You are confusing knowledge with possibility of knowledge. For example, you can get knowledge of how to play the piano, but the existence of this possibility is very different from your actual having that knowledge.
Moreover, you are not considering that any concept about what knowledge is is conditioned by our human mentality. This means that actually it is impossible to know if knowledge exists: knowledge means possession of some contact with reality, but any contact with reality is filtered by our mind, so we can never know if any knowledge has a real contact with reality. We actually don’t even know if reality exists and what reality means; as consequence, we cannot have any fundamental idea about what knowledge is. We talk about knowledge just because we have taken this concept from everyday language, which is a completely inaccurate language.

Self-criticism. This is my way. If a person practices self-criticism, that person cannot be so destructive, because that person will continuously ask to herself: “What am I doing? Is it good? Is it intelligent? Will it help progress?”. If Hitler had a habit of self-criticism, he would have thought, every second of his life: “What am I doing?”.
Now you can realize that this practice is quite difficult because, at first, you will feel unsecure, uncomfortable, not knowing what to do, uncertain, unable to make a definite choice. But this happens just because you are not familiar with this practice, you are starting doing it while still having in your mind your traditional background.
This has a lot to do with philosophy. You can see that even by just writing a message here you can feel uncomfortable if you ask yourself too much “What am I doing?”.
In my opinion violence has its basic, elementary, roots on the belief in some established truth, some objective reality. This becomes automatically your truth, your reality, and nothing will be able to defeat it: it becomes fanaticism. If you believe in some truth, you are not like Putin just because you don’t apply the extreme consequences of your belief, or you mix it with other thoughts. Violent people are those who apply to their extreme consequences their belief in (their) truth.

I have heard a lot of people saying that, without an objective morality, humanity would be in a disaster, because anybody would feel able to do whatever they want, for example killing whoever they don’t like.
But actually it is the opposite: objective morality makes the world violent, because it becomes automatically your morality, that you feel authorized to impose to everybody, because it is the objective morality. If you believe in any objective morality, you won’t ask “What am I doing?”, because you think that it is right, because this is what (your) objective morality says.
This is Putin, this was Hitler: they believed, in their closed mind, that they were right, they didn’t question their thoughts, their morality, they just thought “What I am doing is right, simply because it is, there is no need of any discussion”.

lish — lish

Every religion has different ideas about God, and even inside the same religion there are commonly different and even opposite ideas about God. To what religion are you referring the God you are talking about?
Besides, it seems that you want to imprison the behaviour of God inside strict human logic criterions, while instead God is beyond humans, beyond logic, beyond criterions.
Another problem: what does it mean “God loves some people more than others”: how can you measure God’s love for people? Any criterion would be highly exposed to a lot of criticism.
Another one: it is humanly impossible to get any precise idea about how worthy somebody is to be loved by God: nobody is able to discern the deepest and most complex elements that are behind human behaviours.
You wrote that “God is a purely perfect being”: where does this idea of perfection come from? Does it come from human concepts? If it is a human concept, this mean that the very concept of “perfect” is far from being perfect. So, how do you think to evaluate the “perfection” of God by applying to him such an imperfect concept of perfection?
In general, it seems that you are talking about maths and theoretical logics, rather than God. Is God maths or theoretical logic? Does he need to obey to human criterions of logic?

you lose any meaning to connect or speak about anything except yourself at all — Shwah

This objection works if we consider relativism in a static way, as it was something conclusive, like a system of ideas, an ideology. I think a lot of relativists make this error. Instead, relativism is not a system, it is part of an ongoing process.
Your objection is similar to those who say that the statement “everything is relative” is self contradictory, because it claims a universal truth and also because it needs to be applied to itself, so that the statement is to be considered relative as well, and this way it looses its universality.
This last objection as well works if we consider relativism like a static system of ideas.
Instead, as I said, it should be conceived as a process. As a process, it needs to make use of a language that contains a lot of words and expressions that assume static and universal meanings. So, relativism is in a very difficult situation, having to use the language as an instrument that was shaped by non relativist mentalities.
This makes me think that relativism, since it is not a system, is not solipsism, is not closed and cannot be 100% independent from objectivist words, language, mentality, concepts. It is a work in progress, an exploration, a work of never ending criticism and self-criticism.
This makes it weak and strong at the same time.

Both positions are subjective and both are relative: they are both relative to your evaluation and you are in both cases the subject who evaluates things. When you try to evaluate something in relation to other people, it is anyway you evaluating, so you can’t make it independent from you as a subject.

We cannot analyze our brain without using it at the same time. So, how can we consider it as an object, since, as soon as we try to do this, we are automatically using it, we are automatically inside it, we are it?

Math problems and logic are thought by our minds, then we attribute them to the world and we think that they are universal, as the world is shaped according to them. This way we forget that it is still us thinking all of these things.
When we see that, if we add two apples to two more apples, we have 4 apples as a final result, a lot of people think that this is an objective phenomenon of nature, not dependent on us, because it works the same to everybody, everytime, everywhere. This way we forget that the very ideas of “2”, “4”, “apple”, “adding”, “result”, every idea, scheme and frame involved in all of this, they are all built by our brain. The final result of “4” looks like a proof, an evidence that the operation happened outside our brain, but we again forget that the final perception, evaluation, idea, of “4” comes from our brain, our mind.
From a relativistic point of view we can realize that, in any operation, it is impossible to do it without our brain interfering in it, at least in the last stage, when we receive the final information. So, if it is impossible to understand anything without using our brain, how can we trust our understanding, since any check, any verification needs our brain again to be introduced in the process?
This means that we can accept a rough idea of objectivity in everyday life, but, if we want to be fundamentally exact, precise, like philosophy wants to be, we are forced not to trust any of our knowledge, because any knowledge cannot escape receiving interference of our mind.

In philosophy there is not more or less universal. If something is universal it means that it is able to prove itself the same to everybody, everywhere, everytime. If there is one single person to which that thing is different from what it is to all other people, then that thing is not less universal; that thing is just not universal. If A is true for 10 people and B is true for those 10 people plus 100 more, B is not more universal. They are just both particular, none of them is universal.

Yes, I consider relativism equivalent to subjectivism, because relativism means that we, as subjects, cannot think of anything without automatically making it dependent on our subjectivity.

Talking about particular domains does not imply the assumption that there is a universal domain. Nothing is universal for relativists. Rather, reference to particular domains is better understood, referred to relativism, that anything we talk about is a particular domain; even the largest perspective we can imagine is a particular perspective. It is like saying “everything is particular, everything refers to a particular domain” the same way we say “everything is relative, everything refers to something relative”.
As a further step, we can then criticize these statements, but, as a starting point, in relativism everything is particular, everything is relative.

Objectivity does not deny relation, dependence, which is different from relativism. For example, objectivity admits that a fruit is related to the tree that produced it and is related to us who think of it, besides existing on its own. Relativism makes a step that brings us to a different level: relativism says that that fruit can be conceived by us only inside its dependence from us who are thinking of it. According to relativism it is humanly impossible to imagine the existence of that fruit on its own, independently from us, because, in the same moment we think of it, we are automatically putting it inside the frame of our ideas, making it dependent from our ideas.

For relativism the idea of “external” is an illusion, because, as soon as we think of it, it is automatically an idea internal to our mind, our brain, our mental schemes and frames.

It is just because I had read Wikipedia that I made my question: the quoted entry of Wikipedia

- doesn’t say “Relativism doesn't deny "objectivity"
- doesn’t make reference to a “more universal domain”.

Relativism doesn't deny "objectivity", it just says the particular domain is distinct in some manner from the more universal domain. — Shwah

Can you mention any source saying exactly what you said?

If I say that “flying horses” do not exist, this does not mean that for me “flying horses” means something different; on the contrary, exactly by saying that “flying horses” do not exist, I confirm that I have no intention to give the expression “flying horses” any different meaning.

You are confusing criticism towards objectivist philosophies with the meaning of the word “objective”. Of course relativism is a philosophy that thinks that everything is relative and, as consequence, objectivity, conceived as independent from a subject, does not exist. But this does not mean that relativism gives a different meaning to the word “objective”. It is the opposite: relativism refuses to refer the word “objective” to things that we perceive, exactly because relativism maintains the meaning of “objective” as something independent from the subject. When relativism says that nothing is objective, this way relativism is just confirming that “objective” means “independent from the subject”. So, the philosophy of relativism, that you mentioned, actually confirms the meaning of the word “objective”, exactly because it refuses it. Relativism does not refuse the meaning of the word; relativism refuses the philosophies that think that the meaning of the word tells us how things really are, how reality is, how reality exists.

Can you mention at least one philosophy or one dictionary, apart from your exclusive one, that means the word “objective” as “dependent on the subject”, like you do?

If you consider objective reality dependent on the subject, then no. In this concept of objective reality there is no contradiction. — EugeneW

This is not what you find if you look for “objective” in any dictionary. See, for example, here:

“In most of its common uses, objective is contrasted with subjective, often as if it’s the opposite. Objective most commonly means not influenced by an individual’s personal viewpoint”

or here:

“In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity”.

You can say this in everyday life language, which is a language that doesn't need to be exact, precise. But, if you want to talk in a proper philosophical way, what you said is a contradiction: "objective" , in a rigorous philosophical way, means absolutely independent from anybody. So, if you instead make it relative by adding "for me", it becomes contradictory. It is like saying "in my opinion this fact is independent from my opinion"; in everyday language this can be accepted, but philosophically it becomes meaningless or contradictory. Being able to build a sentence that is grammatically correct doesn't automatically guarantee that the sentence makes sense or has a meaning.
If a fact is really objective, you must be able to say "This is not my opinion, this is a fact". You can say "In my opinion this is not my opinion", but this is not philosophy, this is careless common language. Absolute objectivity is what Descartes tried to find: his effort was to find something about which you can say "This is not my opinion and I don't even say that I think that it is not my opinion; this is just a fact, undeniable for everybody". This is the true absolute objectivity that Descartes wanted to reach and this is what we mean when we say "objective" in a philosophical sense. A philosopher would never say "I think that this is objective".
Something similar can be found in everyday language when we say "Two plus two are four". It is not easy to find people saying "In my opinion 2+2=4". Normally they claim that it is not their opinion, it is just a fact, so that, in that case, adding "in my opinion" doesn't make sense even in everyday language.

there is an objectivity to be found — Possibility

Whatever objective you think you found is interpreted by you, so how can you say that it is objective?

Even our idea of natural selection, however we describe it, is a human interpretation. Even when we support our ideas with scientific evidence, it is still us managing how to interpret the elements offered by science. We can’t avoid interpreting. Interpreting means that we cannot find anything objective, because whatever we consider is automatically filtered, adapted, changed, by our action of interpreting. The very ideas of logic and randomness are human interpretations.

Cidat — Cidat

It looks like you are confusing how things work when we try to explain nature by logic. When we are able to predict the behaviour of an object, or an animal, this does not mean that the object, or the animal, is behaving according to our human extremely limited, I would even say stupid, logic. It is the opposite: we have built a logic that we adapted to what we observe in phenomenons, in order to gain some understanding and some mastering on those phenomenons. Logic has been built on events, not events on logic. Logic obeys to events, not events to logic. The fact that events seem to obey to some logic is just a human hypothesis, a mental frame, to try to understand nature.
That’s the reason why we haven’t been able to build a complete, comprehensive logic, able to explain everything so far. Think about this: why should nature obey to the ridiculous logic, miserable mental frames, poor schemes, petty rational systems, created by humans?

Any argument in this world, including theistic and non theistic arguments, can be easily demolished with some criticism.
For example, no argument is able to give proof that tomorrow nobody will be able to discover flaws and mistakes in it. No argument is able to be independent from the person who thinks of it. No argument is able to avoid leading to an infinite chain of explanations if we ask “why?” to it and to the answers given to “why?”.

According to Lewis’ argument

- the planet earth is flat, because those who believed it was flat weren’t lunatics, nor liars;
- the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh was truly a God, because he wasn’t lunatic, nor liar;
- Hitler was right in all his thoughts and actions, because he wasn’t lunatic, nor liar;
- it is true that God does and does not exist at the same time, because both atheists and believers are not lunatic, nor liars;
- everything is true, no matter if it conflicts with anything else, provided that at least somebody not lunatic nor liar sometime believed it was true;
- we don’t need to make any scientific research in this world: what we need is just being persuaded that something is true, provided that we are not lunatic, nor liars. It doesn’t matter if our ideas conflict with each other, nor with reality: what is important is just not being lunatic, nor liar;

We need just some creativity to realize the funniest consequences of Lewis’ argument.

I would like to understand what you are arguing about.

I think that Descartes failed in finding something able to resist the attack of doubting. His reasoning is exposed to a lot of criticism, it can be easily demolished.
If an objective reality belongs to a group, then it's not objective. In order for something to be really philosophically objective, it must be universal, absolute, independent from any opinion, otherwise it is relative, subjective. If I say "I think that this thing is objective", the sentence is a contradiction, because, if that objectivity depends from "I think", then it's not objective, it's just my opinion, it is subjective. This applies also to groups.

I think that any agreement or disagreement from other people can’t set any ultimate support abot reality, because, ultimately, whatever they say is interpreted and filtered by our brain. In practical life a few elements are fine to accept some ideas about reality, but philosophy wants the ultimate, the universal, and for this purpose anything we say cannot grant anything, because it is human, subjective. My conclusion is that we, as humans, cannot claim any absolute certainty about the existence of reality, of any reality, even of ourselves, although Descartes thought that he was able to.