There has always been much discussion
about the nature of truth and whether anything is actually objectively true. The position that has always made the most sense to me is that in order to establish the truth of something, we always have to have something else (a backdrop or some object of contrast) to compare it to. Truth, then, would always seem to be relative
, for it can only be established relative to the guidelines we set for it.
To suggest that there is no such thing as objective truth is not the same as suggesting there is no such thing as objective reality. Regardless of how we perceive reality, it must be granted that we are perceiving something, so an objective reality must exist. We may not be seeing how it really is, whatever that may be, or our perceptions may be fairly close to the mark, but in either case, there is the something to be perceived.
Truth, however, if defined as a conformity to fact or reality, must be subjectively judged to be so. The weight of the argument, therefore, would seem to be against the idea of objective truth that doesn't depend on other elements for comparison. Even if we were to take what seems to be a fundamental truth, such as "everything is exactly what it is," this concept can only exist in comparison to what things are not. Even when we're dealing with the fundamentals, then, we find that objective truth is difficult to support as an acceptable construct. All truth seems to be subjective.