Law of identity. A=A. Lol.

Then there is objective truth of which there can be absolute certainty?

Are all bachelors unmarried? Could there be a married bachelor? Can you be absolutely sure, without appealing to logic?

It comes down to not what a thing is, but what we decide it is.

we can never be absolutely certain of what is true — Possibility

But that's just not right.

Or better, the word "absolutely" sits there making a perfectly normal sentence into a bit of metaphysical nonsense.

"We never know what is true" is obviously wrong, since we everything we know is indeed true - otherwise it would be incorrect to claim to know it.

And further it is true that this sentence is in English, written by me and read by you; and further, that we are certain of these things. Doubt here is senseless.

And there is that word "objective", propped up again against "truth" as if it made a difference. If you are not sure what it is, then don't use it.

In terms of human volition, there are two aspect one may consider: permission, and power. To a parent, the aspect of permission is important: " you may have an ice cream after dinner." To Schopenhauer, power is important. "You might choose your beliefs." That's because, if you are concerned with objective reality, the principal problem you have is to define causality objectively. Compared to that, every other issue is basically trite. — ernestm

This is an interesting perspective. As a parent, I learned that permission (and indeed power) is based on perceived potential. So long as the child is unaware of their potential to have an ice cream without permission, then the child’s perceived potential can be limited by the parent. Once that potential is perceived as not limited by parental permission, it becomes about perceived consequences and affect. As a parent, it’s tempting to relate these consequences and/or affect back to ourselves, extending the perception of our ‘power’ over the child. So long as one remains ignorant (or fearful) of their own potential, ‘power’ is perceived as external.

I think that a more objective understanding of causality is found in relating the different subjective perspectives of potential information, or value relations. Schopenhauer’s four subjective correlates are all examples of this perceived potential: understanding, reason, sensibility and inner sense. These are anthropocentric terms, but in my view this ‘inner causality’ can be understood more objectively (with caution) in relation to ‘the will’, as an interaction of limited ‘perspectives’ of potential or value. As usual with discussions around objectivity, though, language and meaning are a minefield.

There is a simpler way to deal with this. Science has little to nothing to say about ‘truth’ but a lot to say about ‘facts’. Logic has little to nothing to say about facts but a lot to say about ‘truths’ - and there are different kinds of truths some of which are universal when set within strict parameters (that is precisely why propositional logic is useful).

Probability is much more well established in mathematics, which in turn can be put to use in the sciences but only with an error of margin ever present.

Potential refers to known possibilities and probable refers to known potential outcomes. But there could very well be unknown potential outcomes (which is clearly the case in reality as we’re unable to take into account every little variable).

1+1=2 is objectively true in basic arithmetic. In abstraction universals are used that can be mapped onto reality and allow us to make extremely accurate predictions in some situations and much less accurate predictions in other situations - it depend on how many variables there are , and how accurately they are accounted for.

The rest is purely a linguistic issue. Given that in day-to-day life we’re not inclined to use the terms ‘truth’ and ‘objective’ in anything other than gist manner it is no wonder that when we dog further there are clear misinterpretations and miscommunications. — I like sushi

Thank you for this. I think that acknowledging the limitations of each perspective in relation to the possibility of objective truth is important. Whether we’re talking logic, science, probability, potential or abstraction, we’re assuming a limited perspective of the possibility of objective truth, like the blind men around the elephant - except our ‘position’ is related not so much to spatial structures and sensory information, but to structures of value/significance (language, affect, epistemology, etc) and meaningful information.

When we ‘map’ one of these perspectives onto a prediction of reality, it is the prediction errors that point to the inaccuracy and limitations of that perspective, not of reality. This is meaningful information in discussions such as these, that focus on piecing together the ‘elephant’. But if we assume objectivity in the perspective and ignore the resulting prediction error - ie. that our ‘map’ doesn’t quite fit all perspectives - we miss an opportunity to develop a more accurate perspective in relation to the possibility of objective reality.

Then it's true that this is a perceived limitation of the perspective from which you are asking the question, and that is the case whether I agree or not from my perspective (objective)? In talking about the nature of your perspective, are you speaking the truth, and is how you explain your perspective how it actually is even though I might disagree? Would I be wrong in disagreeing? What would that mean - to be wrong, or right about the nature of your perspective? — Harry Hindu

Is it true? I think it is, but who am I to declare what is true? If you tell me you disagree, then perhaps we can discuss our difference in perspective in relation to the possibility of objective truth. My perspective as I describe it is only how I describe it - I expect your perspective of my perspective to be quite different, but I can only ask you as to how different and in what ways. In relation to the possibility of objective truth, I would say that you disagreeing would be neither wrong nor right, but simply expressing a difference in perspective of the nature of my perspective.

So you're saying that the nature of reality within this discussion is different than outside of this discussion? — Harry Hindu

That’s not how I see it, no. I’m saying that my perspective of the perspective of those outside this discussion cannot be sufficiently determined from the discussion.

Is it true that the ‘Objective truth’ is a concept whose meaning is in dispute? It seems to me that what is in dispute is that the ‘Objective truth’ is a concept whose meaning is in dispute. — Harry Hindu

Possibly not - that was my perspective, given the discussion that led to this OP. I would agree with your statement of what may be in dispute between you and I, though. The question I have is: what is your perspective of the possibility of ‘objective truth’ as a concept? Because I’m not disputing the obvious limitations of my perspective. But relating to your perspective might improve the accuracy of mine, at least.

Did anyone say what "objective truth" is? It seems to me that before anything can be said categorically, the thing spoken of ought to be reasonably well understood. I do not understand what is meant by "objective truth." Anyone take a moment and straighten me out? — tim wood

Ha ha - I was waiting for you to show up. What is meant by ‘objective truth’ is the topic of discussion. I don’t think anyone can define ‘objective truth’ - but that doesn’t preclude a discussion. I presented options, all of which are problematic. Personally, I’d go with the third option, but all three are useful in their own way.

Did anyone say what "objective truth" is? It seems to me that before anything can be said categorically, the thing spoken of ought to be reasonably well understood. I do not understand what is meant by "objective truth." Anyone take a moment and straighten me out? — tim wood

I'm taking your question to be tongue-in-cheek.

Objective truth should be contrasted with subjective truth. Objective truths are quite mind-independent. For example, the Earth has one moon reflects a state-of-affairs that exists apart from any mind. In other words, one could eliminate all minds, and the fact would still obtain. There might not be anyone around to apprehend the objective truth, but the fact would still exist.

Subjective truths, on the other hand, are mind-dependent. For example, "Tim likes apples," is dependent on Tim for its truth or falsity, i.e., it is either the case that Tim does or does not like apples. The truth of the statement, for Tim, is subjective, dependent on the subject, his taste, likes or dislikes, etc. Eliminate all minds and you eliminate all subjective truths.

Indeed. Banno's @Banno comment above to the point. My point in asking was to see if any preliminary navigation had been done. "Truth," whether or not flanked by adjectives, eludes definition except perhaps as an abstract generic quality of some propositions. And that, and your notion of the "gistness" of things, seems about the best anyone can do - unless of course someone does better here and now.

we can never be absolutely certain of what is true
— Possibility

But that's just not right.

Or better, the word "absolutely" sits there making a perfectly normal sentence into a bit of metaphysical nonsense.

"We never know what is true" is obviously wrong, since we everything we know is indeed true - otherwise it would be incorrect to claim to know it.

And further it is true that this sentence is in English, written by me and read by you; and further, that we are certain of these things. Doubt here is senseless.

And there is that word "objective", propped up again against "truth" as if it made a difference. If you are not sure what it is, then don't use it. — Banno

I had a feeling I could count on you, Banno. Your perspective, limited though it is, has been presented as indisputable fact, as always.

I agree that the statement “We never know what is true” is logically false, given a mutual understanding that claims to ‘knowledge’ are claims to ‘truth’.

I also agree that this sentence is in English, written by me and read by you, and that you and I are certain of these things within the context of your subjective experience in relation to mine. Doubt here is unnecessary.

But what you state is ‘true’ is not always going to be identical to what I understand to be ‘true’, and even if we agree, it may not be with the same degree of certainty.

I love your statement: “If you are not sure what it is, then don’t use it.” The idea that we can or should only interact with complete confidence is part of what I am disputing here.

Neuroscience shows that the brain can only ever act with a relative degree of certainty, based on continually predictive evaluations of energy and attention requirements and capacity - affect - a correlation of quantitative and qualitative potential information. Our entire conceptualisation of reality is constructed from experiences of prediction error and resulting adjustments to this interoceptive map of perceived potentiality/value.

So it is in using it that we develop confidence in what it is. Prediction error enables the organism to construct a more accurate interoceptive map of reality.

Not altogether joking. Any question in any even-wannabe philosophical discussion should be inspected for teeth before putting your hand in its mouth. I take issue with you, for example, because you equate fact with truth. They're not the same, and not equatable. (I.e., fact and truth are different - some people believe the terms are interchangeable: they're often used interchangeably, not at all the same thing. But some people are shameless.) First, it's not clear to me that any fact can be known prior to some articulation of it, not necessarily spoken or verbal. That leaves propositions about facts, and it's propositions that are (usually) true or false. And insofar as no proposition is, ever was, or ever will be the state-of-affairs to which it refers, it can never be "objectively true."

In essence what you have done is laid out your own understanding of these terms, what they mean and how you might use them. And as a practical matter that usually works and get the world's work done, usually. I'm not sure it passes muster here - we'll see.

My point in asking was to see if any preliminary navigation had been done. "Truth," whether or not flanked by adjectives, eludes definition except perhaps as an abstract generic quality of some propositions. And that, and your notion of the "gistness" of things, seems about the best anyone can do - unless of course someone does better here and now. — tim wood

I agree. I guess my point here is that, while the possibility of an agreeable definition eludes us, we can nevertheless improve the accuracy of our own limited perspective of what is ‘true’ and what is ‘objective’ by orienting our own perspective in relation to those who disagree.

As far as preliminary navigation, I have been discussing the notion of ‘objective truth’ for some time now with Congau, which began with a discussion on the value of relating different perspectives. Congau has been arguing for an ‘objective or real truth value’ (different to the truth value we attribute to propositions within the limited perspective of propositional logic), a concept I have stubbornly refused to acknowledge as anything more than a possibility. This prompted the question I set up in the OP.

Objective truth should be contrasted with subjective truth. Objective truths are quite mind-independent. For example, the Earth has one moon reflects a state-of-affairs that exists apart from any mind. In other words, one could eliminate all minds, and the fact would still obtain. There might not be anyone around to apprehend the objective truth, but the fact would still exist.

Subjective truths, on the other hand, are mind-dependent. For example, "Tim likes apples," is dependent on Tim for its truth or falsity, i.e., it is either the case that Tim does or does not like apples. The truth of the statement, for Tim, is subjective, dependent on the subject, his taste, likes or dislikes, etc. Eliminate all minds and you eliminate all subjective truths. — Sam26

Eliminate all minds and you eliminate awareness of ‘facts’ as answers to specific questions, as well as all questions, and therefore all facts. Something would still exist, though - but who would know?

The fact that “the Earth has one moon” is dependent on perception of concepts such as ‘earth’ and ‘moon’ and a possessive relation between the two. Without a mind, facts cannot obtain. You could argue that existence obtains independent of ‘mind’, but how would ‘mindless’ existence differentiate one existence from another, let alone differentiate a possessive relation?

But what you state is ‘true’ is not always going to be identical to what I understand to be ‘true’, and even if we agree, it may not be with the same degree of certainty. — Possibility

SO we sometimes disagree as to the facts. Sure do.

That's a very different observation to the stuff set out in the OP. Much less of the dramatic metaphysical speculation. Is that all this thread is about?

Here's what I said:

And there is that word "objective", propped up again against "truth" as if it made a difference. If you are not sure what it is, then don't use it. — Banno

I'm suggesting that "objective" just serves to confuse the issue with which you wish to grapple. Certainly the thread could take on board Sam's suggestion that it be considered as contrasted with "subjective", but doing so serves to blunt the questions you have posed.

If you eliminate Tim, yes he is no longer there to like apples. If you eliminate the moon, then the earth no longer has a moon. You are taking away one of the components of the assertion in each case, so, the assertions no longer reflect reality. But both statements are objective assertions. If I say baboons or a particular baboon likes fruit X (because they will always choose fruit X if it is amongst the options of food, though will eat other fruits, say, when there is no fruit X) despite the fact that qualia are involved (in the baboon's 'liking'), it seems to me we are still making an objective statement about baboons. Same with Tim.

Tim's own statement that fruit X tastes better than fruit y is subjective. Here Tim is universalizing his taste and potentially making it objective also.

But it seems to me if we, as minds not Tim's, make statements about Tim, even if they involve what for him include subjective experiences, we are or at least can be objective. Saying that the statement no longer works if we get rid of Tim, causes problems for all sorts of objective statements also, if we get rid of the objects of those statements.

Ok. Objective truth. What exactly is that? (Presumably your reply will be objectively true....)

SO we sometimes disagree as to the facts. Sure do.

That's a very different observation to the stuff set out in the OP. Much less of the dramatic metaphysical speculation. Is that all this thread is about? — Banno

Not just disagree as to the facts - we also disagree as to how to act, what should be done, what is real, what exists, what anything means, what is true, etc.

These aren’t facts, they’re perspectives of a relational structure to reality that exists beyond what is obvious to everyone or proven by scientific method. You can call it what you want, but we USE this ‘metaphysical speculation’ continually to make, test and adjust predictions about our interactions with the world.

I'm suggesting that "objective" just serves to confuse the issue with which you wish to grapple. Certainly the thread could take on board Sam's suggestion that it be considered as contrasted with "subjective", but doing so serves to blunt the questions you have posed. — Banno

I disagree that ‘objective’ contrasts with ‘subjective’ in relation to truth. By my understanding, the possibility of a truth that is ‘objective’ must correlate all possible perspectives of ‘truth’, including those we may not believe are ‘subjective’, such as logic and mathematics. This may seem impossible to achieve, but ‘objective truth’ can still serve as a conceptual reference from which each perspective is understood to fall short in some respect - including yours.

I was responding to a post where subjective and objective were being distinguished and he had a kind of mental method, it seemed to me, for distinguishing between assertions (see my post for the flesh of that). I pointed out what I think is a problem with that method of determining if something is a subjective assertion or an objective one. If you think something was wrong with my critique, let me know.

Objective truth should be contrasted with subjective truth. Objective truths are quite mind-independent. For example, the Earth has one moon reflects a state-of-affairs that exists apart from any mind. In other words, one could eliminate all minds, and the fact would still obtain. There might not be anyone around to apprehend the objective truth, but the fact would still exist.

Subjective truths, on the other hand, are mind-dependent. For example, "Tim likes apples," is dependent on Tim for its truth or falsity, i.e., it is either the case that Tim does or does not like apples. The truth of the statement, for Tim, is subjective, dependent on the subject, his taste, likes or dislikes, etc. Eliminate all minds and you eliminate all subjective truths. — Sam26

I'm never convinced by this way of using the terms "subjective" and "objective".

"Tim likes apples" is not objectively true? Isn't it a fact that Tim likes apples? Are you saying there are subjective facts?

And if "Tim likes apples" is subjectively true because it's "dependent on Tim for its truth or falsity", then "Slavoj Zizek is a philosopher" is also subjectively true, because it's similarly dependent on Slavoj Zizek.

I imagine you might go on to say that subjective truths are only about a person's "taste, likes or dislikes, etc", as if those were something private and inaccessible. But those things are expressed in a person's behaviour: Tim's taste for apples can be seen in his excessive consumption of apples, and Zizek's taste for thinking about Hegel is expressed in the fact that he's a philosopher who writes about Hegel.

I don't see the utility of saying that a truth is in a special class of truths if the subject of the statement happens to have a mind.

In my view, the terms "subjective" and "objective" make better sense as: from only one point of view and not from only one point of view. Under this scheme, though, we can't really talk about subjective and objective truths at all, unless we want to follow the popular mode of "it's my truth", or, "Tim's truth is that apples are delicious".

I disagree that ‘objective’ contrasts with ‘subjective’ in relation to truth. — Possibility

Yes, I can see that. The point being that you are taking the term and using it in a new way...

By my understanding, the possibility of a truth that is ‘objective’ must correlate all possible perspectives of ‘truth’, including those we may not believe are ‘subjective’, such as logic and mathematics. — Possibility

Whoa.

That's easy, then.

SO here's a game were we take "objective", divorce it from its everyday use and give it an impossible job.

Do we then conclude that we can never have objective truth?

That ought to work.

Then we can perform a reconciliation between objective and subjective, and conclude that all truths are subjective.

Yes, I’ve been here before:

“Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.” - Wikipedia

The philosophical understanding I’m coming from is that of Thomas Nagel’s exploration of ‘a view from nowhere’. But if you’d rather go the way of reductionism, then you can’t ignore quantum mechanics, which brings us back to uncertainty, potentiality and the binary relations of possibility. Either way, we’re here - and the philosophical route is easier for me to navigate than quantum physics.

Do we then conclude that we can never have objective truth? — Banno

Who drew that conclusion?

“Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.” - Wikipedia — Possibility

Yep, Wiki agrees with Sam, then adds a bit of ambiguity.

Nagel rather misfired, it seems to me. Rather than "a view from nowhere" I'd phrase it as "a view from anywhere", as opposed to "my view".

But if you’d rather go the way of reductionism, then you can’t ignore quantum mechanics, which brings us back to uncertainty, potentiality and the binary relations of possibility. Either way, we’re here - and the philosophical route is easier for me to navigate than quantum physics. — Possibility

What's all that?

Who drew that conclusion? — Possibility

Watch - it'll come.

Yep, Wiki agrees with Sam, then adds a bit of ambiguity.

Nagel rather misfired, it seems to me. Rather than "a view from nowhere" I'd phrase it as "a view from anywhere", as opposed to "my view".
But if you’d rather go the way of reductionism, then you can’t ignore quantum mechanics, which brings us back to uncertainty, potentiality and the binary relations of possibility. Either way, we’re here - and the philosophical route is easier for me to navigate than quantum physics.
— Possibility
What's all that? — Banno

The way I see it, you can take the Wiki explanation one of two ways.

You could take Sam’s path of reductionism: ignore, isolate and exclude most of the limited information you have to find a lowest common denominator. This is similar to Descartes’ mistake, discarding all uncertainty and doubt from an already limited perspective. Don’t get me wrong - I think there’s plenty of use for reductionism. It is, after all, what enables us to act in the world. But I also think this reduction will always be flawed if it simply eliminates subjective truths as irrelevant, rather than seeks to explain their existence within what is ‘objective’. You can’t simply reduce reality to one without sentient subjects, for instance, and assume that ‘facts’ will obtain in their absence.

Objectively speaking, ‘facts’ are dimensionally located answers to dimensionally located questions. For a fact to exist, a question needs to be asked. This relates to quantum theory, in which it is the question that ultimately determines the answer. For ‘the Earth has one moon’ to exist as an actual ‘fact’ is dependent on a question asked from a relative position. This ‘observer’ position is fuzzy (uncertain) but limited: it is provable that the Earth has not always had a moon and has not always been what we understand to be the Earth - the two have not always existed in this relationship (can the moon have an Earth instead?). The ‘objective truth’ to which this fact refers is not contained by the statement, or inherent within the words. The fact is a reduction of potential information, a collapse of potentiality: so long as the potentiality of the question and the potentiality of the answer interact, then the fact exists in relation to the possibility of ‘objective truth’.

This seems contrived (and I may not have explained it very well), but it’s meant to illustrate the relevance of potentiality and possibility in a reductionist approach to ‘objective truth’. The point is that you’re not going to get away from uncertainty by hiding behind facts.

The other way to take this explanation is to employ ‘metaphysical speculation’: to maximise the diversity of information from individual subjects, including perception, emotion and imagination, and propose a possible relational structure that might exist independently of any individual subjectivity, while also explaining (not just accepting) all possible individual subjectivity. It’s something I think humans are uniquely equipped to develop and refine by using language to interact - not just at the level of qualitative and quantitative potentiality, but also at the level of imagination, meaningful interaction and other possible relations beyond any particular sense of value. The point is not just to make something up, but to do what we do best: to ask questions, gather information, hypothesise, make predictions, test, make mistakes, adjust and test and adjust some more...

I know, it sounds pie-in-the-sky, but what the hell, I’ve got nothing better to do...

Objectively speaking, ‘facts’ are dimensionally located answers to dimensionally located questions. For a fact to exist, a question needs to be asked. This relates to quantum theory, in which it is the question that ultimately determines the answer. — Possibility

OK, we might leave it there. Because I've got no idea what this is.

"Tim likes apples" is not objectively true? Isn't it a fact that Tim likes apples? Are you saying there are subjective facts? — jamalrob

No, it is not objectively true, it is subjectively true, it is dependent on the subject (the person). Yes, I am saying there are subjective facts.

And if "Tim likes apples" is subjectively true because it's "dependent on Tim for its truth or falsity", then "Slavoj Zizek is a philosopher" is also subjectively true, because it's similarly dependent on Slavoj Zizek. — jamalrob

Yes, that's true. However, I'm not saying the lines at times don't get blurred between these concepts. Many concepts are like this. However, when I say subjective, I'm referring to those things that are mind-dependent. For example, the apple that Tim likes is objective (mind-independent), but his likes and dislikes are mind-dependent.

I imagine you might go on to say that subjective truths are only about a person's "taste, likes or dislikes, etc", as if those were something private and inaccessible. But those things are expressed in a person's behaviour: Tim's taste for apples can be seen in his excessive consumption of apples, and Zizek's taste for thinking about Hegel is expressed in the fact that he's a philosopher who writes about Hegel. — jamalrob

No, the fact that they are subjective doesn't mean they are private and inaccessible. We can observe Tim's likes and dislikes based on what he does. He interacts with the objective apple, but this interaction reveals something about his personal tastes. There is a component of objectivity and a component of subjectivity to his actions.

For me it is clear that there are subjective truths and objective truths. There are contingent truths and necessary truths. I have no problem dividing these up.

You can insist on the existence of an objective truth value, but its existence is only ever a possibility, just like the existence of ‘God’. Any statement you make regarding the existence or properties of this ‘objective truth value’ is both true and false, or neither, because there is no way of distinguishing its value objectively. — Possibility

Right. There is no way we can distinguish truth value objectively, there is no way we can think anything objectively or do anything whatsoever objectively. We are all subjects. Objective truth has nothing to do with what we think; it is out there independent of us. Every conceivable statement about existence has a truth value which we cannot know or distinguish. A statement about the existence of God has an objective truth value. It is either objectively true or objectively false. We don’t know which; we only know that it can’t be both and it can’t be neither since that would be logically impossible. Nothing can both exist and not exist. “A = not A” is logically impossible.

“X exists” has no truth value, because x as it stands is not referring to anything but put anything in the place of x and the statement receives an objective truth value. Whether x is God or my computer or a unicorn the existence of it is an objectively definite true or false. “Objective” doesn’t mean “can be known”, it doesn’t refer to knowledge at all since knowledge is only something in the mind and minds are subjective.
The existence of something is a mere possibility for us, but in reality (unknown to us) it absolutely exists or absolutely does not exist.

Is it true? I think it is, but who am I to declare what is true? — Possibility

I agree that the statement “We never know what is true” is logically false, given a mutual understanding that claims to ‘knowledge’ are claims to ‘truth’. — Possibility

I had a feeling I could count on you, Banno. Your perspective, limited though it is, has been presented as indisputable fact, as always. — Possibility

You seem to be contradicting yourself. In speaking with me, you say that we can't know the truth - you can't even assert that what you said is true, yet with Banno, you acknowledge that we can know what it is true, and that what Banno says is fact. :lol:

So it is in using it that we develop confidence in what it is. Prediction error enables the organism to construct a more accurate interoceptive map of reality. — Possibility

So in using something you are able to declare what is true? In using, are you not attempting to falsify the information you have about the object you are using? Are we not performing a falsification of the scientific theories that the technology is based on when using our smartphones? When the smartphone doesn't work when using it a certain way, is that a limitation of the smartphone, or a limitation of you knowledge of how the smartphone works and is supposed to be used?

The question I have is: what is your perspective of the possibility of ‘objective truth’ as a concept? — Possibility

I gave my explanation in my reply to SophistiCat on the first page.

Seems to me that "objective truth" is only hazy on a philosophy forum. Objectivity and truth are often used interchangeably. You are asserting truth (asserting truth doesn't mean that what you are asserting is actually true - only that you intend for it to be interpreted as a given and the basis for your other forthcoming ideas that are intended to be a given as well because disagreeing would mean that you are wrong and I am right) any time you make a statement that you intend to be about the shared world. Being that some statement is about the shared world means that it is objective - that we all are shaped by and beholden to, the same truth, even if we don't believe it (delusions)). — Harry Hindu

In a sense 'objective truth' is a redundant statement. It's equivalent to saying 'true truth'.

There are no such things as 'subjective truth'. This is equivalent to saying 'false truth'.

"Tim likes apples" is not objectively true? Isn't it a fact that Tim likes apples? Are you saying there are subjective facts? — jamalrob

Exactly. Subjective truths/facts are category errors. A subjective fact would be that the 'the apple is good'. 'Good' has nothing to do with the apple. It has to do with a mental state. Subjective truths are projected mental states, where objective truths are obtained mental states - obtained by the senses, not projected by the mind.