Objective truth is exactly what? Obviously I have an idea, but on further examination, my idea is vague and sloppy, kind of piecemeal, case by case. If people are not even in agreement as to whether or not the exterior world is real, how can there be any objective truth? Yet to propose that all truth is subjective would be paralyzing, and rather absurd, wouldn’t it?
Ideas appreciated. I’m not playing games, I’m really trying to figure this out.
I think it would help if you put forward your idea of objective truth, even if it is vague and sloppy.
Objective truth sounds redundant to me.
In any case I am not sure we can get further than consensus truth, when we can.
Yes, subjective truth doesn’t offer much, even for the subject. I mean, why should it even hold for that person in a few minutes if it is merely subjective - whatever that means.
In very general terms, objective truth, to me, means factual. I am walking across a street, fact. The house was built in 2001, fact. The wind is presently NNW at 12 mph, fact. There can be no subjective bias in these assertions, can there?
I think your problem is going to be defining “truth”… any ole truth.
But once you get that done, the issue of objective vs subjective isn’t hard.
Defining truth? Would I want to say that truth is the shared reality that humans experience? Or should I saw that truth describes or defines our shared reality? I’ll chew on it. No, I’m already editing. There can be private reality which is true.
Existence is defined by that which affects. Truth is declared based on existence.
There is that which affects everyone in the same fundamental way (2 objects are two objects) and that which affects each individual differently (there are too many objects or too few objects).
Subjectivity is a matter of personal use or value (what I want is what I want).
Objectivity is a matter of logical situation (what is, is what is).
@ OP -The idea itself - the idea of objective truth, is vague and sloppy. I’d say you’re right on the mark.
Perhaps, but in everyday life, we classify statements as objective or subjective. The thermostat is set on 70 degrees, objective. The room is cold, subjective. Now, we mean something by that common classification, but what? In everyday life, we have an idea of objective truth (true for all) vs. subjective truth (it’s true for some), and we have an idea of truth. But what is truth? And when we come down to objective, true for all, we disagree, except on “the facts”, which seems too narrow a definition for the concept of objective truth, leaves too many truths (whatever truth is) floating out in subjective land.
It seems that in common everyday lingo we have a good idea about what is truth or true, objective, subjective, but I can’t define it in a way that fits every instance, and that troubles me. I’d like to figure out a more definitive or descriptive criteria for truth, objective, and subjective, more definitive than “that’s how it is” or “everyone knows”. But a criteria which still correlates with everyday use.
Sure, you might be mad. Perhaps time is an illusion. Some physicists think that the universe is holographic and really all event happen on the periphery of the universe. Also some of those facts could be in error. Can an objective truth ever be in error? If we can’t know if a particular one is an error or not, how can we label it an objective truth? FAct sounds better. Sometimes facts turn out not to be true. I think we can stretch fact to include this potential for error. But to say some objective truths will turn out to have been in error seems like a problem.
I just read the Wikipedia article on philosophical objectivity and objectivism. My brain froze. I’ll have to go back and make notes. Tomorrow. This is more of a quagmire than I’d thought it would be – I thought there were simple answers which I just wasn’t seeing. Evidently not. I am confused, fact.
So the things I’d normally call objective facts or objective truths are possibly just temporary fads? Maybe there’s a universe, maybe there’s not? Math, all the sciences, pffft?? And if there is objective truth that will stand the test of eternity, it’s more likely to be a flying spaghetti monster than lab results? This cannot be right, fact – NO, subjective opinion?
I quit! This is way too abstract for me already, and we’re heading for evil semantics, I fear. I think I’ll just stick with common use language because even if I can’t define truth, objective truth, fact, and subjective truth, I and most people around me know what I mean, and that will have to suffice.
I agree with James, and I’d also like to add a few things.
Objective is derived from object, and an object is defined as - anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
From this, we can see that Subjective is considered to be unstable.
If a person is trying to achieve a goal, they might engage in many activities that without the knowledge of the goal, seem inconsistent. However, if you introduce the goal (objective), you reign in the efforts into a cohesive stable path.
It’s all about stability.
When it comes to Truth, stability is the selling factor, therefore, it’s critical to throw in a distinction between shared truth, and personal truth. The former is given far more weight/credibility and is expected to be stable, where the latter is expected to fluctuate based on an individual’s preferred target.
Good point–^^^
Thanks, guys. I’ll put it all back into my (presently) mush brain tomorrow and make some sense of it. As frustrated as I may get, using terms I can’t define and talking about concepts I don’t clearly understand is worse.
Objective truth is the knowledge you get from using agreed upon methods of calculating something. Examples:
1+1 = 2, based on a agreed principles of rationality
viruses reproduce, based on agreed principles of science and biology
raping children is bad, based on agreed principles of ethics
Now obviously, there is lots of disagreement about those agreed methods of calculating, especially in the field of ethics, but I think its as close as you can get to objective.
I wouldn’t use “consensus” as a measure of Objective truth, else the world would still be flat.
Logic provides actual proof of the objective by eliminating all alternatives.
But then you fall into the trap of somebody saying “Oh yeah! Well your principle of logic is subjective too”.
Until they try to debate it with me. 
Don’t bother with objectivism, that’s a specific form of philosophy. And not a very good one.
I agree with Faust, though, it’s a fairly needless distinction in most cases.
It would be? Is it consensus the world is flat?
I can’t say I find ‘objective truth’ to be common usage. Or ‘subjective truth’. Though subjective and objective are fairly commonly used. I think it generally is a good idea to use language that works. That said investigating the ideas philosophically can also be useful/fun. Even if you end up with opinions that differ from common use, common use will still generally be a practical approach.