From my point of view, the only thing one can be absolutely sure of is that the present exists. What that present constitutes, however, is a matter of speculation.

You just asserted an objective truth, implying that we can indeed be objective. Your assertion of the lack of objectivity is thus limited in scope.

He's making a reference to logic. He's trying to show that logic can generate objectively true statements.

I think this whole discussion centers around one point: You have to assume something in order to claim knowledge of anything. Otherwise the very concept of knowledge becomes subjective itself.

""Everything is subjective" is an objective statement as it is being asserted to be true for everyone." is in my opinion the best argument in favor of the ultimate existence of objective truth.

To clarify what I'm saying: You have to assume you're being objective in the first place, in order to be able to claim certainty about anything.

In order for someone to state something as an objective truth and for that statement to be accepted you have to assume that the person has an objective reference point in the first place and is going exclusively by that reference point. My understanding is that this is impossible to prove, even if you happen to have that. So the concept of objectivity requires some basic assumptions.

The funny thing is, any assertions we make are assertions of objectivity. So if we say we are subjective beings, then we're making an objective truth claim. So in order for us to say that we are subjective beings we have to assume there is objectivity that we can utilise in the first place.

Yes, if they're derived from a subjective framework but objectively true. That doesn't mean they're certain, though.

I see. The idea that we cannot objectively assert anything about reality assumes that we have access to objective truth. If we cannot be objective, then we would have no way of knowing that. Pyrrhonism avoids the problem altogether by suspending belief in all matters.

Such an argument could be the regress argument or the problem of the criterion.

But then your last answer is nullified since you assert that we can objectively assert something to be undeniably true.

The most extreme skeptics would argue that objectivity is even in principle impossible. But I guess that's another discussion and not relevant for humanity.

It sounds to me like you're implying that we cannot ever be guaranteed to be 100% correct about anything we claim to know (fallibilism). Is that right?

But how do we know that mathematics is 100% accurate? How can we show that some of our mathematical deductions weren't skewed by human error or emotions?

Starting point for reasoning. Personally I believe that we can aspire for objectivity when understanding reality, but never actually reach it.

That suggests to me that there is no objective knowledge. Objective knowledge requires an objective framework (or reference point).

If a sick person perceives themselves as being sick, and they survive by eating and drinking, isn't there some fundamental objectivity at play? We in society all share the same abstraction of reality; otherwise, language would be a useless tool for interaction.

Exactly. And you just said that objectivity is possible; namely, that it can be objectively known that the world exists.

Objective truth can only be objectively perceived. This is what throws me off, sort of. This leads me to think that there is a fundamental starting point that is objective.

How you perceive an apple might be different to how I might perceive it. But it's still the same thing that's perceived. So yeah, we share the same language framework.

So our perception of reality is subjective?