Now my question is, when you define objectivity in this way, why would you expect to find objectivity in logic, which is a case of human thinking? You have given examples of how objectivity is impossible to obtain with logic, but you have defined "objective" such that it is self-evident that objectivity cannot be obtained by human thinking, and logic is a form of human thinking. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good job someone finally picked this up. I actually also believe that a truly self evident premise is impossible because it needs the assumption that logic preserves truth but the laws of logic are all pivots which is why there are multiple types of logic. So yeah objectivity as I defined it is not even obtainable by logic

All these things, value, knowledge, and morality, are known to be the products of human thought. — Metaphysician Undercover

See, we seem to agree on this however you'd be surprised at how many people will disagree with that simple statement. My post is directred at those people, the religious ones, the confused scientific ones, etc. You appear to be pretty relativistic am I wrong?

What is the point of this thread? — Metaphysician Undercover

To get he people that claim that a morality/value/knowledge that transcends human thought exists and is acquirable by humans to defend their beliefs and to attack mine. You're not one of those people

I actually also believe that a truly self evident premise is impossible because it needs the assumption that logic preserves truth but the laws of logic are all pivots which is why there are multiple types of logic. So yeah objectivity as I defined it is not even obtainable by logic — khaled

I don't really know what you mean by a "pivot", but wouldn't a self-evident premise itself be a pivot? The fundamental laws of logic, identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle, are not exactly self-evident, but are required for, and therefore prior to self-evident truths. These fundamental laws, like the fundamentals of arithmetic, say something about "objective" reality as you have defined "objective", but cannot be part of it. If we remove the necessity of "objective" (as defined) from "reality", which dictates independence from thought, we allow that these laws may be part of reality.

To get he people that claim that a morality/value/knowledge that transcends human thought exists and is acquirable by humans to defend their beliefs and to attack mine. You're not one of those people — khaled

If we remove the criteria of "objective", as defined, we can allow that morality, value, and knowledge actually do transcend human thought. It is your definition of "objective" which stipulates a separation between thought and objective reality, forcing the conclusion that elements of thought cannot be part of objective reality. Without this separation we can say that these things are part of reality which are apprehended by human thought, and that these things also transcend human thought. What thought apprehends is a part of these things, but since human thought does not apprehend the entirety of morality, value, and knowledge, these things transcend human thought. This is similar to the way that we sense objects. We see them, but there is a part of the objects, atoms, fundamental particles, etc., which transcends our capacity to sense. So we don't sense the entirety of the objects, just like the mind does not apprehend the entirety of things like morality, value, and knowledge, they transcend.

I don't really know what you mean by a "pivot", — Metaphysician Undercover

Pivot: A premise taken to be true with no reliance on another premise for proof. Ex: God exists. Why? Just cuz

It is your definition of "objective" which stipulates a separation between thought and objective reality, — Metaphysician Undercover

I think such a separation is necessary because

If we remove the necessity of "objective" (as defined) from — Metaphysician Undercover

We get relativism because there will be multiple possible interpretations of reality all based on different choices of starting pivots

we allow that these laws may be part of reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

We allow these laws to be part of A reality. If you don't have an objective premise (as defined) (which I believe is impossible to get but I am open to having my mind changed) you will always get some defree or relativism.

Without this separation we can say that these things are part of reality which are apprehended by human thought, and that these things also transcend human thought. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is a contradiction no? One can never know from the "apprehended" reality whether or not an external reality even exists or what it looks like. We may all be brains in vats.

What if someone is for some reason adamently convinced that a magical bearded sky man created the world and will take him to heaven if he kills blasphemers. Assuming that premise to be true, it is obviously morally right for that person to become a terrorist. Additionally, that someone will not argue with anyone that does not start off with this specific pivot (that there is a magical bearded sky man) because that would be "obviously wrong" in the eyes of this individual. Similarly one can instead assume that there is no bearded sky man and instead choose to rely on the rules of logic. Similarly, that man will not even argue with anyone that does not accept the pivots of logic. My point is that there is so many of these irreconcilable pivots to pick from that to claim one is right is completely unsubstantiated in my opinion. This is because to claim one is right one needs to use a pivot to confirm it and THAT pivot is in turn arbitrary. I happen to pick the logic pivots but other people might not and that's where you get your relativism.

First paragraph: My point was that you are making claims of something you (and I aswell) are completely ignorant and you are dismissing the claims of those who have dedicated their lives to the subject. This is unreasonable.

Second paragraph: When we accept that values are relative, good and evil become undefinable and thus morality becomes an empty concept. It seems you are suggesting good and evil should be pliable according to the situation. This is something I cannot agree with, but it is a different discussion and I do not wish to sidetrack.

Third paragraph: I could just as easily point towards all the morals and values the world's religions have in common, and have had in common for thousands of years. But for objective truth to exist it isn't necessarily required that man has already found it. Perhaps some have found a part. Perhaps we have found nothing. Haven't we already established that such things are extremely difficult to find, if not impossible? This an unsatisfying argument.

Secondly, I am unsure which claims of mine you are referring to. I am not claiming the existence of objective value. I am questioning your position on the matter. If you must know, I believe there are good arguments for either side and given our ignorance on the matter I choose the only position reasonable: I don't know.

Fourth paragraph: A theist who doubts the existence of deity is not a theist, but an agnostic. So is an atheist who doubts the non-existence of deity, regardless of what they might label themselves as. Nihilism makes a claim, and it doesn't say anything about doubt. The fact that you are in doubt makes your position a lot more reasonable, but I also wouldn't call you nihilistic. You seem to be willing to make assumptions for practical reasons (as I think you hinted at in your third paragraph), but someone who believes in deity for practical reasons can hardly be called a believer.

Last paragraph: There are those who find comfort in the meaninglessness of things. However, I was not implying this should be true for you, merely guessing at the reason(s) you might have for making an assumption about something you admit you do not know.

Objective reality has far more creditably and consequence than your nonsense. That's why you look both ways before you cross the road and don't just walk off high places, as for all your gobbledygook you still very much behave as if you exist in an objective reality. You don't even believe your own nonsense.

Pivot: A premise taken to be true with no reliance on another premise for proof. Ex: God exists. Why? Just cuz — khaled

This is where I entered this discussion. The answer to "Why?" here, is not "just cuz". There are many reasons why a premise which is not reliant on another premise might be taken as true. The principal reason is experience. I agree with you that sense experience is not one hundred percent reliable, but this does not negate the fact that the reason why many premises are taken to be true is sense experience.

We get relativism because there will be multiple possible interpretations of reality all based on different choices of starting pivots — khaled

OK, but we need not settle on relativism. This is where the other form of "objective" (the one I called inter-subjective) comes into play. When we can agree on pivots, and establish conventions and norms, we move beyond basic relativism into a form of objectivity.

We allow these laws to be part of A reality. If you don't have an objective premise (as defined) (which I believe is impossible to get but I am open to having my mind changed) you will always get some defree or relativism. — khaled

Sure, one society with it's world view, conventions and norms has its own view of "reality", and another has its "reality", but is the fact that there is a variance in metaphysics, evidence that there is not an absolute truth, as is required for relativism. For example, suppose that you and I both witnessed an event. We each have different descriptions of what happened. Does this indicate that there is not an absolute truth of what actually did happen? I think not. So I think that the fact that we have different metaphysics, different conventions, and different norms, does not lead to the conclusion that there is no absolute truth in these matters. Even if we get to the conclusion that we cannot possibly know the absolute truth, this still does not support relativism which claims that there is no absolute truth.

That is a contradiction no? One can never know from the "apprehended" reality whether or not an external reality even exists or what it looks like. We may all be brains in vats. — khaled

Whether or not there is an absolute "reality" is an assumption we make. It may not be provable. To prove that there is not, would require an absolute proof, and this would be self-refuting. That there is not would be an absolute. To prove that there is would seem to require that the absolute be apprehended, and proven to be the absolute. This I believe is beyond the capacity of the human being, due to the limitations imposed by our physical constitution.

However, it is useful to assume that there is the absolute, for many purposes, and not useful to assume that there is not, because this assumption would contradict itself if it were true. If it was true that there is no absolute, this would itself be an absolute, refuting itself. Therefore the assumption that there is such an absolute, assumes as a principle, what is a useful possibility, and that there is no absolute assumes as a principle what is impossible. We must therefore dismiss the latter, as impossible, but the former might better be expressed as the "possibility" that there is such an absolute. However, that there is no absolute has now been dismissed as impossible, therefore we can claim with absolute certainty that there is such an absolute.

What if someone is for some reason adamently convinced that a magical bearded sky man created the world and will take him to heaven if he kills blasphemers. Assuming that premise to be true, it is obviously morally right for that person to become a terrorist. Additionally, that someone will not argue with anyone that does not start off with this specific pivot (that there is a magical bearded sky man) because that would be "obviously wrong" in the eyes of this individual. — khaled

I don't see the relevance of this example. Assuming that there is an absolute is different from assuming that there is a magical bearded man in the sky. And assuming that there is a magical bearded man is different from assuming that the magical bearded man will take you to heaven if you kill blasphemers. So your example might just as well start with the premise that this man believes that it is a good idea to kill blasphemers, and argue this. That is the real pivot, the point which inclines the person to be a terrorist. Then you can address individually the ideas which support this pivot.

My point is that there is so many of these irreconcilable pivots to pick from that to claim one is right is completely unsubstantiated in my opinion. This is because to claim one is right one needs to use a pivot to confirm it and THAT pivot is in turn arbitrary. I happen to pick the logic pivots but other people might not and that's where you get your relativism. — khaled

As I explained above, each pivot is supported by reasons, and the reasons are not necessarily pivots, they are usually some sort of experience, or conglomeration of experiences. So, "I am right" refers to a pivot, but it may be supported by one's experiences, rather than other pivots. If one wants to argue against "I am right", this requires addressing the experiences which lead to this pivot, not addressing pivots.

As I explained above, each pivot is supported by reasons, and the reasons are not necessarily pivots, they are usually some sort of experience, or conglomeration of experiences. — Metaphysician Undercover

Does this not sound like relativism to you? You have tied truth to a person's experiences. Now instead of having irreconcilable pivots, you have irreconcilable experiences. That's not much better.
Now if someone claims to have "seen God" one man might believe him because he seems genuine and the other might not because he is more skeptical. They are both that way because of experience and now their opinions are irreconcilable. You're still using consensus as a basis for claiming that humans get closer to objective reality when that is not at all the case.

However, it is useful to assume that there is the absolute, for many purposes, and not useful to assume that there is not, because this assumption would contradict itself if it were true. If it was true that there is no absolute, this would itself be an absolute, refuting itself. Therefore the assumption that there is such an absolute, assumes as a principle, what is a useful possibility, and that there is no absolute assumes as a principle what is impossible. We must therefore dismiss the latter, as impossible, but the former might better be expressed as the "possibility" that there is such an absolute. However, that there is no absolute has now been dismissed as impossible, therefore we can claim with absolute certainty that there is such an absolute. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm fine with this. I'm not arguing whether or not an absolute reality exists (I'm now convinced it does. I never thought about the question before because it's inconsequential to relativism) I'm arguing whether or not that is realisable by humans which you seem to disagree with yourself.

To prove that there is would seem to require that the absolute be apprehended, and proven to be the absolute. This I believe is beyond the capacity of the human being, — Metaphysician Undercover

Even if we get to the conclusion that we cannot possibly know the absolute truth, this still does not support relativism which claims that there is no absolute truth. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not what relativism claims. It claims that the truth is unrealizable

I don't think we think relativism means the same thing. I define it as: an objective truth is unachievable and you define it as: an objective truth does not exist. See I'm reading everything you're saying and I'm like "yeah, exactly". There is no reason to assume consensus brings us any closer to this objective reality. It only brings us closer to reconciling the biggest set of experiences under one explanation. There is no reason to assume that gets us any closer to objective reality at all

Having read through the whole thread, what you are calling "nihilistic relativism" sounds much like 2/3rds of Kant's Canon of Pure Reason:

"All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the following questions

• What can I know?
  
  • What should I do?
    
    • What may I hope?

The first question is merely speculative. We have as I flatter myself, exhausted all the possible answers to it, and at last have found the answer which reason must perforce content itself, and with which , so long as it takes no account of the practical, it has also has good cause to be satisfied. But from the two great ends to which the whole endeavor of of pure reason was really directed, we have remained just as far removed as if through love of ease we had declined this labor of enquiry at the very outset. So far, then as knowledge is concerned, this much, at least, is certain and definitively established, that in respect of these two latter problems, knowledge is unattainable by us.
The second question is purely practical. As such it can indeed come with the scope of pure reason, but even so is not transcendental but moral, and cannot , therefore, in and by itself, form a proper subject for treatment in this Critique.Critique of Pure Reason, A805, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith"

In making these distinctions between "uses of reasons", Kant wasn't interested in Descartes' musing over whether the people moving outside were actually automatons but in finding a way to protect using logic from Hume who argued causality was an arbitrary association between events. Kant also was keen to have the products of mathematics accepted as valid without having to prove more than what they claimed for themselves. It is with this matter of uses in mind that I consider your reasoning:

"P1: The application of logic requires premises
P2: Any conclusion the application of logic leads to is true if the premises are true
P3: There is no way for a premise to be determined true or false except relative to another premise
P4: A premise cannot determine it's own truth value or if it can then none have been found so far that do so and are useful in proving anything else
P5: There is more than one potential premise from which someone can start an argument.
P6: Consequently there is more than one potential premise that can be used to determine the truth value of a premise
C: More than one conclusion is valid if the right premises are used to determine it's truth value."

The problem with P3 is that it voids the reason for making any proposition. In a math proof, for instance, how the premises are developed to demonstrate a separate claim than the premises is why the syllogism is more than a list of assumptions. I am repeating Metaphysical Undercover's observation that your reasoning is circular but adding the point that nobody uses reasoning the way you describe it.

Does this not sound like relativism to you? You have tied truth to a person's experiences. — khaled

No, I haven't tied truth to a person's experience, I've tied a person belief that something is true to one's experience. I think there may be a difference between taking something to be true, and it actually being true.

Now instead of having irreconcilable pivots, you have irreconcilable experiences. — khaled

And, I do not believe that these differences are irreconcilable. We have agreements, conventions, norms, these things are evidence that there is real reconciliation. The fact that we haven't yet reached reconciliation on all matters does not indicate that these matters are irreconcilable. I don't know how anyone could ever prove that an issue is irreconcilable.

You're still using consensus as a basis for claiming that humans get closer to objective reality when that is not at all the case. — khaled

You're wrong here. I am not claiming that humans are getting closer to objective reality. We've already agreed that it is impossible for human thought to reach objective reality, by that definition. So why should we even try to reach it? What I am claiming is that there is another form of "objective", which is actually reached through consensus. I also said that it is necessary to assume that there is such a thing as the absolute truth, because the converse assumption creates contradiction. The physical constitution of the human being makes it impossible for us to obtain the absolute truth, so we ought to settle on consensus. Agreement is good, for human beings, don't you think? Why should we ask for more than this?

That's not what relativism claims. It claims that the truth is unrealizable — khaled

I think you ought to read up a little more on relativism before making claims like this. Relativism claims that truth is relative. Therefore truth is actually obtainable, but there is no absolute truth, truth is relative. What is true for you might be different from what is true for me. So it defines "truth" in a way such that it is not absolute, it is realizable, but this is a different definition from those who hold that there is an absolute truth. It doesn't say that the absolute truth is unrealizable, it says there is no such thing.

I don't think we think relativism means the same thing. I define it as: an objective truth is unachievable and you define it as: an objective truth does not exist. See I'm reading everything you're saying and I'm like "yeah, exactly". There is no reason to assume consensus brings us any closer to this objective reality. It only brings us closer to reconciling the biggest set of experiences under one explanation. There is no reason to assume that gets us any closer to objective reality at all — khaled

We seem to agree on everything except what relativism is. We both think that there is an absolute truth which is unobtainable by human beings. You think that this is relativism, I think that relativism denies that there is an absolute truth.

According to Nietzsche, a nihilistic person is one who adheres to any ideology, religion, or system of values that promotes and encourages a denial, rather than, an affirmation of the Will-to-Live.

The belief that an objective value/knowledge/morality is non existent — khaled

That there's no objective value, knowledge or morality (or many other things) seems as obvious to me as anything can seem obvious.

Let me answer that question with a falsehood, since it has the same value as the truth. — unenlightened

And as expected, responses start with a complete lack of understanding. That there is no objective value doesn't imply that things are similarly valued. You have to look at the correct domain for value, which is the subjective domain. In the subjective domain, different things are not all identically valued at all.

See, I see a sort of enigma with nihilism in that according to it, believing in objective morality, God, superstition, etc is just as good as believing in nihilism — khaled

No, you're making the same category error here. There is no objective value. That doesn't mean that there is no subjective value. You simply have to locate the phenomenon in the right place. It's like noting that (barring unusual circumstances etc.) a beer isn't going to get cold by sitting in the microwave, but it will get cold in the refrigerator. You have to locate it in the right place. Value is something that brains do. It's not something that the world outside of brains does. So it's not at all the case that x is just as good as y unconditionally. Things are as good as, or better or worse than other things to someone.

No, you're making the same category error here. There is no objective value. That doesn't mean that there is no subjective value. You simply have to locate the phenomenon in the right place. It's like noting that (barring unusual circumstances etc.) a beer isn't going to get cold by sitting in the microwave, but it will get cold in the refrigerator. You have to locate it in the right place. Value is something that brains do. It's not something that the world outside of brains does. So it's not at all the case that x is just as good as y unconditionally. Things are as good as, or better or worse than other things to someone. — Terrapin Station

Just jumping in here since I find what you said interesting, Though i realise your comment was directed elsewhere.
How exactly do you mean value here? I wouldnt say that a hammer has no objective value as a nail hitting tool, I do not think that is something merely done by the brain. It seems like something that is objectively true, something happening in the world (or about the world and its objects is a better way of putting it) that the mind realises/recognises. Similarly, depending on what the goal is, certain things will be objectively better or worse for achieving that goal. (Objective as inntrue regardless of subjective thoughts on the effectiveness).
I think what some are getting at here is that subjective values all have the same level of justification, based on (from what I can tell) the premiss that all subjective values have the same basis (someone made them up, came to them through culture or preference of some kind).
Do you agree with any of that?

That's right. Nietzsche saw values as getting closer or further from supporting the life of the one doing the "valuation."

I have seen surprisingly few posts on this philosophy to which I adhere which is starting to make me think it might have some gaping logical hole somewhere that I'm not seeing. I am open to having my mind changed in any way (God, inherent meaning in objects, cosmic Consciousness, etc) so present your best arguments against this philosophy.

Quick definition: The belief that an objective value/knowledge/morality is non existent — khaled

Here's what I think a good retort to that position. First, if you understand the 'objective' in sufficiently absolute terms, then, indeed, nothing is objective. Or nothing worth talking about. Let's say that your position decides to define 'black' the complete absence of light waves in the visible spectrum. How often will anyone see your 'true' black? Maybe never. So now your position can decide that all the ordinary talk of blackness is mistaken. It has a hole in it.

But this forgets how and why we started using 'black' in the first place. Similarly, a 'true' or 'perfect' objectivity that doesn't actually exists has little to do with how and why people tend to use 'objective,' except as an exaggeration for a particular purpose, which might in retrospect seem to be a silly purpose.

Then there's the performative contradiction of reasonably defending the impossibility or absence of 'true' or 'objective' reason or meaning. You might say that you are just imposing your will with sophistry that knows itself to be sophistry, but that sacrifices the persuasive force that you need in the first place. A more 'living' understanding of objectivity might be in terms of persuasive force applied to skeptics like yourself. For instance, science assumes a kind of metaphysical skepticism, and therefore leaves itself naked and vulnerable to falsification. It self-consciously offers fragile rules-for-action couched in terms of patterns of public and repeatable experience. While radical skeptics can ask for a further minimization of error-risk, they aren't likely to get it. And since life demands that we act, we do indeed act always in a smog of some uncertainty. We all 'know' this with the 'sight' of action, no matter what we merely say in a certain mood or within a certain game. Lots of useful, skeptical philosophy boils down to: Talk is cheap. Look to action.

While you may find a few 'metaphysical prigs' who also take the 'purely' objective seriously, your position can easily look like the accusation that others naively believe in a kind of ghost. A few do (when and while they wear their metaphysical or religious hats), but many don't, or at least not in that one. All along, that pure, exaggerated notion of objective knowledge/certainty/morality looks like the ghost from the perspective I am defending. IMV, the dominant ghost in philosophy (or on forums) is an unquestioned conception of language that leads many into selling 'profundities' with no real weight. Of course Wittgenstein is the face of this kind of critique.

In my view, your position makes the most sense as an exaggeration that understands itself as an exaggeration, as an ultimately reasonable skepticism spiced with click-bait.

Well said!

Thanks! I've identified with a kind of nihilistic relativism before, so that response was an opportunity to try to give the position its due while reeling in its tendency to paradoxically present itself.

How exactly do you mean value here? — DingoJones

Standard dictionary definitions work well enough:
"the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something."
"relative worth, utility, or importance"
"to consider or rate highly"
Etc.

I wouldnt say that a hammer has no objective value as a nail hitting tool, — DingoJones

Well, objectively, a hammer can be used to hit nails. So can a lot of other things. It's persons who have preferences about which thing to use, which features to prefer, and so on.

depending on what the goal is, certain things will be objectively better or worse for achieving that goal. — DingoJones

It's not objectively better or worse, but sure, we can define a goal re wanting something to have such and such properties, and then objectively, some things will have those properties, or be closer to having those properties, than other things. That's not objective value. It's just the fact that there are objective properties and we can search for certain properties if we like.

I think what some are getting at here is that subjective values all have the same level of justification, based on (from what I can tell) the premiss that all subjective values have the same basis (someone made them up, came to them through culture or preference of some kind).
Do you agree with any of that? — DingoJones

I don't understand what you're saying re "the same level of justification."

But this forgets how and why we started using 'black' in the first place. Similarly, a 'true' or 'perfect' objectivity that doesn't actually exists has little to do what how people tend to use 'objective,' except as an exaggeration for a particular purpose, which might in retrospect seem to be a silly purpose. — macrosoft

The problem is that things like "objective knowledge," so that the knowledge itself has as one of its properties that it is objective, are really category errors (knowledge, by definition, can't have the property of being objective), so you can't have a "kind-of objectivity" when it comes to something like knowledge.

Well, objectively, a hammer can be used to hit nails. So can a lot of other things. It's persons who have preferences about which thing to use, which features to prefer, and so on. — Terrapin Station

A hammer is objectivly better for hitting nails than say, a dead fish. A person may or may not have a preference to use a dead fish to hit nails, but a hammer objectively has more value for hitting nails. (According to your own definition which specifically mentions “utility”)

It's not objectively better or worse, but sure, we can define a goal re wanting something to have such and such properties, and then objectively, some things will have those properties, or be closer to having those properties, than other things. That's not objective value. It's just the fact that there are objective properties and we can search for certain properties if we like. — Terrapin Station

Of course it is objectively better or worse, the hammer over the dead fish for hitting nails for example.
It is true that we can search for certain properties we like as you describe, but it is also true that certain properties suit certain tasks better, that they have more value for doing the task. Hence, it depends on what the goal is and what properties best accomplish the goal.

A hammer is objectivly better for hitting nails than say, a dead fish. A person may or may not have a preference to use a dead fish to hit nails, but a hammer objectively has more value for hitting nails. (According to your own definition which specifically mentions “utility”) — DingoJones

Let's try it this way. The objective "better" in the above is a property of what? That is, where is the property ( "This is better than that") found?

I don't understand what you're saying re "the same level of justification." — Terrapin Station

That everything is equally justified if they are subjective human constructs, as they all have the same basis of simple subjective preference.
The argument is essentially saying its all opinion and no ones opinion is more or less wrong.
I think that is true sometimes, but some opinions actually are objectively wrong sometimes too.
I do not want to say that objective and subjective is a false dichotomy , but it seems obvious to me that there is some crossover of the two when we consider the value of certain things. The example I like to use is a ruler that measures inches. An inch is a subjective thing, a measure of distance made up by a human mind that doesnt exist objectively. However, once the subjective decision to create the system of measurement and arbitrarily decide what an”inch” is gets done, it is then true that the length in inches of a ruler or whatever object is the same regardless of the subjective preferences of the person measuring. They could say “this isnt 12 inches in length, its 1 foot in length” and they would be right and the matter of which system to use is subjective preference (or what you are taught) but it is also true that the object is 12”, and I think we can say that that is objectively true in the sense that regardless of someones subjective idea of something length. You can always pull out a ruler and confirm its actual, objective length in inches. To make a distinction between objectively being true in reality and objectively being true in the sense I describe above I use the term “objective standard”.

Let's try it this way. The objective "better" in the above is a property of what? That is, where is the property ( "This is better than that") found? — Terrapin Station

I would say in its utility, its value as a hitting nails device.

I would say in its utility, its value as a hitting nails device. — DingoJones

"In its utility"? What sort of location is that? I'm asking you where as in a spatial location.

That everything is equally justified if they are subjective human constructs, as they all have the same basis of simple subjective preference. — DingoJones

Justifications are something that we do as individual persons. Different people think that different things count as justifications. No one thinks that everything is equally justified. Not everyone has the same subjective preferences.

he argument is essentially saying its all opinion and no ones opinion is more or less wrong. — DingoJones

"(More or less) wrong" is a category error when it comes to opinions. So if we realize that, we're neither saying that "no one's opinion is more or less wrong" or "no one's opinion is NOT more or less wrong." "More or less wrong" has nothing to do, either way, with opinions.

but some opinions actually are objectively wrong sometimes too — DingoJones

Not opinions re preferences, etc. There is another sense of "opinion" where we just use it to refer to someone's view--"Professor Smith's opinion of the chemical composition of Jupiter's atmosphere." That's not the sense of "opinion" we were talking about.

An inch is a subjective thing, a measure of distance made up by a human mind that doesnt exist objectively — DingoJones

I actually don't agree with that, by the way. Extension is an objective relation. Calling it an "inch" isn't objective, of course. At any rate, extension is something that's mind-independent.

"In its utility"? What sort of location is that? I'm asking you where as in a spatial location. — Terrapin Station

In its shape and attributes. You want me to say “in the mind of user” or some-such?

In its shape and attributes. You want me to say “in the mind of user” or some-such? — DingoJones

I just wanted you to say where you thought it was located, wherever it happens to be. "In its attributes"--"x is better than y" IS an attribute, right? So it's located in the object's shape in your view? You're saying that the overall shape has a property of "x is better than y"? Would that be a property that we could detect via a machine somehow? Like say that an alien civilzation found a hammer, and could put it in a machine that reads all of the hammer's properties. So in addition to its chemical composition, its tensile strength, etc., the machine would report its "x is better than y" properties somehow?