There are no objective truths, so the truth part of the statement "All truths are subjective" does not correspond to anything objective. — m-theory

Right. There are no objective truths and nobody is saying that "the truth part" corresponds to something objective. (If they were saying that, it would amount to saying "Its true that it's true . . . " ad infinitum). The correspondence in question is between "All truths are subjective" and the fact that all truths are subjective.

And by definition the subjective part does not correspond to anything objective. — m-theory

I don't know what definition you're using but it's certainly not a standard one. "Corresponds with" is not "is identical to." Correspondence is a matter of how the proposition "matches" the facts. That's the whole point to focusing on judgments. Correspondence only obtains via judgments we make by way of assigning meanings and so on. That's what correspondence is. So the subjective part (the proposition) corresponds with the objective stuff (the objective facts) just in case someone judges there to be a match with respect to their meaning assignments. That's what truth is (on correspondence theory, by way of my functional analysis of truth.)

The statement "All truths are subjective" does not correspond to any objective fact. — m-theory

Yes it does.

If your judgements don't correspond to something objective, they are not facts.
None of the statement "All truths (which are subjective) are subjective (which is not objective)" corresponds to anything that is objective by definition.

If your judgements don't correspond to something objective, they are not facts. — m-theory

No one is saying that the judgment itself corresponds to an objective judgment. So no one is saying that the judgment is an objective fact--in fact, it's just the point that the judgment is NOT an objective fact, hence that truth-value only occurs in minds. The correspondence issue is one of the porposition and facts. It's an issue of whether the proposition corresponds to objective facts.

None of the statement "All truths (which are subjective) are subjective (which is not objective)" corresponds to anything that is objective by definition. — m-theory

Yes it does correspond to something that is objective. It corresponds to the fact that truth-value is something that only occurs in minds.

It's ridiculous how confused you are about my views, by the way.

Yes it does correspond to something that is objective. It corresponds to the fact that truth-value is something that only occurs in minds. — Terrapin Station

What part of truth value or mind is objective?

What part of truth value or mind is objective? — m-theory

No part, and what you're quoting from me in no way suggests that I'd say any part is objective.

forgot what I said

Am I saying that the truth-value itself corresponds to an objective fact?

I get what you are saying.
You are saying that the term "truth" and the term "subjective" mean the same thing, but that is not an objective fact

No I'm not saying that truth and subjective are the same thing. <sigh>

It seems like you're not really interested in trying to understand what it is that I'm saying. Either that or it's extremely difficult for you to understand.

"All x are y"
Is not an objective fact.

Is not an objective fact. — m-theory

Are you presenting your view now?

Do you agree.
"All x are y"
This is not an objective fact is it?

It does not correspond to anything objective.

Depending on what's plugged into the variables, that could very well be an objective fact.

There are tons of objective facts of that form.

So is it an objective fact or not?

The statement "All truths are subjective" does not correspond to any objective fact. — m-theory

Yes it does. — Terrapin Station

I get what you are saying.
You are saying that the term "truth" and the term "subjective" mean the same thing, but that is not an objective fact — m-theory

No I'm not saying that truth and subjective are the same thing. <sigh>

It seems like you're not really interested in trying to understand what it is that I'm saying. Either that or it's extremely difficult for you to understand. — Terrapin Station

And this, boys and girls, is an example of a meaningful life relationship for philosophers. Were they not separated by the chasm of cyberspace, they would, about now, be ready to fall into each other's arms.

lol

So is it an objective fact or not? — m-theory

When I write, "Depending on what's plugged into the variables, that could very well be an objective fact" in response to that, what happens that causes you to ask the above question?

Is "lol" a subjective fact or an objective truth, and how would one tell the difference?

I have already plugged in the variables.
x and y.
Is it an objective fact that all x are y?

It's not any sort of fact that all x are y where we don't plug anything into the variables and where we have no context, like a logical argument.

It's like asking whether m=2 where we have absolutely no context for it.

You're saying, by the way, that you're not using x and y as variables? If so, then no, that's not a fact, objective or otherwise.

But you said it was a valid form for an objective fact.
Why should it not be an objective fact?

Shucks I don't know.
You are just funny, that's all.

Is "lol" a subjective fact or an objective truth, and how would one tell the difference? — Bitter Crank

It could be both if the expression wasn’t a willfully given deception: the emotion expressed is an event of the world pertaining to aspects of mind—therefore a subjective fact—while the expression of the emotion “lol” corresponds to an objective, momentary state of being (that of finding something funny—no matter what anyone’s opinion concerning it might be), thereby also making the proposition expressed an objective truth.

Then again … eh, why not?

But you said it was a valid form for an objective fact.
Why should it not be an objective fact? — m-theory

What I said was: "Depending on what's plugged into the variables, that could very well be an objective fact. There are tons of objective facts of that form. "

That doesn't explain why it is not an objective fact that all x are y.
Prove that all x are y is not an objective fact.

What is it even referring to? Are you saying something about letters of the alphabet qua letters of the alphabet?

It is referring to the objective fact that all x are y.

In other words, what is x referring to--the letter of the alphabet?

No it is referring to the objective fact.

What objective fact?