Truth is reality. Truth is an invention. Both are accurate.
What we see only counts insofar as it describes perception. Ask a vegetarian to describe a barbecue: qualitative perceptions will be dramatically different for the vegetarian than for the grill master. Truth lies somewhere in between.
It follows, then, that truth may find its currency in argumentation-- determinations made simply because one person can argue a point better than an opponent. There's a risk, of course, that if this proposition holds even a smidge of truth, one has to wonder if there's ever anything close to an absolute truth. I'm not talking about religion here, no matter where you fall on that color wheel. But somehow, some way, truth is a balance between reasoning well stated, and something immutable. More and more, I believe that balance hovers on a flinty-sharp point, always at risk of teetering into chaos.
Much like reality itself, I think absolute truth and reasoned arguments each have validity. Truth demands perspective to define its boundaries; that's the immutable part. But truth also asks for smart argumentation; that's perception. While not a demand, per se, the "ask" about truth always seems connected to questions of relevance: if something presents itself, or someone otherwise presents an argument for something to be regarded as "true", it deserves a well reasoned position to make it clear and strong. Fact or philosophy; truth stands in the context of the rest of the universe.
Speaking of the universe, what of gravity? Of color? Of finite lifespans? Is there a greater value to something true described by physical immutability, or is there equivalent merit in well-reasoned argument? Does a philosopher's proof constitute an equivalency to the rising sun?
I will not be the last to propose this discussion, although I'll welcome it's continuation. But I firmly believe that while the question provokes spirited debate, there is a response that goes between the horns of the bull. That is, truth always lives in the expression of creative acts. When a person, or city, or civilization creates something new, it resists chaos; it establishes connections and order. Creativity cannot ever be false, no matter how qualitatively weak or uninteresting it may be. I may not want to consume every new thing brought into the world, but I certainly cannot refute the truth of its making. Even an insincerely created moment, something done for the most base, selfish, crude purpose stands up to this reasoning. Creativity by itself is always true; it exists without qualification, the act itself a moment of choice, a declaration against entropy regardless of its motivation.
Truth is its own engine. That's why we do what we do.