"This is my truth"

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by tapu

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJo View Post

Right. I think the problematic part is that many of us who use this phrase use it in different ways.
Yes, precisely. I would feel better about the whole thing if people would designate or define what truths they are talking about when they speak of 'my truth'.

Aj
------------------

Well, yes. But I see that as a side issue in the more formal discussion. I haven't seen anyone argue against the meaning captured by Jo's explication, from the beginning of the thread 'til now; only against the alternatives.

For me, a problem arises if I sense that using this phrase means they are not willing to take a look at what is "true" for other people- or that we all see the world through filters/lenses that speak to our life experience.

This entire discussion has led me to the realization that when the word "true" or "truth" enters into things, we may be digging in our heels about something. Of course I have and do this sometimes. Yet, just considering what others are bringing to the discussion does make me more mindful of using these terms or the phrase.

I admit that I am just not at my best communication mode when I begin to feel stubborn. This usually means I am not listening to someone else.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

For me, a problem arises if I sense that using this phrase means they are not willing to take a look at what is "true" for other people- or that we all see the world through filters/lenses that speak to our life experience.

This entire discussion has led me to the realization that when the word "true" or "truth" enters into things, we may be digging in our heels about something. Of course I have and do this sometimes. Yet, just considering what others are bringing to the discussion does make me more mindful of using these terms or the phrase.

I admit that I am just not at my best communication mode when I begin to feel stubborn. This usually means I am not listening to someone else.

See, I think that the problem with using this construction of things being 'true' for people is that we aren't being clear about the subject matter domain. I think that, for instance, there can be multiple truths (within reason) about what makes a successful relationship. Even here I would have to draw a line. If a neighbor tells me that it is 'true for them' that beating their spouse makes their relationship healthier I'm not going to 'respect' that 'truth' and avoid calling the cops. If one is talking about your own interior landscape then sure, we all have our own truths but this observation still--even after a couple of days of sitting on it like a hen--strikes me as trivial to the point of banality and if that is what we are talking about I'm *still* confused why anyone would find that at all controversial.

My concern is not when people are talking about their own interior landscape but when they are talking about the world we all share. That is the more interesting (read problematic) use of the phrase.

Part of my problem in understanding what we are talking about, at this juncture, is that my use of the word 'true' is perhaps more constrained. For me, something is 'true' if the statement accurately describes the world in such a way the world is obliged to actually conform to that description. A couple of examples will, I hope, suffice.

1) Earth rotates on its axis every 24.25 hours and is tilted at 23 degrees relative to the plane of orbit.

2) Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States. George W Bush was the 43rd President of the United States. William Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States.

3) Ordinary (light) water is dihydrogen monoxide, meaning that it has two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.

4) Hydrogen has one electron and one proton.

5) All life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor and has diverged in the last 4 billion years by a process of mutation and natural selection.

You get the idea. My concern is not when people make comments about their interior landscape but when they argue that they get to have their own 'truth' relative to any of the class of ideas above. If we're *only* talking about interior landscapes then I return to my question of Monday--what about saying "my truth is..." interests people? If we're talking about the larger, more generic question of epistemology then I have to ask if the idea of each of us having our own 'truths' can even hold itself up under its own weight. It seems to me to be demonstrably false even by its own lights.

I say that because, for instance, if we each have our own truths and we need to treat those truths as valid then *my* own truth is that we *don't* have our own truths.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

Philosophical arguments so often wend their way down to a paradox.

[Corkey]

I think with sciences not being taught in schools we are going to experience more of this. I'm even more concerned with the kids being home schooled.
My internal truths are different from everyone else's, however the earth is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth and we did not just appear in this form 6,000 years ago. Science is not a god, but it can reveal many truths that mankind needs to see and hear. I think mans ego get in the way of real scientific truth.

[Corkey]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/m...190516989.html

This is precisely what I mean by mans ego.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Corkey

I think with sciences not being taught in schools we are going to experience more of this. I'm even more concerned with the kids being home schooled.
My internal truths are different from everyone else's, however the earth is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth and we did not just appear in this form 6,000 years ago. Science is not a god, but it can reveal many truths that mankind needs to see and hear. I think mans ego get in the way of real scientific truth.

Your next to last sentence really illustrates what I try to communicate about science, its power and its beauty. I think science gives us a ground for what I call the least common point of agreement. By that, I mean that despite whatever differences we bring to the table we can all agree that, for instance, Earth has one moon and that gravity holds the two bodies together. We can agree that the very same force that holds the Earth-Moon system together causes that system to orbit the Sun. We can agree that the very same force that causes all of that orbiting round gravitational centers of mass holds you to the chair you're sitting in and reading these words. It doesn't matter that you are Native American and I am Black, the same force effects us both. It doesn't matter if I am conservative or you are liberal or vice versa, Newtonian physics effects us the same way.

While these might seem really trivial they are not as trivial as might be revealed on first glance. The reason why is that the same general methods of thought that allow us to understand why the Earth-Moon system works allows us to *also* realize that you and I are members of the same species. Regardless of how easily we fall into the mental habits of xenophobia, racism--just a special case of xenophobia--will find no quarter in biology. Even if it did, we can reason our way past whatever haven it might offer--however, again, biology offers no harbor for racist ideas.

In our modern society we focus on the differences yet, despite those places we differ, we live in the same physical world, we are subject to the same physical forces. Climate change will not effect just people in Europe while leaving people in South America unscathed. Starvation kills people in China just as easily as it does people in Somalia.

This is not to say that science can give us a moral system per se. I think the life sciences (and here I'll include psychology as it moves more toward grounding its hypothesis in the biology of the brain) can point us toward a common human nature which can provide us with guideposts for what kinds of societies we *can* build and how easy or difficult it will be to create those societies.

Cheers
Aj

[Glenn]

This is not to say that science can give us a moral system per se. I think the life sciences (and here I'll include psychology as it moves more toward grounding its hypothesis in the biology of the brain) can point us toward a common human nature which can provide us with guideposts for what kinds of societies we *can* build and how easy or difficult it will be to create those societies,

Cheers
Aj[/QUOTE]

Here is where the scientific human ego begins to worry me by utilizing the laws and truth of this "Force" in our brain to control us and societies, not knowing for certain the source of this Force,or the further damage for good or evil that can be created by duplicating it in a laboratory. Can Neuro or Behavior Science possibly know with flawless precision the deeper moral and spiritual truths of human evolution that took thousands and thousands of years to spiritually and morally evolve simply by knowing what buttons to push in the brain for the common good of us all?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by popcorninthesofa

This is not to say that science can give us a moral system per se. I think the life sciences (and here I'll include psychology as it moves more toward grounding its hypothesis in the biology of the brain) can point us toward a common human nature which can provide us with guideposts for what kinds of societies we *can* build and how easy or difficult it will be to create those societies,

Cheers
Aj

Here is where the scientific human ego begins to worry me by utilizing the laws and truth of this "Force" in our brain to control us and societies, not knowing for certain the source of this Force,or the further damage for good or evil that can be created by duplicating it in a laboratory. Can Neuro or Behavior Science possibly know with flawless precision the deeper moral and spiritual truths of human evolution that took thousands and thousands of years to spiritually and morally evolve simply by knowing what buttons to push in the brain for the common good of us all?[/QUOTE]

What 'force' are you talking about? You don't define what force you mean. What *I* am talking about isn't manipulating a 'force' in our brains, it is rather, working on some commonalities of human psychology. I'm not talking about moral or spiritual 'truths' (whatever that might mean. I am talking about certain features of the human brain.

For example, it is a fairly safe bet that if you had a choice in the matter you would very strongly prefer that you not be enslaved and treated as property. If this holds true for me (and it does) and it holds true for you (and it almost certainly does) we can then infer that chattel slavery is a morally indefensible way of organizing an economy. Not because of some mysterious 'force' but because human beings appear to prefer self-determination, self-ownership and not being treated as mere ends to some means defined by someone else. The *principles* that I am talking about have nothing to do with a 'force'. Rather, it has to do with the idea of hypothesis formation, observation or experiment, and then articulation of a theory which is subject to further refinement and falsification.

Take, as another example, rape. All women appear to resist rape strenuously. We should, in fact, expect precisely this kind of behavior because women have a vested interest in bodily integrity and in choosing the time, place, manner of their sexual activity as well as with whom that activity will occur. We should then be *very* suspicious of any claims, made by anyone, that marital rape isn't rape or that women 'enjoy it after a while' or any of the other completely unsupportable things that have been said about rape over the years.

Taking one last example, in the middle part of the last century several collectivist schemes became all the intellectual vogue. In various places, peoples tried to create societies where, for instance, people did not raise their own children but rather they were raised in creches or people lived in very utilitarian buildings, or ate in communal dining halls. Every single one of them were spectacular failures. Again, a political theory grounded in human nature, might have spared us these needless social experiments. Parents will prefer their own children over the children of strangers--we should expect that. People want privacy and they want to choose the company with whom they break bread. Again, we should expect this given human psychology. This isn't about creating utopias. In fact, my argument is that human nature should warn us, in loud tones and garishly colorful flags, that we are in the presence of dangerous ideas whenever someone comes up with a scheme to create the 'perfect' society.

Again, NONE of this requires a 'force' in our brains. If you can find me a society where parents do *not* prefer their children over those of their neighbors, if you can find me a society where people do *not* expect some level of bodily autonomy, where people do *not* mind being treated as mere ends to a means for the benefit of someone else, I'm happy to listen. However, even then I think that the outlier would only serve to throw sharper light on the fact that it IS an outlier. I will also tell you that any society where one or more of those social structures is enforced will be a profoundly less free society.

When I was talking about gravity I was not saying that there is some force, like gravity, that can be manipulated. Rather, I was stating that in the same way that a systematic asking of questions lead us to realize that the same force that causes apples to fall, for us to stay in chairs, and for the Earth-Moon system to orbit the Sun a similar process can lead us, not to a utopia, but can warn us away from schemes that will not work with human psychology, given how it operates. If nothing else, it will tell us what kind of effort it will take to achieve some end we might find desirable. Getting people to, for instance, eat sweets, have sex, or leave their worldly accumulations to their children is easy, pretty much just this side of effortless. Getting people to, for instance, eschew pleasure today for payoff tomorrow, or leave their worldly goods to some random stranger or to refrain from sex is quite a bit harder. Not impossible, mind you, but quite a bit more difficult and may have to be enforced by restricting certain degrees of freedom.

I am not sure what force you are talking about and I'm not sure what you think behavioral science or neuroscience can or will do as far pushing buttons but it is not what I'm talking about.

cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by tapu

Philosophical arguments so often wend their way down to a paradox.

"It is always a good idea to ask how some very general view about truth, knowledge, or meaning applies to itself; and few things could be more damaging to a view than to discover that it is false by its own lights. (Paul Boghossian)

The type of relativism that concerns me (which may not be the type of relativism being discussed here although I'm not sure that it isn't) falls apart under its own weight which is what I was hinting at with my statement that if we all have our own 'truths' then my 'truth' is that we don't have our own truths.

Cheers
Aj

[Gemme]

I was listening to one of my current favorite songs and this thread came to mind.



"Cuz I'm living my truth without your lies"

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

But what if someone's truth is that their thoughts don't lead to hurtful actions or if they do the person's hurt are not inside the circle of moral concern. Then what? Since there is no reason to *prefer* non-hurtful actions as a touchstone if someone holds a truth that leads to harm, all we have is 'I don't like that so please don't". That seems a flimsy basis upon which to build any idea of justice. What we *can't* do is argue that the person holding the truth that leads to malevolent action is wrong because it's their 'truth', so it *can't* be wrong. It can't be wrong even by our own lights since your truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong and my truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong and Ebon's truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong but *of course* we would say that. We all have a vested interest in it being wrong. But since we have conceded that if you believe something is true then it IS true--for any reasonable definition--then all someone has to get around the codicil that it can't lead to harm is for that person to say "racism doesn't hurt people, of course those on the receiving end will *say* that it hurts them but what else would you expect 'those people' to say?" Now, they've stated that their 'truth' is that racism doesn't hurt people. If you insist that it does then they can even concede that it might but that the targets of racism are beyond the circle of reasonable moral concern and the same way you wouldn't, say, crash an airplane with 300 people on board in order to save the life of an ant, one should not force society to roll into the circle of moral concern people who are clearly beyond that circle--it is their truth after all and there is no reason that anyone can give as to why *your* truth is preferable to *their* truth.

Cheers
Aj

This is interesting. You took me saying that I wished more people were about letting people do their own thing, as long as it didn't hurt anyone....it's been a long time but I do believe I had those who perpetuate against homosexuals and our community in mind when I said that....and somehow turned it into me saying something about a system of justice? I'm sorry. I am just not following.

Of course anyone can say that something is their truth. A pedophile might say that their truth is that children like to be touched by them. Would I believe that? As a survivor, I would say absolutely not. But I will not take their right away to say it. I may argue it with them but I won't say that they can't say it because I don't agree with it.

To me, if that line of thinking is truly what they believe, then I believe...in this particular instance...that they are more dangerous than other pedophiles who believe that their victims do not like their touch.

But, I can't say that that isn't truth. They may, indeed, believe that. For them, that is a reality.

Originally Posted by tapu

So "my truth" means, more or less, "my experience"? I think your explanation of the meaning is excellent, Jo. Now, since there has to be a way to express that otherwise, I'm trying to think what it is so we can arrive at the beginnings of a definition.

Yes. Also, my "truth" may be exchanged with "perspective". Basically, this says to me that this is how I, or you, or anyone else sees things or a particular situation....whatever the discussion is about at that moment.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

That use of 'my truth' is, more or less, unproblematic since it really does not effect the world the rest of us live in. If that were the *only* way that people use that phrase, I wouldn't be concerned (and probably wouldn't be involved in this conversation). My concern is that people don't draw a distinction (presumably because they do not see one) between the following kinds of statements:

1) If there is not some kind of intellectual meeting-of-the-minds I am not going to be happy in a relationship.

2) If we allow marriages between two men or two women, we will have to allow marriages between father and daughter or a 50 year old man and an 10 year old girl etc.

The problem isn't statements of type-1, the problem is statements of type-2. I think we should not evaluate the 'my truth' idea on the basis of type-1 statements but on the basis of type-2 statements.

Cheers
Aj

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. People are going to think what they are going to think, regardless if they preface that thought with 'this is what I think' or 'this is my truth' or whatever.

Originally Posted by JustJo

Right....I could say "in my experience" or "in my case" and those would both work. I use those as well. I think I tend to use "my truth" when it's a stronger, more fundamental, more visceral usage.

So......in my case I prefer my coffee black. My experience is that "surprises" generally don't turn out well for me, so I prefer to know what's coming next. But my truth is that I must have a passionate connection with my partner.

It's a good, better, best kind of usage....if that makes sense...

Right. I think the problematic part is that many of us who use this phrase use it in different ways.

Yes, exactly.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Yes, precisely. I would feel better about the whole thing if people would designate or define what truths they are talking about when they speak of 'my truth'.

Cheers
Aj

Their own truths.

It could be anything from how they see a political situation to whether their son was really out or if the umpire made a poor call.

Originally Posted by tapu

Jupiter has 30 moons can't be "my truth" even if I fervently believe it. It's something I could be wrong about and I know it, and even if I don't it has a different essence than "my truth": The way Jo (and others) are explaining "my truth," the determiner of what is true is internal to the speaker. It's not an empirical fact; it has an external truth condition.

Or something like that.

Yes. It's completely internal and may or may not match what others see externally.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I have read the phrase (or one of its synonyms) used here in the problematic context (not wanting to reopen old wounds I will not go into specific details about the incidents I have in mind) which is what sparks my interest in the matter. If you are talking about your own interior landscape then 'this my truth' is almost entirely unproblematic. If that is what is at issue, then my question changes from what 'this is my truth' buys us to why anyone would take the statement "my truth is that tequila is yummy" as being at all problematic.

Cheers
Aj

For myself, using your specific example, I wouldn't. I find no issue with someone thinking that tequila is yummy. It's my truth that it isn't.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

See, I think that the problem with using this construction of things being 'true' for people is that we aren't being clear about the subject matter domain. I think that, for instance, there can be multiple truths (within reason) about what makes a successful relationship. Even here I would have to draw a line. If a neighbor tells me that it is 'true for them' that beating their spouse makes their relationship healthier I'm not going to 'respect' that 'truth' and avoid calling the cops. If one is talking about your own interior landscape then sure, we all have our own truths but this observation still--even after a couple of days of sitting on it like a hen--strikes me as trivial to the point of banality and if that is what we are talking about I'm *still* confused why anyone would find that at all controversial.

My concern is not when people are talking about their own interior landscape but when they are talking about the world we all share. That is the more interesting (read problematic) use of the phrase.

Part of my problem in understanding what we are talking about, at this juncture, is that my use of the word 'true' is perhaps more constrained. For me, something is 'true' if the statement accurately describes the world in such a way the world is obliged to actually conform to that description. A couple of examples will, I hope, suffice.

1) Earth rotates on its axis every 24.25 hours and is tilted at 23 degrees relative to the plane of orbit.

2) Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States. George W Bush was the 43rd President of the United States. William Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States.

3) Ordinary (light) water is dihydrogen monoxide, meaning that it has two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.

4) Hydrogen has one electron and one proton.

5) All life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor and has diverged in the last 4 billion years by a process of mutation and natural selection.

You get the idea. My concern is not when people make comments about their interior landscape but when they argue that they get to have their own 'truth' relative to any of the class of ideas above. If we're *only* talking about interior landscapes then I return to my question of Monday--what about saying "my truth is..." interests people? If we're talking about the larger, more generic question of epistemology then I have to ask if the idea of each of us having our own 'truths' can even hold itself up under its own weight. It seems to me to be demonstrably false even by its own lights.

I say that because, for instance, if we each have our own truths and we need to treat those truths as valid then *my* own truth is that we *don't* have our own truths.

Cheers
Aj

I do see that it's the word 'truth' itself that is the hang up.

I think that we all have a need, at some point or another, to express ourselves and our opinions to others. Using 'my truth' just emphasizes that that particular opinion is how we know things to be and maybe we use it because it's close to the vest for us. I know that I tend to use it when talking about things that are more on the personal and/or intimate side of things.

I would not say 'this is my truth' when talking about donuts. Not seriously, anyway. I would probably use it when discussing my childhood or a cause that I find worthy.

It's one thing to wonder why people say the things that they do, but it's another altogether to ruminate on the validity of that person's choice of using that particular word or phrase. That's where I get squinchy....when someone casts judgement upon me for saying something as simple as 'this is my truth' just because it doesn't sit well with 'them'.

And so, I'm back where I began with this months ago.

*shrug*

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Gemme

People are going to think what they are going to think, regardless if they preface that thought with 'this is what I think' or 'this is my truth' or whatever.

Yes, this makes sense to me.

I can really only understand clearly my use of the words “my truth.” I don’t know how other people use it. I am almost positive that if I were to use the phrase “It’s my truth” I would be clutching my pearls. Metaphorically speaking, of course, since I don’t actually have any pearls. But I do tend to use words, especially in writing about something that I feel passionately toward, for dramatic or emotional effect. However, I don’t believe it is a favorite word combo for me. I’m sure it isn’t something I would ever say without thinking. My use of it would be purposeful. And it would be about MY personal truth.

If I were to use the phrase ‘my truth’ it would be to explain who I am and how I move through the world. For example I’m a butch, a woman, a feminist, I’m left leaning, I’m monogamous, I try to always take responsibility for my actions and on an internal level I believe in fearlessly and openly examining the motivations behind my actions so that at the very least I can remain honest with myself and at best I can change direction if I find my motives suspect. This is a part of my truth. That is, if I were interested in defining it as a truth of any kind.

The problem would be if I were to attach some moral relevance to my truth or develop a hierarchy of behavior with my truths positioned firmly at the top. If I am unable to distinguish my truth from THE ONE truth for all right thinking people then I believe it is very problematic. However, if this is my process, if I tend to confuse "MY truth" with "THE truth", I doubt semantics is the problem, nor would changing the phraseology have any effect on the actual issue. Because the problem isn’t my language selection it is how I actually think. And whether I call it "my truth" or "my one eyed, one horned flying purple people eater" the results of this type of thought process will be the same.

Another problem with “my truth” is it legitimizes the possibility that there is more than one. So people feel comfortable using “it’s my truth” as a way of not accepting a universal truth. But again the usage of the phrase is not the problem. The idiosyncratic ideology is.

Whether I believe the phrase “my truth” will attract as users people who cannot tell a personal truth from a universal moral mandate or as an excuse to ignore reality is irrelevant in my opinion. Because really if they don’t say it’s my truth, they will say it’s just my opinion or it’s my beliefs or whatever. I suppose the operative word is MY and how it is really standing in for THE ONE.

I certainly can’t control if and when and to what end people use words. And apparently, as with many words in language, there are ways in which the meaning of my truth is not concrete or universal. Still though for me more problematic is that there are things that people view as truths that have nothing in common with the definition of truth as I understand it. And if someone is thumping their chest or shaking their fist while going on about their truth then I can be pretty sure they won’t be changing their mind any time soon.

I think a better use of my time might be how do I break down or break apart the bundle of core beliefs that allow a person to believe that something is any kind of truth when there are volumes of evidence that proves otherwise. Or beliefs that are central to a person’s make up that cause them to decide moral rightness for others. For example they believe in monogamy so then monogamy is the only right and true course for everyone.

I remember clearly when I first realized that being unarguably right won’t stop others from arguing with you and all the evidence in the world won’t convince them of the truth. The reality is sometimes simply pointing out evidence to support your belief will be futile regardless of what is true. I can’t tell you who I was with or what the argument was about, although I do remember it was a central relationship. What I remember most is the feeling I had when it finally dawned on me that it doesn’t matter one whit that I am positive I’m right, that I have a plethora of proof to back me up, and that I am able to articulate my position perfectly. It doesn’t matter that there is no logical way anyone would not be swayed by the evidence. I was truly gobsmacked. I felt a sense of regret and defeat as I tried to imagine how anyone can ever understand anything in a world where the truth could not only be subjective but could actually be a lie. But I also felt something click into place in my brain. This was an important piece of information that I had been missing for years. Imagine my surprise. No matter how right I think I am or even how right I actually am and no matter how easily I believe I can prove the truth with my facts, if the other person has an attachment to the lie, whether consciously or unconsciously, whether it is part of a core belief or an emotional investment, the other person can and often will completely disregard my compelling argument as so much bullshit. Bullshit that they feel I insist on spraying all over their feelings.

That was my first experience with the realization that truth for many is not actually a reality or fact based thing, it is more a subjective, feeling type experience that isn’t locked into what is concrete but more about what they wish it to be. And they have no qualms about calling that truth. I don’t know what anyone can do to change that. I’m aware there are techniques for changing people’s minds. I know there’s ways purported to break through core beliefs. I know that often creating dissonance will result in a person reevaluating their ideas and this could make it possible for them to change what they believe. In my experience though the more attached someone is to their belief the more likely presenting conclusive and undeniable evidence and proof to the contrary will only succeed in polarizing their beliefs and make it very difficult for them to hear you. Trying to create dissonance so a person will rethink a core belief can be unrewarding, fruitless and in some cases even hazardous to your health. Yet it is necessary to try I think. Challenging lies and misrepresentations of reality are a part of "my truth".

[macele]

i've never used this phrase. very interesting.

i take it as meaning, it only pertains to them. "my truth" is not or doesn't have to be universal truth to them.

"this is my truth", ... telling it like it is.

"this is my truth", ... this is my reality.

"this is my truth", ... to thine own self be true.

i'd rather use the phrase, "the fact is, the truth matters." but that's a whole nother box of shoes.