"This is my truth"

[ButchBowWow]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

Ok, so the first time I ever saw this statement was on the dash site.

The first time I read it I thought...what does that mean, exactly? Is that just another way of saying, "This is what I believe"? If so, why not just say that?

The statement sounds so awkward to my ears, for some reason. I figured that over time it would stop sounding this way, but it just doesn't.

So, my question (to anyone who wants to answer), am I understanding this statement correctly? If not, what does it mean?

I hear the statement more and more, so I am thinking that I really need to be more clear about what it means for communication purposes!

Disclaimer: This thread is not directed towards any person or any situation where this may have been said. No subtext here, just another case of my "wondering out loud" and wanting to hear from others.

For me, when I hear that my brain translates it to this is my experience.

[tapu]

A little late to the discussion, but DapperButch, the reason it "sounds funny" to you is that the word truth in that statement is used in a way that doesn't match most people's meaning for it.

Generally, truth is an absolute, and appears with the: The new usage, exemplified by my truth, your truth, contradicts the semantic feature of truth we're all used to, that it's an absolute.

I see it used a few ways, mentioned earlier in this thread: both "it's what I believe and you can't dissuade me; and "it's what is true about/for me" (when the situation is a subjective one, usually).

[Jett]

What is true for one person may not be true for another, this "is my truth" to me means it is that persons perspective/belief/reality/situation... and simultaneously it acknowledges it may not be another persons.

I haven't seen it used to shut-down a conversation, but can imagine it could be used to say "you're not going to change my mind", or that a person is wasting their breath arguing what ever "truth" is being referenced in the conversation.

*shrugs*

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Star Anise

Although in saying that, I just want to add that I do agree that saying "this is my truth" is sometimes used to shut down a conversation, or rebuff confrontational questions because it is very difficult to argue with someones subjective experience.

I haven't seen this myself, to the best of my recollection, but I do see where it could happen. Kind of like the stalemate in the conversation....when all sides have expressed their thoughts/feelings/etc and none of them have the wherewithall to say "I accept your pov and let's agree to disagree".

I've had folks try to pin me down one way or another in a conversation and sometimes, the answer they are looking for just isn't there. So, there may come a time when I feel that all I can say is "this is what I know" or "this is my truth". When I do that, I'm not saying that their truth is invalid or that one is better than the other. I'm saying it's MINE, so keeps your mitts off, bud. Respect that I have the right to have that mindset or opinion. You don't have to agree, but don't try to oppress me with your opinion either.

For the most part, I'm very much a 'if it doesn't hurt anyone and it rocks your boat, then get to it' kind of person. As long as your thoughts and feelings don't lead to hurtful actions, I'm good. I wish more people were like me.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Metropolis

What is true for one person may not be true for another, this "is my truth" to me means it is that persons perspective/belief/reality/situation... and simultaneously it acknowledges it may not be another persons.

I haven't seen it used to shut-down a conversation, but can imagine it could be used to say "you're not going to change my mind", or that a person is wasting their breath arguing what ever "truth" is being referenced in the conversation.

*shrugs*

No matter how many times I hear it explained, I can't get past the idea that 'true', when applied to a statement, is supposed to be a measure of veracity. If it is not then 'tell the truth' and 'tell a lie' become empty phrases.

Take, for example, the old idea of a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Imagine that child explaining that for her it is 'true' that she wasn't told she couldn't have cookies before dinner. Since she wasn't told that (because it was true for her) then that means she could have a cookie and because it is true for her there is no grounds for punishing her for taking a cookie when she wasn't supposed to. Now, of course, the child's mother has her own 'truth' that she did tell her child not to eat cookies before dinner but if we concede that the child has her own truth and the mother has her own truth and if we decide that there is no reason to prefer one truth over the other, then the mother has no grounds for disciplining her child. I think we would all agree that if, for example, the child was demonstrably at school and the cookie jar fell off the counter and broke, it would be unjust--even abusive--for the mother to punish her child for something the child demonstrably could not have done.

Yet, if we concede that the mother can have one 'truth' (one where the child broke the cookie jar even if she was nowhere near it) and the child can have another (where she didn't break the cookie jar because she was at school) now we have to concede that if the mother asserts that her 'truth' is that her daughter broke the cookie jar then she is justified in punishing the child.

If you would concede that the only circumstances where it would be unjust to punish the child is when the child did not do that for which she is going to be punished, then we have now broken the link between what the child does and what she is punished for. It does not matter if she *did* the thing what matters is if her mother has as her truth that she did the thing. Whether it *actually* happened becomes functionally irrelevant.

The problem I have with the 'this is my truth' idea is that it breaks the linkage between our actions and our behaviors. I woke up at 4:30 this morning to be at the office by 6:00. Not because I wanted to but because I believed--correctly--that I had to be there by 6:00 and that failure to do so would be a 'career limiting move'. In other words, I behaved in a manner appropriate to the circumstances I held to be true--that my boss expected me to be in at 6:00 to be at a meeting with members of our organization in England.

Now, it may be that the link between the beliefs that someone holds and their actions is under-determined but I don't believe it is so. This means that if someone believes--holds to be true--that homosexual couples should not be allowed to be legally married because this or that divine being hates the very idea of homosexuals existing much less marrying then that person's behavior will be *very* different than one who, for instance, does not believe that the sensibilities of divine beings has no legitimate place in determining laws in a secular legal system. Perhaps it is because I grew up in an America where non-trivial numbers of the majority saw the color of my skin and determined, based upon that information, that their 'truth' was that I was an intellectual and moral inferior and that they should behave appropriately that I distrust the 'this is my truth' construction. I do not think it is benign and, in fact, I think it can lead to quite malevolent outcomes.

I'm curious, is there anyone here who believes that if N-number of Republicans hold to be true that Barack Obama is a Marxist, Mau-Mau, Islamic fascist, socialist who was born in Kenya and hates America does that mean that, in fact, Mr. Obama is obliged to BE those things. If someone believes these things to be true and it turns out that he is none of those things, doesn't that mean that someone holds a 'false' belief? There are no sane worlds (sane here meaning not self-contradictory) where Mr. Obama was both born in Kenya and born in Hawaii. If it is 'true' that he was born in Kenya then he is not the legitimate President nor can he ever be the legitimate President since the Constitution is quite clear on the matter. If it is not true then one may not like him, his party or his policies but that does not mean he is illegitimate.

I understand that 'that is my truth' is supposed to be a way of promoting dialog and tolerance but it fails to do the former and actually gives aid and comfort to bigotry since, for instance, a bigot can assert that it is her 'truth' that I am her mental and moral inferior and the *only* counter I have left to me is that my 'truth' is that I'm not--but no one should expect me to accede to statements about my own inferiority so there's no way for someone on the sidelines to adjudicate that. Meaning that outside of a 'well, my truth is that I don't like racism' is the *best* stance you can make. Again, if my being black is held by someone to be prima facie evidence on my mental and moral inferiority it is *entirely* appropriate, given the 'this is my truth', construction for them to act in the most racist manner since they are not being 'racist' by their own lights but acting in accordance with what they held to be true. To promote, pass or enforce laws or social norms that make that kind of behavior out of bounds is to violate the bigot's truth for no *good* reason.

Is that really the world people want because that is the world that elevating an opinion--even an incorrect one--to the level of 'truth' ineluctably creates.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

I don't think relativizing to "my truth" makes a real difference in the examples. It's exactly what goes on anyway. People often dispute what is "really" the truth. The child claims, "Nossir, you never told me that!" The mother responds "Yes, I did." Or even, "You know I did." In this case, the power balance is unequal and generally the mother "wins." When power is more balanced, people argue and bring evidence to support "their truth."

I do think words have power and that a change like this is often part of a process that changes understanding as well as usage, but I don't think the case is quite as strong here as you make it.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Gemme

I haven't seen this myself, to the best of my recollection, but I do see where it could happen. Kind of like the stalemate in the conversation....when all sides have expressed their thoughts/feelings/etc and none of them have the wherewithall to say "I accept your pov and let's agree to disagree".

I've had folks try to pin me down one way or another in a conversation and sometimes, the answer they are looking for just isn't there. So, there may come a time when I feel that all I can say is "this is what I know" or "this is my truth". When I do that, I'm not saying that their truth is invalid or that one is better than the other. I'm saying it's MINE, so keeps your mitts off, bud. Respect that I have the right to have that mindset or opinion. You don't have to agree, but don't try to oppress me with your opinion either.

For the most part, I'm very much a 'if it doesn't hurt anyone and it rocks your boat, then get to it' kind of person. As long as your thoughts and feelings don't lead to hurtful actions, I'm good. I wish more people were like me.

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

[tapu]

Where do you come down then on truth as relative or absolute?

(I usually position myself squarely at "relatively absolute," rather than "absolutely relative." Meaning, I have no argument to support a position either way. This one drives me nuts.)

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by tapu

I don't think relativizing to "my truth" makes a real difference in the examples. It's exactly what goes on anyway. People often dispute what is "really" the truth. The child claims, "Nossir, you never told me that!" The mother responds "Yes, I did." Or even, "You know I did." In this case, the power balance is unequal and generally the mother "wins." When power is more balanced, people argue and bring evidence to support "their truth."

I do think words have power and that a change like this is often part of a process that changes understanding as well as usage, but I don't think the case is quite as strong here as you make it.

It may not be the best example but I think it illustrates a problem. There's a set of unspoken assumptions about the way people are and the way the world works that I do not think are supported by evidence or observation. To make the assumptions explicit:

1) Saying "this is my truth" is more benign than saying "I believe X, you believe Y, X and Y are mutually exclusive so one of us is wrong".

2) People's behavior has no necessary link to their beliefs. In other words, no matter how tempting it might be to state that I wanted coffee, believed there was coffee in the kitchen, rose from my chair and walked to the kitchen to pour coffee and then returned from my desk, the fact that I started off with a belief that there was coffee to be had had *no causal influence* on my actions. I might have just as easily walked to the roof to get coffee or I might have just as easily sat at my desk wishing for my cup to be filled.

3) That people do not hold beliefs that are malevolent or even if they do those beliefs do not lead to unjust or malevolent actions.

4) That as long as everyone was as tolerant as the people holding the 'this is my truth' stance like to believe themselves to be then all will work out well in the end.

5) There are never legitimate conflicts of interest that might lead people to hold contradictory beliefs.

I would argue that all five of those premises are demonstrably false and that the idea that you have your 'truth' and I have my 'truth' is actually quite a bit more problematic than people give it credit for. Deeply problematic.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by tapu

Where do you come down then on truth as relative or absolute?

(I usually position myself squarely at "relatively absolute," rather than "absolutely relative." Meaning, I have no argument to support a position either way. This one drives me nuts.)

Truth is, more or less, relatively absolute depending upon the subject matter domain. Whether that 'truth' is comprehensible or can be apprehended may be up for question but there appears to be an actual world 'out there' and while we may not have *direct* access to it, much of the time we can treat our approximations of the world as 'true enough' to work with.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

It may not be the best example but I think it illustrates a problem. There's a set of unspoken assumptions about the way people are and the way the world works that I do not think are supported by evidence or observation. To make the assumptions explicit:

1) Saying "this is my truth" is more benign than saying "I believe X, you believe Y, X and Y are mutually exclusive so one of us is wrong".

2) People's behavior has no necessary link to their beliefs. In other words, no matter how tempting it might be to state that I wanted coffee, believed there was coffee in the kitchen, rose from my chair and walked to the kitchen to pour coffee and then returned from my desk, the fact that I started off with a belief that there was coffee to be had had *no causal influence* on my actions. I might have just as easily walked to the roof to get coffee or I might have just as easily sat at my desk wishing for my cup to be filled.

3) That people do not hold beliefs that are malevolent or even if they do those beliefs do not lead to unjust or malevolent actions.

4) That as long as everyone was as tolerant as the people holding the 'this is my truth' stance like to believe themselves to be then all will work out well in the end.

5) There are never legitimate conflicts of interest that might lead people to hold contradictory beliefs.

I would argue that all five of those premises are demonstrably false and that the idea that you have your 'truth' and I have my 'truth' is actually quite a bit more problematic than people give it credit for. Deeply problematic.

Cheers
Aj

Yes, I agree with your overall point. I think we differ on the relatively (heh) minor point of how insidious "my truth" is in the groupthink; as opposed to, "This is what I say the truth is." Understand, though, that I absolutely (heh) understand why you think the change to "personal truth" may be more insidious than a disagreement about what is true. That's very insightful.

And... and, I was going to say something else about it... and now, I forget. (Sorry--this is me, stunted. It was California, it was the 80's....)

[JustJo]

I probably shouldn't enter into serious discussions since I'm in a crappy ass negative mood (disclaimer), but....for me there's a significant difference between saying "the truth" and saying "my truth."

When I use this phrase (and I do), it's something that I have learned about myself, and that I know to be true for me and me alone.

My truths don't apply to anyone else. They only apply to me.

For instance, one of my truths is that I cannot be in a committed relationship without passion and sexual intimacy. I can't. I end up feeling rejected, depressed, "less than" and disconnected. If it goes on long enough, I start feeling (first) depressed, (secondly) angry, and (finally) a combination of "my life is dead and empty and not worth living" and "I hate you for treating me like this, get the fuck out of my life."

Does this mean that the truth is that committed relationships must include passion and sexual intimacy?

Nope.

I'm sure there are some or many or *fill in the blank because I haven't a clue* wonderful, committed, loving relationships that don't.

[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.

[tapu]

still thinking: Does "in my case" capture it (though with less eloquence)? As, "In my case, a relationship has to include sexual intimacy."?

[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

Originally Posted by JustJo

I probably shouldn't enter into serious discussions since I'm in a crappy ass negative mood (disclaimer), but....for me there's a significant difference between saying "the truth" and saying "my truth."

When I use this phrase (and I do), it's something that I have learned about myself, and that I know to be true for me and me alone.

My truths don't apply to anyone else. They only apply to me.

For instance, one of my truths is that I cannot be in a committed relationship without passion and sexual intimacy. I can't. I end up feeling rejected, depressed, "less than" and disconnected. If it goes on long enough, I start feeling (first) depressed, (secondly) angry, and (finally) a combination of "my life is dead and empty and not worth living" and "I hate you for treating me like this, get the fuck out of my life."

Does this mean that the truth is that committed relationships must include passion and sexual intimacy?

Nope.

I'm sure there are some or many or *fill in the blank because I haven't a clue* wonderful, committed, loving relationships that don't.

[JustJo]

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.

Originally Posted by tapu

still thinking: Does "in my case" capture it (though with less eloquence)? As, "In my case, a relationship has to include sexual intimacy."?

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...

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

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

[tapu]

In one episode House says:

I'm not playing devil's advocate. I really think your opinion is stupid.

[tapu]

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, I think you've captured the gradation.

[tapu]

I'm starting to see that "This is my truth" plays a useful role in language today.

Of course, this is the source of much language change. There's a need to express an idea and out of that comes a new expression.

[dreadgeek]

One of the books I have on my Kindle is "Fear of Knowledge" which, as it turns out, deals with the issues under discussion here. I want to quote at some length to illustrate part of the problem:

"A belief is a particular kind of mental state. If we ask precisely what kind of mental state it is, we can find that it is easy to say. We can describe it in other words, of course, but only in ones that cry out for as much explanation as talk about belief. To believe that Jupiter has sixteen moons, we could say, is to take the world to be such that in it Jupiter has sixteen moons; or to represent the world as containing a particular heavenly body with sixteen moons; and so forth.

Although we may not be able to analyze belief in terms of significantly other concepts, we can see clearly that three aspects are essential to it. Any belief must have a propositional content; any belief can be assessed as true or false; and any belief can be assessed as justfied or unjustified, rational or irrational. Condier Margo's belief that Jupiter has sixteen moons. We attribute this belief with the sentence:

Margo believes that Jupiter has sixteen moons. That Jupiter has sixteen moons, we may say, is the propositional content of what Margo believes.

The propositional content of a belief specifies how the world is according to the belief. It specifies, in other words, a truth condition--how the world would have to be if the belief is to be true. Thus, Margo's belief that Jupiter has sixteen moons is true if and only if Jupiter has sixteen moons. As we may also put it, Margo's belief is true if an only if it is a fact that Jupiter has sixteen moons...We could equally say that the belief that Jupiter has sixteen moons is true just in case the entity referred to by the concept in the subject position--namely, the concept Jupiter--has the property denoted by the concept in the object position--namely, the concept has sixteen moons. Since the entity in question doesn't have the property at issue--Jupiter, it turns out, has over thirty moons--the belief is false.

I have just asserted that Jupiter has over thirty moons. Obviously, my saying it is so doesn't automatically make it so, otherwise there could not be any such things as a false assertion. If my assertion is true it is because, in addition to my saying it, it's a fact that Jupiter has over thirty moons. Well, let us suppose my assertion is true--that is, that the corresponding fact obtains.

Here's an interesting question: Does it follow from its being a fact that Jupiter has over thirty moons that it's a fact for everyone that Jupiter has over thirty moons, that it's a fact for all communities?

Well, it depends upon what one means by the phrase 'it's a fact for everyone." It certainly not a fact for everyone in the sense that everyone believes that proposition that Jupiter has over thirty moons. Some may never have considered the question; others may have come to the opposite conclusion. So, in the utterly trivial sens in which I may believe in a fact while others don't, some facts are facts for me but not for others.

But if what we mean is something more ambitious--that the fact that Jupiter has over thirty moons can somehow "hold" for me but not for you, that seems harder to comprehend. After all, my belief is not in the proposition Jupiter has over thirty moons for me but, rather, in the impersonal proposition Jupiter has over thirty moons. So, if we say that that belief is true, then it looks as though the corresponding fact has to obtain for everyone, whether they are inclined to believe it or not...In the case of Jupiter's having over thirty moons, we can go further: it's not merely that it looks to be universal, it also looks to be completely mind-independent: it would have obtained even if human beings had never existed. By contrast, the fact that there is money in the world is not a mind-independent fact--money could not have existed without persons and their intentions to exchange goods with one another.

(Paul Boghassian -- Fear of Knowledge)

Again, my concerns are not those personal beliefs that are interior but about those impersonal facts about the world. Those are the point of maximum interest because those are the points of greatest possible tension.

So I have a question for those who hold to the idea that we each carry, in our own heads, our own truth about the *impersonal* world; what is it that such a belief is supposed to 'buy' us? What benefit are we gaining from this belief that justify the cost of it? (And as I've said, the cost we pay is non-trivial)

Cheers
Aj