"This is my truth"

[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 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

[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.

[Jett]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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

Right I think someone saying something is "my truth" most certainly doesn't absolve them from error in that "truth" or error in the usage of the phrase.

But... I feel like "it's my truth" is meant to be used in a personal context rather than factual statement about, say for example, whether something's red or if it's blue... because the truth of what color something is, is clear and not really subject to personal choice or perspective . I feel like using the term that way is stretching it beyond what I understand it's (the phrase) essence to be.

So I really think it is more meant to be about and used in reference to things that are subject to ones perspective rather than things that have no room for personal opinion and are just plain facts. When I think of it, if I were to use it... and I have it would be in a context of my feelings about how I as a human perceive more abstract ideas and or internalize them and sort to arrive at "my truth". Less than concrete things, perhaps feelings of gender, labels etc. Like if someone were to put forth that Metropolis is a butch because I XYZ and ABC ... it doesn't matter, because how I feel about what I am is still MY truth, and correct for me.

It IS true for me... but may not be for others... we have different truths. I don't think the statement is meant to be used to say something is THEE universal truth, but a more abstract personal truth to or about oneself. I think if used to dispute indisputable facts about the outside world the phrase is just being used incorrectly in the first place.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Metropolis

Right I think someone saying something is "my truth" most certainly doesn't absolve them from error in that "truth" or error in the usage of the phrase.

But... I feel like "it's my truth" is meant to be used in a personal context rather than factual statement about, say for example, whether something's red or if it's blue... because the truth of what color something is, is clear and not really subject to personal choice or perspective . I feel like using the term that way is stretching it beyond what I understand it's (the phrase) essence to be.

So I really think it is more meant to be about and used in reference to things that are subject to ones perspective rather than things that have no room for personal opinion and are just plain facts. When I think of it, if I were to use it... and I have it would be in a context of my feelings about how I as a human perceive more abstract ideas and or internalize them and sort to arrive at "my truth". Less than concrete things, perhaps feelings of gender, labels etc. Like if someone were to put forth that Metropolis is a butch because I XYZ and ABC ... it doesn't matter, because how I feel about what I am is still MY truth, and correct for me.

It IS true for me... but may not be for others... we have different truths. I don't think the statement is meant to be used to say something is THEE universal truth, but a more abstract personal truth to or about oneself. I think if used to dispute indisputable facts about the outside world the phrase is just being used incorrectly in the first place.

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