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.

[tessa]

...implies that truth exists only as a matter of perception, and not as an objective absolute.

I responded to this part mainly because it is my firm belief that perspective (I shy away from using your term, to distance my meaning from the sensory-related definition 'perception' denotes) is what makes the world go around. But perspective is not truth, not in any form. It is a subjective evaluation at best. At worst, it's self-delusional propaganda.

Basing the definition of truth on an adherence to reality begs yet another question-

Which reality?

[ObjectivistActivist]

Since reality is objective, and to take a line from popular fiction:

There can be only one.

[Euryleia]

<snip>
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.

I have neither the time nor inclination to argue all your points. I will point out that apples come in more colors that just red so your statement of reality would be false to those enjoying the tartness of a Granny Smith.

I stand by my belief that truth is largely a matter of my reality.

[ObjectivistActivist]

I have neither the time nor inclination to argue all your points. I will point out that apples come in more colors that just red so your statement of reality would be false to those enjoying the tartness of a Granny Smith.

I stand by my belief that reality is largely a matter of my perspective.

Nice to know that everything ceases to exist as soon as there are no longer beings of higher consciousness extant in the universe. How frightening it must be to live in such a place. Fortunately, I don't.

[Just A Girl]

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.

I question whether or not you are adressing truth or fact here. Something does not need to be fact for it to be true.
Personally, I believe that if someone holds a belief then that belief is true, to them- respect doesn't come into it.
Although an athiest, I have no problem accepting that some people find truth in God, because to them, God is true- I may view these people as perhaps naive, and disagree with their truth, but I can still accept it as being true to them.
Unlike fact, truth is not a unifying definative...

We could of course go into the whole... well nothing can really be true because we cannot really be sure of reality etc etc... but I fear we would never end if we started that one...

[TomOfSweden]

I question whether or not you are adressing truth or fact here. Something does not need to be fact for it to be true.

I'm not so sure about that. I think that in philosophy "fact" and a "true statement" are synonyms. "Fact" does have separate specific uses than "truth" in other fields.

In journalism, "fact" is generally referred to stuff that the majority of all scientists agree on. While "truth" is an elusive beast they try to reveal as best they can. But it's a pretty specific field.

Personally, I believe that if someone holds a belief then that belief is true, to them- respect doesn't come into it.
Although an athiest, I have no problem accepting that some people find truth in God, because to them, God is true- I may view these people as perhaps naive, and disagree with their truth, but I can still accept it as being true to them.

Now you're in trouble. I think you're mixing up concepts. Are you equating "belief in that something is true" with actual "truth"?

Let's for sake of argument say that we all share the same reality. If this is so, a Christian's truth of the reality of the universe cannot be true if the atheists theory of the universe is true. In the same way, when a Christian has faith, they are implying that all Buddhists are a bunch of dim witted dumb-asses that don't get it. They might fool themselves into believing that they aren't judgemental or chauvinistic. But if they have faith, there's no way of getting out of this mess without coming across as the huge chauvinist they are. .... and in the same way, since you are an atheist you by definition don't "accept it as being true to them". I'm sorry for the strong language, but I wanted to get my point across.

I understand what you're doing. You're trying to come across as a nice person who can see things from other peoples perspective and respect them. But you aren't and you don't. I think you're simply being dishonest now. But you might still be a nice person

If you have faith in one definition of truth, you reject all the other ones, by necessity. That's what faith means.

A huge problem with religion and religious discussions is that when people talk about "God", it's usually used as an abstract term that covers a wide variety of concepts and manifestations. You might have a whole room of Christians agreeing on that they all love God and feel the holy ghost, while none of them are talking about that same thing. But even here it's deeply dishonest saying that you "accept it as being true to them" because you have no idea what they're talking about. It could be like that nunnery in the third century who said they could feel God's presence when they came from masturbation. No shit, so do I.

...and to end this ramble, I'd like to mention Dewey and the Pragmatists. It's a serious philosophical school based around the idea that we can't figure out what's true anyway, so who cares. They just assume that what ever is the most useful and works is true. This is arguably the most important philosophical school in USA today, so they shouldn't be dismissed. They are dismissively referred to "the Americans" but European philosophers. But I think that's a mistake. I think their importance will only increase in the future. But it won't help you to get an answer, Tessa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey

[lstsl]

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.

Well I would say that depends. Perhaps the particular apple in question IS neon blue. It could be owned by a po-mo artist, an undergrad in genetics, or possibly on a remote mountain top, as yet undiscovered by any except the mountain goats who enjoy Blue Apple pie on holidays. The saying "All apples are neon blue" would be false because it does not accuratly describe reality. Saying "The red apple is neon blue" is self-contradictory and non-sensical and can be discarded.

Truth is just a your own personal perspective on the universe. To use the so called 'fruit statement' one could argue that if the apple is headed away from you at near light speed it will appear blue, whereas to somebody standing where the apple is approaching at near light speed the apple appears red (I may have that ass-backwards), so at the same time, the same apple may be accuratly described as both blue and red depending on the position of the observer.