The dichotomy of subjectivity versus objectivity doesn't apply to real objects. Anything that is real is objectively real. Nothing can be subjectively real. That's nonsense. Am I right to say that this dichotomy only applies to statements?
I think subjectivity versus objectivity is just a manifestation of the way language works. If the meaning of a statement depends on who is saying it, then it is subjective. Of course we translate the subjective into objective all the time, and we use context to do so.

Example:
If someone just said "I was here", that objectively means "The speaker was at the place where he was at 2014/05/11 13:14 UT at some prior time that should be specified by the context."
If Chuck Norris just said "I was here", that objectively means "Chuck Norris was at the place where he was at 2014/05/11 13:14 UT at some prior time that should be specified by the context."
If he said it in response to "Where were you at 7 am?" by somebody in Kentucky, then it objectively means "Chuck Norris was at the place where he was at 2014/05/11 13:14 UT at 2014/05/11 12:00 UT."

It is my contention that "subjectivity" merely describes statements whose meaning depends upon the context, and that it's nonsensical to apply the term to any other non-linguistic aspects of reality such as mental states or physical laws. Yes, descriptions of sensory states are subjective because some people are color blind or tone deaf, but the mental states are real. No, physical laws are not descriptions of reality, they are reality; you are confusing the representation with the thing being represented.

(May 11, 2014 at 10:08 am)Confused Ape Wrote: So, what is objectively real about the chair? Our experience of it as a solid object or the fact that it's mostly empty space?

Both. "It is solid" can be considered a subjective statement about how you experience it, but remember that "subejctive" is merely context-dependence. A shrimp might percieve a chair differently, but with the correct context (the species of animal doing the speaking), that can be translated into an objective statement, so we can still investigate its accuracy. It's no different from the statement "I was here" in the OP example.

So, what would be the objective reality of the universe if there were no living organisms to experience it? Or what would it be if there were no humans around to talk about the concepts of objective and subjective?

(May 11, 2014 at 11:00 am)Confused Ape Wrote: So, what would be the objective reality of the universe if there were no living organisms to experience it? Or what would it be if there were no humans around to talk about the concepts of objective and subjective?

edited
It would be the same, but without living organisms. Except that, I presume that whatever objective statements were true will remain true since you didn't specify otherwise.

edited
Since evaluation for truth is applied merely to the objective implications of your subjective statements, it would be wrong to say that your subjective statements would be false if you didn't exist.

I don't know what you mean. What you've given in the OP is an indexical.

(May 11, 2014 at 1:32 pm)rasetsu Wrote: I don't know what you mean. What you've given in the OP is an indexical.

Subjective and objective are properties of statements only. A statement is subjective if its (objective) meaning depends on certain contextual clues e.g. the identity of the speaker. I think this theory accounts for most uses of the word "subjective".
"Subejctive" can also denote that a thing is mental in nature, but I think that's a semantically distinct usage.

---

(May 11, 2014 at 2:14 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: 1: Did subjectivity versus objectivity exist before some humans came up with the concepts of subjective and objective?

No, there were no instantiations of these properties before language appeared.

(May 11, 2014 at 2:14 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: 2: The way we talk about it does seem to depend on context but that's the way the language we're communicating in works. How far is language influenced by a group's world view and experience?

Explain the relevance of this question.

(May 11, 2014 at 2:14 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: What is the true objective reality of snow and ice? An Innuit probably regards wet snow that can be used to ice a sleigh's runners as being objective reality but the English language doesn't have a word for it.

We could recreate the meaning of any of those eskimo words using multiple English words.

(May 11, 2014 at 2:14 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: We couldn't be having this discussion about objectivity versus subjectivity if the language we're using hadn't evolved to make it possible.

Yup, but subjective and objective statements existed even before we had words for them.

(May 11, 2014 at 10:08 am)Confused Ape Wrote: So, what is objectively real about the chair? Our experience of it as a solid object or the fact that it's mostly empty space?

Our definition of 'solid' describes a state of matter in which the arrangement of atoms/molecules are structurally rigid. It is not contingent upon density. So, there is no conflict here.