The world is the world, but it is made up by each person differently out of an arrangement of personal definitions, thereby classifying by default each as a truth. All human attempts at setting definitions are simply clarified specification of a greater whole. If the world and the greater whole are the same (and they are), then the personal definitions or personal truths which make it up and the arbitrary clarification of the unknown are also the same. By this token, everyone has a personal reality and with it personal truths which are in turn “the truth.” There is nothing wrong with such an explanation, as much as specific theories would beg to differ, and it is really the only one which fits into everything. My truth is my truth, your truth is your own, everyone else has always had one too, and humans have survived for centuries. What all this individual truth means, however, is that flexibility is a must for any human - if we wish to have our own truths respected by others, we must also respect their truths as well. In day to day life most of this leniency goes unnoticed by those giving it as well as those receiving it, and it becomes so casual as to allow most to forget they are cohabitating with people from another world. This question or reality and true, not true, appears to require an answer of suffocating gravity, but really all the weight is more perceived than anything - the answer is something which we all do on a daily basis. The question implies study into the existence of many realities, and a change in how one processes thought, word problems with variable solutions, the one incident of science getting sloppy, centuries worth of Greek and Roman names, unnecessary claims to basic processes of reason and the naming thereof, and most of all unending circular logic, but all it really needs to be answered is a sentence or two: “Good! That's just how it works!” This answer fits Correspondence, because what anyone thinks of as truth is what the world becomes. It works with Correlation because what we view as the truth will undoubtedly fit into all of our other personally decided truths. It also works with Pragmatism, because believe it or not if someone wants to prove something badly enough they will do so, at least as far as they are personally concerned. My personal answer is “The epistemological implications of how we live our lives if everyone's truth is valid is that we will at times disagree with everyone, usually agree with someone, have no idea what's really going on, and yet believe the truth to be whatever we want it to be.” Perhaps longwinded, this answer is better than any I've found in a textbook or in the lectures, and I find myself wanting to remind those who contribute to both of the damning side of over clarification - the further one gets wrapped up in more particular thought, the further away they get from the whole that it is part of, and the more confused the labyrinth of true understanding becomes. Why place walls where there was once fluid roaming for simple sake of accurate yardage? I'd rather skip the measuring, and just enjoy the whole.
