forum for week of 21 Nov: the appeal of truth relativism

Truth, to me, seems to be a very relative term. Something can and is likely inevitably true for one person and not for another. When thinking in terms of truths as "true for someone" though, it would seem to me that that particular term or line of thinking is more attributed to opinions. For example, if someone believes that their favorite food is pizza, then this would be "true for them," while obviously not true for everyone. Addressing the second example, it does seem to be a conundrum that one would be able to have something be true for them without first knowing that it is true. Keeping with the examples of food though, say it is true for Fred that the most delectable taste to his pallet is that of pizza. But, Fred has never actually had pizza before. So, despite that it could be considered true for Fred that his favorite food is pizza, he still does not know nor believe this. At the same time, it could be just as easily argued that, since he has never actually tried pizza, the truth is not, in fact, true for him until he tries pizza. This creates a rather confusing conundrum and, unfortunately, doesn't really seem to further the discussion but simply add more debate. To be short, while both analyses may be used to diagnose the issue of something needing to be "true for someone" in order to be a "truth," it would seem that both have very recognizable flaws that can be easily debated.