"What's true for you is true for you, what's true for me is true for me."

You may have heard this from one place or another. That someone has a certain claim to "their truth," or that they are free to define truth howsoever they wish. But this is certainly a falsehood.

Truth, by its very nature, is objective. You may form an opinion about something, sure, but that is not as concrete as fact.

In the next four hundred words, I intend to dispel the notions that Truth can be subjective, we all possess equal access (meaning we all see things that are objectively to the Truth), and Truth and Opinion belong in completely separate realms.

With me so far? Cool.


Myth 1: Truth is subjective. What is real for me is not real for you. And so on.

This is actually a fairly easy concept to knock down, because once you begin to analyze it, there is a pretty quick knockdown.

To claim that there is no objective truth is an objective Truth claim. If it remains a subjective truth claim, then it is only true for you, which means that objective Truth can still exist. However, Truth is inherently objective, so your claim is false. Truth must be objective.

Truth, and reflection upon it, is supposed to represent a reality outside of ourselves. In other words, if we all collectively and immediately ceased to exist, these statements would still render true. The statement "water is water" would still be a truism even if no humans were around to observe the liquid.


Myth 2: Everyone has equal access to the Truth. It does not matter how learnt you are, how much you know, or how much you think, because you can find Truth in your own unique way!

While Truth can be accessed through methods other than reason and empiricism, these methods are inherently less reliable than that of the aforementioned.

This is my problem with faith, because it is necessary in the absence of reason. It appears, in essence, a guess about the areas that reason cannot possibly or have yet to fill in. This extends beyond religious faith to any sort of belief that has stuck its nose up at reason and empiricism. Those who believe faith gives them access to the Truth may perhaps be right, but not consistently so.

Let me give you two examples. Suppose we have Man A, a rather illogical fellow who believes that his employer can walk on water and fly. Next to him is his coworker, Man B. He is much more logical, but not quite there at a hundred percent. He has faith that his employer has exactly three quarters and fifteen nickels in his pocket. Man A is clearly wrong, but Man B could be right.

Now, ignore Man A. Next to Man B, we have another one of this odd employer's workers, Man C. He is completely rational and bases all of his claims on empiricism. He goes to his employer, feels around in his pockets, grabs all of the change, and counts three quarters and fifteen nickels. Before he gets fired for what was essentially groping his boss, he puts the coins back into his pocket. He now claims that his (former) employer has three quarters and fifteen nickels in his pocket. While Man B and C were both right, Man C clearly had greater access to the Truth than Man B did.


Myth 3: I am entitled to believe what I want to believe, and that is True for me.

Eh, not so much. This is the critical mistake that many make -- they believe that they are entitled to the Truth as they create it.

The clear distinction is here: they are entitled to believe what they want to believe. I can believe that Paul Ryan is actually Donald Trump's former prison inmate, and no one can tell me not to believe it. But it is, to my knowledge, an untrue statement. I am entitled to accept it, although there is no basis to claim that this is my own Truth, no matter how sincere I believe it to be.

If Man A from the previous example said he was entitled to labeling this as "his Truth." He would be wrong, yet he can certainly believe it to be so.