Truth = a statement or principle that is generally considered to be true.
The first thing one notices about this definition is it’s circularity, it’s slipperiness, as the definition relies on itself to define itself.
Second, notice the word “considered”, which raises the question: by whom? The majority? The government? Individuals? In this sense, the truth by its very nature will always vary depending on who you ask, for no standard is above human consideration.
Even something tangible, a physical object or a person, an historical event or something that happens right before our eyes, will contain enough variables to make it vary in people’s minds. It’s baked-in.
So even a simple question like “What is a rabbit” will differ depending on where you live, on what you eat. A majority of New Yorkers may think “a warm fuzzy animal that people keep for pets” while most small town residents on the prairie regard it as “a proliferate critter that tastes great in stew” whereas a typical Indonesian sees it as “a destructive pest that wreaks havoc on land and crops”.
Everybody’s judgment is subjective. And not just because of where you live, your values, opinions and beliefs. It’s built into language itself, in most cases not even noticeable. More than anything, truth is subjective because most things that happen are neither completely true nor completely false.
SO it’s not just what you see (or perceive) but what you don’t. It’s what you don’t pay attention to that often makes the biggest difference. For this reason, the context in which truth is discussed always impacts the truth itself. What’s “a fact” in one place may be unrecognized in another. Not just rabbits and simple things but how people think of themselves, their government, the meaning of life, and what’s right and wrong.
As the circular argument does: what’s true is generally considered to be true. It’s questionable whether humans are capable of more.