Understanding Objective Truth in a Subjective World

I. Introduction: The Crisis of Truth in the Modern World

In an age dominated by personal narratives, shifting moral frameworks, and ideological battles, the very concept of truth has become contested. What was once understood as an objective reality—governed by reason, empirical evidence, and shared moral principles—has been increasingly replaced by subjective interpretations shaped by personal experience, emotion, and cultural influence. This shift, often described as epistemic relativism, posits that truth is not absolute but instead varies depending on individual or societal perspectives.

Nowhere is this trend more apparent than in the modern United States, where political and social discourse has become deeply fragmented. On the political left, identity politics and the concept of self-defined morality have led to a rejection of objective biological, ethical, and even scientific truths. Gender identity is now based on personal feelings rather than biology. Morality is customized to fit personal beliefs—seen in how individuals selectively adhere to religious teachings while disregarding inconvenient doctrines. The right is not free from similar faults, with conspiracy theories and the rejection of empirical evidence sometimes shaping political discourse. However, the broader cultural shift towards subjectivism has disproportionately emerged from postmodern thought, which has taken root primarily in progressive circles.

This article will explore how epistemic relativism became dominant, its consequences for society, and how we can restore a balance through what I call humble confidence—the ability to stand firm in objective truth while remaining open to learning and self-reflection. By examining historical philosophical perspectives, we will uncover how the battle between objective truth and subjective interpretation has played out through history and why its resolution is critical for the future of knowledge, morality, and social cohesion.

II. The Rise of Epistemic Relativism: How Did We Get Here?

A. The Postmodernist Turn

The seeds of epistemic relativism were planted in the 20th century by postmodernist thinkers such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, who argued that knowledge is constructed through power structures rather than discovered as an independent reality. Foucault, in particular, viewed truth as something imposed by those in power rather than an objective constant. Derrida’s concept of deconstruction suggested that meaning is fluid and dependent on interpretation rather than fixed principles.

These ideas, while academically intriguing, gradually seeped into broader culture, influencing fields like education, media, and politics. The postmodern rejection of grand narratives led to an emphasis on personal experience as the ultimate source of truth. No longer was truth something to be discovered; it was something to be created.

B. The Influence of Subjectivism in U.S. Society

This shift towards subjective truth has deeply shaped American society, particularly on the political left. Gender identity is now based not on biological fact but on personal feelings. Morality is no longer grounded in universal principles but is instead customized to fit individual preferences. Religion, once understood as a coherent and objective moral framework, has become something people pick and choose from like a buffet—accepting teachings that align with their worldview while discarding the rest.

One of the clearest examples of this shift is in the debate over abortion. Rather than engaging with the objective biological reality that human life begins at conception, many frame the issue purely in terms of subjective autonomy—”my body, my choice”—while disregarding the life of the unborn. Similarly, discussions about faith are often reduced to individual interpretations, with many claiming to follow Christianity while rejecting core doctrines that challenge their lifestyle choices. This cherry-picking approach to morality has created a culture where people believe they can define their own ethical frameworks without any reference to an external or objective moral order.

Social media has exacerbated this trend by creating echo chambers where people are only exposed to perspectives that reinforce their subjective realities. Platforms like TikTok and Twitter allow individuals to curate their own versions of truth, further entrenching ideological bubbles and making rational discourse increasingly difficult.

Historical Philosopher Tie-ins

• David Hume (1711–1776) – His empirical skepticism questioned whether we could ever truly know causation, but even he acknowledged the need for practical truths to function in society.
• Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) – His perspectivism argued that different perspectives shape knowledge, but he also warned of nihilism when objective truth is abandoned.
• William James (1842–1910) – A proponent of pragmatism, he suggested truth is what is useful, but this does not mean all truths are equal.

III. The Consequences of Rejecting Objective Truth

A. The Danger of Subjective Truth in Science and Ethics

When truth becomes purely subjective, society loses the ability to engage in rational discourse and make meaningful progress. The consequences of this relativism are particularly evident in science and ethics. If truth is relative, how do we determine medical best practices? How do we discern ethical business practices? How do we protect the vulnerable if morality is merely a matter of personal preference?

In scientific discourse, we see increasing instances of subjective interpretation clashing with objective reality. The push to redefine biological sex based on identity rather than genetics has led to confusion in medicine, sports, and legal frameworks. In medical settings, subjective definitions of gender have complicated treatments that rely on sex-based biology, such as hormone therapies and disease screenings. In athletics, biological males competing in women’s sports raise concerns about fairness, yet many insist that subjective identity should override objective physiological differences.

In the realm of ethics, moral relativism has led to the erosion of societal standards. If morality is purely subjective, can we condemn practices such as human trafficking, honor killings, or systemic corruption in authoritarian regimes? The paradox is that even those who advocate for moral relativism still rely on some form of objective moral framework when it suits them. The very people who argue that morality is fluid will still demand justice for acts they personally deem wrong, demonstrating an inherent contradiction in relativistic thinking.

B. Historical Lessons on the Need for Objective Truth

History has repeatedly shown the dangers of societies abandoning objective truth. In the Soviet Union, scientific truth was subordinate to ideology, resulting in disastrous agricultural policies based on pseudoscience (Lysenkoism). In Nazi Germany, morality was twisted to justify horrific crimes under the guise of a distorted ethical framework. In modern authoritarian regimes, truth is manipulated to maintain control, illustrating how the rejection of objective reality leads to oppression and suffering.

Conversely, societies that have upheld objective truth as a foundational principle have flourished. The Enlightenment, which emphasized reason and empirical knowledge, led to advancements in science, democracy, and human rights. The scientific method itself is a testament to the necessity of objective truth—without it, progress would be impossible.

Historical Philosopher Tie-ins

• Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) – His transcendental idealism acknowledged that perception is subjective but insisted that objective structures exist.
• Karl Popper (1902–1994) – His falsifiability criterion argued that scientific knowledge must be testable and based on objective standards.

IV. The Limits of Relativism: When Perspective Matters but Truth Prevails

While epistemic relativism leads to serious problems when applied universally, it is important to acknowledge that it has a place in certain contexts. Not all knowledge is purely objective; some truths are dependent on perspective, interpretation, or cultural context.

1. Relativism in Subjective Experience – Personal experiences, emotions, and aesthetic preferences are inherently subjective. What is considered beautiful, meaningful, or valuable varies from person to person, and there is no single “correct” answer.
2. Cultural and Historical Contexts – Different societies have developed unique moral frameworks and ways of understanding the world. While some moral principles are universal (e.g., murder is generally condemned), others—such as social norms, traditions, or ethical dilemmas—may have context-dependent interpretations.
3. Scientific Progress and Paradigm Shifts – As Thomas Kuhn argued in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, our understanding of reality evolves through shifting paradigms. What was once accepted as scientific truth (e.g., Newtonian mechanics as the ultimate framework) was later expanded upon (e.g., Einstein’s theory of relativity). This demonstrates that our grasp of truth is always subject to refinement.

However, acknowledging these areas of relativism does not mean we should abandon objective truth altogether. The danger lies in allowing relativism to dominate fields where certainty is essential—such as morality, law, and scientific inquiry. If we accept that all truth is subjective, we remove the foundation upon which reasoned debate, justice, and knowledge advancement are built.

Instead of an either-or approach, the answer lies in humble confidence. We must recognize that objective truth exists while remaining open to refining our understanding of it. Relativism has its place in matters of interpretation, perspective, and evolving knowledge, but it should never override fundamental truths that anchor reality and morality.

V. Reclaiming Objective Truth: The Path Forward

A. Humble Confidence: Standing Firm Without Arrogance

In a world that increasingly rejects objective truth in favor of subjective narratives, the solution is not to retreat into dogmatism or engage in combative rhetoric. Instead, what is needed is humble confidence—the ability to stand firmly in objective reality while maintaining the humility to listen, learn, and refine our understanding.

Humble confidence means recognizing that truth exists beyond personal perception, but also acknowledging that we, as individuals, do not possess the full picture. It is the balance between Aristotle’s commitment to reason and Socrates’ admission of his own ignorance. It is the antidote to both blind arrogance and postmodern relativism.

To embody humble confidence:

1. Engage with Intellectual Honesty – Seek truth even when it challenges your preconceptions.
2. Refuse to Be Intimidated by Cultural Pressure – Do not compromise objective truth for the sake of social acceptance.
3. Cultivate Rational Discourse – Rather than dismissing those who disagree, engage them with reason and respect.
4. Acknowledge Moral Absolutes – Certain principles—such as the inherent value of human life and the reality of biological distinctions—must be upheld regardless of societal trends.

This approach is not only a personal philosophy but a necessary strategy for restoring sanity to modern discourse. If more people embraced humble confidence, we could move beyond ideological tribalism and rebuild a society grounded in reason, shared values, and genuine dialogue.

B. Restoring Objective Truth in Society

To counteract the rising tide of epistemic relativism, we must take proactive steps in education, media, and political discourse.

• Education Reform – Schools must emphasize classical education, logic, and philosophy. Students should be trained not only in STEM fields but in critical thinking and moral reasoning.
• Media Accountability – Journalists and media outlets must be held to higher standards of objectivity. The era of curated reality and narrative-driven journalism has deeply damaged public trust.
• Cultural Courage – Individuals must be willing to speak truth, even when it is unpopular. Whether it’s in the workplace, academia, or personal conversations, truth must be defended with both wisdom and resolve.

A society that embraces relativism will eventually collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. By restoring objective truth, we can create a future where dialogue is possible, morality has meaning, and knowledge continues to advance.

VI. Conclusion: The Fight for Truth is the Fight for Civilization

The rejection of objective truth is not just an intellectual crisis; it is a civilizational one. The same forces that argue “truth is relative” are the ones who ultimately attempt to enforce their subjective narratives as dogma. If we do not stand for reality, something else—often something far more dangerous—will take its place.

History has shown that societies flourish when truth is upheld and deteriorate when relativism reigns. If we wish to avoid the fate of societies that have succumbed to ideological chaos, we must fight for truth—not with force, but with conviction, reason, and humility.

In the end, humble confidence is the answer to our modern crisis. It is the middle path between self-righteous arrogance and passive relativism. It is the mindset that allows us to defend truth while remaining open to growth. And most importantly, it is the foundation upon which a functional, rational, and moral society must be built.

Truth is not a weapon—it is a foundation. And without it, everything crumbles.