Return to Answer

There's a bit of a complication when one realizes that objects are always distinguished from other objects, and defined or conceived as different from other objects, by a subject. Supposedly, without subjects trying to analyse the world and categorize the stuff around them, there would be still an objective reality "out there", but not necessarily segmented, or contrasted the way we see it. For all we know, the universe may be just one big whole, every thing connected to everything else. So there's a valid argument that we (subjects) do the segmenting of the universe into distinct objects by looking at it analytically. In this sense, objects are not totally mind-independent: their are always objects of one's attention in a way. But they are mind-independent enough, in the sense that once you delineated them as distinct from the rest, objects behave mind-independently. "The mountain" will be here tomorrow and the day after, reliably so, even though an objective limit is hard to define between "the mountain" and "the valley.

There's a bit of a complication when one realizes that objects are always distinguished from other objects, and defined or conceived as different from other objects, by a subject. Supposedly, without subjects trying to analyse the world and categorize the stuff around them, there would be still an objective reality "out there", but not necessarily segmented, or contrasted the way we see it. For all we know, the universe may be just one big whole, every thing connected to everything else. So there's a valid argument that we (subjects) do the segmenting of the universe into distinct objects by looking at it analytically. In this sense, objects are not totally mind-independent: their are always objects of one's attention in a way. But they are mind-independent enough, in the sense that once you delineated them as distinct from the rest, objects behave mind-independently. "The mountain" will be here tomorrow and the day after, reliably so, even though an objective limit is hard to find between "the mountain" and "the valley".

The OP asks two questions wrapped into one phrase. "Is there an objective thing?", and "Is there an objective truth?"

Even things that we would wish stopped existing tend to keep on existing, against our wish. Object permanence (and hence some degree of mind-independence) does seem to hold up, as a general primciple.

And in that sense of the word, there are objective truths. Perhaps surprisingly, people do tend to agree on factual statements about cats being located on mats. It's a pitty they disagree about pretty much everything else.

The OP asks two questions wrapped into one phrase. "Is there an objective thing?", and "Is there an objective truth?" This answer will take the two in turn.

Even things that we would wish stopped existing tend to keep on existing, against our wish. Object permanence (and hence some degree of mind-independence) does seem to hold up, as a general principle.

And in that sense of the word, there are objective truths. Perhaps reassuringly, people do tend to agree on factual statements about cats being located on mats. It's a pitty they disagree about pretty much everything else.

Objectivity, when applied to statements, generally implies near-universal intersubjective agreement about some statement describing some (mind-independent enough) state of affairs. Not lack of authorship.

Objectivity, when applied to statements, generally implies near-universal intersubjective agreement about some statement describing some (mind-independent enough) state of affairs.

And in that sense of the word, there are objective truths. Perhaps surprisingly, people do tend to agree on factual statements about cats being located on mats. It's a pitty they disagree about pretty much everything else.