I cannot get on board with this notion at all. That there would be a school of thought teaching the idea of subjective truth leaves me bewildered. At best I'd consider it a misnomer, at worst an excuse for spin. In journalism this is especially worrying.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_objective_truth_exist
Both are true.
There is objectifiable truth (note - I didn't call it objective
).
And there are many subjective truths.
(That we both call them truth, might be a language issue.
)
All the time, at the same time.
Here is how 'you learn it as a journalist' (even as a police officer), if you ask any person to tell you 'the truth' about a situation or about a personal conviction - you usually get an emotionally informed recollection of events.
(This issue:
https://www.lexipol.com/resources/b...y-impacts-police-use-of-force-investigations/ (What is memory. In policework.) Just the first result I found on google.)
So thats most of the truth thats out there.
We are trying to get to objectifyable truth, mostly through processes (filtering that other truth above). So if you are talking about scientific truth, f.e. it is 'what cannot be refuted' in the light of informed opinion, and open discussion, using very exact language. As viewed through the lense of something called scientific canon.
From a psychology angle the main issue might be, that truth gets formed 'post facto' (after the fact), and humans have all kinds of biases, in forming believes/assessments that help them 'exist'.
If you are talking about 'legal truth' - well we can bring both forms of truth (subjective and objectified) together here using a simple analogy.
Prisons are full of innocent people. (Both in their subjective truths, as well as objectifiably). (Might not always be the same people.)
All that you are promised is a fair trial, not one where the truth comes out, ey?
The notion is everywhere in society, btw. So ask yourself why lawyers are legal, or why there is such a thing as 'the secret of confession'.
If there were one truth, those would be highly amoral concepts.
That we feel very strongly, that there is something like THE truth, and that it is out there (Fox Mulder
) is more of an emotional truth ('we feel it is there') and a story telling trope ('this society is just', 'truth prevails').
Also, we have formalized rituals around it. ('Do you swear to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth..')
Mind blown?
Now pursuing truth is still an important and valuable thing for society (its not at all 'useless'), but you should at least have an idea what it is (or what its limits are...
) while you are looking for it.
(Otherwise Fox Mulder - which also might have its charm, and be important..
)
edit: For easier use in real life. We usually call objectifyable truths - facts.
edit2: To be a little less 'big wordy' - it helps to have an idea, how human minds consistently fail (not as in bad) in doing some stuff, to not always go for highly emotional tropes (or when to go for them while arguing
), and it also helps to know - that you can not be objectively right on most of your convictions. (In society this is f.e. encapsulated in the 'children have to make their own experiences' trope (context creates meaning).)
You can also look at this as a deeply positive thing, because if life were a series of objective truths, progress would be darn hard, and it would be pretty boring.