that only the objective matters, you forget the person.

I do not forget the person. — Questioner

This doesn't mean anything to anyone but you. So be it. That is exactly what we're discussing, and you've given ample example of exactly why the concept of "my truth" is incoherent, unhelpful and causes people to be worse interlocutors.

it has caused you to be unable to stay on a topic, answer a question directly or do much but post other people's ambiguous, and usually unrelated thoughts in service of belittling those who disagree with you. Its childish, anti-intellectual and likely a result of an emotional defiance to other people's views. Ironic.

Wittgenstein’s — Richard B

I suggest this is probably a sure sign you're in the wrong lane. But that is literally an opinion, I'm not making an argument of any kind - just noting why this wouldn't move someone in my position.

Not adding anything to this debate, think of it as more of a reaction to the debate as it unfolds.

I’ve not seen any effective rebuttal against the points I’ve raised. What I have seen are personal attacks on me, an intellectually dishonest position. Amounts to little more than trolling.

The concept of “my truth” has an ontological basis. “My truth” – as manifested in the concept of shradda, - refers to the “substance” of a person – is comprised of all that defines their world – and is an inherent part of their nature. It transcends the idea that truth is merely a property of language or knowledge. It is in fact an internalization of one’s reality.

To reject another’s concept of “my truth” based solely on a disagreement with whatever the other’s truth might be, is also intellectually dishonest. That position understands only at the level of language and knowledge, and does not address the concept.

A very common piece of advice to writers and poets is to, in their works, express their truth. The best poetry, the best writings, are those that creatively convey the artist’s truth.

As Rainer Rilke (Letter to a Young Poet) advised – “Go into yourself.”

And Emily Dickinson advised - “Tell all the truth but tell it slant —”

Walt Whitman collapses the distinction between poet and poem when in The Song of Myself, he writes -

“I celebrate myself, and sing myself.”

Oscar Wilde (The Picture of Dorian Gray) – makes a similar distinction - the artist is his art -

“Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.”

And James Joyce (A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man) spoke his truth when he wrote –

“To forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race.”

Truth it what is, and it isn't owned by anyone. There is no "My truth". — Philosophim

"Truth" and "facts" are not synonyms. Facts are objective; truth involves an interpretation of facts and is inevitably subjective.

I consider using manipulative language one of the few clear evils that people can do. — Philosophim

Manipulative: influencing or attempting to influence the behavior or emotions of others for one’s own purposes. — dictionary

A teacher lecturing to manipulate his students into passing a test is "using manipulative language". A politician trying to persuade the electorate to vote for him is "using manipulative language". A scientist writing that experimental evidence supports his theory is "using manipulative language".

These are "clear evils"? Isn't your attempt to vilify "manipulative language" and example of manipulative language (or at least an attempt at manipulative language -- I doubt your attempts actually manipulate anyone).