It gets deeper though.

See, if anyone cares to explore.

How is your proposition regarding truth being an attribute of the assertion advanced in any way by this subjective/objective distinction? — Arne

It isn't. And it does cause confusion, because people muddle 'true or false' with 'objective or subjective'. So philosophers sometimes avoid them and then find themselves talking instead about 'noumena' and 'phenomena', or 'reality' and 'appearance', or some such equivalent distinction, and they still get confused, because life is confusing.

So to tell the truth is to say 'the cat is on the mat' only when the cat is on the mat, and 'I can see an oasis' only when I can see an oasis. And then one has to allow that though there must be a cat, and it must be on the mat, in order for it to be true that the cat is on the mat, it is not the case that there must be an oasis when I see an oasis, because there are mirages.

that which actually is — Pattern-chaser

And in what way is that which actually is different from that which is?

And what about that which really is?

I can't believe you walked right in to that one.

Or are you messing with our heads? — Arne

Huh? :chin: Actually is just an amplifier, to make the intended sense doubly clear. "That which actually is" is shorthand for something having Objective existence. I.e. it exists in Objective reality, independent of any perceptions, thoughts, beliefs or opinions that you or I or anyone else might have. So that which actually is is that which really is. But surely that's obvious? :chin: No, I'm not messing with anyone's head, just trying to be clear. :up: But I think you knew that? Being autistic, I can't tell....

it most certainly will be epic. :smile:

subject/object is just the tip of the iceberg. And it is not just philosophy. All disciplines desperately attach labels to that which they cannot explain. And then they proceed as if the label explains.