Truth and "My Truth"; Objectivity and Subjectivity

Most of us will agree that political discourse in the United States at the moment is sharply polarized. Many of us want an end to that situation, but the problem is more intractable than often is believed. 

There is a philosophical chasm between a person whose thinking is rooted in 18th-century "modernity" (Enlightenment liberalism) and one who adheres to postmodern principles (skepticism toward objective truth).

The two outlooks operate from entirely different assumptions about the nature of reality and truth. For understanding to occur, they would first have to agree on the definition of knowledge, something that seems fundamentally impossible. 

Epistemology, the theory of knowledge, is at the root of the inability to communicate. The modernist, inheriting the optimism of the Enlightenment, believes in a capital-T Truth: objective, universal, and accessible through reason, science, and empirical observation. 

For the 18th-century liberal, political and moral principles such as individual liberty, equality under the law, and the social contract are derived from this universal rationality and natural law. 

They are self-evident truths. When a modernist discusses the "rights of man," they speak of an inherent reality that transcends culture and time. 

The postmodernist views "universal truths" and "grand narratives" of the Enlightenment (progress, objective science or liberal democracy) as social and linguistic constructions (“my truth and your truth”). 

The postmodernist sees truth as localized, provisional, and relative to culture, language, or personal experience. 

In other words, for a postmodern believer, there really is no such thing as absolute truth, valid across space and time. 

This fundamental disagreement on truth sabotages meaningful dialogue. 

The inability to communicate is not based on mere policy disagreement but of entirely incompatible epistemological maps. 

They cannot understand each other because they do not share the same intellectual territory, leading to debates where one is discussing the absolute coordinates of the map, while the other is questioning whether the map exists at all.

In the absence of timeless absolute truth, everything is an opinion, and everyone can have different opinions. Everything becomes subjective ("I am what I say I am; a thing is what I say it is") and personal.

That might be fine in some spheres of life (music, clothing, favorite authors and colors, hobbies and preferred sports). One finds it impossible to understand how such subjectivism can possibly lead to the shared beliefs and behaviors that any civilization and large group necessarily requires.

Feature	Modern (18th-Century Liberalism)	Postmodern (Skepticism/No Truth)
Concept of Truth	Objective, Universal. Discoverable through reason and science.	Subjective, Relative. Constructed by language, culture, and power.
Source of Morality	Universal Principles. Rights, justice, and liberty are inherent and self-evident.	Contextual & Local. Ethics are dependent on specific cultural or social frameworks.
Role of Reason	Emancipatory. The engine of progress and the foundation of law.	Suspect. Often used to justify oppression or Western hegemony (a power tool).
Grand Narratives	Believed In. Faith in progress, science, and the eventual triumph of rationality.	Rejected. Skepticism toward any overarching story explaining history or existence.
The Self/Individual	Autonomous. A rational, consistent subject with non-negotiable, inherent rights.	Fragmented. Socially constructed, defined by forces outside of conscious control.
Goal of Society	To establish systems (law, democracy) that protect universal individual rights.	To deconstruct systems and expose hidden power imbalances and marginalized voices.

How any civilization can survive such relativism remains to be seen.