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 my truth to mean 'in my experience' totally demystifies usage if it is taken as a common phrase rather than one issuing from a philosopher. Personal experience is a much stronger and more convincing basis for whatever statement follows than my perspective or my opinion.

None of the above implies anything whatsoever about philosophical truth or 'absolute' truth, where truth is presumed to be obviously self-evidently 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.

It’s people who do not accept the personal truth of others who are the power-trippers.

What I have observed is that those who object to anyone living by their own truth do so because they want those people to live by the objector’s own subjective truth, which they conveniently claim to be objective truth.

This is clear with the transgender issue.

Then you reject the limitations imposed by our shared reality?

Can someone be mistaken in your view? Even wrong?

Can someone be mistaken in your view? Even wrong? — Banno

Subjective truth can for sure be wrong. Just look at racists. That they are superior is whole-heartedly true to them, but would be false to me. But it makes their subjective truth no less true to them.

But being racist is applying what you wrongly believe about others into your world-view. Such is not the case with transgender persons. Their subjective truth is only about themselves. They are not judging others. it is the others who are judging them.

Their subjective truth is only about themselves. — Questioner

Then, with all due respect, why does anyone else have to care, acknowledge or acquiesce to it? I suggest it is because

those who object to anyone living by their own truth do so because they want those people to live by the objector’s own subjective truth — Questioner

is what's going on - this is simply a vicious cycle.

The objectors just want to stop the cycle and appeal to something other than your subjective claims about yourself and reality to get on with interpersonal issues. You can ignore hte trans issue and apply to anything.

If "my truth" is that I have 20/20 vision, then that is a truth for me and me alone. You do not get to tell me I am wrong.

But I am wrong. Because there is no such thing as "my truth". There are your opinions and feelings.

"My truth" is usually an expression of the speaker's self-regard when making a statement of little importance.

why does anyone else have to care, acknowledge or acquiesce to it? — AmadeusD

Uh no, just let them live, or just ignore them.

Certainly do not make arbitrary rules that they are no longer allowed to serve in the US military.

Because there is no such thing as "my truth". There are your opinions and feelings. — AmadeusD

I have my subjective truths. Here are a few of them. I have no hesitancy in saying they are truths.

I am a cisgender female. My mother loves me. My sisters will never abandon me. Being caregiver to my disabled husband was the most important thing I have ever done. Everyone is doing the very best they can. Honesty produces better outcomes than falsehood. Givers are happier than takers. Newborn infants are perfect...

These are a few of my truths. I've got overwhelming evidence - 60+ years of observation and analysis to support my truths.

And if someone begins their litany by saying "I am a transgender..."

That is their truth. And it has absolutely nothing to do with you.

"My truth" is usually an expression of the speaker's self-regard when making a statement of little importance. — Ciceronianus

Maybe i am speaking as a writer. i write stories. And the only good stories are the ones that captures some of the writer's truth.

Uh no, just let them live, or just ignore them. — Questioner

Definitely, for some people, this is what they need to be told (although, we obviously don't see hte issue hte same way generally - so, I'll give a response below with this carved off)

Well, that would be fine if there weren't numerous situations we are asked to participate in "their truth" to the point of laws changing to accommodate it, in a way which is dishonest along any axis you care to take (in NZ, for instance, your sex changes on your birth certificate once through the court process).

Certainly do not make arbitrary rules that they are no longer allowed to serve in the US military. — Questioner

It's not arbitrary by any stretch. But I too wouldn't have done that. I did say you could ignore the trans issue - clearly not one we're getting clarity within.

I have no hesitancy in saying they are truths. — Questioner

Clearly. But they are not. They are things you think. Probably, wishfully. And that's fine. But they're simply not truths of any kind, other than it's true you think those things. If it turns out your mother hates you, what are you doing to do? Be wrong?

I suggest as soon as you come up against an objection you move back into "well, so what.. I believe what I believe". And that's fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with truth.

And if someone begins their litany by saying "I am a transgender..."

That is their truth. And it has absolutely nothing to do with you. — Questioner

Then why did they tell me.... This is incoherent. Like the concept of "my truth".

Hunter Hess, a young Olympian, was asked what it feels like to represent the United States at the Olympics this year.

He answered with his truth.

He said it feels complicated. He said it feels a little hard. He said he’s proud of his family and his friends and the people who raised him, but he cannot pretend he’s proud of everything happening back home. He said what any emotionally intact adult would say if they were asked to hold the flag in one hand and the headlines in the other.

Trump stepped in and called him a loser. A Tennessee Rep told him to shut up and go play in the snow. Strangers filled online comments sections with venom. Truth was not expected, or wanted, from him. All that was expected of him was to pretend and perform.

Does waving an American flag now mean surrendering your humanity?

I suggest as soon as you come up against an objection you move back into "well, so what.. I believe what I believe" — AmadeusD

He said it feels... — Questioner

has absolutely nothing to do with truth. — AmadeusD

That is how he feels. There is no reason whatsoever to start calling people's feelings truth. If my feelings contradict yours, we cannot have two truths. It is incoherent.

"My truth" = my faith / my guess / my opinion.

↪Questioner Then you reject the limitations imposed by our shared reality?

Can someone be mistaken in your view? Even wrong? — Banno

Our shared reality isnt going to help you figure out why your perspective doesnt jibe precisely with those whose reality you share. Group consensus can take us a long way, but on some things what is a mistake and what is fitting we have to figure out on our own terms.

Group consensus can take us a long way, — Joshs

How far?

Apologies in advance if this has already been discussed, but what do people think about the phrase "My truth"? — Peter Gray

Trying to repurpose words for one's own benefit is a pretty common tactic among the manipulative. Its when a person takes the emotional and cultural connotation of the word, then repurposes it for their own advantage. "Truth" has the feeling of "Certainty that cannot be wrong." "My opinion" or "My viewpoint" has the connotation "I could be wrong." My truth implies "I hold a truth that is beyond your criticism or the possibility of being wrong."

Its powerful because the person can twist the meaning to their advantage. "No, I don't think your view point is valid," But its "My truth". You can't question the truth. Its mine, only I know it, you can't.

The repurposing of language is used as a sneaky way of getting what you want when you know if you use accurate language, that you won't. It also undermines the notion of the original word too. "No, you can't repurpose truth, that's not what it means." That's YOUR truth, my truth can be whatever I want and you can't say anything about it.

Part of the reason why this is effective is that many times emotions guide people's thoughts, not rational thinking. Using something blatantly irrational often does not give a person an emotional feeling of being right. But if you can repurpose a word and get the emotional feeling of, "I'm right" while simply saying it, it emboldens the individual to keep using it and attack those who question it. It might be irrational, but if you personally don't feel it is, you'll sit there with dead eyes defending it.

I once has a poster on here try to twist the meaning of subjective to mean 'objective', because they wanted all the benefits of subjectivity and the cultural 'feeling' that the normal term objective gave. Basically they wanted something, reality wouldn't let them have it, so they tried to repurpose the word as if it would give them the reality they wanted. As a tactic it can work for some time. The problem always is that the concepts underlying the original word's meaning do not go away. People still usually need them, so they invent new words that convey those concepts and ruin the original's attempt at thinking that language can change reality.

A modern day example is the famous, "Trans women are women". Certain individuals want to be seen as females, can't logically argue that its the case, so repurpose the words to get the meaning of what they want. I bring it up because its also an example of something that can only work for so long as its slowly fading away now. When it leaves the emotional realm and has to be considered in something rational like the law, the concept is more important than the feeling of the phrase. That's why there's a major push back to keep the concept of sex separation, despite the use of 'woman' for males who transition.

So always keep an eye out for it. People will always try to emotionally pressure you into believing something they want and you have to be savvy enough to not fall for it.

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 agree that it implies the opposite of the OP's interpretation. In fact while it happens to use the label "truth", it really means "my interpretation", since it's not describing objective facts, rather how objective facts appear to them subjectively, given their personal experiences. And we're all allowed to have our subjective interpretation/opinion.

Because there is no such thing as "my truth". There are your opinions and feelings. — AmadeusD

You go tell that to your boss. Or your arresting officer. Or any such person who is in any way relevant at any point in your life.

Does waving an American flag now mean surrendering your humanity? — Questioner

When did it not?

I agree that it implies the opposite of the OP's interpretation. In fact while it happens to use the label "truth", it really means "my interpretation", since it's not describing objective facts, rather how objective facts appear to them subjectively, given their personal experiences. And we're all allowed to have our subjective interpretation/opinion. — LuckyR

For some people (many, probably), the concept of "interpretation" is unintelligible, unacceptable, a sign of inferiority, or a sign of evil intent.

As a religious/spiritual person told me, "I do not interpret, I tell it like it is, I speak the truth." I've known many such people. What you just said above is unintelligible to them, or dismissed as "sophistry".

Our shared reality isnt going to help you figure out why your perspective doesnt jibe precisely with those whose reality you share. Group consensus can take us a long way, but on some things what is a mistake and what is fitting we have to figure out on our own terms. — Joshs

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