A defining question

[ObjectivistActivist]

So, my short answer is that truth can be stated in different ways.

If this was true then Truth wouldn't be called Truth, it would be called opinion. Opinion that doesn't adhere to reality is delusion, and delusion is false, not true. This is, of course, contingent upon whether or not you are speaking from a perspective consistent with this part of your statement:

The best you can hope for is to find your own truth and then work to live in harmony with everyone else's.

which implies that truth exists only as a matter of perception, and not as an objective absolute. We'll leave aside (for the moment) the fact that that implication is false.

There are no absolutes and no-one has a monopoly on what is true.

That statement is self-contradicting, in that saying "there are [absolutely] no absolutes" is making an asbolutist statement, as is saying that "[absolutely] no-one has a monopoly on what is true."

On the subject of truth, the answer is very simply stated as:

Truth is an aspect of the identities of those things, concepts, ideas, statements, and actions which adhere to and exist within reality.

Since reality is an objective absolute, truth is that which describes it. For example (and assuming an unaltered specimen of the to-be-mentioned fruit), the statement, "the apple is neon blue" does not describe reality, thus it is false, whereas the statement "the apple is red" accurately describes the reality of the apple, and thus is true.

Truth is unique to the individual... it's your interpretation of your experiences in life. What may be true to you, may not be to another, but that shouldn't diminish it in anyway because it is personal.

This statement is a more clear and honest statement of Euryleia's attempt to turn reality into a fog of moment-to-moment perceptions where no knowledge is possible, where no future can be known, and where the past is unconnected with the present. Amongst other evasions. The bolded portion in particular has been a bromide for that particular ideology for decades at the least.

The underlined portion, if taken at face value, means:

If I honestly believe it is my right to shoot you in the face, steal your car and whatever you have in your pockets/purse, and never face a moment's consequences for it, my opinion is just as "right" as the person who instead honestly believes in hard work, dedication, and earning for themselves what they have instead of stealing from another at the point of a gun.

Just because someone happens to hold a belief doesn't mean that belief is right or that it holds any value, or even that it commands any shred of respect from those who can see that belief for the bald-faced rationalization, or flimsy screen against acknowledgement of reality, that it is.