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?

From Wikipedia:

"Relativism is a family of philosophical views which deny claims to objectivity within a particular domain and assert that facts in that domain are relative to the perspective of an observer or the context in which they are assessed."

I go one step further though. I don't deny any objective reality.

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.

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.

What does "helium is objective" introduce? If we lived in a simulation and found out helium was computer code would you call that objective still? Why would that preclude the social construct fact of helium being the second element on the periodic table by Mendeleev?

If something is objective because it's dependent on the subject (like idealism?) then are you getting rid of the subjective distinction? If you're not doing that then how can the word be communicable between people unless you deny other objective worlds (or other subjects)? If it is communicable between different subjects then whatever realm that is that allows communication is still meaningly incommunicable and if you deny other subjects then however you account for reality outside your knowledge come up to the same issue.

Relativism just says no objectivism to a particular domain. We can speak about a "relative truth" in terms of the particular domain but none of this gets to the issue of objectivism being meaningfully incomunicable and in any sense that's not a definition of objectivism.

Relativism doesn't deny "objectivity", it just says the particular domain is distinct in some manner from the more universal domain. So what energy and matter is in biology is different from (either by being a partial of or not) physics.

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?

From Wikipedia:

"Relativism is a family of philosophical views which deny claims to objectivity within a particular domain and assert that facts in that domain are relative to the perspective of an observer or the context in which they are assessed."

I go one step further though. I don't deny any objective reality.

- EugeneW

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”.

It says a particular domain and I think that inherently implies a more universal domain.
It also uses a particular object inside that particular domain (for ethics the moral agent) and the particular context is derived from the more universal context.

This being said I think the better way to word it is objectivity doesn't deny relativism. I would argue relativism requiring an external object commits it to "objectivity". Would you agree with either?

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.

I said "more universal" not universal itself although I think taken to any other degrees it eventually implies a universal domain and, through the same criticism of "objectivity", we can claim the most universal domain is effectively the universal domain for all intents and purposes of what object is involved.
Now I was going to justify that by saying the subjective domain is probably the most particular a human or conscious being can go and then build up from there to say there are inherently more universal domains as relativism necessitates the subjective domain to be more particular than the external domain it's examining but you seemed to make equivalent relativism with subjectivism. I was wondering if you had a justification for that.

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.

I think you're using more idealist or epistemologically-demanding metaphysics for your conceptions of universal vs relativist (= subjectivist).
In any case, math problems are "universal" to man while logic is universal to man but math is a proper subset of logic and even if you're not willing to grant that, calculus is derived from arithmetic operations at least partially (you must use arithmetic to write calculus). In any case there's clearly more structure than "universal/relativist/subjective" unless we use human perception as the standard which necessitates relativism to speak of these things even if it isn't an accurate way to express what these objects domains are.

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.

I would think to solve the crisis we would have to treat the brain as an object within its own right. Then we can analyze the nature of it, and what thoughts/interpretations are derived from it, more accurately.
In any case these thoughts and beliefs all entail objects anyways which are referenced from the objects (if you misinterpret the object then some consequence arrives).

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?

I think a good example is deciding to hang out with friend a because they are funny and deciding to hang out with anyone because they are funny. The subjective position would seek the funniest person adjacent to you where the relative position would seek person a for their funnyness.

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.

A lot of philosophy distinguishes between the two but in any case, whatever you want to call it, predication inherently implies more particular and more universal claims and those can't all be conflated into a subjective disposition or you lose any meaning to connect or speak about anything except yourself at all (nevermind accuracy or degree).

Also, speaking about a dog entails an animal but that doesn't mean you're fundamentally speaking about an animal.

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.

I don't disagree. I think I was trying to say all of them could effectively be spoken about under one system but can only ineffectively be talked about separately.

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? — Angelo Cannata

Once found, we can only relate to this objectivity in our own way. Doesn’t mean we can’t find it in the first place. It is our interpretation that is not objective.

Yeah but you can't interpret the object as anything but a series of predicates away from your subjectivity.

Yeah but you can't interpret the object as anything but a series of predicates away from your subjectivity. — Shwah

What object?

Whichever object that would be understood as objectivly, relativly or subjectivly interpretable fundamentally. I'd say it's impossible to interpret any object as subjectively and trivially they all have some input and can be better understood as predicates from your subjectivity.

Whichever object that would be understood as objectivly, relativly or subjectivly interpretable fundamentally. I'd say it's impossible to interpret any object as subjectively and trivially they all have some input and can be better understood as predicates from your subjectivity. — Shwah

Sure - but the idea is to get beyond this limited relation to a subject-object dichotomy. What if there was no ‘object’ as such? What if we didn’t exist as a ‘subject’? Language structure limits our ability to talk in this way, but not our ability to experience, imagine and relate.