That’s a manner-of-speaking way of using the word. The truth may apply objectively to everyone in the universe, but any interpretation of that truth is subjective.
Subjectivity:
Subject ----> Object
Anything discerned about the object by the subject is subjective. What’s real is only in terms of what can be discerned, so reality is just as much dependent upon the subject as the object.
Objectivity:
(((Object)))
There is no subject. It just is. Reality exists independent of observation and the subject plays no part in defining what’s real.
It’s that simple.
Remember James saying that which has no affect does not exist? That’s subjectivity. An objectivist would posit that something exists regardless if it has affect (ie no subject required).
My definition is accurate, but the implication is ridiculous, and that’s the point I wanted to convey: if objectivity exists, it’s not anything we could know.
The dictionary definition of objective:
: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
adjective
-being the object or goal of one’s efforts or actions.
-not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.
-intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
-being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
-of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. dictionary.com/browse/objective
The object exists independent of an observer. And the incidental existence of any observer is inconsequential to reality.
Objectivity posits that the sun could be the only thing in existence since subjects aren’t required for it to manifest, but light can’t exist until its destination has been found, and heat is just IR light, so it’s clear as day that the sun wouldn’t be a sun at all without other things in the universe. We could say the planets “summon the light” from the sun. Our eyes solicit light from the world like one pole of a battery pulls current from the other.
The nucleus of an atom couldn’t be a nucleus without the existence of the electron, so the electron calls into existence the nucleus as a nucleus in order to make an atom.
I don’t know what objective reality means; it’s like an oxymoron. But it presents a paradox because if subjects are required to manifest existence and if everything that exists can be regarded as a totality of everything, then what subject is observing that? Evidently, when James posited affectance, he claimed the universe doesn’t exist since it has no affect on anything lol. Oops!