Maybe, one of the most fundamental concepts in philosophy is "Objectiveness". Since any question will ultimately depends upon the answer of the question "Is there an objective thing?", and naturally next, the question "Is there an objective truth?"
I have read and heard some reasons in support of the statement "There is no objective thing", but there are two questions that remains unanswered in the lack of objectivity:
1- If there were only subjective things and henceforth only subjective minds and ideas, how someone could imagine rightly the concept of objectiveness? since during these imagination, by the hypothesis that mentioned, he just could have a relativised objectiveness in his mind, which is ultimately subjective! but we all could imagine what objectivity means (Something whose existence is independent from the subjects). Also when we could imagine the concept of independence, this concept could not be dependent.
2- If there was nothing objective which was not independent of our minds, how could we understand each other's speeches? The conditions becomes worse - for the supporters of the absolute subjectivity! - when we consider people from different cultures and histories, with different languages. (For example, an archaeologist speaks about the concepts that people of ancient times were thinking about).
Are there any answer for these questions under the hypothesis that there is no objective thing?