I wasn’t attributing it to you, but to objectivists in general.
And who but the vast and the varied proponents of objectivism claim that?
The word ‘objective’ is created to communicate some particular idea. If it does not communicate that idea, then there is something wrong with the definition of the word. If nothing is ‘objective’ then there is no reason for the word to even exist. And as a consequence there is no reason for its ‘opposite’ to exist - therefore, the word ‘subjective’ need not exist.
Here is the dictionary definition of objective:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
And this from SEP regarding the word “object”
plato.stanford.edu/entries/object/
Now, imagine if everytime we used the word “objective” or “subjective” or “object” or “subject” here we had to square our point with these two sources.
Then we would move on to the word “communicate” and “idea” and “exist”.
Come on, my point is this…
We think we know this or that about something in our head. We claim to believe this or that is true or false about it.
Here about Turd.
But what are we in fact able to demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are obligated to know or to believe about Turd.
Was he in fact an objectivist or are we really only discussing the manner in which we have come existentially to understand the meaning of that word here and now “in our head”?
Can we square our point with the dictionary, with the SEP? Can the dictionary and the SEP be utilized to pin down what is in fact true and false about Turd. About his own particular moral and political narrative? About ours?
Whenever a claim is being made, a subject is making it. That’s true for both subjective and objective claims. Therefore, the mere involvement of a “subject” can’t be what differentiates ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’.
Okay, but what claim is being made about what person or thing in what context?
You make the claim, you choose the context.