"This is my truth"

[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.

[Chancie]

'This is my truth' is not an expression I would use, because the word 'truth' means something different to me.

But, I think that when people say, This is my truth, they are claiming their right to express their feelings, even in the face an audience that is disinterested in their deep feelings and concerns.

I do have a friend who believes that DNA is a triple helix; she is just about positively sure of this. <-- not the kind of personal meaning I usually expect

[Nat]

I'm tutoring a very advanced English language learner who is a scientist. She aced out of the GED prep manual for English, so we are working mostly on increasing her vocabulary, tweaking her grammar and punctuation, increasing her listening/word-recognition abilities (she says she often misses the meaning behind stories and jokes because she misses a few critical words). Anyway, I'm having her listen to Ted talks and write down the parts she doesn't understand. The last one she chose was a talk by Isabel Allende who started out her speech with a question: what is truer than truth? Her answer was "the story."

My tutee did not understand how this question made any logical sense. In fact, over and over again, she has known the literal meaning of the word, but not the figurative ways in which the same word can be used. I don't know if this has more to do with her scientific brain or if her 1st language (Farsi) is more distinct in the words used to express literal vs figurative stuff. So I am constantly challenged to try to explain stuff that I haven't ever thought twice about - to a person far more intelligent than I am. It's an enjoyable challenge.

Anyway, in trying to explain Allende's question, this was pretty much the answer I gave her:

In the science world, truth is based on facts. So in your work-life I imagine most people will speak about truth meaning factual, actual truth.

But in English, there is another idea of truth that's not necessarily related to facts. So especially when you are listening to non-sciency people, you may hear "truth" used more to mean something personal or something from your heart or an abstract idea. It might be a religious idea or it may be related to the idea that there is a truth at a deeper level than facts can reveal.

But I didn't get into the, "this is my truth," conversation. I wish I'd thought of it. I don't have trouble with most, "this is my truth," statements and I have probably used the phrase a few times myself. My understanding of, "this is my truth," is that it's an attempt to acknowledge that we have each had our own life experiences which have shaped for each of us how we view and interact with the world. I think it's a statement that tries to set a tone which doesn't impose one's own thoughts, beliefs, filters, lens, what-have-you on others - and in that way I see it as a respectful and humble way to begin to express something possibly unpopular. But I have also seen it used as a defensive way to plug one's own ears in the face of challenge, as a way to deny or escape accusation of prejudice or ignorance.

When it comes to evidence, science, math - I don't believe in personal "truth." When it comes to defense against actual knowledge, defense against learning, I don't believe in personal "truth." But in matters of personal experience, in the realms of the heart and of the spirit, I believe very much in personal truth and I think there's enough room in the world for anybody to acknowledge having one.

The other day, I mentioned aquatic ape theory to AJ and she said there were a lot of holes in it. I wouldn't say "aquatic ape theory is my personal truth." it's just a theory that catches my fancy. I'm neither a scientist nor a mathematician, so I live more in the world of figurative individual truth than I do in the world of factual truth.

I'm not down with that triple helix ish though. My personal truth is that she needs to be held down and corrected.

[Cin]

Nat's post got me thinking about something that happened this morning. I guess it's a little off topic but if you tilt your head and think figuratively rather than literally it might fit okay.

People have often told me that I’m literal. They say things like you take things too literally or you need to stop being so literal and so forth. I have steadfastly refused to accept their observations. Instead I have always maintained that I am simply taking people at their exact word in an attempt to get them to be accountable for the actual words they say rather than me trying to interpret what they could mean by what they say. I have always believed this is a fair and clear way to communicate. And I have always had a need for clarity. I don’t believe I’m incapable of figurative thought. I have always been able to understand the possible meanings and interpretations behind a statement or an action. I just prefer to take people at their word.

Besides that I have always believed being literal means lacking the ability for abstract thought or lacking imagination. I conflate it with seeing the world in black and white. I looked up the meaning of literal today and this is what I found:

Literal
1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.
2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.
3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.
4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city.
5. (of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.

I still want to refute the claim that I am too literal. But something happened this morning that is making me rethink my position.

Me: “You want some yogurt for breakfast.”

A: “Sure bring me a small bowl.”

Me: “You mean those tiny ramekins.”

A: “No, in a regular cereal bowl.”

Me: “Well, they only come in one size.”

A: (with a sigh, cause life with me is quite exhausting between my need for clarity and my literal interpretation of things.) “Just put a small amount of yogurt IN the bowl.”

Me: {with wonder as light dawns on Marblehead) “Oh I get it, you used ‘a small bowl’ to refer to the quantity in the bowl. Like a small portion or a small piece.”

A: Yes dear, that’s right. That’s EXACTLY right.”

I don’t know I guess maybe I should reconsider my position on whether I am literal or not.

[Ginger]

Originally Posted by Chancie

'This is my truth' is not an expression I would use, because the word 'truth' means something different to me.

But, I think that when people say, This is my truth, they are claiming their right to express their feelings, even in the face an audience that is disinterested in their deep feelings and concerns.

I agree with the general spirit of what you're saying, but instead of "This is my truth," I would say, "This is my experience."

I find it useful to at least be clear with myself on what I've experienced, and not let anyone try to force me to experience something I just don't experience.

I'm sorry, I'm probably being confusing.

I mean, two people can be in the same place at the same time, they can be the only two people in the room and the only two people interacting, but have a different experience or interpretation or memory of what that interaction was all about.

This is a challenge in relationships, but I've found that if I just stick to being honest about what MY experience is, I at least feel grounded in that. It's a place to start.

And just as you notice that people "claim their right to express their feelings," I notice that I claim my right to express what my experience was, which often involves feelings, as in, That felt reassuring, or That felt like an attack.

The other person might not have intended to be reassuring, or attacking—but that doesn't mean it didn't feel that way.

Ah, intention. That's the root of expression, I guess. Or the root of understanding.

Jeez I can't believe I said that, "the root of understanding," LOL. But I meant it.

[Medusa]

I liked what you said, IslandScout!

I also agree with you that intention is the root of expression.

I think that when we post here or interact with another person that we generally know our own intention. Maybe we intend to just relay an experience or maybe it's about finding common ground. I'd like to think we try to get our intention across by being really thoughtful about the words we use and how we frame our position.

There are, of course, people who say or do things who are not in touch with their intentions. They might say "I didn't intend for that to feel ugly to you" and truly mean that but it might be a scenario when they said something like "That skirt you're wearing is the ugliest thing I have ever seen".
While they didn't intend for that to feel ugly (maybe they thought they were being helpful), I might wonder if they are really out of touch with how their words affect other people. Something about insensitivity maybe?

And perhaps this might fit in the "Duplicity" thread. If a person says or does something that feels really ugly, and perhaps it's something really overtly ugly, but the person is so out of touch with how what they do affects others, is it duplicity? Or are they just an insensitive, self-centered asshole?