Opinions are true for you. "that movie sucked" can be true for you, but not for the next person.

There are tons of things that can be true for you (only). It depends on how strict (and aware) you are. The greater your awarness (levelheaded and rational) of things the more things that are true for you will be true for others. In that case what is indidiually true "can" become collective truth.

Many absolute truths are only really conventions of a society. It depends on what you mean by "truth." It is true that a hydrogen atom is one proton and one electron. It is true that going without water for several months will cause death. It is true that you must marry your brother's widow. Maybe you're really thinking of 'right for you'?

I'd say that true sometimes hurts, but better the true than get cought on a lie... You may forget what you lie for, but wouldn't if you said the true.

You're right. As an example, relative morality is no morality at all. ANYTHING can be rationalized, that's what the human brain is best at. Witness the Holocaust.

We go to a movie. You love it, I hate it. That I hate it is true for me. That you love it is true for you. See now?

Of course something can be "true for you" and not for someone else. For example, there are many who feel that Bush was right and many who feel he was wrong. There are those who feel that Obama will be right for the country, and many who feel he will be wrong. In these cases, it's opinion and indoctrination (how they were raised) for many people, and what's true for you may not be true for someone else. Another example is religion. There are Atheists, Christians, Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. What's true for me is not necessarily true for you or for someone else. Again, it's opinion, and the way you were brought up, and/or, in some cases, your education. These are just broad examples. There are many much more narrow examples. As a morning DJ said, "Everybody's entitled to their own opinion... No matter how stupid or wrong it is" to someone else. So, again, that opinion or stance may be true for you, but not for me.

You should probably give an example of that type of truth. There are some things that may affect you which may not affect someone else. For example, when I was a teenager I had a very bad case of acne. I noticed that certain foods made it worse. It would be wrong for me to say that if anyone eats this or that type of food, they will get acne. That was true for me during that time period. I was also told by a few people that foods do not affect acne. That may be true for many people, but I know from experience that certain foods did aggravate my case.

You are speaking of absolute truths I beieve. There have and will be books written on this 'til the end of time. As a civil[?] society certain truths are widely accepted; simple ones such as up and down, gravity, north and south. The more empirical such as the existance of God{s} or the meaning of life often the truth lies where one sees it and others will have a hard time proving you right or wrong. A person could very argue that what I have just written does not contain a pebble of truth.

That is where the quote, "Ignorance is bliss" comes in. It blinds you and convinces you it is the truth so that it can keep you in its web so that you will not leave however there is far more out there than the simply web you are stuck in now. In my point of view there is no truth just simple lies stated by a majority to control the minority for the purpose of increasing numbers of the majority. However there is documented proof which is different from emotional proof which states what the person did and why. Emotional truth is basically just a statement made by a MAJORITY TO CONTROL THE MINORITY.

Yes, it can. There are certain things that everyone or virtually everyone agrees on, and are therefor seen as "Universal Truths", but that doesn't make them right, because there's bound to be someone who disagrees with them, and as long as we're all human, all our beliefs are on the same footing, even if one or another happens to be in the majority. If you consider something true, then it is true for you, yes. But it's no as though that doesn't mean anything, in fact it dictates your personal reality to a huge degree.

What is truth? If truth is a believe in the truth of something, then it is personal. If i say what is ; is. Then that is true.

Here's the most concrete example that I can think of. It's a matter of physics. I heard this spelled out on Radio Lab, which is a great podcast. http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/ We're standing next to each other. We're both wearing watches that work perfectly, set to the exact same time. You put on a jet pack and fly away at a tremendous speed -- not the speed of light, but very fast. You fly back to me, and land. We look at our watches and... My watch is now ten minutes behind, compared to yours. Both watches are correct. It's just that, the faster you go, the faster time moves. Having returned to earth, you'll probably have to set your watch back, to match us. Because you live on earth, and want to be in synch with the majority. If, as you were flying, you studied your watch the entire time, you'd see that it's ticking normally. For you, time did not change in any way. Same goes for me, standing on the earth. This example shows a situation where what's true for you, is not true for me, but both are completely true. (By the way, the above has been scientifically proven.) I take this as a metaphor for morality, perception, history, and life in general. It is possible for two people to have contradictory "truths", and for both "truths" to be accurate. Or at least parts of a puzzle that reveal the whole.

'Philosophy 101' would divide the idea of physical 'truth' into small and capital-cased "t"s, wherein small case = transient, fallable, personal "truth" vs. the universal, greater-than-an-individual, (quasi-)permanent capital case "Truth". ;-)

Yes. They way you see it becomes real to you. But you are not the only one looking are you. So others might see it differently than you. But how can you both be right at the same time? You both have valuable perspectives. None of these perspectives can be said to be absolute, however. Each perspective is only relative. So it is "relatively" true for you and not "absolutely" true. IT IS TRUE BUT ONLY PARTIALLY TRUE. Integrate these partly true perspectives to get a better one yet and keep integrating and keep integrating. As long as you are integrating you won't go completely bananas about truth. :)

There is cultural and ethical relativism: "It's okay in Africa but not in America." Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative suggests that we "act on any maxim that one can will as universal law." In plain English, do what you think everyone would believe is right. There are universal truths in existence. Some have been found and are inarguable (the sky is usually blue), and others must be discovered (aliens do/don't exist).

Some things in life are not subject to absolute truth. Take religion - if a Christian believes so strongly that Jesus is the son of God and I do not, what is the truth? We cannot prove each other wrong nor ourselves right. There is only individual belief in what we believe to true for ourselves.

Which truth - the truth? the whole truth? or nothing but the truth? If there was only one truth, why does it need to be stated and re-stated in this oath in court? Why can we just not say "I promise to tell the truth"?

As in many philosophical debates, much of the problem lies in semantics. People say "truth" when what they actually mean is "what I believe to be true" which is not quite the same thing. The latter is belief, opinion, perception and consensus....which MAY or MAY NOT be true. People can believe that something is true but this does not mean that it is in fact true. I'd rather use the term "real truth" instead of "universal truth" because "universal" implies that it is true in any given situation whereas, in fact, a statement CAN be true in a given situation and untrue in another situation e.g. "This pimple cream works" is true when it works on John but it would be untrue if it failed to take away Janet's acne... but this does not mean that statements like "true for me" or "my reality" mean that we always have the liberty of deciding for ourselves what's true and what's real. Truth is not a product of a fertile imagination. That's self-delusion or misunderstanding. Reality does exist...and it exists independently of human beings capacity to recognize, perceive or understand it. For example, "The earth is flat" was believed to be true hundreds of years ago but in reality the earth was never flat so this statement was never in fact true or correct. It was a belief... that proved to be untrue. I'd therefore say there is such a thing as real truth when talking about things that exist independently of human perception. That is, truth that is reality and not perception. The only time you can get away with saying "true for me" is for statements that can never really be true or untrue because they are purely based on perception e.g. "Jane is beautiful" will always be purely a subjective opinion and it can therefore (validly) be "true for me".

I say to two people: "You're pregnant". That may be true for the female, but not the male. Therefore, what was said is true for one, but not the other. Some things, bigger truths, would be true for all. For example, the earth is round. That is a truth for everyone. It's all in context.

The universal truth cannot be changed but there are always shades of grey according to individual situations. for example :for a diabetic sugar could be equivalent to poison that is the truth for that person.Does not have to hold truth for me. Black and white always remain so its the in between which is ambiguous.

Oops, *Delete Answer*

Truth is a long and arduous road.

Truth is a bourgeois concept, open to interpretation, alteration, and censorship.

I agree that truth is objective and the slide into epistemic relativism has been the fatal flaw of modern philosophy.

I'v heard it said that what's true for you is true for you and what's true for me is true for me. But what if what's true for me says whats true for you is a lie. Is it still true?

truth is in the mind. take away mind and there is no truth.

True is true and there is no such thing as "true for you/me/him/etc." When someone says something is "true for them," it is a distortion of the meaning of the word TRUE. TRUE means "consistent with fact or reality; not false." In this sense, a statment is either true or false; there is no "true for me, but not for you." - When people say that something is "true for them," what they generally mean is, "I really don't know the truth, but I believe ..." - Another distortion of the the word TRUE is when truth or falsity doesn't apply to a statement. For instance, another ABer used the example: "'that movie sucked' can be true for you, but not for the next person." This is not something can be evaluated in terms of its truth or falisty. It cannot be true that a movie sucked. It can be true that a movie sucked according to certain criteria, or it can be true that you believe the movie sucked, but whether or not the movie really sucked cannot be spoken of in terms of truth.

Truth is "what IS". "What IS" can only be experienced. Any DESCRIPTION of "what is" renders it an OPINION or INTERPRETATION, hence the fallacy of "different truths".

Humans are such individual diversity, that even a truth need custom sizing to fit each one perfectly.

You can be certain you are reading my words here, right?